Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2007[edit]

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

The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Hurricane Ioke[edit]

After working on it for about a month, I believe this article is now ready for featured article candidacy. It is well-written, comprehensive (I spent great amounts of time to find key information, such as the damage total), factually accurate (every statement is referenced with the Cite Web template), it is neutral, and it's stable (I've been the primary editor over the past while). It has a concise lead, appropriate sections, free images, and it's length is appropriate. I'll address any comments/concerns. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else actionable I can do before this is promoted to FA? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the rain dance. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is thorough, imaged and sourced fully. Another job well done by hink. I fully support passing.Mitch32contribs 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support. On the basis that this is quality, unlike many other on this FAC, and much like the other hurricane-related article you worked on. Great. Leranedo 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.
    • I don't like such general wording like "...well to the southeast of Hawaiʻi" - it sounds dismissive.
    • "in the middle of August" -add year, I often skip the intro and begin reading articles at the first section, so can we add a year here.
    • "It slowly became better organized, and early on 20 August the disturbance organized into" -avoid organized twice in one sentence.
    • "the hurricane again restrengthened to Category 5 status." - second time it re-strengthened?
    • "Strong upper-level cyclones well to its northwest" - well? is there a better word? "well" sounds like it could be an adverb, noun, or verb here.
    • "Unofficially referred as a super typhoon by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), Ioke remained at the equivalence of a Category 5 hurricane for about 12 hours after crossing the Date Line before beginning a slight weakening trend on 28 August;[12] this was caused by restricted outflow, which was credited due to increased inflow from the ridge to its north." -slow down...
    • "Prior to the typhoon passed just north of Wake Island," -what?
    • "1.15 inches (29 mm) at Bethel and 0.67 inches (17 mm)" - mm or cm? The Cattle Network?
    • <div style="clear:both;"></div> - didn't know about that trick.
    • annoying that the capital i/I and the lower case L/l look the same in this font.
    • "404 Not Found error" on Central Pacific Hurricane Center (3 August 2005). Tropical Storm Ioke Discussion Number 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 20 August 2006.
    • "^ a b Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (2007). Actions and Recommendations for the 61st Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference. Retrieved on 14 October 2007." -narrow down where to look, like a page or section number, maybe split a and b into two different footnotes and use their appropriate titles in the linked summary.
    • "^ Chris Vadnais. "Teams fly to Wake Island to assess damage", Air Force Print News, 2006-09-13. Retrieved on 15 October 2007. ^ Chris Vadnais (17 September 2006). Airmen piece together Wake Island connectivity puzzle. Air Force Print News. Retrieved on 16 October 2007." - templates switch between cite news and cite web.
    • "# ^ Chris Vadnais. "Power pros 'wire' Wake Island", Air Force Print News, 2006-09-20. Retrieved on 16 October 2007. " -add a link?

--maclean 05:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing (really! It's been on FAC for over a month and this is the first real comment). I got most of that (including changing the "well to the southeast" to "far to the southeast"). Regarding the Cattle Network, yes, it was one of the few sites I found that reports rainfall from Ioke affecting Alaska, and yes, it is mm. The <div style="clear:both;"></div> is just a substituted version of Template:Clear. I don't think anything can be done regarding "annoying that the capital i/I and the lower case L/l look the same in this font". Everything else I got. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What more is needed? I changed "well to the southeast" to "far to the southeast", the measurement is in mm, there's nothing I can do about i/I and l/L, and I split the reference to two pages. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, I had to leave, wasn't finished. They were minor points really. I don't expect anything on the i/L thing, it is just a comment. The Cattle Network is not ideal as a source but I guess it will do until something better can be found - but I would like to remove the word "record" from "...including daily rainfall records of..." which makes it sound like the rainfall was a record-breaking event. What do you think of "The system produced moderate to heavy precipitation across the western portion of Alaska, including daily rainfalls of 1.15 inches (29 mm) at Bethel and 0.67 inches (17 mm) at Kotzebue."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talk • contribs)
Oh, ok. Those rainfall amounts were records, though, for daily precipitation, which I think should be mentioned. It doesn't matter too much, and if you think its implication is skewed as it is, you can remove the word "record". Hurricanehink (talk) 01:05, 25 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Powderfinger[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... because I feel after a lot of work from WikiProject Powderfinger and its individual members, it meets the featured article criteria. The article only just reached GA in August this year, but I believe that the article has improved substantially since then. I am happy (and I'm sure other members of the project are, too) to respond to any comments or suggestions you may have about the article. Thanks, Spebi 09:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a contributor, I believe it meets the criteria now too. Support. --lincalinca 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some comments/queries/suggestions:
    • "and rankings on Australian music charts" — maybe clarify that Aust. music charts are top 100 (are they top 100?), to give perspective on how much of an achievement this is.
      • Now reads and rankings in top 100 on Australian music charts.  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the tracks "These Days" and "My Kind of Scene" were written by the band for the films Two Hands and Mission: Impossible II" — is that respectively (ie. TD -> TH and MKOS -> MI2) or did they write both songs to be featured in both movies?
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Powderfinger was formed in 1989 as a high school band by members vocalist and guitarist Ian Haug, bassist John Collins and drummer Steven Bishop, who took their name from the name of a Neil Young song" — was it the same high school they all attended (as implied by the sentence)? If so, which one?
      • I removed the high school bit, even though they did form as a high school, I can't find much web content that actually states which school, so I removed that part. Now reads Powderfinger was formed in 1989 by, so pretty much  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Powderfinger's final lineup change came" — I read this (especially the word 'final') as if it was there final lineup change ever, which might be applicable if the band wasn't still active. However, given they are still active and touring, would it be better to add a qualifer to the effect of "to date"? You kind of do this in the next sentence, but it confused me while reading it through the natural flow, so those two sentences may need a tweak for clarity.
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of other artists' songs, gradually developing their own material" — reads as if there's a word missing before 'gradually', given the two parts separated by the comma are a contrast.
      • I can't really see what's the problem with that one, so I've left it as it is. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The EP quickly became successful and the group was signed to Polydor Records, a major record label in the UK" — reference (or is it the one from the next sentence?).
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It charted poorly and failed to launch the band" — that really needs a reference, as it's a judgement statement.
      • I merged it a bit. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Four singles were released from the album; "Pick You Up", "D.A.F.", "Living Type" and "Take Me In", which was released as a video-single featuring several other music videos by the group" — all four were released as a video single, or just "Take Me In"? If it's "Take Me In", please add 'the latter' or words to that effect before 'were released'.
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A FasterLouder reviewer commented that" — what's FasterLouder?
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "selling over 280,000 copies[22] and spent almost two years in the albums chart" — confusion of tenses there: either 'selling' and 'spending' or 'sold' and 'spent'.
      • Fixed, now reads Internationalist sold over 280,000 copies, and spent 100 weeks in the ARIA Albums Chart, although this might clash with the previous sentence a bit, it'll do for now.  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and reached European audiences for the first time" — what's Europe? *ducks* In all seriousness, just link Europe as it's the first time it's been used in the article.
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Passenger", a song from the album, was also nominated for three awards in 2000" — specify ARIA, as there are a lot of awards out there.
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Odyssey Number Five was Powderfinger's most successful album to date" — does 'has been Powderfinger's most successful to date' work better?
      •  Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair chunk of the article reviewed. I'll hopefully get the rest done over the weekend. On the whole it's a very good piece of work, and the article is very comprehensive and thorough nonetheless, however some minor tweaks may just clean it up slightly. Cheers, Daniel 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I think it's really what the article needed :) Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MOS breach - album names shouldn't be in bold. Also, the "main article" things at each section is unnecessary. It would be useful to enclose the period of reference in parentheses in each sub-section heading like "Formation and early releases (1989-93)". Tommy Stardust (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the album bolding, I'd like to divert your attention to Nine Inch Nails, which currently uses bold on album titles an their only EP release. I decided to bold the album titles on this article, and only the album titles (because Powderfinger have released 4 EPs, 2 in one timeframe, which in turn would make Early releases look way too bold-y). I think the {{main}}s should stay, but perhaps not contain every release in that era, so I've limited it to only album releases (and for the record,  Done). As for the dates in the headers,  Done, as well. Spebi 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I have removed the {{main}} templates out from under each header, and removed the bolding; I based these two features on the Nine Inch Nails article, which uses its release of the era as the section header, hence having a need for the template. The main template links the article, so linking directly under the template would make the links redundant, and so bolding was put in place. This article doesn't use the same type of headers, and so it shouldn't use bolding or {{main}} (as none of the articles are really main articles, as such). Spebi 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of prose issues here. For eg: "Bernard Zuel, of The Sydney Morning Herald reviewed" and "The band received much praise and criticism, for the political views in several songs" incorrectly use a comma, the "We would never try and preach" quote is wholly unnecessary as the exact same thing as been explained in th prev line... And what exactly is a "similar" rock group? A thorough copy-edit is required. Tommy Stardust (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment Unless the website that reprints the article has permission to reprint it, you shouldn't link to it. For example, I saw a Rolling Stone article that is reprinted on a fansite. In such instances, remove the direct link and just credit the article as you would if you were referencing it straight out of the magazine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Spebi 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jose João (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not comprehensive. No reception section. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine a section titled "Reception" in the article. If the article was about a single, or an album, then I see the reasoning, but for the main band article, it doesn't seem like something to me that the article should/would/could have. The article has a philanthropy section, covering the band's philanthropic acts, and a musical style section, displaying comments from reviewers of their works relating to the band's style of music. Spebi 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reception section, it just has a different title. Suggest disregarding this comment, Raul. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as contributor. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as contributor. Slabba (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments ....these days... , no seriously I have a few comments: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    turned out nothing like I had planned....control well it's slipping right through my hands... oh wait, you have comments...my bad :P Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been active in practicing philanthropic acts. - ewww, sounds clunky and unnatural. How about "Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been actively involved in philanthropic causes" or just "philanthropy" or something similar.
Appears to be  Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to explain why Parables is considered worst album and expand upon why Fanning described them as "dark days"
I don't think there is much on that - they really don't like talking about it. Occasionally Bernie says in an interview that he hates the album etc. etc., but that's about all that's noteworthy.
OK then - even that would be really helpful - e.g. "Fanning and other band members have declined to speculate" or "reasons no known" or something rather than just how it is. Sorry to be pedantic but this article is verry close but I feel really needs some enrichment somehow if possible.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Upon its release on July 4, 2003, Vulture Street, named after the street in Brisbane, headed off in a more aggressive direction, though remaining ballad oriented and melodic in style. - odd flow. I dont' think the album did this after release did it? It was written like that. Needs to be expanded and assessment of album in different sentence.

Appears to be  Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the info seems a bit spartan - can there be any more fleshing out of musical style? And look at ways of reducing a few commas but getting there...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant[edit]

Self Nominating A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. This article was first featured on Did you know? on February 27, 2007. It was then listed as a Good Article in June, and recently had a Peer Review. I believe I have addressed all of the points to the best of my ability from the Peer Review, where I received some great feedback and helpful suggestions. The article currently cites (35) different sources, and covers the Musical's intitial inspiration, production and development, a plot overview, lists the first few performances and interesting incidents that occurred during them, and goes over responses received in the press regarding both the play and the cast recording. I now submit this article to you as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support, as nom. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The reception section is excellent. Should the lede maybe add a qualifier, such as satirical musical or some such?-BillDeanCarter 10:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What do you mean exactly by qualifier, or how so? Feel free to do it yourself if you wish. By the way, thank you for your recent Wikignome edits, I really appreciate them. Cirt 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 Done - Nevermind, I added the qualifier, per your suggestion. "Satirical" works very nicely. Thank you. Cirt 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that that does it, then great. Thanks again for your help. Cirt 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Any particular reason the tracklisting for the cast recording is hidden in a show/hide box? Also, "See also" shouldn't list links already in the article. There are at least two in there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section? I will go ahead and remove them. Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      •  Done - You were correct, I went ahead and removed three duplicate entries from the See also section that I had not noticed on a quick initial look through. Thank you. Cirt 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      •  Done - I removed the show/hide box in the Cast recording section, so that the tracklisting is no longer hidden. Cirt 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question I noticed that in the section regarding the recording, the AllMusic Guide review mentions the song title as "The Way It Began" (which is the way it is in the source), and the listing mentions the title as "The Way That I Began". Is this a discrepancy? Did AMG get the title wrong? Are there recordings with this title? Was the song rewritten? My assumption is that AMG got the title wrong, and, if this is true, it should probably be noted with a [sic], or something along those lines. —  MusicMaker5376 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - Fixed it, thank you. Correct title is "The Way That It Began", AMG said incorrectly: The Way It Began", without the "that". Cirt 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any chance of getting some free images? Raul654 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, a good question. I am going to work on that myself, I cannot guarantee it within the next couple days or so, but hopefully/most likely within the next few weeks, yes. Cirt 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - Per Raul654 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, I replaced two fair-use images in the article with two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. DiffCirt 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Also, removed a third fair use image, so now there is one fair use image (the CD cover), and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. Cirt 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The plot synopsis contains a lot of information that does not belong in the plot synopsis, but rather belongs elsewhere in the description of the play. The plot should be described act by act, to give a chronological summary of what happens during the musical.
    • The "Production" section is mostly History or Background and should be titled as such.
    • The list of historical productions needs headings so that it is easy to separate one major production from another. There is little or no musical and textual analysis.
    • Each reference should be examined to see if you have really mined the information in it. Some good quotes from the best sources would be helpful.
    • Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. This is a good article, but I think you have more work to do here before this is a FA-quality article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Addressed one point from above, changed a section heading from Production to Background. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Moved some info out of plot section, into background section. Thank you, this was a good idea. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Added headings of year-ranges into productions section. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - I checked - there is only one act in the play, so the plot section cannot go act-by-act, it can only describe the one act. And the plot section is organized in a chronological fashion. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Ssilvers (talk · contribs) left some good suggestions about the plot summary section on the article's talk page. I incorporated some of those points to expand that section, and add a little more information from some of the songs in the play as well. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Expanded the plot summary section more. Added some more information on the music/songs used. Looked through the sources used in the plot section, and added some more quotes from the best sources. (All as per suggestions from above.) Cirt (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Moved some info to create a Musical analysis section, as suggested by Ssilvers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Expanded the Background, Plot summary, and new Musical analysis sections a bit more, with more info from existing sources. Removed some passive voice syntax from the Plot summary section. Removed some wording from the lede, to prune it down a small bit. (As per FAC reviewer suggestions.) Cirt (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: - I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Ssilvers (talk · contribs) and the other FAC reviewers on this page, and thank you for providing your feedback. I don't think I got a chance to do this at the last article I successfully got through FAC - I was probably too busy (or perhaps too frustrated) while implementing changes and suggestions from everyone who commented on the FAC page. No matter what becomes of this particular FAC - the article itself looks much, much better because of all of your suggestions. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - You have worked hard to implement changes suggested here, at the article's talk page and on your talk page, and I agree that the article is much improved. I can support the advancement of this article now. I think a bit more could be done to clarify the prose, especially regarding how the songs in the show relate to the songs on the cast album, and whether the songs in the 2003 version are different from those in the 2006 version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Of course, as I find more information in other sources, I will continue to add to the article. I will certainly keep in mind the suggestions you have already made, and this new point about potential differences between the songs in the various productions is another good one. Thanks again for all of your help. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Brownhills[edit]

My normal area of operations is football articles, but my wife made me promise to work on the article on her hometown in exchange for spending so long on the computer! :-) So I've been hard at work on this for a while now, have put the article through peer review and successfully put it up for GA, but I now feel it's at FA level - what do you think.....?

Thanks, ChrisTheDude 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After a quick glance, it looks good but maybe the Famous people section should be renamed Notable people, as "famous" is a bit too subjective. Full dates in the footnotes also need linking. Could the history section be expanded? Epbr123 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly expanded the history section, what do you think now (BTW all your copyediting is much appreciated!!!) ChrisTheDude 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As the article’s GA and peer reviewer, I have no qualms in this being featured, and I’m sure Chris will do an excellent job in dealing with any issues that others may bring up. Cheers, — H2O —  00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a couple of things - first, there's a typo in a date in one of the refs, which results in a redlink. Second, you might want to consider going for a right-left-right-left format with the images, rather than leaving them all on the right. You managed to get that many references on a town? Wow! I'm impressed. Carre 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup – thumbs up from me on the images now. I haven't actually read the article properly yet, so can't give it a support or oppose, but you've addressed my comments perfectly. Carre 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like this article very much, and it's one of the best FA noms for a UK settlement in a while! It's consise, direct and proffessional. I think it's close to the FA standard. However, I have a few suggestions, hailing mostly from the WP:UKCITIES standard, namely:
  1. The infobox should have the distance and direction to London (add |london_distance= ) - see Shaw and Crompton or Chew Stoke as examples.  Done
  2. Geography and climate should be renamed Geography, as climate studies are a part of geography, and this approach is taken elsewhere in the UK.  Done
  3. Demographics should be renamed to Demography - the rationale is that it's poor grammar - the other sections would otherwise also be named geographics and economics.  Done
  4. The thumbnails shouldn't generally have their sizes set to a particular size. They should really have that tier of formatting removed.  Done
  5. I would personally prefer (but wouldn't necessarily oppose) the article if it took a more uniformed layout to match that of Dundee, Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, as recommended by WP:UKCITIES. It's nice to follow a House style to keep these settlements consistent.  Done
  6. In Governance be careful not to confuse councils with divisions of land - "The Brownhills District established in 1877 remained in existence until 1894 when it was superseded by Brownhills Urban District Council" - I know what you mean, but the district is a territory, whilst the council is a group of people; they cannot merge! "Council" should be dropped.  Done
  7. Is it possible that the co-ordinates of Brownhills could be added to the Geography section? (see Manchester as an example of this).  Done Also is there nothing about Brownhills land use, urban structure and built environment that could be added?  Done - I think.....

I hope these suggestions help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your comments, I have actioned some and will look at the others when I have a bit more time available over the weekend...... ChrisTheDude 11:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the name of the canal to the caption of the bridge photo since it isn't mentiuoned in this section. It also explains what the bridge is going over (ie a canal) without having to search the text. I think the Economy section should restate the date of the demise in the coal industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ChrisTheDude 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nothing more, nothing less! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very well sourced. You might want to expand the Lead/Intro a teensy bit more, and use an Article History template on the talk page instead of the GA and Peer Review boxes separately. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 Done I've slightly expanded the lead as requested ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

History of Baltimore City College[edit]

previous FAC

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:18, 5 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Pre-dreadnought[edit]

I'm (self)-nominating this article after a successful A-class review and peer review. It's part of my ongoing mission to have better articles about naval warfare (Battleship and (Ironclad warship already done, dreadnought next up). The Land 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:MIKASA&TOGO.jpg (on Commons) has an obsolete image tag, and Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg has both copyrighted and public domain listed. I noticed this caption while checking images: "HMS Canopus fires her 12-inch main guns in anger at a Turkish shore battery"—a ship cannot have anger. Rewrite in an encyclopedic tone, and please do this in the article as well, if this type of writing is found there. Pagrashtak 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "firing guns in anger" is a standing phrase and used to indicate use of the guns to shoot at an opponent (as opposed to e.g. test firing). It is not indicating emotion (by either ship or crew). Still, I agree that this particular instance is a bit jarring. --Stephan Schulz 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not up on my war terminology I suppose. How about something along the lines of "HMS Canopus fires a salvo from her 12-inch guns while bombarding Turkish forts"? (Taken from the Commons description page.) Pagrashtak 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modified it to the simpler "HMS Canopus fires her 12-inch main guns at a Turkish shore battery (1915)", and let the "in anger" be implied. --Stephan Schulz 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt about the acceptability of either image. The Mikasa image is one of User:PHG's he has placed in in the PD. Since Commonwealth was scrapped in 1921, the photo was taken before 1923, so the image is public domain in the USA. All of this is perfectly plain from the image description pages. The Land 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the problems I mentioned should be easily fixed. Pagrashtak 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but the problems are not problems with the article or even the images, only the image tagging. Fixing them would be good, but has little to do with this article review. --Stephan Schulz 23:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do need to check that there aren't any images that cannot be used in the article. One of the FA requirements is that Fair-use images have a fair-use rationale. Adam Cuerden talk 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But as The Land has laready pointed out, both of the pictures are unquestionably PD. --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some quotes from the image talk page: "The image copyright at this time belongs to Jarek Ariga", "the exact source is unknown", "it is presumed this image was published before the ship was scrapped in 1921" (emphasis mine). What part of this is unquestionable? Having all images tagged correctly is a requirement for a featured article, so this is entirely pertinent. Pagrashtak 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, image tagging is noo an FA criterion: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.". And are you seriously suggesting that the photo of Commonwealth was taken two years after she was scrapped? The Land 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do we convey acceptable copyright status on Wikipedia? With an image tag. I believe the image was taken before 1923. I don't know when it was published, which is what determines the copyright status. I've never questioned the year the image was taken, so please do not put words in my mouth. Pagrashtak 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're winning the award for lamest contribution to an FA request here; however, the article can live without the images. The Land 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very civil. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's image policy, I suggest you take it up on the policy talk page. Pagrashtak 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Support. Its a good piece but I have some style issues and general comments. The stuff listed below is mainly minor and shouldn't take too long although there are some more tricky pieces.
  • 1st paragraph of "Evolution from the ironclad" is uncited, and makes statements that couled really use sourcing.
  • "impossible to fight on the high seas" (fight who? contemporary ships?)
  • Can you name an example of the historians who see them as essentially pre-dreadnoughts and an example of one who doesn't?
  • "due to" is better than "thanks to"
I've deleted the first paragraph: it wsn't actually saying anything. And I've re-worded the rest a fair bit. The Land 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of armament is only one paragraph, either merge it into a larger paragraph or expand into a full introduction to the section.
Done. The Land 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've solved this by removing an extraneous sentence. First Sino-Japanese War is linked several times.
  • Merge and perhaps expand the two short paragraphs which conclude the "Armaments" section, particulaly elaborating on the torpedo tubes.
Torpedo tube elaborated. The Land 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported those powers' colonial expansion." needs a source.
  • It isn't made clear that the Spanish did not deploy any pre-dreadnoughts during the Spanish American War.
  • link gunboat diplomacy.
both done. The Land 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europe section has a one line paragraph at the start, merge it into the longer paragraph below.
  • "principally to further" might read better as "principally as a consequence"
done and done. The Land 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First three paragraphs of "Obsalensence" must be merged, expanded and sourced. This is a very important section which isn't given justice at the moment.
Have worked on it - what do you think is missing? The Land 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section on Canopus at the Falkland Islands, name the battlecruisers (Inflexible and Invincible is memory serves).
Linked the class, rather than the individual ships. The Land 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section on forcing the Dardanelles is rather clumsily phrased and needs revising.
Any better? The Land 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth mentioning that Pommern was lost with all hands due to her lack of compartmentalisation (I think Geoffrey Bennett mentions this in his "Battle of Jutland").
Don't have a reference to it: if so, it should go in the
  • World War II and today section need expanding and tidying. Mention should be made of the mass scrapping and destruction of most remaining pre-dreadnoughts in the early 1920s and some explination of how Mikasa survived (i.e. the many auxiliary roles into which pre-dreadnought survivors were pressed following WW1).
  • The article might also benefit from some statistics regarding pre-dreadnought losses in battle (I think I have some books somewhere with this information in, but it'll take a long time to dig them out) if you find something then it would benefit the article greatly, especially in regards to WW1.
In all this is a wellworked and referenced piece but it is not there yet. Paragraph and some sentance structure needs work and some areas of the article would benefit from expansion. The sections on armaments, propulsion and armour are exemplary (barring minor issues), but some of the historical sections need work. Have you seen "War at Sea in the Ironclad Age"? [1] Its pretty good on the historical aspects of this subject. Once the issues above are addressed, I would be happy to reassess my opinion of this article.--Jackyd101 10:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of that! will get onto it this weekend. I have 'War at Sea in the Ironclad Age' - it's what I would call an 'entry-level' resource (the Sondhaus book I cite is a much more detailed coverage of the same period of time). The Land 10:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I thought the book I mentioned might be useful as Wikipedia is itself an entry level resource and I was unsure of your depth of knowledge. Sondhaus is indeed much better. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 10:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm getting there with the 'evolution' section: any further comments? The Land 10:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been a but busy, but will have a look at this tomorrow. Is it ready for another assessment?--Jackyd101 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You might still think there are places where you'd like to see more - if so tell me how and where. The Land 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent>Much better, but I still have some notes.

  • It seems a touch confusing for the uninformed reader to have the first picture be one of an HMS Dreadnought given the article's title. Is there a picture of Devestation or Royal Sovereign which could go in there? If not, then at least give a date for the ship in the caption, to make as clear as possible which dreadnought is being referred to.
  • I can't find the Bennett book, so leave that for now.
  • I suggest removing the header today before the comment on the Mikasa. That sentance could be easily moved to the end of the World War II section and the photograph moved up, potentially to where the Mikasa was mentioned before. The single sentance paragraph looks a little untidy where it is.

And thats it, a much improved article and one I would be happy to support. In an additional note, if you are having trouble with copyright notices, then I suggest claiming fair use for the pictures you want on the off-chance they are still under copyright. It might also be worth looking here for images as all on this website are outside copyright restrictions. --Jackyd101 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page I linked to above has a statement on it that to the best of the page owners knowledge, all images used on the site are in the public domain.--Jackyd101 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I overlooked this.--Stephan Schulz 12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose (for now) Support. I agree with Jackyd101 (and thanks for the detailed comments!). It's a good article, but it still missing something to make it into a great one. Maybe it concentrates to much on the use of the term (I find the discussion about the first "pre-dreadnought" a bit tedious (and the Royal Souvereign's certainly qualifiy, so its ALL WRONG! ;-)). I think if we go through the list and take care of the points, we will have something much better. --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version is more satisfactory. The images are much better. It would be nice to find some online-sources to complement the books. --Stephan Schulz 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims are worrying you? Ah, I see you've added some fact tags. The only things there which will cause any difficulty are the fates of the German and Greek PDNs in World War II, because the sources I have don't hand don't cover that. With respect, I'm not sure that there needs to be a citation provided for statements like "pre-dreadnoughts continued in active service and saw significant combat use even when obsolete" when there are several cited instances of doing just that in the following section. Re the images, I'm sure I can find a few more. The challenge is to avoid having 15 black-and-white images of near-identical battleships! The Land 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With some help I've found refs for everything you tagged. There are also a lot more images in the article now. The Land 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are still uncited paras and sentences; hence I cannot support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are free to have any opinion you like. But is there any potentially contentious point that needs referencing? We don't need to have a footnote on every sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All issues seem to have been satisfactorily dealt with. Excellent article. -MBK004 18:57, 27 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

East End of London[edit]

(Self nomination, with other collaborators) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. The article has been through two GA's and a peer review. Issues that were raised have been addressed. I would also welcome further input on the development of the article. Kbthompson 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nearly there Oppose for now - looks very good and prose, layout and comrehensiveness all look good. A little comma-happy in the prose in places. I'll try and catch a few but it'll be a fall over the line soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(can't find the damn commas now...but anyway..) OK, Community tensions have often been raised by racist events. - eww. People are racist, not events. Would look better if it were described as race-driven event (?) or if you can think of some other adjective highlighting it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90& 95% of it looks great, but two sections (and lack of a third) let it down. The disasters section should be turned into prose and paragraphs - I'd have two, a pre-war summary of bits and pieces and one on the blitz, which is a pretty iconic event.
The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment, the TV and really obvious TV show needs a few lines on its importance in UK television - only one of the biggest soaps over the past 20 years and is named for the place and tries to be as 'east-endy' as possible (doesn't have to be too long, a note about Walford and real analogue would help too (though not a deal-breaker))

::There is nothing on cockney apart from a seealso (?!) - this really needs a paragraph pr two under east end culture or somesuch. In the seealso section Jack London and Orwell need to be incorporated into literature.

Overall, though it is a terrific read and you should get over the line this go round, but just need to plug a bit

Comment Thanks for that. Very helpful.
    • I rephrased and re-ordered the population section to get around the awkward expression.
    • I'll fix the disasters section today. I think by four paragraphs, general, first war and second, post-war. I want to try avoid to further sub-headings.
    • Not concentrating on Cockney was really something that arose from the discussions when we started expanding this article, about a year ago (my god). The definition we agreed was geographic, rather than linguistic. Cockney being something that started in the City and concentrated in the East End as a linguistic remnant. I realise that you're right and it is a related, if not conterminous term.
    • East Enders - anyone watch it? I'll do what I can.
No, again, thank you very constructive. Kbthompson 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moving right along, and not indenting:

  • There is now an extensive section on the second world war, with emphasis on the blitz. Some detail was previously buried in ... built environment and ... disasters, they've now been incorporated into a new section. There's other material, I have in mind for that section, but it's almost looking like a separate article! (Basically looting - most ARP wardens and about a third of the London Fire brigade were charged with looting at some time during the war, strikes - the worst record for days lost to strikes in Britain (apart from the General Strike), occurred during WWII. In fact, possibly the General strike should get a mention somewhere, but this is not limited to the East End (where do you stop?).
  • The plan for Cockney is to mention them in the intro, and briefly state the relationship of the tongue to the area. Then expand as the lead into culture, as the stereotype - partly built on war-time propaganda - has a major impact on 20th century images of the area.
  • I have been asked to provide more detail in the intro to the history section; I'll put in a para' or two about ecclesiastic lands, crown seizures and labour conditions.
  • Lastly, I'll tidy up the rest of the culture section.

That should keep me busy. Kbthompson 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for your support. I think the current version meets all the requests for more explication and covers the deficiencies you had identified in your review. I hope any further changes on my part will only be tweaking. Any other comments? Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've done some tidying, and I think most of the comments above have been dealt with. Question for the experienced FA reviewers: Does the article need to include (birth-death) dates next to blue-linked people, as it does now? Good work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with such a broad time-scale dates have been included against people in order to give some appreciation of the era being talked about. Where possible events have been dealt with chronologically, but sometimes it also makes sense to mention what (and who) happened next. I shall, of course, accede to wiser heads. (... and thank you for your efforts). Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nicely written, well referenced. Would prefer the image sizes removed per the WP:MOS though. Frankly this is of a standard that WP should aim for across the board. Regan123 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good article. The Further Reading section needs some tidying (i.e. missing comma after surname on a few entries). Question for experienced FA reviewers: would a different citation style, such as APA, Chicago, Harvard, MLA, or Turabian, where the surname precedes the first name, be preferable? Rosiestephenson (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thank you. I've added those commas. I think you would be right about citation style for an academic work, however such a style would make linking to authors wiki articles quite onerous. I think the templates {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} provide some element of further standardisation but again would increase the article size (the additional size doesn't count for the purposes of assessment, but there is a practical limit). WP:CITE gives specific guidance on citing sources and in my understanding provides considerable latitude in the way they are presented, as long as the information is there. If I work on another, I'll certainly consider using that style and tools. Kbthompson (talk) 12:52, 28 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

M62 motorway[edit]

I'm nominating this article because it's gone through two PRs, and I can think of nothing much to improve this article, except maybe the prose, and short of anything big happening in the next few months/years, there's very little verifiable information I think I can add. Will (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the article lacks any mention of rugby league even though the sport has a long association with the road. Even though I offered to reference any statements, they were still deemed unsuitable. I can't see how this article can be considered for FAC status with a huge area completely uncovered.-- GordyB (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseless oppose - I knew when I saw you on the watchlist that it'd be about rugby league. Just, please, give it up. Will (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I will not "give it up". The article is not yours to decide what content should go in.GordyB (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I put it in three days ago. If you have no other objections, please withdraw your opposition. Will (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, using the New Statesman citation. Will (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, it's in the "See also". Happy? Will (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The second I read the first word, I see problems.
    • The lead is way too short. It needs to adequately summarize what the article is going to mention, like the route description and history.
    • The infobox is way too long. I recommend using {{Infobox road}} and cut back on some of the information there, since they are only supposed to be sources of quick information.
    • Please see WP:ELG for how to format exit lists. You may adopt it so that it fits the UK's format.
      •  Not done - see below Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done now (see below also) Will (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give readers a real prose description of the route.
    • The entire References in music section is unsourced. At least put refs for the lyrics so that it can show how it relates.

More as I find them. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

Most of these are based upon what works for US Roads, which doesn't necessarily work for UK roads. But still... Will (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of WP:ELG, it's purely a WP:USRD style guide. It was moved after an editor asked (IIRC) its creator to move it into Wikipedia-space, and I don't think the agreement of two editors is enough to move the scope of a guideline from national to international. The article (and A500 road, for that matter), would not've passed GA as it would've failed the MoS criteria. Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. While it may look like a purely USRD style guide, it is actually for all limited-access road articles. The only thing is localisation to the road it is covering. You may want to initiate a discussion about international applicability on the talk page. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
It is a USRD style guide. No other project uses it. If you can show me a discussion where there's consensus to internationalise it, then I'll change the exit list. But now, it's fine. Will (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page. If Chinese limited-access road articles existed, they would've been formatted as such. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
On seconf thoughts (sleeping over it),  Done. Will (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More problems at the moment:
    • I've noticed that a lot of the article relies on a source called the CBRD. It's unfortunately not reliable, since it is a personal website. Find newspapers, maps, and atlases instead.
    • Why is the section "Development after opening" where it is? Seems a little disorganised from the rest of the chronological history. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
      • CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
          • "To cap it off, the Highways Agency and Department for Transport have been known to refer some queries here when they couldn't provide the answers themselves." (emphasis mine). You're seriously not suggesting that the British goverment has standards for reliablity lower than Wikipedia, are you? Will (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - development and incidents switched Will (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - seeing the rugby thing above was what made me click the article. That link appears out of nowhere, and a line about why it's there should be included in the article; I suggest renaming "references in music" to "references in culture" and make note of the rugby connection there. --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Will (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, roadcrufters unite! --Golbez (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More stuff:
    • Doesn't the UK use the metric system? If it is so, shouldn't all primary units in the article be in km instead?
      • Not for road distances...we're a confused country! Carre (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Roads are officially measured in miles in the UK (and it's one the last things that does). Red X Won't fix Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A citation for the exit list is needed.
      •  Doing...; thinking of a way to cite it. Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the distance column, you might also want to provide a conversion to the other unit. Also, the list is not precise enough.
      • There's more risk of false precision by converting to kilometres. The citations for the exit list only do it to the precision of a mile, and I can't find any other reference links. Again, Red X Won't fix Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Windy Hill, near the highest point of the motorway, the road divides into two and Stott Hall Farm, and its 18th-century cottage, is situated in between the two halves.—awkward.
    • Might want to comb through the external links to make sure it complies with WP:EL.

哦， 是吗？(User:O) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

  • Support - Very good article with good sources. I really like the good use of maps too, they are always very informative. Any opposition I can see seems to be minor and has already been fixed so I'm very happy! Well done to the editors of this article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-written (and referenced!) article and largely per Andrew's comments. Rudget.talk 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite my strong distaste for the WP:ELG junction lists, this article is well written, referenced and would be a great addition to the featured articles on Wikipedia. Regan123 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed this critical error in the route description: routes/roads do not travel. They never did, and they never will. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
  •  Done Will (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well written, well referenced, and meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route description has too many stubby paragraphs. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
    Okay,  Done. Will (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets all of the criteria. Only one nit-pick in the infobox it indicates Major cities but Goole is a town not a city. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know; I'm using that field as a major destinations field. Will (talk) 13:43, 27 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Lethbridge[edit]

This is a GA article. It has been peer reviewed, and I believe it meets all FAC criteria. Self-nomination. --Kmsiever 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --Miwanya 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sumoeagle179 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Oppose - the lead should summarise the article's salient points. The population is one of those key-type facts that should be there. I'll keep reding now.cheers, I think we're over the line Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubby paras aren't a good look - I'd combine last 2 paras of lead as the subject matter flows nicely from on to the next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. and I added the populations as your previous rec. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly first 2 and last 2 paras of History section. (also be good to have some info on pre-european names and occupation of land here) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
youngest population - in Geography and climate - does this mean youngest average age or most recently developed area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything else be added to the Climate section which is a tiny bit stubby? eg are the Xmases usually white? How deep does the snow usually get - has the city adapted to it? Anyone noticed any global warming? (eg less severe winters?)
Done. --Kmsiever 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why Weather records is left-justified unlike the preceding table? Looks odd.
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lethbridge serves as a hub for commercial activity in the region, providing services and amenities for the region. Much of the region's transportation needs are concentrated... - 3 'regions' is really repetitive here. Needs to be rewritten somehow. Sorry, nothing comes to mind straightaway.
Done. --Kmsiever 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last para of Economy mentions a bunch of partnership/body thingies without any mention of what happened. Did they do anything? Any controversy? Specific developments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some awards/recognitions. Are these sufficient? --Kmsiever 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Demographics, I am australian so I was surprised to see the word aboriginal there (though I quickly figured out what it meant!). Is this the usual word for indigenous peoples?
It's the umbrella word for all indigenous groups (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit). It is also the term used by Stats Canada (see the link in the source provided). --Kmsiever 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Culture - the Southern Alberta Ethnic Association - what is it, any particular ethnic group? Is it run by ethnic groups or..what? Similarly, what has the Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge achieved? Anything to give a flavour of what they are/do? Also the next 3 sections are rally stubby. Is there a live music scene which can go under Music? Either expand or combine these sections as they look weird with a few lines each.
Done. --Kmsiever 03:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major attractions section is listy. It needs to be made into a paragraph and have some themes linking ideas (eg there are many hsitorical monuments etc.). I'd sink skyline back into the main subsection as too stubby otherwise.
Done. --Kmsiever 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, would be good to work the two links to police into a paragraph on local police if possible rather than these 2 odd links sitting there down the bottom
Done. --Kmsiever 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall promising, I had a go at tweaking the prose - you have to mix it up a little and avoid too many sentences starting "Lethbridge has" or "Lethbridge is". Good luck, I think it isn't too far away from getting over the line but some stuff needs to be done first. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update looking better now. I just saw the link to Media of Lethbridge -a summary of this should go as a heading with a few sentences under Culture. OK I've added the section but still needs a few sentences on the radio. also the newspaper, I couldn't figure out - locally owned or by a big national/international company?
Done. Added radios, and mentioned newspapers are regionally owned. --Kmsiever 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Government, I just thought - some stats on whether the area is traditionally considered left-wing, right wing (sorry, I'm not familiar with party names in Canada) would be very valuable
Done. --Kmsiever 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Kmsiever I have aonther. Under Education, do local areas decide how much they spend on education like in the USA? If so does this area spend alot or a little? The section is a little stubby. Anything to flesh it out a little? Not a biggie if there's nothing remarkable at all. cheers, Casliber (talk '· contribs) 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The provincial government allocates funding to each of the province's school boards. The school boards in turn decide how that money will be spent. I'm not sure there's much more notable that could be said here. --Kmsiever 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Kmsiever has worked very hard on this article for a number of months and the result is outstanding. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, SandyGeorgia. I'm not sure if your comment above was a comment or an oppose. I tried to implement all your suggestions and went through WP:MOSNUM adjusting where I could see was necessary in Lethbridge. I hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks for all the edits you made. That was extremely helpful. --Kmsiever 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, clearly subject of lots of hard work, but not there yet. I have some major concerns, below, but before them, has the article been copy-edited? I spotted lots of minor niggles that a thorough copyedit should wash out. Looking in detail at just one small section, (Education), I fixed some very minor issues myself, but also came across this sentence, which has ambiguities "During the 2003–2004 school year, the post-secondary student population in the city was approximately 14,000 at both the University of Lethbridge and the Lethbridge Community College, which is roughly 20 percent of the city's population." Aside from copyedit issues:
Done. Yes, it was I put it to LOC and one person copyedited it. Several fo the copy issues brought up in peer review were addressed. If there are specific issues, I'd be happy to address them. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire Major Attractions section unreferenced. That alone is enough for an oppose. Worse, it includes POV. Who says, for example, that the golf course is "world class"? You need a RS.
Added refs. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for "Local media" section
Deleted the section. Could find reference for only the newspapers, but that would leave a very stubby section. --Kmsiever 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto (mostly) for Government section
Done. I even added citations for the federal ridings. --Kmsiever 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On lesser niggles, these are for starters:

the article sidebar claims a nickname of "L.A." not mentioned or referenced or explained in the text.
Removed. We will not find a useful source. Its inclusion will be original research; although it is well known to Lethbridgians. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the flag image has some odd colouring in it, namely the left side of the thin horizontal red stripe - is it correct?
Yes, this is what the flag looks like. Here's a photo[2]. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Alsos need heavy pruning
Pruned. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think still more work is needed. Happy to review if you disagree with me, or fix things. --Dweller 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I will try to find refs for media and government. Regarding government, though, the details are from the federal riding Wikipedia article. Should it still have additional references? --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work... and great attitude. To answer your question, you can utilise the same sources as another WP article, but self-referencing (ie referring to another Wikipedia article) doesn't work, more's the pity (it'd make my life easier, I tell you!) but you can quickly see why when you think about it. When you're done, please drop me a line at my talk and I'll happily review. If I wasn't impressed enough by the work you've done on the article, I'm definitely impressed by your response here. --Dweller 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my concerns addressed. --Dweller 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dweller. --Kmsiever 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article was a tough read. The prose is choppy because there are a lot of short vague sentences such as:
  • "From 1935–1957, they voted Social Credit."
  • "It has the youngest median age of the three."
  • "There are several venues in and near Lethbridge for winter sports." and so on. The prose needs to flow more smoothly.
  • Another problem is vagueness, for example:
  • ":*"From 1935–1957, they voted Social Credit." They? Everyone? A majority? what percentage? The whole government section is confusing and not easy to understand. What is Social Credit?
  • what is the CPR?
  • "places second in the country for the most windy days of 40 km/h (25 mph) or more" just how many windy days was that?
  • The lead does not even mention the word "coal" which I assume is a major part of the city's history.
  • "The city developed from drift mines opened in the late 19th century" you mean the City's economy developed from drift mining? How would a city "develop from drift mines"?
  • The first paragraph is not compelling at all. Sorry, but a list of dry statistics doesn't make me want to read the article. It is OK to mention important facts (the largest city in southern Alberta) in lead, yes, but too many and we get turned off.
  • It just feels like one big, dry list. The article should instead engage the reader, putting details into context. Suggest you step back from it awhile, then put it up for peer review to get suggestions. Working on the article doesn't just mean spelling and punctuation and putting citations, it has to be writing to make the prose compelling. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I've done more than just spelling, punctuation, and citing. For the record, I have submitted it for peer review twice, and even sent it to the League of Copyediters for review. I have implemented every suggestion all have made. I don't know if people are intimidated by an article this size, or what, but I seem to get very little feedback and few people try to make an attempt at copyediting. I will do my best to try implementing your suggestions. I sincerely appreciate your feedback; it's the type I've been looking for. --Kmsiever 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added it to WP:LoCE/p in the FAC section. Hopefully, that will make a difference. --Kmsiever 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. I'd seek out copy-editors more actively, and make specific requests to individuals at LoCE.
Good idea. I'll do that right now. --Kmsiever 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being close to the Rockies "provides mild winters? Later: "Its high elevation of 929 metres (3,048 ft) and close proximity to the Rocky Mountains provides Lethbridge with summers relatively cooler than ...". All fuzzy.
    • "Half of the city's economy is based in the health, education, retail and hospitality sectors"—spot the redundant word.
    • "government based"—Hyphen please.
    • "Lethbridge provides the only university in Alberta south of Calgary"—This P-word again. I don't think so.
    • Sports centres are cultural venues? Well, that would be scraping out the can.
    • "Prior to the 19th century"—Tell me, what's wrong with plain "Before"?
    • "The rail industry's dependence of coal"—?
    • "the city became a regional centre for Southern Alberta; something the region lacked previously."—Wrongly punctuated.
    • "at-large aldermen"—The epithet needs to be explained.
    • "Lethbridgians elect representatives to the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government." Does this really need to be said? Is there anywhere in Canada where this is not the case?
    • "One Member of Parliament (MPs)"—Is it singular or plural?
    • MOS breaches: minus sign/en dash for temperatures, not hyphens. Spaces required before ºC/F. Tony (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tony1 and Jeff Dahl, I just want to let you know that many of the minor issues you raised have been addressed. Some copyeditors have made style changes as well, and it looks like it is a work in progress still. Let me know if you feel there are any other specific, obvious issues, and I will try to address them. --Kmsiever 16:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe the concerns raised by the previous two are minor at all. An article is only as good as its parts. Learnedo 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony1 and Jeff Dahl, two copyeditors ran through the article. There has been no editing in the last couple of days, so I assume they are finished. I would be interested in your opinions on the article again. --Kmsiever 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & Support

  • On the basis that the article is good enough by my now meek standards. Learnedo 05:41, 27 October 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Karmichael Hunt[edit]

previous FAC

Self Nomination: I am nominating this article because I feel it is ready for FAC and belive it is of FA status. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to queries <24 hours. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport I’m afraid I’m not sure if the prose is up to scratch here. I’ve fixed a few obvious errors here and there, and there's quite a bit of choppy prose and stubby paragraphs. I think it would have benefited from a copy-edit prior to nomination. There’s a tendency to use technical terms or assume rugby knowledge; I’ve pointed out the times when I didn’t follow something.

  • “He mainly plays in the fullback position,” As well as describing his positions, a more general description of his play might be useful for non-rugby readers. Eg “As a fast, energetic player with a good positional sense, he mainly plays…” (or whatever is appropriate…); provided it has a source, of course.
    •  Not done, will find a source (that isn't biased) but
  • “Hunt's childhood hero was Michael Jordan and he dreamt of playing basketball in the United States and after moving to Brisbane, Hunt played junior rugby league for the South's club in Acacia Ridge.” The two sections of this sentence need separating in some manner; also, I don’t see the causal link between dreaming of basketball and playing rugby that it implies.
  • In Early life, again, some sort of description of what sort of player he was would be nice.
    •  Not done It's a bit hard with the sources I have, but will work on after wikibreak.
  • “an undefeated premiership in 2003” sounds good, but I’m not sure what premiership means; from context I’m guessing a league competition.
    •  Done
  • It may be an idea to emphasis that league and union are noticeably different here; non-rugby readers may not realise.
    •  Not done I could go an entire paragraph, trying to explain the difference, which is why I provide links.
      • Ah, I wasn't suggesting an explanation, but rather flagging to the reader that a distinction exists, so they can click links if they wish. Something like "At ACGS, Hunt switched to playing rugby union"J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The schoolboy record table precisely repeats the information in the text, making it a bit redundant.
    •  Done Yes it does, I removed it.
  • Expand NRL the first time you use it in the main article, eg National Rugby League (NRL)
    •  Done
  • Debut season: The explanation leading to his debut seems rather abrupt. Are there any details on why he was brought in, and why he was moved to starting? If, for example, his pre-season form played him in, say so.
    •  Not done Thats in the 2nd and final paragraph of the section "Early life", and breifly mentioned in the first sentence of "Debut season"
      • I'm afraid I still don't follow it. In case I wasn't clear, its this part: "Hunt was selected to participate in the Broncos' pre-season trial games in February. He played both trial games on the wing and scored a try in the first game against the Melbourne Storm.[21] Hunt made his National Rugby League (NRL) debut at the age of seventeen" that I find abrupt. If there's some comment on why he was unexpectedly promoted, that would be great.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done(I think) - I commented that he played trials after off-season training, but his selection was surprising (considering that there is no source for why he was promoted) Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • With a lack of sources, this section is problematic, clearly. I'll have to ponder it, but thatnks for working on the section. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if the coach isn't saying, then there's not much to be done. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “He drew some criticism for his style of returning the football” – criticism requires sources, returning the football requires a clearer explanation.
    •  Done
  • “Throughout the entire year after playing 26 games, he missed only four minutes of play for the Broncos.” The reference is broken, and the sentence is a bit convoluted (Technically, it implies he missed 4 minutes after having played 26 games). How about “He played the entire 26-game season, missing only four minutes of play”; also, why not merge this short para with the one above?
    •  Done
  • “In a round 6 game” – non-rugby clarification please.
    •  Done (hopefully) I have added a link, but still may need more clarification.
      • I can't think of an elegant way to work it in; at least the link can be followed if needed.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done See if it reads better now. ~ Florrie • talk • 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Florrie,  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, well, there's still other uses of "Round X" in the article. I'm not sure if the best plan is to change them all to "Week X", which is clearer, but loses the precise terminology of the game. Opinions? J.Winklethorpe talk 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case I've reverted 'week' to 'round' and wikilinked the first instance of the word in context to Tournament. I'd suggest adding 'round' to List of rugby league terms and defining the terminology there if it is still an issue.~ Florrie • talk • 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Timmins was charged with a grade two careless high tackle” – as above; or even just lose the “grade two”.
    •  Done
  • I think that paragraph (“In a round 6 game”) could be written more smoothly.
  • “a key play-maker in the halves” – clarification
  •  Done - possibly. Check diffs for variations on same. [3] ~ Florrie • talk • 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than “During his injury”, how about “while out injured” or similar.
    •  Done
  • There’s nothing in ref 50 about the CCTV tape.
    •  Done removed it.
  • “the expected six weeks” isn’t required, as you’ve just mentioned the original prognosis in the last sentence.
    •  Done
  • “making one error and 83 metres in kick returns” “Hunt ran with the ball 17 times, making 196 metres.” Are these good things? Bad things? I have no context to judge with.
  • The career statistics boxes leave a lot of white space on my screen. The 3 small ones are widely separated; perhaps a single box for them would be better?
    • {{doing}} I have a smaller screen and don't observe these things, but can do.
    •  Done Put them in one column.
  • The top-right info box is rather large, and holds some fairly trivial information (school, relatives). Personally, I’d prefer it trimmed.
    •  Done Got rid of school, as it is trivial. But prefer if relatives stay there. But if you still insist. I have seen larger infoboxes
      • Infoboxes seem to suffer from bloat, that's why I'd suggest keeping them lean. The way I look at it, is that the infobox should give the vital (and only the vital) details. For example, for anyone other than a sportsman, the physical details aren't relevant. If he had a notable parent, then that might be relevant. Anyway, it's your call.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to disagree with any of the above. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some of the quick easier things, will hopefully finish most this arvo (AUS time). I'm hopeless at English, so me copy-editing would be a false errand. Thanks for your comments. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the article is improved. If some of the details asked for simply don't exist in a reliable source, then there's nothing to be done. I fixed a few WP:DASH issues while reading through. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported last time around, and I see no reason to change that. DrKiernan 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support - it's good, but not quite good enough IMO to pass the article. The main problems are with the article's comprehensiveness, and combined with this, the written prose - I don't think either are quite up to scratch. Let's outline the few problems that I have:
    • Prose is not "excellent"/coverage is not comprehensive: My main problem. For example, in the Brisbane Broncos section, the first sub-section (Debut season) is well-written. It includes interesting information, such as the fact that Hunt scored a try in the opening game, 4 tries in Round 17, etc. plus a whole lot of other important information which keeps a good balance. The 2007 section is almost as good; the bit in the middle, however, is not as good. It is vague and not specific as a Featured Article should be, eg. "However, Hunt did not perform as well in his second season as his debut year,[37] which the media labelled as 'Karmichael's second-year syndrome'. Though Hunt scored less tries and had less kick returns than in his debut season, he was retained in his preferred fullback position for the entire year." Did not perform as well, less tries and less kicks are not specific enough, and although they are referenced, they are far too subjective for a Featured Article's style. This sort of section should go into more specific things like tries he scored in particular games, interesting matches where Hunt was involved, etc. Take a look at existing FAs in sport like Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), where, although it's a different sport, I see a better balance and better writing overall; the paragraphs, for example, are generally longer and more comprehensive than they are here. I'm not going to point out further sections at present but I think the article could do with some rewriting and some further detailing as a whole to make it absolutely excellent. Adding a prose section on awards, etc. will help with this also (see below).
      • I've done a copy edit of the article, and changed/added to those sentences, but haven't really changed the content. It's difficult to find sources to interesting games, especially when they happened two years ago, but maybe SpecialWindler can address that when he gets back. Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact of comprehensiveness, is that this is still a current player. Hunt is only 20 now and still has an average 10-15 more years in his rugby league career. If I was to put as much detail in those 15 year then the article would become too long, then add later career etc. Currently though, they are in my opinion lenghth enough. But I agree, the middle needs a bit of strenghthining. Will work on.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good work. Let me know when you're finished. JRG 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better - but I have two points of contention against changing my mind: the less important one is that I'd still like more mentions of notable games for Hunt like are done in other FAs (as outlined above), and the more important point is that a rewrite of the Representative career section is needed. The paragraphs are too short and not comprehensive enough for a Featured Article. JRG 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • {{doing}} Will begin, I agree with the representative career section. I will do that first, over the next day or two.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having had a more careful read, I'm now happy to say that there's enough information about the parts that Hunt has played in Broncos games, eg. tries scored, etc. - especially given that he is in an early stage of his playing career. I've removed that contention - but my point still stands on the representative career section. What you've done so far is good though. My final minor point is to put in a reference for his birthdate (from the article not the table). Do these things and I will change to a support. It's a much improved article and you should be commended on your work. JRG 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                •  Done, though I've Rearranged not rewritten, into more relevent paragraphs and section headers. If you would still like me to add more to them, I can.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  10:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quotes in boxes: Get rid of them. This is an encyclopedic article, not an article for a sports magazine, and the quotes should be put in some sort of context or omitted altogether. From what I can see, they are quite useful, so there's probably some appropriate places within the article to put them.
    • Honours section: the presentation of this section as a table is inappropriate for a Featured article. It should be written in prose, not tabulated. In its present form it is also unreferenced. I would rewrite the whole thing as a paragraph or two, rather than keep the table form. Some of that stuff should go at the top (like debuts).
      •  Not done OK, I removed the Debut bit because it is trivial, but not awards or records. If you see Adam Gilchrist (a FA), you can see similar table down below. Most of the info on this table, like the Adam Gilchrist article, is mentioned and referenced in the article body.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine - but the Adam Gilchrist article does have the table referenced. I think that's important at least, even if it is put elsewhere in the article, there should be references (even if they are just duplicates of other references). JRG 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Career statistics: is there a way to improve the career statistics section? A graph perhaps?
      •  Done I have evened all the the tables width, to look better. This isn't an improvement but avoids "messyness". It is a bit hard to improve, graphs require constant work. But if you have suggestions.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images: a minor point, but is there any chance of a photo of Hunt playing in a game or at least another image to improve the article? If you can't find one and fix everything else up, I would be happy to pass the article, but I think an image or two more would help.
    • I'm not trying to criticise the good work - it's great and better than most articles on WP, but I think this doesn't quite meet the FA standard and I think these few things should ensure that it gets over the line in the near future. Thanks. JRG 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - one more thing - I noticed you've used some non-website sources in your references. Following the Manual of Style you need a "references" section under your footnotes section outlining the sources you've used in full citation, above the external links section. This should only take a minute or so to do, but it's important. JRG 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now satisfied that enough work and effort has been put into this article to make it deserving of FA status and I'm happy to support its promotion, provided that the editors who wrote this are prepared to keep working on it as Hunt progresses through his career. Excellent work everyone. JRG 05:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Thanks. Now 3 supports, 0 opposes.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Poorly written, and is hardly among "our best work", as required—too much of this article comprises trivial information about exchanges and intentions. And no, this is not a vote, so there's no point in tallying. Here are just random issues in the prose—don't just fix these ones.
    • "competition winning team"—Where's the hyphen?
    • "Hunt mainly plays in the fullback position, but he has also been used on the wing and at halfback." First he plays, then he's "used"—very odd. Why the "but"?
      • I feel the "but" is necessary - it is to show that Hunt is primarily, but not exclusively a fullback. I changed the "used" to "plays" though. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are "2004", "2005" and "2006" linked? I was expecting it to be piped to something useful. Blue spattering—annoying to the readers.
      •  DoneLinked to the respective National Rugby League seasons. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dally M rookie of the year for 2004"—So which bit is the title? Initial upper-case should indicate.
      • Not sure exactly what you mean here, but I've capitalised "rookie" and "year" and added award to indicate that this was his actual award. Dally M (Dally Messenger) is who the awards are named after. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eleven" and then "15". Where's the boundary?
      •  Done Changed 'eleven' to '11'. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Changed '11' back to 'eleven' as it was in the same sentence as 'four'. I've left Round numbers as numerals and measurements as numerals. Also left 'Under-14' etc as numeral as that is the accepted presentation, I would think. May be some numerals I've missed, but will try to re-edit today. ~ Florrie • talk • 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Under 14 South-East team"—Hyphen?
      •  Not done Is this meant to be removed? Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Added hyphen to under 14 and under 15. ~ Florrie • talk • 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His manager asked the 15-year-old what he wanted to do with his future. Hunt responded that he wanted to play first grade"—getting a little trivial for a gold-star article on WP.
    • "Hunt plays his rugby league for the Brisbane Broncos."—Inexplicable caption. Huh? There are several more schematic images, too, of football jerseys, are they? Why the indicative statements attached? One ("Hunt is an international representative for Australia") has no final period, yet is a full sentence. See MOS.
      • I've added the full stop (or period) to the offending sentences. Yes, they are rugby league jerseys - I guess that's not clear enough. How do you propose we make that more explicit? Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double period after one sentence.
    • "Hunt drew some criticism for his style of returning the football, because he would take the ball straight forward rather than going around opposition players.[5] As a result he was often targeted by opposing players, which resulted in the Broncos asking the NRL to protect Hunt with more penalties." Remove "some". "Going around" is either vague or informal. "Broncos" here, strictly speaking, needs an apostrophe. Otherwise, reword. But the biggest issue is that it's hard for a non-expert to comprehend what it all means.
      • I've changed the first sentence completely. I think it makes the rest of the passage more coherent, but I'll need a non-league person to tell me that. I've changed the rest of the passage, but I'm still unsure whether a non-league person will make sense of it.Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To prevent excessive pressure on him, Bennett placed a season-long media ban on Hunt." Very loose language. Vague and unexplained, I can see the teacher's comment in the margin.
      •  Done Changed sentence completely - should make more sense now. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need "AU" after the first appearance of the Australian currency. See MOS.

Tony (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made other style changes to the article, which hopefully have improved it. Thanks for the criticism. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask you, Tony, what do you mean by "trivial". Using some specific examples can you clear out what you mean. To me, I can't find any bit of trivia, which irrelevent to his life or career. Yes, there are short bits of information which explain what hes done, such as "In 2000, Hunt made his representative debut with the Under-14 South–East team of the Queensland Rugby League (QRL), in the fullback position. In 2001, he became part of the Under-15 Australian merit side, and, upon seeing him play rugby league, Brisbane Broncos scout Cyril Connell offered him a scholarship with the club.", but to remove all that would disregard it in the "comrehensive" part of WP:FA?.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass & Support
    • On the grounds that it fulfills the Featured article criteria more so than other FAC articles.
Request(s):
Learnedo 05:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I opposed this last time with a list of fixes required, and I'm satisfied that enough has been improved for this to be considered some of Wikipedia's best work. Daniel 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good work. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to the infobox's image: I read through the e-mail exchange on the image description page, and after taking a look at the Flickr source, it looks looks copyright holder still wants to place a restriction on derivative works. Can you get the copyright holder to explicitly allow distribution and modification for both commercial and non-commercial purposes? It'd be great if you could forward the exchange to OTRS, as well, but for now, it doesn't seem like the image is free enough. -- RG2 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, would I be correct in saying that this image shouldn't be sourced to Flickr, but rather to a private e-mail, in which the Wikipedia crop was made free, rather than the Flickr image as a whole? -- RG2 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what is OTRS. The message exchange was over Flickr Mail not E-Mail. And I will ask the copyright owner, for that request, when I figure out what is meant by the OTRS.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are meant to email the permission email to the OTRS system so it can be verified and permanently archived. See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Daniel 10:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not E-Mail, its a seperate mail system.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:34, 22 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Crazy Taxi (series)[edit]

Self-nomination - Help with several editors have made this article into it's present GA state; article is written to cover the entire series with or without specific individual game articles in mind (originally, it was suggested to merge all the games into this article since the notability of each individual game is very low beyond the first game, despite the overall notability of the series). Article should be stable with the latest port out for a few months without making much of a blip on the video game space. --MASEM 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Looks pretty good, but a few points. I'd remove all of the red links, link The Simpsons Road Rage in the section where its mentioned, and not just the lead. Also "External links" need to go after "References". Gran2 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the input, redlinks removed and the EL is in the right place. --MASEM 19:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, redlinks are not a problem and removal of redlinks is not required for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing about the characters in the game.
    • The characters (both IMO and from sources) are non-notable, I mean, I can list them, but its not like they have a significant influence on gameplay.
      • They are notable enough to have profiles in the game's mannual. Buc 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Manual would be a primary source and not sufficient to establish notability for fictional elements. Additionally, since there's no story at all, it would see strange to provide a list of characters. Its notable you can select them, and other games add more, but not exactly who they are. --MASEM 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "must accumulate the most money" the most of who? who are they competing against?
    •  Done just changed to "accumulate money"
  • Bit more about the gameplay in the lead.
    •  Done added a bit more, but going too much more detail I think either requires details that makes the lead too heavy and/or large
  • Not sure the whole soundtrack for each of the games is needed in the series article.
    • As noted, there was a plan to merge all the series articles into this one as, beyond the first, these other games are much less notable than the first; the soundtrack section would reflect that. It could go, though I'd inviscomment it if the merge/deletion of the other pages occur.
    • There should be something about the sound track but the full list should be in the individual game articles. Buc 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  DoneI'll invisicomment it out. However, the section paragraph on that should remain since Bad Religon/Offspring are notable in the series and their lack in later games brough comment. --MASEM 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(green number in center)" centre
    • It's primarily a game that was mainly big in the United States, it's using American spellings.
  • "bonuses earned from stunt driving are multiplied by the number of passengers in the car" I think "number of passengers in the car multiplies the bonuses earned from stunt driving" is better.
    •  Done
  • "each whom have a different" it's either "who" or "of whom"
    •  Done
  • "(semi-)fictional" why the brackets?
    •  Done removed semi & brackets
  • "gear shift" Did you mean gear lever?
    •  Done made to "gear shift level"
  • Is minigames one word?
    •  Done hyphenated throughout
  • "traffic are represented" is represented
    • It's a grouping of "taxi, passengers, and traffic", I believe it's "are" in this case
  • "can use their own stored" there
    • This is definitely "their" as in "the fans' own music"
  • "made a few attempts" how many is a few?
    •  Done changed to "has attempted"
  • Ref #16 not entered right.
    •  Done corrected
  • Surely this article fits into more than one Category
    •  Done added several
      • Categories for the individual games are not needed in a series article. See for example another FA series page: Kingdom Hearts (series). Only one category. --Mika1h 15:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ref have .com and some don't, be consistent
    •  Done .com removed from publisher field for those that had it
  • I think it would be better if the links to the game articles in the "Games" section were incorporated into the text. At any rate they should say "Main article" not "See also".
    •  Done made the section headers the wikilinks to the games
  • "(which lead IGN to comment that "Including this should be a no-brainer, but many PSP titles don't.")," why the brackets and why the full stop followed by a comma?
    •  Done removed the full stop and brackets.
  • Order refs numerically.
    • Refs are all done with WP's ref system, numbering is done automatically (there are noted problems with Firefox and multiple columns for this, nothing that can be done through WP)
  • "different places -- seeing how it" why the double hyphen?
    • It's a direct quote from the article, that can't be changed.
  • "with an expected release date in middle of 2003" should be in past tence.
    •  Done changed to "and had a"

Buc 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a few comments of those listed above I don't believe are correct fixes but I've made the edits to address the rest; thanks for the input. --MASEM 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "which many have noted as a rip-off of the Crazy Taxi formula". No place for "many people" in Wikipedia :P You'll have name people or magazines (or whatever) that have said that.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done - "many" now "game reviewers" with additional refs to back this up. --MASEM 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's good enough.

Request(s):

  • Lead is too long; may wish to break it up into two or integrate parts of it into the second paragraph. Learnedo 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done First lead para is about the games' release, the second is about the gameplay itself - hopefully that's what you mean... --MASEM 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until fixed; it is otherwise worthy of promotion, so is worth the effort. The writing needs sifting through to polish and to pick up glitches such as:

    • "When the player stops near their fare, seconds are added to a gameplay countdown timer, the passenger, also with a countdown timer, gets in the car; the player must then ...".
    • "Crazy Taxi is a series of score attack racing video games, developed by Hitmaker and published by Sega, the first game appearing in arcades in 1999." Not a glitch so much as inelegant and hard to read—the last clause. Perhaps split with a semicolon and use past tense?
    • "Starting with Crazy Taxi 2, the game added the ability to pick up a party of passengers, each who have a different destination." Ungrammatical, and as well, it's the developers who add.
    • "The console games have also featured a set of mini-games that focus more on the driving aspect of the game." Just "... games feature ..."? Otherwise, possibly ambiguous and hard to read. More than what?
    • Weed out most uses of "also"—redundant and clunky.
    • MOS breach in the use of --. Read MOS on hyphens and dashes.

Now they're random issues in one small section. Please coopt new editors to help. Fresh eyes pick up stuff the original editors will never see. Tony (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have requested a couple fresh eyes to look into copyedits, thanks. --MASEM 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done (pending additional comments) - have had a few people help work it and removed some of the noted points about (including the excessive use of Also and fixing the dashes/hyphens). --MASEM 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've done a little copyediting for you, and fixed the rationales on two of the images to satisfy BetacommandBot. There are two things that someone more involved with the article should look at:

  • Consider wikilinking the date field in {{cite web}} to allow user date preferences to apply. The template automatically wikilinks accessdate but not date for some reason.
  • Is the first "Gameplay" paragraph also covered by reference 5? If so, consider sticking a <ref> at the end of the paragraph to make it clear.

Good work. Anomie 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done on both accounts. --MASEM 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose - The article is looking real good. However I feel that some kind of "Development" section should be included before this passes FA. I realize that the series hasn't tried to make leaps and bounds with the gameplay, but there are other aspects that have changed over time. The graphics have varied from game to game and may have used different graphical engines, or whatever technical changes have occured. The inspiration and influences could be mentioned if they can be found. To be honest, I don't think much would be needed. A medium sized paragraph along with maybe the "Soundtrack" and "Legalities" sections as subsection. I believe that will make the article comprehensive. Other than that, I don't have much else to say. It's a good article everywhere else, but that chunk that's missing is kinda a big one. The good news it that some of looks to already be there, just not consolidated into one defined section. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Done (or at least an attempt to be done per any additional comments) - some of the development stuff was floating in other sections of the article, and I added a few more points I found in a couple additional interviews. Please let us know if this is what you are looking for. --MASEM 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very nice, I'd say that more than covers it. You got my support. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - Looked over it, and it's very nicely written and covers everything. Good job! ✗iℎi✗(talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yep everything looks good now. Buc 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support impressive work, covers every aspect of the series. igordebraga ≠ 23:28, 13 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Youngstown, Ohio[edit]

previous FAC

This article has been vastly improved since the last nomination, and most of the previous comments have been taken into consideration. Over 250 edits have been made since that time to improve the quality of the article. There are ample inline citations, over 80, with a very clear and concise writing style. Ample photographs are included in the article to visually highlight some of the writing. To the best of my knowledge, all tables and templates meet Wikipedia's standards in formatting and design. I would appreciate your vote to approve this as a Featured Article. --Daysleeper47 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think you should change "Challenging old verities" to crime. Looking in the contents list one would have no idea where the crime section was located. Also, what does "Challenging old verities" mean anyway? Challenging old truth? You are talking about crime, might as well call it that. Every other city does. KnightLago 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the above recommending that the section name be changed. Perhaps "Crime reputation". This section is good because it's honest. The city has been associated with gangsters, at least in the past. In wikipedia, all we want is honesty, not falsely positive or negative articles. Good article! How did al-Bireh become sister city? Any ideas? Mrs.EasterBunny 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to query Regarding al-Bireh, I don't know the details. I can tell you that Youngstown has a large Palestinian-born population. This may account for the sister city relationship with al-Bireh. twelsht 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's decent.

Remark: Attractions is pretty hefty. Are we trying to sell the town? Leranedo 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, some work needed still. I left sample edits; please see the edit summaries.[4] Attention is needed to overlinking and non-breaking hard spaces between numerical and non-numerical elements. I did numerous WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE fixes, but it would help to ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes in the page ranges. More importantly, the citations need attention. Many publishers are not identified, so reliability of sources can't be evaluated, some sources are dead links, and some refs aren't formatted correctly (see WP:CITE/ES). Named refs aren't employed, so there are repeat refs (see WP:FN). You could also shorten the citation list and simplify text editing significantly by created a References sectoin to list book sources, and then include only the page in the footnote citation with <ref>Author (year), p. x</ref>, instead of repeating all of that book information in every citation. Avoid using the word currently (example, "The only commercial route currently ... " and "Currently, local railroads only serve cargo trains ... "). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply SandyGeorgia, thanks for the comments. I have corrected all of the issues except the citation problem, including delinking repetitive links, worked to remove overlinking and Brightorange run the script to correct the dashes. To the WP:FA moderator, I would appreciate if this nomination was left open until I can correct the remaining citation issues, probably tomorrow or Thursday. I believe this article is close and would hate to have to renominate this article needlessly for these issues when they can be corrected right away. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to review now, but I'm not sure I'll finish tonight. By the way, I prefer to strike my own commentary, as I can use the list to check each item. Brighterorange hasn't been through yet I see. I also see missing publishers; I'll do a few citation edits as samples. See WP:CITE/ES; all sources should have publishers, author and date should be supplied when available, and last access date on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in an additional request to Brighterorange, since refs were changed since he went through, and hyphens were re-inserted on page ranges; those should be endashes. Still reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{USCensusPop}} displays negative percent changes with a hyphen rather than a minus sign; I put in a request for it to be fixed on the talk page there. The error in the template is beyond your control, but perhaps you can follow up on my post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a string of sample edits;[5] the biggest issue is that publishers still aren't identified correctly on sources, named refs are employed incorrectly (resulting in misleading sources), and there is other missing info on sources. There's also some WP:UNITS attention needed on nbsps. I agree that the article is close, though. Let me know when you've completed the citation work and I'll have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a number of dead links, and an independent source is required to place Dana School of Music in the same class as Oberlin. Is it The Vindicator, The Youngstown Vindicator or The Youngstown Daily Vindicator? It's labeled three different ways in the citations. I removed the word "elite" from culture center (POV); if the NYT article uses that word, it can be re-added, but since the article isn't online, I couldn't check. You might want to run through the article one last time to check for things like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the date of issue, the name could be any of the three. The Youngstown Daily Vindicator became the Youngstown Vindicator which became the Vindicator around 1990. Should the citations reflect the name today or the name at the time of issue? --Daysleeper47 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's best to stick with the name at the time the article was published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked all the links in the Notes section and didn't find any dead links. Am I looking in the wrong spot to check these links? --Daysleeper47 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining dead link is to the golf course; I'm striking my oppose since most of the work is done; it's only that one link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query Given that the local newspaper altered its name over time, it might be less confusing to refer to it simply as The (Youngstown) Vindicator? Any thoughts? twelsht 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best to stick with the name at the time the article was published, as theoretically that's the way it would be in a library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport—It's quite good now; I've made a few tweaks; can you change the hyphens to proper minus signs for the temperatures, in two tables (or en dashes, but the former are below the edit box as a 'click', which can be copied and pasted after the first one). One "United States" among otherwise consistent "U.S.". Check what "poverty line" means—is it linkable to a specific US p l? 1a. Here are random samples of the need to bring on board a copy-editor or two with a track-record in similar good articles (research FAs, edit histories and summaries).

  •  Done"when the U.S. steel industry shifted production overseas in the 1970s"—Now are you sure that this doesn't oversimplify the transition? Perhaps there was a degree of direct capital transfer to low-cost economies by the local companies, but I suspect that most of the "rust belt" phenomenon occurred through just import competition and plain job and market loss, without directd "shift of production".
  •  Done Eight years ago is the most recent population estimate?
2006 census estimate added
  •  Done "comprises around 697,481 residents"—Sure it's not 697,481.6?
  •  Done "is centrally located between New York City and Chicago"—no, "lies midway between".
  •  Done "became a popular destination for immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy, and Greece as well."—Why "as well"? Are we missing some point here? Straight after this, weed out the "also".
  •  Done "Urban neighborhoods are dotted with religious landmarks including churches, synagogues, and mosques."—Wouldn't it be neater as just "Urban neighborhoods are dotted with churches, synagogues, and mosques."? Tony (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Tony, Thanks for your comments. They were fair and accurate. The decline of the U.S. steel industry was more complicated than the second paragraph suggested, and the article has stylistic weaknesses. After reading your comments, I made changes based on some of your recommendations. There is more work to be done. Here is a list of changes I've made so far:
  • modified misleading passage on decline of steel industry
  • included 2006 estimate of Youngstown's population (the next official census will be conducted in 2010)
  • added details on Connecticut Western Reserve--perhaps a brief description of Northwest Territory and CWR is in order
  • weeded out extraneous language (1st half of article)
  • modified awkward phrases and sentences (1st half of article)
I plan to look over the article tomorrow. Any further comments and recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks. - twelsht (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Recommendations on ways to improve this article should be referred to Daysleeper47. Thanks. -- twelsht (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::After reading Tony's comments, it appears to me that they seem more concerned with writer's style that substance. Your style is just different, not better. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove my comment of objection. After reading it again, I apologize and have found them to be fair and substantive. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I share Daysleeper's concerns. A few of Tony's comments were helpful. He noted that an introductory statement on the decline of the U.S. steel industry was misleading. I modified this statement a few days ago. In response to another comment, I added a 2006 population estimate for the municipality. The issue of style is more subjective, but I acted on several of his recommendations. While this article would benefit from the input of a seasoned FA copy editor, it has already been through multiple peer reviews. Some reviewers described its narrative style as clear and concise. I hope that this article won't be held back on the basis of largely subjective concerns. While I can no longer participate in this process, I wanted to lend support to Daysleeper's comment. Thanks, again, for your feedback. Respectfully, twelsht (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation: This is a brief note of thanks to those who assessed Youngstown, Ohio. Participants in the Youngstown project are especially grateful to SandyGeorgia, who provided numerous sample edits and worked closely with us to improve the main article. Sincerely, twelsht (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, by no means an expert in this field but, nevertheless, my comments follow for what they're worth!

Note: I added comments and replied, and will add more as I have time. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Lead is a little confusing, you have geography, then history then census then a little more geography.
Reply: I didn't add any new text, but I reordered it in a manner which I think is more organized. -Daysleeper47
  •  Done Image:City seal.gif needs work. There's a fair use licence attributed without source or copyright information (see the precise wording of the template there) and the image is used in lots of articles - a fair use rationale needs to be added for each and every fair use.
  • Citations shouldn't have a space between them and what they're citing. Also they need to be placed immediately to the right of punctuation where possible - see WP:CITE.
  •  Done Why a whole sentence in parentheses? In fact, there are a couple...
  • No need to repeatedly use same citation in consecutive sentences e.g. [30], [43].
  • "Many observers have pointed out, however, that Youngstown has yet to move into a "post-steel" economy." - one of the few sentences without a citation which really needs more than one!
  •  Done I've no idea but is downtown usually capitalised or not? At least there should be some consistency within the article.
Reply: I only found one, perhaps someone corrected them before me. I left it lowercase unless it starts a sentence.
  •  Done "...fiercest competitor..." sounds a bit peacock to me unless it's in the citation...
Reply: The word is not in the article, and has been removed. The article is not available for free, so I the byline and headline, found the article, and searched again with the word 'fiercest' and didn't find it -Daysleeper47
  • It seems like the last sentence of most sections have no citation.
  •  Done "... several decades ago (in the mid-1960s)..." one or the other...
  • "...despite intermittent financial challenges." - citation required.
  •  Done "This unusual museum..." what makes it unusual?
Reply: I removed the word 'unusual'. While the museum looks at working-class studies, it isn't unusual enough to warrant the word. -Daysleeper47
  •  Done Big space toward the end of the Sports section, and if one of the boxers is redlinked, is he really notable? (not an accusation, more of a question!)
Reply: Greg Richardson is a notable bantamweight boxer with a 38-8-1 records.
  •  Done Sports table seems a bit unexplained...
Reply: Agreed; table was removed as the table text was already explained in the article's main body. -Daysleeper47
  •  Done "Observers note the absence of a single new car dealership operating within the city limits, and also observe that city residents are often forced to do their shopping in the surrounding suburbs of Boardman, Niles, Austintown, or Liberty Township." - again, "Observers note... etc" needs to be cited.
Reply: I removed the sentence. I couldn't find a reliable online citation and my book resources are currently unavailable. If I find something, I will re-add it. -Daysleeper47
  •  Done Media section is entirely unreferenced.
Reply: I rewrote the section and include citations. I removed many of the bulleted lists and worked it into prose. -Daysleeper47

Please take all with a pinch of salt, I'm more used to reading and writing about footballers so I may not have got the hang of this! Let me know if I can help in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, I will be out of town until Sunday morning and have little internet access to follow this FA-nom. I made many of the changes suggested and hope to follow up with the rest after I return. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

The Green (Dartmouth College)[edit]

A self-nomination -- I wrote virtually this entire article a while ago. I think it's well-organized, beautifully illustrated with entirely free images, rigorously cited, and as far as I can tell, in conformity with MoS guidelines.

Allow me to preempt what I anticipate as the main objection: I realize that this article is considerably shorter than most FA candidates. However, there's only so much you can say about an open expanse of grass, and I believe that while short, it easily covers all possible aspects of the subject in appropriate detail; that is, it is comprehensive enough to satisfy criteria 1b and 4.

Of course, one's own work is often regarded with a disproportionately favorable eye, so please let me know what I may have missed with regards to meeting the FA criteria. I intend to address all concerns in hopes of seeing this promoted. Thanks! Kane5187 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I commendable article. I never knew so much could be said about a stretch of grass. Perhaps some Dutch guy should turn nl:Malieveld into a featured article...
    • "See also" should come before the references according to the Annotated article (I'm sure several featured articles will back it up too).
    • "and is the only creation of the eighteenth century remaining at the center of the campus." What other structures used to be at the center of the campus?
      • Well, dozens of buildings now bulldozed, I imagine. I mean, do you want them listed out, or the sentence clarified? Hanover was a frontier town, inhabited since about 1750, so there were lots of original structures that no longer exist. I guess I don't really know what you're asking me to do with this sentence. Kane5187 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "five-acre (2-hectare)" Should probably be rewritten to accomodate {{convert}}. At the very least you need consistency, either spell out or use the number. The same goes for feet/meters (first instances of a unit should be linked).
      • Addressed: [7][8]. I tried to use {{convert}} (that's a cool tool -- I didn't know about it), but I couldn't get the syntax right, so I just did it manually. Per WP:MOS#Numbers, the standard is that <10, you spell it out, >10, you write the digits, and that's what I've done (meaning "30 feet (nine meters)" -- an inconsistency). Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is crossed by seven gravel walking paths, bisected by three running southwest to northeast, northwest to southeast, and east to west, respectively." As it is written now, it says that the 7 gravel paths are disected by more paths. Probably not what you intended.
    • Is the green perfectly north-south aligned? You talk about it like it is, but it could be the result of the orientation of the picture/map.
      • Yes -- if not perfectly, almost so; the map was drawn with north being directly up. I've uploaded a version of the map with a small legend indicating north [10]. Since the legend had to kind of be squeezed in, I've also made explicit reference to the orientation in the caption [11]. Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in favor of divestment from South Africa" Not sure how the word divestment fitst here, even after reading its meaning.
      • Addressed: [12]. Perhaps it wasn't clear, the idea was to force the College to divest its holdings from any South African companies, thereby ending any implicit support for Apartheid. At any rate, the details don't really need spelling out so much (the idea is where the protest took place, not its nuances), so I've just simplified it to "protest of Apartheid". Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In rereading it, I feel like leaving out the precise point of the protest is somewhat misleading, so I've restored the mention of divestment. I made a point to make it clearer, though, what the divestment was from and why. Let me know if it needs more clarity. Kane5187 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green Key chariot races? I'd love to see an article about those.

- Mgm|(talk) 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written article and the images are beautiful. Karanacs 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I think that the article is very well-written and comprehensive. My only concern is that there might be too many images (but they have been reduced by half since my first comment). I can't make up my mind on whether or not there are too many and so can't support or oppose right now. Karanacs 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) This is very, very close. Three issues that I saw[reply]

    • So it is only the gallery, or the images in the text of the article in general? Either way, I'd be willing to cut them down (either by just removing the gallery, or by also taking out one or two of the embedded images). There's a number more that aren't even in the gallery at the {{commons}} link, which should cover it. Kane5187 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One instance of a measurement (acres) that is not converted to metric
    • I would move the (see List of Dartmouth College Buildings) to a see also section rather than be in the body of the article
      • Addressed: [15]. Rather than putting it in the "See also," I footnoted it, because it's only relevant as a "See also" with regards to that statement. Kane5187 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Galleries are frowned on in articles. Per WP:IMAGE "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." -- Galleries, unfortunately, don't have relevant text.
      • Would you prefer I remove it? I've included it because the Green is an extremely hard thing to illustrate accurately -- you just can't get a single representative photo of it from any position, so I've tried to include a number of them so that looking at them all gives a sense of it. With regards to the historical images, I can certainly see how they're not particularly relevant, but some (e.g. the bonfire, modern Senior Fence picture) illustrate things mentioned earlier on. I'd be happy to cut it in half, and if you really feel strongly remove it entirely, but I feel like doing so would cause the article to lose a significant amount of its explanatory and illustrative value. Kane5187 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, WP:IMAGE is neither a guideline nor policy. WP:MOS#Images actually suggests galleries if there are too many images. Kane5187 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • I had never heard of The Green before I read the article, and I thought the embedded pictures did a wonderful job of illustrating it. The only picture in the gallery that I feel is necessary to the article is the first one, with the view of the entire green from the tower. Other than that, I think the others do not add a lot of value, and 17 images in a relatively short article is overkill. Karanacs 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. Per your edit summary, I'll wait to see how others feel about the gallery, and cut it down or out if necessary. (I've also added {{commons}} to the bottom.) Kane5187 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have put in the commons link, but you haven't created a gallery page on the commons with the relevant images. I think having a gallery is justified here. There's not enough room to post relevant images like the bonfire and the image from the tower all in the text. A gallery is indeed preferred over overkill inclusion. Would you consider swapping the current top image of the article with the one taken from the tower? The latter gives a much better overview of the place. - Mgm|(talk) 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, you're right. Sorry, I only just stumbled across the {{commons}} tag. I've created the gallery at the Commons. I also swapped out the images - you're right, the tower image offers a better overall idea of the subject. Kane5187 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked the MOS, but I think where the 'write the full number' is concerned, non-whole numbers are excused as they are harder to read when they're written out. (I'm referring to 'seven and a half'. - Mgm|(talk) 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Huzzah! A great article from what I have had time to read.--Xtreambar 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think you've got all your bases covered. What is your next GA/FA project gonna be? Is it gonna be as interesting as this one? - Mgm|(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your support and suggestions for improvement. You don't have to find this article "interesting," but with all respect, I don't appreciate your repeated sarcastic comments about it. (Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted them; it's hard to tell online.) Kane5187 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FA status is supposed to be independent of notability, so I won't oppose. But the subject doesn't seem notable. Nearly every one of the sources is from the university or one of its student publications. There appear to be two independent sources, a Washington Post blog and The New York Times, the latter of which only talks about Dartmouth traditions and doesn't mention the Green. Although a well-written article, I have doubts as to whether it would survive a deletion discussion. 17Drew 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It's characterized as a fundamentally important and historic part of a major American university. I readily agree that most of the sources are Dartmouth-centric, but I think that's to be expected with any particularly focused aspect of a relatively insular part of culture. What's more important, I feel, is that such a variety of sources feel it necessary to cover the subject in such detail -- I submit that if this article weren't notable, no one would have bothered to publish all this information about the Green. Besides, being published by Dartmouth sources isn't really the spirit of the idea behind independent sources -- that's meant to exclude an individual or company's own website from backing up its article. The sources here are associated with Dartmouth but they aren't the Green itself. I can think of dozens of buildings on campus that aren't notable, and for which articles simply couldn't be written because of the dearth of sources.
    • Example: Dartmo.com, one of the major sources for this article. Dartmo is independent of Dartmouth College (i.e. it's not run by the school), although its focus is on Dartmouth. Is this any different than using a book about the history of Michigan State University to source History of Michigan State University?
    • All in all, I feel that its status as a verifiably important part of an important university is enough to satisfy WP:N. For similarly important-but-insular topics, see Harvard Yard, Yale University's twelve residential colleges, Texas A&M's dozen or so traditions, Campus of Michigan State University, etc., etc. Kane5187 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOTE defines sources that aren't independent as "works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and as you pointed out, nearly all of the sources are associated with Dartmouth. Dartmo.com appears to be a site being self-published by Scott Meacham through WordPress. As such, it looks like an unreliable source. Since inadequate sourcing is an editorial concern and not just a matter for AfD, I weakly oppose featuring this article. 17Drew 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are two independant sources with the calibre of the Washington Post blog and The New York Times, that is enough to establish notability. Not all sources need to be independant to be reliable if the info they back up is not controversial. Also, self-published information isn't de-facto unreliable - historians and well-known authors selfpublish too. Did you check Scott Meacham's credentials? - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Except there don't appear to be. The New York Times articles mention it in passing, not asserting its notability, and one of the NYT articles doesn't even mention the Green. 17Drew 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like you're supporting an uncharitably narrow definition of "affiliated with." WP:N seeks to prohibit "advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases," which is obviously not the sort of material we're dealing with here. The inclusion of this breadth of information on a single topic is not an advertising ploy, it's the broad coverage of what is apparently a notable topic. Dartmouth has nothing to gain by repeatedly mentioning the role and history of its central architectural feature, other than accuracy and appropriate focus. Further, to get slightly nitpicky, the sources are affiliated with Dartmouth, not affiliated with the Green itself, which makes it still close but at a certain periphery. I feel like there's a big difference, and that applying this standard other articles would lead to asking the article on Fuzzballs to cite someone outside the scientific community. It would be OR/non-notable if only the discovering scientists wrote about it, but just because it's a subject contained within a certain realm does not make it not notable.
      Regarding the reliability of Dartmo.com, the site cites its own sources, it's been sourced and recommended by the College [17] [18] [19] [20] and has been cited by The New York Times [21]; Meacham worked as a professional architecture consultant [22] [23] (called an "architectural historian" by the Times [24]), wrote a master's thesis on Dartmouth's campus [25], and is the author of a forthcoming campus guide published by Princeton Architectural Press [26]. I submit that his professional background in the field makes him and his site a reliable source of expert information, that Dartmo's endorsement and usage by the U.S. paper of record and Dartmouth College constitutes as much of a peer review process as is conceivably possible (that is, they wouldn't cite him so authoritatively if his work was questionable or irelevant). Kane5187 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      See also: "Hanover's Snowy Playground" in The New York Times. Kane5187 14:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The definition of affiliated is pretty clear. The list at WP:NOTE lists those as examples of poor sources; it's not exclusive by any means. Were this topic not marginally notable, then there would be multiple publications unaffiliated with Dartmouth that had written about it. Your Fuzzballs analogy is inaccurate. It would not be notable if there weren't coverage independent of the person/people who developed the theory. Because there is coverage of it, it isn't a non-notable fringe theory. Similarly, this article needs sources other than Dartmouth to establish why this is a notable topic. You're right that Dartmo is reliable, but this article still does not seem to have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. My recommendation would probably be to create a Campus of Dartmouth College article, possibly by expanding the scope of List of Dartmouth College buildings. But discussion like this goes past whether or not this article meets the featured article criteria, which is why I'm only weakly opposing the article and strongly recommending that there be a deletion discussion to determine if it should be deleted, merged, or what have you. 17Drew 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is that all the items in that list (exclusive or not) all reflect the same element: self-promotion, which is not at play here. I guess our disagreement comes down to what "association" means, and my point is that the Dean of the College's Student Handbook, Dartmouth's Walking tour, and a Q&A site run by the Office of Public Affairs are not "associated" with the Green in the way intended by WP:N; something like a society to protect the Green, or an informational site about Dartmouth College property run by the College would be. I realize that this is a grey area, but it seems clear to me that to suggest that these sources are "affiliated" with the Green in the way WP:N speaks about it -- affiliated in such a way to have an interest in the subject's promotion -- is definitely not what we're dealing with here.
      At any rate, it's moot, because I have a solution. I see above that you've conceded the reliability of Dartmo.com, which is on record as being independent of the College, so that's one major independent source. Fortunately, Dartmo cites its own sources, and indicates at least the following (just a cursory glance, I may have missed some) as independently-published sources: Fredrick Chase (A History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover to 1815. Brattleboro: Vermont Printing Co., 1928.), Francis Childs (editor, "Personages and Eccentrics." Chapter in Hanover: a bicentennial book, Hanover: University Press of New England, 1961. 263-273.), Widmayer (same volume as Childs), and William Jewett Tucker (My Generation, an Autobioraphical Interpretation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919.)[27][28]. If you really want me to, I'll go to Dartmouth's library tomorrow, find all these volumes, confirm their contents, and cite them directly, which would easily establish multiple, independent, reliable sources. I'd like not to have to spend my time doing so, but, you know, I'll do what it takes. Kane5187 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Tucker's and Lord/Chase's book were both on Google Books, so I've already added them. I'll grab the other one tomorrow, but for now, 3 = multiple. Kane5187 04:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      [edit conflict] Well, my oppose isn't based on WP:NOTE. As I've stated, WP:NOTE is unrelated to the FAC criteria, so most of that discussion should be at a deletion discussion, which I would recommend for the article. The reason I'm also opposing FAC for the article is because WP:V says that they should rely on independent sources, and most of the information comes from Dartmouth-affiliated publications. What does seem like a good idea would be to track down those sources in some form or another. It seems very likely that there is information in those sources that Dartmo does not include. If so, then that information can be added to the article. Alternatively, there may be information from the Dartmouth-affiliated sources that is also covered by these sources. If so, then the independent sources can be cited in the article so that the amount having to be referenced to Dartmouth itself is reduced and the article can primarily rely on independent sources. 17Drew 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so we're dealing with two things here. Let's break it down:
      Notability and possible deletion: Is this not resolved now? I've provided multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. I thought that was your only objection to its notability. No good?
      Proper sourcing: Actually, most of this article comes from Dartmo (and, now, the sources that Dartmo cites), which I thought we had established as an independent source. (It is, according to the College: [29]. The only connection, therefore, is that Meacham is an alumnus.)
      Even if Dartmo was not an independent source, WP:V says principally that reliable sources are most important. Non-third-party sources (again, not that I accept your characterization of them as such) are not impermissible so long as the criteria for having the article in the first place are met (above); WP:V doesn't say a thing about "affiliation," that's only in WP:N. And even if all these sources were "self-published," they meet the criteria at WP:SELFPUB for inclusion. Kane5187 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:RS: "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). I should think that official Dartmouth sources as well as fact-checking student newspapers should be regarded as meeting the latter criteria, even if they aren't "third-party". And official Dartmouth sources/student newspapers make up pretty much the rest of the article not covered by Dartmo and other independent sources. Kane5187 05:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, notability has been well asserted for the article. WP:V states which kinds of sources may be used, but also specifies that although non-independent sources may be used, articles should rely on third-party sources. The article still appears to rely heavily on affiliated sources, which is why I weakly oppose promoting the article. The kind of improvement I'm saying should be made is ones like this. 17Drew 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      First: you're importing the term "affiliated" from WP:N, which is a lot broader than "third party," which is the only term that WP:V and WP:RS use.
      Second: These ARE third-party articles. The Dartmouth isn't affiliated with the Green. The Dartmouth Free Press isn't affiliated with the Green. "Ask Dartmouth," the Q&A site run by the Office of Public Affairs, isn't affiliated with the Green. They're affiliated with Dartmouth, which in turn owns the Green. That's two degrees of separation, not one.
      Third: Even Dartmouth itself is a third party to the subject of the Green, because it isn't the Green itself. Regarding the vague definition of "third-party" at WP:V, I think it's worth noting that the only examples WP:V gives of "questionable" sources are those "with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight" and self-published sources. It doesn't address the definition specifically, but I think it's implicitly clear that "third-party" is meant to cover sources which are not "self-published." The sources used here are clearly not self-published, and they are easily considered reliable per WP:RS.
      Fourth: Please look at the article closely and follow up on which pieces of information are contained in which citations; you will find that you are incorrect with regards to how much is supported by Dartmouth-related sources. The bulk of this article is supported by Dartmo, the derivative sources cited by Dartmo, and then a handful of New York Times or Boston Globe articles. Dartmouth sources are used to cite: (1) facts that can intrinsically only be attributed to Dartmouth sources, like official policy on the current use of the Green or Dartmouth's perspective on its importance; (2) facts about specific events, like the recent May Day protest or where Commencement ceremonies are held (e.g. information that is relevant to the content of the article, but not important enough to be covered in detail in external sources). Further, for many of the Dartmouth citations, I have added non-Dartmouth sources to supplement the citations, leaving the original both for completeness and informative follow-up value for readers. Point is, this article does not rely principally on these sources. They fill in specific, detailed holes that cannot be or are not addressed in other sources. With one exception (herding the cattle into the basement), the entirety of the "Geography" and "History" sections are from non-Dartmouth sources. The overlying statements in "Uses" (that the Green is generally recreational, used for protests, and used for traditions) is dually cited between "independent" sources (like Dartmo) and clarifying/reinforcing/specifying Dartmouth-related sources; only specific examples are cited exclusively by Dartmouth sources. Overall, the general, factual information is contained in "independent" sources; Dartmouth sources are used for more specific details.
      Fifth: Your interpretation of policy (that sources related to the subject cannot be used, or at least only in small amounts) is simply not shared by the community at large. Take today's Featured Article, Girl Scouts of the USA, and check out the References section -- most of them come from the main GSUSA website, or GSUSA-related sources. No one else seems to think this is a problem; none of the supporters or opposers at its nomination discussion raised it as a concern. Why? Because the sources cited were still reliable, whether or not the GSUSA published them. Check out the FAs of any subject that is about or is closely related to a modern organization with an informational website (e.g. Duke University, Cornell University, Georgetown University, Stuyvesant High School, etc.) -- you'll find the same.
      I think it might be a good idea to open up an RfC or something similar with regards to this, because I feel that your position is very different from the demonstrated position of most other editors. MGM makes the same point below, that "affiliation" is only at play in WP:N. WP:V requires verifiable, reliable, non-self-published (I forgot, even self-published sources can be acceptable) sources, and that is what this article relies on -- exclusively. Kane5187 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, WP:NOTE only describes the notability requirements for the subject, it doesn't talk about additional sources for other information. We have the multiple independant sources WP:NOTE asks for. - Mgm|(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was in reference to WP:SOURCES, which says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". There are multiple independent sources, but several do not provide the significant coverage needed to assert notablity, and one doesn't even mention the Green. 17Drew 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two different kid of sources needed. 1) Sources to assert the notability 2)sources to backup the article content. The sources in group 2 don't neccesarily belong to group 1. Discussion in WP:NOTE only refers to the 1st. - Mgm|(talk) 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that its acceptable.

Remark: I completely agree with the previous on evidencing notability. The point that I assume it is if the article reached this far to FAC, which really isn't far at all, as any common article may do this easily, and that is an issue. Leranedo 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support I am not a fan of this part of the lead: "...center of the Ivy League campus of Dartmouth College..." Specifically the Ivy League campus part. What does that mean? I definitely think Ivy League should be mentioned in reference to the school, but not in describing the campus itself unless talking about actual Ivy. When you go to the Ivy League article it mentions nothing about campuses, and more about sports and elitism. KnightLago 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Good point. I was just trying to communicate, as you said, that the school is an Ivy League school -- I just worded it confusingly. How's this? Kane5187 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "the campus of" (I think this is evident) what do you think? KnightLago 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine with me. It was rather redundant. Kane5187 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like it. I haven't been able to find anything wrong with it. Well written, exemplary pictures, nice TOC. I suspect some improvement is still possible, but it is great as it is.--Keerllston 22:51, 24 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Superman film series[edit]

Hi! I believe that this article should be nominated because the page is very well written. The article reached WP:GA status without any objections, and might as well be a featured article. Please see the GA review here. Limetolime 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I gave the GA review. The article is unbelievably well sourced. Of course, if you could find one or two free-use images to add to it, such as perhaps a picture of one of those actors or writers/producers, etc. in the sections where they are discussed, but that's not a dealbreaker. I'll see if I can find some tasteful stuff for that on Wikimedia Commons. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - I just formatted some refs and cleaned up some date fragments, but there is still more in there, other then that I its good in my opinion --Cloveious 06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first thing I looked at was the infobox, and I saw red links. Please fix them so that readers won't be taken to a blank page. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:40, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Support - Well-written, and while most pictures are improvised they work right (though Reeve and/or Routh could be nice to add). igordebraga ≠ 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the lead is too short for such a long article.Legalbeaver 21:07, 14 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

The Joy of Sect[edit]

Self-nomination, "The Joy of Sect." - Actually, not so much a self-nomination as a collaborative team effort. I must say this has been one of my most pleasant experiences on the project so far, working with these other dedicated and talented editors, they've all been great. The article The Joy of Sect became a Good Article on October 27, 2007, and its Peer Review finished on November 2, and I got some good ideas from that as well. Since then, we have had several different copyeditors look over the article, none of whom had previously been involved in its editing and quality process. The article uses (20) cited sources, (6) images - three fair use with fair use rationales given on their image pages, and three free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. I now submit this article as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as nom. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support as GA reviewer. Article is well done and interesting. Alientraveller 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This statment -"The Joy of Sect" received generally positive reception in the press, and in books and analytical papers on The Simpsons.- seems a bit exagerated considering you don't have an aggregate review house, or at least enough reviews in the section to actually support the idea behind the statement. I'd simply just remove it, and merge those two weak paragraphs into one stronger paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - Thank you, that reads better. Cirt 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Someone might want to summarize the lead a little better, specifically the second paragraph, which basically restates what's in the "Reception" section almost verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I shortened that 2nd paragraph a bit more. Cirt 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - Very interesting information and very nicely written. Good job Curt! ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Cirt 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose- Article reads more as an essay or an op-ed piece than an encyclopedic article. There is an underlying current in the article, such as the introduction of the term "new religious movements" in a context that is not present in the sources provided, that makes this article one that could have been written by an anti-cult advocacy group, rather than being an article about a deliriously funny parody on the subject. It also fails to attribute many of the comparisons made, stating these as facts rather than opinions. The use of real photos from groups labeled as "cults" is another example of this subtle but ever-present undercurrent. (Can you imagine a photo of Jesus crucified in the article Simpsons_Bible_Stories, or a photo of the Pope in The Father, The Son & The Holy Guest Star?). Not ready for prime-time, unless rewritten. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, not ready yet.
  • There are still lots of punctuation errors, especially with regards to colons. I made a few changes, but I haven't combed through the entire article yet.
  • While taking Bart to the airport to see a local football team arrive after their defeat, Homer sees a man and a woman named Glen and Jane telling people about a new religion, the Movementarians. see...sees. More word variety.
  • Mr. Burns, learning that Movementarianism is gaining much popularity in Springfield, makes a new religion of his own. But the Springfieldians are convinced not to praise him as their new god when he catches fire. Some elaboration would be helpful. How does Burns catch on fire?
  • Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she knows it is stupid to say "The Leader" created everything Words like "stupid" just never sound right in an encyclopedia article.
  • There must be some negative criticism of this episode. I mean, it's the origin of "Jerkass Homer," right? Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes... another example is how Turner's book (Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation) has been carefully quote-mined for effect, missing important context such as the reference to the "Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be." and "Further evidence of pop's quasi-religious status is at any rate not hard to find." (both of these are in the chapter dedicated to this episode, p.270) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also misses the fact that this episode is used by the Farmington Institute (UK) for Christian religious education: "The Joy of Sect: This lesson is appropriate for KS 3-4 studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject."[30] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same treatment has been applied in the article to Irwin, Sklobe and Conrad's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Home, about which the journal Christian Century, (Nov 21, 2001) says: One of the wittiest and most successful shows on TV has attracted some clever commentators. Mark Pinsky, a religion reporter for a daily newspaper, documents the many religious elements in the show, and also notes that religion and religious adherents are fondly observed as well as relentlessly mocked on The Simpsons. Like many fans, he is struck by the way the show, for all its cynicism about mainstream values, often ends up affirming community and family, even a family as wildly dysfunctional as Homer and Marge's. But Carl Matheson, in one of the probing essays collected by philosopher William Irwin and colleagues, thinks the heartwarming aspects of the show merely disguise moral emptiness and a withering "hyper-irony." The comedy is based "less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary cleverer-than-thouness." With its avalanche of one-liners and its knowing stream of allusions to popular culture, the show exists only to advance the cult of one-upmanship--to mock everything and everyone for the sake of the next laugh. All of these writers are right about one thing: the wit and the en durance of The Simpsons are worth pondering.
Clearly it is great to have good sources, but sound editorial judgment about how to use these sources for a neutral presentation of a subject, is also required. Just having many sources available does not a good article make... That book is used as a source to assert that "The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle", is another example of pushing the editorializing a bit too far (read page 48 of that book to get a sense). The book is also used to support the very obvious WP:SYN, asserting that the book "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". This article is deserving of a serious re-write and maybe even a POV tag to boot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other dubious editorializing/ possible WP:SYN violations in the Themes section includes:
    • The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult" — when actually they do not use the term "new religious movement" or "cult" in that source. They use the term "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as "organized religion in general", which was conveniently removed from the cite: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." )
    • Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained...
    • Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him. For example, instead of traditional mathematics textbooks, the children on the compound learn from:" Arithmetic the Leader's Way and Science for Leader Lovers."
  • ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing this out, I will attempt to address some of the above points. Cirt 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Sure, take your time. I have not revised how other sources have been used in the article, but these will all need to be revised at a certain point. Given the serious problems with the ones I checked, I do not think that we can assume that this is not pervasive throughout the article. Maybe an in-depth review is the best way forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your opinions and personal input here are appreciated. I would also like to give time to see how others view the quality of this article at the present time. Evidently from above already, there are some that have differing viewpoints as to its present level of high quality. Cirt 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • Yes, an FAC review is not done until it is done. The feedback is assessed in its entirety as later comments may have an impact on earlier ones. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: - You are incorrect about the A.V. Club use, see [31]. The title of the segment on the episode is called: "11. Springfield joins a cult ("The Joy Of Sect," 1998)". I think we can safely say that since this is the title of the segment from the A.V. Club, that that is what they meant. Cirt 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have made my comments, which you are welcome to acknowledge or dismiss. That is up to you and other involved editors. The text says: The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult", which is an obvious WP:SYN violation. All you can say is "The A.V. Club described Springfield joining a cult" and then proceed to describe their use of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as referring to organized religion in general. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Well, I addressed that one point, which was easy enough, just quoted the exact name of The A.V. Club title of their segment, in the article. I will continue to try to work on some of the above more specific suggestions. Cirt 01:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really done... You forgot, again, to add the mention of organized religion in general. The full quote: The episode also references shadowy sects such as Scientology, the Moonies, the M.O.V.E. group, and organized religion in general: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this text that you edited, is again, WP:OR: However, the A.V. Club also noted the ambiguity of the term "cult", quoting Bart from the episode: "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." The AV club does not address any ambiguity at all. I do not understand what is the need for editorializing in that manner. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - More specific, removed "ambiguity" reference, added "organized religion" reference, and simply quoted from the Bart quote. Cirt 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think I have said enough already about this article, this page not being a discussion page for the article in question but an assessment of its state to become a Featured article. My opinion remains that it requires considerable work before re-submitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your opinion, and your input with us. As you can see, both Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and myself have begun to implement some of your changes. As we address some of the other suggestions from above, I will note them here, below. Cirt 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Added the Farmington Trust citation to the article, as suggested from above. Cirt 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yes, we all share input and opinions in these reviews. While you are it, you may consider adding the necessary context about the Farmington Trust. You missed the most important bit "studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject." Without it, your text does not mean much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - I added that exact quote, it's already there in the article. Cirt 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - I changed "Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained... " to "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained" - upon a suggestion from above. Cirt 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Added: Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time." -- to the "Themes" section, on a suggestion from above. Cirt 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Changed: "In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "The Joy of Sect" in analyzing Marge Simpson's virtuous personality traits. The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle." to: In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "escaping from a cult commune in 'The Joy of Sect'" as evidence of "Aristotle's virtuous personality traits in Marge." - using actual quotes from the book, to stay tighter to the source text. Upon suggestion from above. Cirt 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - I took out the sentence: "Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him.", and instead replaced it with - The Psychology of the Simpsons writes that "the Leader" is seen as an authority figure, because "He has knowledge or abilties that others do not, but want." - Per a suggestion from above to remove that prior sentence. Cirt 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support Curt, good writing. Jossi...your name sounds familiar, btw. Can't quite place it. I've seen his edits above and can't find fault with his research, approach to the topic, or flow. Jossi...Jossi...Where have I heard that name before. Someone refresh my memory. Anyway, strong support. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the first one to welcome you to Wikipedia (see your talk page), and you left a message on my talk page on your fifth day in Wikipedia baclk in August: [32]. You can always ask directly rather than asking "someone" :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Upon suggestion from above, changed usage of The Psychology of the Simpsons: D'oh! book. Removing the sentence: "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". - and replaced instead with a direct quote from the book itself. Cirt 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • More issues: This text: "Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time" is another example of editorializing. The book used as a source makes two different statements which the editor of the article conflated into one by mistake. Page 42 of the book has two different statements, the first one:

"We are watching Fox" they chant. As 5F23 ends, there is little doubt of the the identity of the the true high-growth quasi religious cult of our time.

...which clearly refers to Television.
The second statement is from a paragraph down the page:

It is not just TV—although with one study estimating that the average American TV is on for seven hours a forth minutes each day, TV's certainly a primary pulpit for many of this cult's major deities. But beyond the chattering household cyclops, there are a host of other demigods and churches in the pantheon. There are movies and video games, musicians and authors, sports teams and fashion designers. This is the great and good Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be.

It is this disregard for staying close to the sources and the indulging in dubious editorializing that worries me about this article. Or is it maybe a lack of attention to detail in the rush to get this article to FA status? As said before, all sources in that article will need to be verified as it pertains to their use ain the article text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - I split the above referenced sentence into two separate sentences - one referring to the "Cult of Pop", and the other referring to the Television analysis. Thanks for pointing that out. Your opinions about "dubious editorializing" are noted, and we are working on addressing specific points that you bring up, as you may note from above. Cirt 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is great that these things are getting fixed, but given the problems that were identified, would not be wise to do a thorough check of the article and resubmitting at a later date? I do not think I should invest all my wiki-time this week to check all other sources. That is for editors that want this article to be a FA to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are other editors above that disagree with you, and feel that the article is currently of a high quality at present time, and not "editorialized", as you put it, I think it is best at this point in time to let the FA run its course, and hopefully get some input from other editors that have not yet voiced their own opinions on this FAC page. Cirt 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hmmmm.... How can these editors disagree with me? My concerns where raised after their comments. In any case, this would be for the FAC director to assess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would certainly be for the FAC director to assess. However, I am simply stating that the majority of the text in this FAC so far has been from one editor. It would simply be interesting to wait and see what other editors think of the article's quality status at the present time. Cirt 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, no problem. My concerns are hopefully well presented already. I would also argue that there is a need for some quality time to elapse between getting GA status to applying for FA review. A few days (in this case just a week) may not be enough for an article to get to a stage that is worth presenting to FAC. Not all GA articles are worth to be FAC, and those that do may need further work before submitting to FA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet more issues: This text The book noted that an exploitation of group mentality is used during the six-hour Movementarian indoctrination film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish . There is no mention of "exploitation of group mentality" in that book, again a too free hand in editorializing. I think that the article should be delisted from GA, so that the material in the article can be re-assessed against the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Addressed Jossi (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, from above, re: the "groupthink" reference. Changed it to a direct quote from the book, so there is no ambiguity here:

The book noted the techniques used during the six-hour Movementarian recruitment film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish. They are, however, questioned in front of the group as to specifically why they wish to leave, and these individuals end up staying to finish watching the film. This spotlight is then described as "subtle pressure," in contrast to the "razor wire, landmines, angry dogs, crocodiles and evil mystery bubble Marge confronts to escape, while being reminded again that she is certainly free to leave.

Cirt 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Jossi (talk · contribs) -- All I am noting is that you have made (29) out of the total (64) edits or so to this FAC page. It might be helpful for you to take a break, take a breather for a bit, and let other individual editors provide some input here. As you can see, your suggestions have been noted and implemented into the article. But it might be a good idea to step back abit and allow others the chance to voice their opinions as well. Cirt 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is a wiki, so others are not impeded to post their opinions as well, and by the look of it my 29 comments to this FAC review have removed problems that no one found before. Stepping back is needed in edit wars or when the edit gets hot, which is obviously not the case here. (A "thank you," rather than a "go away" would have been more appropriate here, don't you think?) In any case I have already made my point, and despite the fixes you made to the problems I found, the use of all other sources will need to be checked as well on the same basis and in the same manner given the concerns raised. There are 20 sources in the article, and only a couple have been checked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jo, I wanna work on this article with Curt and Scorp, and just watching the exchange above, I need some breathing room, please. I think if you stepped back and looked, it seems as though you have some real feelings about this article. I dunno if it's the Simpsons or the topic, but it does look like an edit war. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit the article to your heart's content. This page is not an article, but a discussion about the status of the article to be considered for featured article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no one is asking you to "go away", that was your own personal interpretation. Merely to step back and take a break, take a breather, and allow others to post their personal opinions as you have done. Cirt 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My comments were neither "opinions" nor "suggestions". They were all factual problems with the article, mainly poor use of sources, misinterpretation of sources, original research violations dressed up as representation of sources, and other poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the section, and I'm not sure what you're concerns are. I have read several of the books, and the subjects there are discussed in them. I'll admit that the section is rather disorganized, but I don't think it's as bad on the OR as you claim it is. -- Scorpion0422 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not now, Scorpion, as the most obvious problems have been identified and corrected. My concern is about the other sources that have not checked. Basically, how can one trust now that the other sources used in the article have not been misrepresented? Can we safely assume the other sources have not been misinterpreted? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But under your logic, almost every single article relating to religion or with any kind of analysis/themes section would be unable to reach FA status due to those concerns. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, Scorpio. An article is an article is an article, and the requirements for FAC status are the same regardless of subject. I am not arguing that this article cannot get to FA status, it surely can. But it needs to be revised against the sources with a fine tooth comb, given the problems found already. After that is done, it can be re-submitted for review again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read criteria (c) on WP:FA? (my highlight):
c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
My argument is that, given the few sources I checked which where not accurately represented, we cannot assume that other sources used have been accurately represented. Thus, my call for a thorough review, and a later re-submission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you started this out with My argument is that, because all along this is your own opinion about the use of these sources and their accurate representation in the article. Your suggestions have been implemented and I did not raise any objections to your interpretation of the sources, however they are still your own opinions about them, and your own opinions do not denote "fact" and are not a ruling about actual "problems" - merely your own perceptions about the use of the sources themselves. Cirt 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

<<<<< I have made my arguments, and do not see the need to repeat them. I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections. In this regards, my view remains that other sections of the article would also benefit from a thorough check for assessing if it accurately represents the sources used or not. Good luck with the article, and if any of the involved editors want to engage me in discussing further aspects of this article, please ping me on my talk. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thanks go out to Bignole (talk · contribs), for your wise words on both my and Jossi (talk · contribs)'s talk page about ending this back and forth discussion, which was taking up 84% of the FAC page. Thank you Bignole, much appreciated. I think we have both gotten your message, and I will continue to address concerns if other editors bring them up here. I am glad that Jossi stated above: "I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections." That is appreciated. Cirt 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment What are "embedded references to popular culture"? How are they different from regular references to popular culture? Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the following sentence could use some elaboration: In Ned Flanders's rumpus room, Marge brings back her children by promising them hover-bikes, which turn out to be fake. Zagalejo^^^ 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at rewording it. Is it better? -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should have been more clear. The last part ("which turn out to be fake") is what seems vague to me. I haven't watched this episode in a while, so I honestly don't remember exactly what happens in that scene. Zagalejo^^^ 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Addressing some of Zagalejo (talk · contribs)'s points, I removed the word "embedded" the sentence works fine without it, and I changed the "hover-bikes" sentence, using a dash instead of a comma, improves readability a tad. If this is still unclear, we can break it up into two sentences, explaining exactly what Marge did. Cirt 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the hoverbikes thing is still somewhat vague. Did Marge merely say she had hoverbikes? Did she tempt the kids with something that looked/sounded like a hoverbike... ? Zagalejo^^^ 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I added a 2nd sentence, to make that portion more clear. Cirt 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
OK, better. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cirt 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • More comments
  • Our discussion of the Mr. Burns subplot seems kind of tacked on. Is there a better way to mention it without ruining the flow of the "Plot" section?
  • The children initially resist brainwashing, but Glen and Jane have their ways: Bart is taken by their Li'l Bastard Brainwashing Kit; Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she disagrees with saying that "The Leader" created everything; and Maggie is brainwashed by Barney the Dinosaur. Two comments: 1) Some explanation of what the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit" actually is might be useful. Even casual fans may not recognize that "Lil' Bastard" is a running gag on the show. 2) It might be nice to describe the Movementarian school system in slightly more detail before describing how Lisa was brainwashed. Just for clarity's sake.
  • Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; Lovejoy throws his collar on the ground and stomps on it. When I first read this, I thought that "he" referred to Homer. Unclear pronoun antecedent.
  • Is it Fox or FOX? we use both in the article.
I have to run now, but I'll have more to say later.Zagalejo^^^ 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Expanded the section on Mr. Burns as the leader of his own new religious movement, per suggestion from Zagalejo (talk · contribs). Will work on the other three suggestions as well. Cirt 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Expanded the plot section with an explanation of the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit", as well as an explanation of how Lisa was brainwashed. Trying not to make the plot too long with all these new explanations, but you're right, a little clarity for the reader is a good thing. Cirt 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; - Replaced the pronoun here with "The Leader", for clarity. Cirt 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Replaced instances of "Fox" in the article with "FOX" - except inside of the citations that refer to "20th Century Fox", in that case I think it's okay to leave it as is. Cirt 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support now, and after the substantial corrections that have been made since the nomination, and thanks to the work of all involved, the article is in good shape, so I change my comment to support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more comments I've been fiddling around with the prose, and I'll probably be fiddling with it for at least a few more days, so any comments or questions about that are welcome. In the meantime, here are some content related issues:
  • Is the Rover actually a "vehicle", as described in the lead?
  • I noticed that I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide notes that the episode is "another one where the central joke isn't strong enough to last the whole episode". I think we should include that quote in the reception section, since it'd be nice to mention some criticism of the episode. Zagalejo^^^ 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rover is discussed in more detail at the article on Rover (The Prisoner). I don't think this particular article would be a good place to get into great detail on that, simply to say that there was a reference to it is enough, we don't want to get too descriptive and tangential. Cirt 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • We don't really have to add any more details about it; I was just wondering if "vehicle" is the proper term to use. Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears per the article Rover (The Prisoner), that yes, it is. I suppose "device" or "security device" would also work. Cirt 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done, added the quote from I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, as suggested above by Zagalejo (talk · contribs). Cirt 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Another comment Here's something that shouldn't be too hard to fix. I noticed in the "Themes" section that we switch back and forth between the present tense and the past tense. When you're talking about the content of books, you generally use the present tense. Zagalejo^^^ 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - Changed most of the tenses to present tense, left, I think one reference in past tense, but it actually reads okay. Cirt 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support — Well written, well referenced. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Some comments
  • I think this is misleading (from the lead): Homer and Bart are initially introduced to a pair of young Movementarians recruiters in an airport. They both become brainwashed, and Homer moves his family into the cult compound. The way the sentences are organized, you'd think that Homer and Bart were brainwashed before the whole family moved to the compound. In fact, Bart wasn't brainwashed until later.
  • I don't think we're always clear that O'Donnell is merely the credited writer. That seems to be an important point to make, since three other writers had a substantial role in building this episode. Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Addressed one point - fixed intro sentence, it's only Homer that becomes brainwashed at first, the rest of the family don't get brainwashed til after they move into the cult compound. Cirt 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Addressed second point - Made it clear that Steve O'Donnell was the lead writer on the episode, not just the only writer. Cirt 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • More comments
  • There are still tense problems in the "Themes" section. A sentence like "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained..." should be in the present tense; we're describing the contents of a book. (That sentence is rather awkward, anyway. Recast it in the active voice, and find a single-word replacement for "pointed out".)
  • I'm also concerned about the general organization in the "Themes" section. None of the paragraphs (except for the last) have a clear, unifying idea. They're just hodgepodges of quotes from different books, and they're somewhat difficult to read. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much I'd be able to do with that section myself, since I only own the Turner book.
  • What exactly is the "Farmington Trust", as mentioned in the "Reception" section? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Okay, okay, I will address these three more points, from above, and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I hope you can appreciate that we have done a lot of work on the article itself, and it's been improved significantly due to your many above suggestions. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I know you've been working hard, and I don't mean to discourage you. I just think certain things could still be better. Zagalejo^^^ 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Wills, who has died aged 86, founded the Farmington Trust, which supports the teaching of religious education, and was a well-known figure in west of England sporting circles. Wills started the Trust in 1965 to support, encourage and improve Christian education in schools, colleges and universities. By enabling teachers and ministers of religion to take a sabbatical at university, it has played an important part in the professional development of many, and has helped to transform religious education into one of the fastest growing disciplines in the school curriculum.

"Bobby Wills - Telegraph". Retrieved 2007-11-19. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Modified the "Farmington Trust" sentence to address the 3rd of the recent points made by User:Zagalejo. Will address the other points shortly. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - I recast the sentence discussed above by User:Zagalejo, into the active voice, and found a better replacement for "pointed out". Cirt (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • As to the point by Zagalejo about the "Themes" section, I think the progression is fine. The first paragraph is simply the various "new religious movements" spoofed in the episode, as analyzed in secondary sources. The second explains the psychology and tactics used by the Movementarians, and the third, you already said was fine. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, maybe someone else will chime in. I still think they're kind of unfocused. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph has nothing to do with what follows. (And is that all The Simpsons and Philosophy says about the episode? If so, then we probably don't need to discuss that book at all.)
The prose in the "Themes" section also needs more streamlining. Look at this sentence, for example: The A.V. Club analyzes the group in the episode in a piece called "Springfield joins a cult" and then describes The Simpsons portrayal of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups," and notes that the episode discussed Scientology, Heaven's Gate, the Unification Church, and organized religion in general, quoting Bart as saying, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." That could probably be as many as three separate sentences. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence preceding that one needs some work, too: Similar concepts utilized by the "Sect" in the episode and Scientology include similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard, references to a Sea Org uniform, a "Trillion year labor contract" instead of the Sea Org's Billion year contract, and the use of litigation in both groups. Are the "similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard" a "concept"? Are "references to a Sea Org uniform" a "concept"? Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I will address these issues by Zagalejo, from above, and note them here, below, shortly. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    •  Done - I split a sentence apart into 2 sentences, from a suggestion from Zagalejo (talk · contribs), above. Will address the 2nd point. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    •  Done - I addressed the second point from Zagalejo (talk · contribs), you're right, the word "concepts" did not work here, fixed up the syntax in that sentence a bit. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I think we could elaborate on this a little bit: Planet Simpson discusses The Simpsons' approach to deprogramming in the episode, and contrasts it with the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" used in the episode "Burns' Heir." We should try to summarize what the book says about deprogramming. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the suggestion. I will take a second look at the information in that book and revisit that sentence shortly. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        •  Done - Added some more info from Turner's Planet Simpson to explain the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" bit. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Inconsistent placement of final punctuation before/after closing quotation marks. MOS insists on the logical method: after (unless you need to make a point that this is part of the quotation). Please fix throughout. Tony (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, you are correct, should all be after, as per MOS, I usually use after, so not sure why this is the case, but I will fix it. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      •  Done - Thanks for mentioning that. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 22 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

South Side (Chicago)[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Wells was a very prominent African American. Also, I am trying to get as many images as possible on the right side since that is the preferred side for images. I view at 1680x1050 and this is the max that will fit without leaking into the notes section. Moving it up to the demographics makes it fit without squeezing the notes section while keeping it on the right. Note the image caption mentions the Bronzeville neighborhood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a run-through by a copy-editor. In particular, there are patches of awkward wording. Here are a few exmples.

  • So have you found someone to assist with a prose audit thoughout? Looks as though you just fixed the samples I provided above. Tony (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) It has improved. Tony (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far (this is a rebooted FAC), Zagalejo has been doing so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I haven't done a proper copyedit just yet. I've simply browsed through the article a few times and identified some of the most glaring problems. Before we can really concentrate on the prose quality, there are some factual issues to deal with, like our original interpretations of some of the maps. (For example, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. We need a source that explicitly says that.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well written and comprehensive article.--Grahamec (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the article is great. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Tony :) I've been very busy lately. Cheers! ( arky ) 03:27, 22 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Bobby Eaton[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a really well written, well sourced article. It's been reviewed and copyedited by numerous editors and it's got sources, format etc. down pat. It's a great article all in all MPJ-DK 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral The article has improved a great deal since it was nominated. I think some sections could still use a bit of a copyedit, but overall it has become a nice article and appears to be very comprehensive and understandable to non-wrestling fans. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I think the article needs a good copyediting by someone who isn't a wrestling fan. I've tried to highlight phrases that weren't immediately clear and also point out a few places where the prose did not flow well, but I would recommend that you get the League of Copyeditors to take a look at it. There is a lot of overall wordiness (using three sentences when one would do, or five words instead of two) as well as some passages that read more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.
    • In the first paragraph of the lead, every sentence begins with "Eaton" or "He". Can this be mixed up a bit?
    • Do you have any information on his early life that does not relate to wrestling? Is there information on his parentage or whether he has siblings? Any information on why he wanted to become a wrestler?
      • I got nothing at all, not even unreliable sources :( MPJ-DK 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was worth asking...if the information isn't available, then it obviously can't be included. Karanacs
    • Need a source for the fact that he trained under Tojo Yamamoto (last sentence of paragraph under Wrestling career)
    • I have no idea what this means "elevate Eaton's name up the card position in the promotion "
      •  Done Clarified by linking to the definition of card. Nikki311 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of early career seems really choppy and doesn't flow well.
    • "first title win ever" is redundant
    • Is their information on why Eaton stopped working with Poffo and decided to work with Gulas (and is that Gulas related to Nick Gulas)?
      •  Done No information that I know of no, definitely nothing reliable or "Neutral". George Gulas is Nick Gulas' son (which I'm adding to the article, good point) MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the first time the article mentions someone, that person should only be referred to by their surname. That means that instead of "Bobby Eaton" he should be referred to only as "Eaton".
    • Need a citation for the last sentence of first paragraph in section As a single competitor which refers to "world wide fame"
      •  Done I'd a dope for not realizing that. The chapter in the book in general supports the "world wide fame" statement as they're known to wrestling fans world wide, even today. MPJ-DK 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "found himself working" does not seem like good prose -> could it be "Worked"?
    • This sentence doesn't work "During his early days in the promotion, Eaton often faced the young Stan Lane in tag team competition, a person that would appear again later in Eaton's career"
    • "It was decided that Eaton and Sugar should split up"...who decided?
    • First paragraph of Midnight Express section doesn't flow well
    • How did the series of matches against the Rock n Roll Express differ "from the way tag team wrestling was traditionally presented"?
      •  Done The explanation of how it differed is a bit "wrestling fan" centric, so I re-wrote it to be about how well received the series of matches were, something which is more easily accessible to fans and non fans alike. MPJ-DK 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of Midnight Express section is not sourced and doesn't appear to actually add much to the section. I'd remove it.
    • The second paragraph of National spotlight section does not flow well. "left JCP from one day to the next" doesn't make sense, and "Enter a man from Eaton's past" seems a little too melodramatic for an encyclopedia article. I think you could distill this paragraph down to "In early 1987 Condrey left JCP for undisclosed reasons, and "Sweet" Stan Lane took his place as part of the Midnight Express." Then add the next paragraph in.
    • "after teaming for only a few months, the combination of Eaton and Lane" is a little wordy
    • It's usually not good to have a see also in the middle of a sentence. Either reword to be a part of the sentence or leave out the Brain Busters part)
    • Express' should be Express's (see WP:MOS#Possessives)
      • The link seems to indicate that either is fine, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was the end of an era in tag team wrestling" seems a little unnecessary and POVish - can it go?
    • " proving to everyone " is weaselly
    • Why was that his "biggest night as a singles wrestler"?
      •  Done Changed it to "highest profile match as a singles wrestler" GaryColemanFan 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citations for second paragraph of fired and hired section - Benoit's first stint, "series of good matches", and the way they were used, as well as "never showed any signs of being considered as a permanent team" all need to be cited.
      •  Done Changed the subjective "looked good" line and cited it. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for the fact that he rejected the snob gimmick, because he could have left for other reasons.
      •  Done I should have made it clear that he rejected it "in storyline terms", since otherwise it indicates that it was Eaton's own wish to end it and not a booked decission. Good catch MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for last paragraph of Blue Bloods - "wreselted mainly ...to help make stars higher on the card than him look good"
      •  Done I changed the wording so that it's not the subjective "look good" phrase to mainly indicate that he lost to wrestlers who the promotion were pushing. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for first paragraph of after WCW section -> "select independent wrestling cards"
      •  Done the OVW profile page provides an overview of the "Midnight Express Retirement tour" dates and as such works as a reference. MPJ-DK 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The personal section does not flow well between paragraphs
    • Do you have page numbers for the book citations? It is best to include page numbers so that it is easier for people to verify the information.
      • I do have the page numbers, well I will once I dig the book out of whatever box I stuck it in. Is a page range okay since most of the information is from one chapter? MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  DoneI added the page range and the chapter I found stuff in and made specific citations if I got information from other chapters. MPJ-DK 15:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe that a reference may have been improperly formatted, as this appears in the main body of the article;"</ref name=tagbook>". Other than this minor error it looks really well written --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup I messed that up, but I fixed it again MPJ-DK 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe that this article meets the criteria for Featured Articles. It give a comprehensive description of Eaton's career (and personal life, where information is available) in a neutral and well-written article. It is well-sourced, and I can't find any problems with MOS guidelines. GaryColemanFan 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the subject matter is trivial and badly written eg ...Eaton is known as a generous and genuinely nice man. Who says? Even if he doesn't have any character traits that are less than exemplary does this sort of "fact" belong in a encyc? Albatross2147 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you had continued reading, that statement is sourced by two books in the next two sentences. Is the subject matter as a whole trivial and demeaning? Do you have any constructive criticism to improve the "bad" writing? Your comments (including the ones on Talk:Montreal Screwjob, another wrestling-related Featured Article that you have commented as being badly written and trivial) would be better if they including suggestions for improving the articles, not just putting them down. Nikki311 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "triviality" of this article is because it's about "Pro wrestling"? Not an objection I can take seriously, sorry. And "badly written" is apparently your definition of "supported by citations"? Your objection is not about the actual language, format or anything else - you object to the subject, not the content. How can I take that seriously? MPJ-DK 13:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Albatross2147, it's pretty obvious you hate professional wrestling. Please don't attempt to disrupt FAC's by making a point. Davnel03 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You have already demonstrated your bias against wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. I hate to break your heart, but this is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Unless you can definitively demonstrate that this is a poorly written article, then your vote is irrelevant. The Hybrid T/C 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - LAX 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very well done article. FamicomJL 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good article (And I've had a word with Albatross and Excalibur....) Vampire Warrior 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written, well sourced. Bmg916Speak 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - despite the threats left on my talk page by the charming Vampire Warrior I want to point out in the interest of fairness and balance that the article is not comprehensive in that it does not seem to mention that the subject has not been tainted by any suggestion of steriod use unlike his tag team chums. Albatross2147 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I have not looked over your talk page, but I will go on the record as saying that I do not condone threats in any form against any user, and any users who practice such things should be ashamed of themselves for potentially damaging the credibility of the other members in their project. Anyway, it seems pointless to point out things that haven't happened. I could list some examples, but I can't figure out how to word them in a way that won't sound sarcastic. I will say that it isn't notable that he hasn't been accused of steroid use, since the number of wrestlers that haven't vastly outnumber those that have been accused of such things. The Hybrid T/C 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That he's not been "tainted" is original research, find a source that specifically says "Bobby Eaton has not been linked to steroids", otherwise it can't be added. And weren't you complaining about trivia? Since that's what it is. I'm failing to see the "fairness & balance" in that, we can throw in that he's never been accused of molesting children nor has he in any way been linked to Nazi war crimes. MPJ-DK 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to say cross dresser, or transsexual, but that seemed like a bad idea :P, so I didn't. The Hybrid T/C 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL I've never let the fact that something was a bad idea stop me ;) MPJ-DK 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - because the subject matter is really boring and I nearly fell asleep following the obscure twists and turns of this man's stage managed and completely mediocre career as a showman. If failure is the same as notability, then this career scores 10/10. Excalibur 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just going to paraphrase what The Hybrid said above in response to opposes based on the subject matter itself,

Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You are clearly showing your bias against professional wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. This is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and to show your inherent bias toward a particular subject matter. The subject matter may not be boring at all to others. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bmg. Indeed, the subject of the article is entirely irrelevant, unless it is deletion material, which it is not. This is to judge how well it is written, and making the argument that this article doesn't deserve to be featured because it is about a wrestler is like saying someone doesn't deserve to be paid because they are black. I grow weary of these subjectist arguments. Perhaps we should set up a form of Featured Article Affirmative Action to make sure these arguments never rear their discriminatory heads ever again. The Hybrid T/C 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems to follow the guidelines and it is well written. --Crazy4metallica 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I as many will agree think he was a good wrestler, I however think he's not noteworthy enough for a featured artilce. If my dad who's watched wrestling for something like 30-40 years can't remember him why would someone from todays genderation no who he was their too young, unless they started watching it when they were just little. --Crash Underride 17:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter that your dad doesn't remember him? Is that the grounds for notability? Because I'd take a wild guess and say that there are several FA's that shouldn't have become FA's just because someone hasn't "heard" of them. I for one, have never heard of Sophie Blanchard, Honoré de Balzac, or Karnataka, and yet all three of those articles are FA's that in this month have appeared on the main page. Does that make them any less worthy of being FA's? The answer is a resounding, catergorically "NO". I've never heard of this guy either, and neither has my dad, who was watching wrestling since before Hogan rose to prominence, and yet that doesn't mean this article is not worthy of FA. Please, to all people that do not like pro wrestling: DO NOT RESPOND. Your bias, quite honestly, reminds me of the problem the United Nations faced during the Cold War. It was very hard for them to get anything done because the US and the Soviet Union would keep vetoing each other because they were biased against each other. That's what I see here. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, my vote is Support -- the article is well-written, well-sourced, and easy to read. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Marcus Trescothick[edit]

previous FAC

Please don't forget to see the previous FAC. Many of the comments there were addressed, and no opposes were outstanding. It's a comprehensive, well written article and I think deserves a shot at FA. Comments will be appreciated. Thankyou! SGGH speak! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....Anyone? SGGH speak! 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Resolved stuff from Buc
  • "Trescothick was outshone by Michael Vaughan" I think "Michael Vaughan outshined Trescothick" would be better. Done
  • "Marcus Trescothick's Test match career performance graph." Could be better worded  Done
  • "included eight fifties and two centuries" link fifties and centuries. Done there doesn't seem to be an article for half centuries that I can find, I have linked centuries though
  • "NatWest Final" why the capital F? Done fixed
  • "was second only to that of John Crawley" what? In the whole world? Done in england, I have better explained it
  • "His Under-19 aggregate" what is an aggregate?  Done number of runs scored over the year, I have explained it
  • "Trescothick impressed Glamorgan coach Duncan Fletcher" ditto  Done
  • "who was playing in his 100th Test." nothing to do with Trescothick  Done I agree
  • "there was "poise and durability...just as there had been enterprise and verve to his impressive start in the One-day arena." who said this? Done attributed
  • "sole" I think "first and, as of 2007, only" would be better. Done
  • "he was often criticised for a lack of foot movement" needs ref [16] refs that
  • "2004 and 2005, the Ashes" sounds like there was an Ashes series in 2004. Also lose "the". Done
  • "average was over twenty" 20  Done
  • "Trescothick said "I wouldn't say I've put it to rest, but I've made a big step forward to putting it to rest. It's a mental battle for me, something I have to deal with and work hard to try to understand what is different." no quotation marks and why the indent? I happens again two paragraphs later.  Done both were a little short and snippty for blockquotes, rather than being seperated chunks of text
  • "Young Australia" was that really what they were called?
Yes - scorecard –MDCollins (talk)
    • "This rich vein of form" WW
Removed –MDCollins (talk)
    • "amassing an impressive 288 runs" here we've got both. Also impressive is POV
Removed –MDCollins (talk)
  • "received support from...the late Bob Woolmer." how can you gain support from someone whose dead? Because he wasn't dead when he said it? That seems obvious to me...
    • In that case "the late" is redundent. Buc 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Someone reading this article might not know what ODI stands for.  Done It is explained in the lead paragraph
    • Could do with explaining it again it each section. Buc 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more, It's quite frequent now (One-day is spelled out at least 12 times in the article.–MDCollins (talk)
  • "century-maker Adam Gilchrist" I think "Adam Gilchrist who has made a century" would be better I personally think the latter sounds more clumsy but will see what MdCollins says
I prefer the former...–MDCollins (talk)
    • Only use one of "fifty" and "half century".
I don't see why this matters...–MDCollins (talk)
Consistency is important. Buc 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having checked with word finder now, I can only find one instance where fifty is used, half-century being used in all others, and that fifty is "only once that season did he reach fifty" and I have changed that. SGGH speak! 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. All gone now. –MDCollins (talk)
  • "his demons from the previous Ashes" WW  Done reworded
  • "Trescothick's uncertainty over his place in the England squad has drawn varied criticism." needs ref.
I've moved the next reference ("Langar hits back at critics") back a sentence, as it details some negative critics as well. Don't forget that criticism is either positive or negative.–MDCollins (talk)
  • "Though it was not an easy debut for Trescothick" why wasn't it easy?
Fair point. It seems adequately explained by the early wickets loss in the previous sentenced. Removed. –MDCollins (talk)
    • "Several low scores" what is a low score?
Clarified. Is that ok? –MDCollins (talk)
    • "Several low scores" what is a low score?
Clarified. Is that ok? –MDCollins (talk)
  • "Domestically, 1995 was not as successful" how was it not as successful?
Perhaps 'statistically...': Average only 19 compared to 49. 1 century/1 half compared with 1 century/8 half-centuries. Does this need to be mentioned/footnoted? –MDCollins (talk)
I would say mention it. SGGH speak! 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the batting-by-season reference. –MDCollins (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trescothick's Test match debut came later that summer in the third Test against the West Indies at Old Trafford, as a result of his good form in the NatWest series." switch this round so the NatWest series bit comes first. Also this is a bit of a run-on sentence. Done
  • Personal life section should be at the bottom.The other FAC seemed to disagree with this, it's a point of contention, I will wait for further input
    • I thought that before, but it was 6 of one, half-dozen... Maybe. Is it critical? –MDCollins (talk)
    It would be the way I would do it because it's a less notable topic. Buc 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a stange mixture throughout of say thing like "Impressive" or "poor" and just giving the raw stats. For exsample:
      • I think if you're going to say "century" and "half century" you should also give the exact score. Especially since it sometimes gives the exact score but doesn't mention that it's century or half century. When the specific number is given it doesn't need to also be said to be over 50 or 100, its obvious... but I see what you mean re: the other point. Will see what MDCollins says
    I'm not sure of the problem. It isn't always necessary to put half-century (57) or 103. Too many numbers make it more difficult reading whereas a century fits into the prose easier. –MDCollins (talk)
    I would say use both like say: "(half) century (xx)" Buc 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest giving the exact score for large centuries? Because 145 is much more significant than 101, so we could have 145-run century or something. However an 86-run half century doesn't really make sense because you are just saying "an 87 run fifty. Either leave it as half century or have the actual score, not both? SGGH speak! 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think that doing that every time would be excessive. In any case, the words "half-century"/"century" would be redundant, meaning somebody would come along later and say remove them and leave the numbers. This would break up the prose/article too much, and are there not enough numbers and figures anyway, without adding to it? Just saying half-century/century is common practice in news articles/match right-ups in the national press without needing the score in brackets as well. I think there is a good mix and variation here, and in any case the important (large scores) are given as exact figures. The difference between, for example a 57-run half-century, and a 62 run innings isn't enough to warrant mention other than both being 'half-centuries'. No? –MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "his form in the West Indies was mixed" then later in the paragraph "267 runs including 130 in the 5th ODI and 82 from 57 balls" I think that it was mixed because it contained very poor and very good performances, those being the good ones
    Agreed. –MDCollins (talk)
    • Career records and statistics section seems a bit excessive and a lot of it doesn't appear to be referenced. All the stats are ref'd that I can see, either in the coloumn headers or otherwise by the stats. The use of statistics is in keeping with other FA cricketer articles
      • One-day International Records, Man of the match awards and Man of the Series awards, don't appear to have a ref. The links under "record" one box right of each man of the match occurrence are refs to the scorecard on which the man of the match is recorded, as with Paul Collingwood SGGH speak! 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They appear to be External links. Buc 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As SGGH said, there is nothing more excessive than other cricket FAs, and it is all at the bottom after all of the prose in any case. –MDCollins (talk)

    Buc 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments Buc, they are really useful! I have addressed those that I can. Hopefully MdCollins will come along and take care of the rest. Cheers SGGH speak! 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'll have a look later! –MDCollins (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Thanks Buc, there are a couple I've commented on which are still outstanding, but most have been addressed if you are happy. Please comment further about the rest. –MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Problem with ref #7. Buc (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some stuff about his style of play here and there, but I think there needs to be a section about it. Buc (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Article says, "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English opener on debut". WG Grace, Plum Warner, SC Griffith and Colin Milton all scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman. See:[33] Phanto282 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Ah, which part of "scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman" didn't you understand? Phanto282 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ah yes, it seems I am blind! I went to the source after I read the names then got distracted. :) SGGH speak! 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This source, a news article, is where we got that information from. I suspect we will have to remove that information now. Will wait for MdCollins to see this. Thanks Phanto. SGGH speak! 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, a very interesting spot there Phanto. I wonder if the quotation should read "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English [left-handed] opener on debut"? No, Moxon was right-handed. Maybe it was a time thing, or the highest score for an England opener on debut since 1986. Oh well, it seems a bit dubious. Feel free to remove it. –MDCollins (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have done so SGGH speak! 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Under “Early domestic career”

    • Article has Trescothick promoted to Somerset opener in 1995; this happened in 1994
    Removed. It's unnecessary anyway,
    • Eng U/19 v RSA 1995 was played in Eng, not SA
    Done–MDCollins (talk)
    • He also played for Eng U/19 v WI in 1993, in Sri Lanka 1994, & v India in 1994
    Done–MDCollins (talk)
    • Denis Compton award is given to the most promising player at each county club, not to the most promising young county player
    Yes, thanks. Amended. –MDCollins (talk)
    • Duncan Fletcher might have been impressed with his innings v Glamorgan, but surely it is the panel of selectors who select him for England?
    But Fletcher has his influences, and in this case I think it is well documented that the knock against Glamorgan secured his call up–MDCollins (talk)

    Other “Trescothick did not score highly in the tournament, and England were knocked out at the quarter-final stage against South Africa. Despite these disappointing performances, Trescothick was named the PCA Player of the Year for his performances throughout 2000” The PCA award is for county performances, not international performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanto282 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, for that one, didn't realise that. Have clarified –MDCollins (talk)

    Support The improvement in this article has been excellent. Well done to the editors for their persistence. Phanto282 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. As good as the other cricket biography featured articlse. -- !! ?? 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support--comprehensive and well written. Good work.--Eva bd 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Weak Oppose Comments - beginning to look through...there are some real flow issues with the prose, and some odd words - a little vernacular in places which I am trying to fix or highlight - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::erm though redlinks are not a deal-breaker, having two in the lead is a little disconcerting***Gone. There were more created by User:!! that he failed to correct, but I've done them now.–MDCollins (talk) ::I must say I am not fond of having "stress-related illness" written as such in the lead. To me it carries a connotation of disbelief in what is quoted and hence (maybe unintentionally) veers away from NPOV. I'd substitute with something like - what he reported as as stress-related illness or something similar.

        • That is a direct quote, rather than one of emphasis, and just makes it clear that only Trescothick knows exactly what it was, so we can't be more specific than what the references say...–MDCollins (talk)
    Ok, on second thoughts I concede it is/was a difficult topic to do anything other than comment as such, yet is important enough to go in lead but tricky to do other than what's been done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    displaying a calm temperament.. - eeww. I'd change it but I can't think of an alternative at the moment.
        • Can't see what's wrong with it, would you elaborate?–MDCollins (talk)
    Just sounds odd - temperament means characterological profile, for a lifetime not an innings, maybe I'd use composure or composed or something similar.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    when seemingly well set - ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • removed seemingly. "well set" is now in quotation marks, as it is in the source.
    opportunity to to shine -too colloquial -maybe "excel" is better but have a think on't.
        • changed.
    highly satisfactory tournament - I normally like understatement but this sounds odd...
        • Yeah, I just read through the article again and removed that anyway, so agreed. It's gone. –MDCollins (talk)

    OK, I have tweaked or suggested above what needs doing. Will check in later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The redlinks were my fault; now fixed. As for the rest, the more people that read and copyedit, the better :) -- !! ?? 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Casliber. I've addressed your points, and several other minor issues if you'd care to take another look. –MDCollins (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Much improved; a few things—
      • 40 then 16.00 – wouldn't you give consistent numbers of decimal places? Occurs elsewhere too.
        • That particular example is "over 40.... then 16.00" so there its unnecessary to say "over 40.00", SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone and put exact (2 decimal place) averages in instead of the rough "over 40" etc. I think I've got them all. –MDCollins (talk)
      • May-June: see MOS on en dashes.
      • "Half-centuries"—perhaps no hyphen. Tony (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's perhaps not always a good idea to point to other FAs, but Paul Collingwood and Adam Gilchrist (many times in the latter) put the hyphen in half-century. Based on this I would be inclined to keep. SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cricinfo tends to use the hyphenated form, and both seem relatively prelevant. I think this may be a personal preference, so unnecessary to change. Unless, of course, you can find a source to suggest that it is grammatically incorrect.–MDCollins (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems quite well done. It mentions nothing regarding Flectchers comments in his autobiography, might be worth a look? Twenty Years 16:17, 21 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Presque Isle State Park[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA and shows some of the best wikipedia has to offer. There are not many FA's on state parks at the moment. It is related to FA Erie. —treyomg he's back 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support looks good. Well worth the read. Two suggestions though: 1) you have a few one liners in the article that could be combined with a paragraph, I would suggest doing so, and 2) If you find that the info from the article introduction is also in the article body I would suggest citing only the article body reference (I didn't notice this to be the case, but I sometimes read what I think is there and not what is ectually there, hence the comment :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "one liners" have been fixed. Thanks for catching that! Dincher 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose[Wowah! at changes][due to 1a, 1b]Looks okay, I wouldn't say good, and definitely not brilliant (not yet anyway).
    The fact that there are no FA's on state parks is irrelevant to whether this one deserves to.
    • Thanks for your feedback. I think the point was that there are no current FAs that are solely about a state park (and only Redwood National and State Parks is even partly about one), so there is no real state park FA model to follow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The writing style resembles that of a stub. It seems to include facts, but not quite integrate them, not to mention -it doesn't [resent the facts brilliantly, nor does it does not do it with the main topic in mind.
    History is missing large swathes of time.
    I added a bit about former waterworks at the park. I really don't know what else can be added to a peninsula that has been largely uninhabited.Dincher 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I have expanded History, added the lighthouses to it, and tried to rewrite / polish it, focusing on integration and the main topic. Any feedback would be very welcome. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Habitat lacks detail (perhaps linkable to flora/fauna of philadelphia[Pennsylvania, USA, Great Lakes]?). Notes the number of endangered species, but doesn't specify.
    Endangered species are mentioned in several sources, but these sources lack specifics. The mention of the endangered species has been removed for now. Dincher 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found that one of the species is the Piping plover. This newspaper article mentions them. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another useful source is Presque Isle Audubon Society, which lists recent rare bird sightings. As for the suggestions about flora and fauna being perhaps linkable to Philadelphia, Presque Isle is 300 miles (500 km) from Philadelphia, which is in the Atlantic Ocean tidal zone via the Delaware River, while Presque Isle is in the Great Lakes. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw the local Audubon site too, but I think alot of those birds are not endangered, their just not native to the area. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through it very carefully all but two of them listed as being spotted in the last year are rated LC - least concern the two are NT not threatened. I think that the DNCR is being a bit wordy or overstating the facts. -- Dincher (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't read it closely enough. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A short list of the endangered and threatened birds has been added with a reference. Dincher (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry there... Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, different things.--Keerllston 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should lighthouse really be it's own section? How about a section with all the buidlings?
    The lighthouses are historically and currently significant to the park. Why shouldn't they have their own section? Dincher 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the History section rewrite I made a Lighthouses and Coast Guard subsection. They are also all shown on the new map. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's one of the 20 must see parks" how about telling us why? seems on the quality of the park - actual content relating to that would be nice, how is it a must-see park? what is special about it? what is "must see" about it? This is completely missing, yet seems to be the most notable thing about it.
    • Thanks, the PA DCNR description of Presque Isle on the "20 Must See Parks" page is quite brief, but I have added a summary to the State Park section. The things DCNR cites (beach, National Natural Landmark, "geological and biological diversity and its historic significance") are addressed separately in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an actual map of the park? it's kind of vital..
    Too [sorta] short,too [sorta] unfocused. Seems right out of GA.
    --Keerllston 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologizes for not checking back soon, busy in real life. I will start making fixes soon. —treyomg he's backForrmerly Know As TREYWiki 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator has an [extremely] amiable attitude! :D
    The Tom Ridge Center section is not integrated at all to the article - it seems like it was copied from the introduction of that article instead.
    --Keerllston 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply we believe all your concerns have now been addressed. More species are known for each of the ecological zones, but that seemed too much detail (seven lists of common species). Thanks again for your helpful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very, very, nice work.--Keerllston 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very, very much - if you no longer oppose, do you now support or are you neutral? Just curious, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't made up my mind- I feel like supporting... you might want to fix the excess use of parenthesis especially in "Early Inhabitants" and "Forts, settlers and War of ..."- parenthesis generally signify both bad formatting/grammar and bad quality content.--Keerllston 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the quality of formatting, the quality of writing, the comprehensiveness, the composition. Great Job! While the number of sources seem to be below average, they also seem to be above average quality. Again - great job.--Keerllston 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments and support - per your above comment I just removed eight sets of parentheses in the History section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, great article, well written and constructed. A good model for other park articles. VerruckteDan (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind comments and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:54, 24 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    But I'm a Cheerleader[edit]

    (Self nomination) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it fulfils the FA criteria. BelovedFreak 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose many small, isolated paragraphs. Why should there be an "adaptions" section? Perspicacite 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just put that separate because it's a different topic from the rest of it. Have you a suggestion as to where it would look better? What about the other paragraphs you mention? I know some of them are quite short, but which ones do you mean are isolated? Would it be better if I removed some subheadings? --BelovedFreak 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The last paragraphs in Casting, Rating and Distribution, Box office and audience reaction (which is two-sentences long), and the sections Awards, Music, and Adaptations are too short. Perspicacite 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying. Would you advise merging the short paragraphs in Casting, Rating & Box Office with the paragraphs above? I have looked at many other film Featured Articles whilst writing this one and several others seem to have short paragraphs too. (see Blade Runner, Dog Day Afternoon, Kung Fu Hustle and Casablanca. As for the other three sections, I'm really not sure that there is any more information to go in them. --BelovedFreak 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I leave it up to you. You make a good point about the other films so for now I am neither in opposition nor in support of FA-status for the article per concerns raised below. You certainly seem to be doing good work though. Jose João 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments
    • The lead is distinctly clunky (not helped by repetition of "reparative therapy camp"). Perhaps recasting the lead so that each paragraph deals with a separate aspect of the film might help. That might improve flow too.
    • I've reworded a bit of it, there is no longer that repitition. I will have another go at the whole lead.
    Isn't a major point of the film that she is latently lesbian but only realises it when she goes into therapy to fix it? If so, it would help if this were in the lead. [RD]
    I've added a sentence about that.
    • Quotations should use logical punctuation.
    • I'm not sure what that means.
    Punctuation goes after the quote mark if the quoted statement is part of the thrust of the entire sentence. (See WP:PUNC) for examples. I have in fact done them now :) [RD]
    Thanks.
    • Too much stuff in quotes. Are they for emphasis, paraphrase, or to indicate direct quotation?
    • Direct quotation, mostly. You're right, I hadn't realised how many quotation marks I'd used. I have started removing them but not sure if I've gone too far. I'm a little uncertain about some aspects of punctuation. Would you recommend that I take this to the League of Copyeditors?
    With no disrespect to you, yes. It's always a good idea to have other eyes running critically over copy. [RD]
    I've requested a copyedit with the League of Copyeditors.
    • Every quotation needs a citation.
    • I can't see any missing now, please let me know if there are any outstanding.
    I've added a good few {{cite}} tags. Not all will need cites. If dialog comes from the soundtrack, consider saying so. If you're using some of the other quotes for emphasis, consider using italics instead. [RD]
    These have, I believe, all been dealt with. I added a cite to the DVD where necessary, removed some more quotes. At least two of the ones you mentioned were cited at the end of the sentence, the reference being for the whole sentence.
    • Rather inwards-focused on the movie, I thought. What did the press say about it? It must have attracted sensible review from the gay press... This might give it some of the encyclopedic gravitas that is missing at the moment.
    • I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've put everything I could find in. Sections follow the manual of style for films and many of them are inevitably inward looking. I've mentioned some reviews from the gay press in the "Reception" section. I didn't find that they were really very different from the mainstream press reviews which is why I didn't separate them. Do you have any further suggestions for this?
    Fraid not. I was thinking that the gay press might have gone into more depth and could perhaps provide some meatier material. [RD]
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments.--BelovedFreak 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pleasure. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object I'd also like to see some inclusion of reaction from the gay press, you might try searching from the publications included in Category:LGBT magazines (especially the British, American and Canadian subcats, for obvious reasons). If this can be completed, I'd be happy to support promotion. fixed, so Support VanTucky Talk 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am working on this. There is an Advocate review which I will add to the article. Other than that I can't find any more at the moment but I will keep looking. --BelovedFreak 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the Advocate review added... VanTucky Talk 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a paragraph summarising the Advocate review and the AfterEllen review. Can't find any others. --BelovedFreak 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More would of course be better, but I think two is a sufficient minimum. Cheers, VanTucky Talk 21:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    + a snippet from Curve - but thanks! --BelovedFreak 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm not familiar with this film, but this article seems like you have all angles covered. I do agree with VanTucky, it would be good to include reaction from gay press, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have done a comprehensive search for sources already. Good stuff.Legalbeaver 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Legalbeaver. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment, on a topic that seems to recur over at WikiProject Films. The "Cast" section here is actually about the characters and their place in the plot, not the cast. Therefore, I'd suggest renaming it "Cast and characters" or even "Characters," since there's nothing about the actors who comprise the cast except their names. This would more accurately label the content of the section, and is the simplest fix. Beyond that, if you refer to WikiProject Films' Style guidelines, you'll see that the style of this section goes against the project's format. I'll let you refer to the full guidelines rather than reiterating them, but I will quote the final sentence: "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further 'in-universe' that really belongs in the plot summary." I don't think that the project's style guidelines are binding WP policy, so I am not going to oppose this admirable article on that basis. Still, I do think the section in question should at least be renamed, if not moved up behind the "Plot" section from which it more naturally flows. --Melty girl (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I have renamed the section as you suggested. I have tried to avoid using this section as a repository for in-universe info, as the style guidelines suggest but would be willing to cut it down further if necessary. The info I have put about the characters was intended to be along the lines of "a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary" (WP:MOSFILM), info which I didn't think important enough to the plot to be in that section, but important enough to each minor character to be included in the article. (There is some real world info, with regard to Cathy Moriarty, and the characters of Larry & Lloyd.) I put the cast section below the casting paragraph, thinking that was it's most natural position, but I think you are right and have moved it to below the plot. Anyway, I'll keep reading the article & style guidelines and perhaps make some more tweaks. --BelovedFreak 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- looks good to me. --Melty girl (talk) 00:26, 25 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Nancy Reagan[edit]

    previous FAC

    Self nomination: After barely failing the previous nomination, this article has undergone a very thorough copyedit. It meets all the FA criteria, abides by the MOS, and is very well cited. There was an issue in the last nomination about reffering to Mrs. Reagan as "Nancy"; the consensus decided to ignore that MOS guideline per WP:IAR as to eliminate any possible confusion between she and her husband, and to avoid the poor writing style typing out "Ronald Reagan" whenever the article mentions his name. Overall, this GA is FA fit. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comment — As a secondary issue, I'm genuinely sorry to raise this but I see the what-to-call-her problem remains. In the article, she's variously called Nancy Davis, Davis, Nancy Reagan, Reagan and Nancy, sometimes in consecutive sentences. I followed the arguments closely on this during the last FAC and while I fully agree that calling her "Nancy" does seem too cosy, it has the overwhelming advantage of clarity. I'll raise this also on the appropriate MoS talk page as the guideline isn't entirely fit for purpose. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Raised here, with a view to amending the guideline. In the meantime, I support the promotion of this article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented at your link, and thanks for the support. Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For information, I've now drafted a proposal and also mentioned it in WP:Biography here All comments welcome.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I don't think there's an easy way out of the name business but the warmth of the writing for mine makes for good prose in this sense without coming over too POV. I played with this article before and I feel it fulfils criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support: 'unofficial "protector"' needs a ref. The image crowding in First Lady section creates a void space in the prose.--Redtigerxyz 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will work on that later tonight. Happyme22 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - I have improved the images in the FL section, as well as added a cite. Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ref needed for mention of name of "Joan Quigley" specifically as the astrologer who advised the First Lady and Donald reagen's frustation. Assuming that will be done, Supporting as rest of the article is great and worth FA. --Redtigerxyz 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I've fixed the cite problem. Happyme22 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for a third and hopefully final time! All previous queries and problems raised in the last FACS with style, references, wording etc have been answered and responded to by Happyme22. Looking through the article again I see it is well referenced and meets FA criteria and am happy to endorse its FA status. Just one small comment - recommend that the image caption - The Reagan family, 1967 be expanded? Good work! LordHarris 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks LordHarris! I've slightly expanded the caption as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm not exactly objective, since I contributed heavily to the first few sections of the article during the last FAC, and I don't pretend to have a full handle on what an FA biography should be, but I think this article meets a reasonable bar. Wasted Time R 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have helped a lot, and I thank you Wasted Time R. Happyme22 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose for now. Overall an exceptional article, but some points appear, in my cursory review, to be unsupported by citations:
    • "Once she had approved, she contributed to his campaign by overseeing personnel, monitoring her husband's schedule, and occasionally providing press conferences";
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The new china, White House renovations, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people";
     Done - The new china and renovations are already cited, and I've just cited her attendance at the wedding. Happyme22 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When Reagan was released from the hospital on April 12, she escorted him back to the White House"
    Although after looking I cannot find a source that directly states this, but it's implied by this photo with Nancy and daughter Patti escorting the president out of the hospital (see caption on this page). Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1985, Nancy expanded the campaign to an international level by inviting the First Ladies of various nations to the White House for a conference on drug abuse."
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critics of the "Just Say No" campaign and the American "War on Drugs" argued that the program was too costly and questioned its purpose";
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and in a 1985 rock music video, "Stop the Madness";
    I can't find a reliable sources that states this; there are websites from google that say she was in this rock video, and you can see her in the video itself (where she's also reconized in the credits), but you cannot cite youtube and there's nothing more besides the video. Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always cite the rock video itself. Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as her presence in the video is verifiable, which it sounds like it is. COGDEN 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Upon leaving the White House, the couple returned to California, where they purchased a second home in the Bel Air section of Los Angeles, dividing their time between Bel Air and the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California. After leaving Washington, Nancy Reagan made numerous public appearances, many on behalf of her husband.";
    I've cited the Reagans buying their home (even though other people paid for it originally, Ronald Reagan paid it all off - see the cite), but it doesn't completely take care of the traveling so I'll look through her autobiography. And the one about her making appearances on behalf of the president is a well known fact, because Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and rarely made appearances. Happyme22 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She continues to present the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to a notable person who "embodies President Reagan's lifelong belief that one man or woman truly can make a difference.";
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On May 3 of the same year, Reagan hosted and attended the first 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate at the Reagan Presidential Library. While she did not participate in the discussions, she sat in the front row and listened as the men vying to become the nation's 44th president claimed to be a rightful successor to her husband, the 40th."
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations should either be added for these points, or it should be demonstrated that a citation isn't needed.
    Also a WP:MOS nitpick: Should use consistent logical quotations. COGDEN 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get working on them right now. Thanks for the help, Happyme22 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed all of your concerns. If you have any questions or further comments please feel free to post them; if not, would you consider supporting? Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I have done some MOS and ref cleanup work on the article in the past. It's ready for featured status now; many editors have been through it, and it has received a careful copyedit. Nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sandy! Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    1999 Sydney hailstorm[edit]

    This article was 'promoted' to GA status late last month. Since then, it has had a peer review (which was closed yesterday without any real input, Wikipedia:Peer review/1999 Sydney hailstorm/archive1, although the bot gave me a couple of minor things to do), and I have worked on it further since then to try and complete the article with everything I feel was relevant and able to be sourced.

    The end result looks pretty good, albeit through the very-biased eyes of the author. Throwing it open to you guys for your input and evaluation. Daniel 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There should be no refs in the lead, if possible. As far as I can see, all of those are reused elsewhere in the article, so I think they should be removed from the lead. Daniel, if you read this, my MSN awaits... Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - Only concern, thus support. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've trimmed quite a bit of fat off the text, and need to muse upon it whether there can be further improvement. There was quite a bit of redundancy and repetition, where a good thesaurus may come in handy. I am tempted to support now but am in two minds as the writing is has alot of facts and figures and is a little dry but then so is the subject matter. I feel the article would be nice with some more descriptive elements, first hand reports of hail etc. though I am not sure what is available. I am sorry I can't be more precise but will look on it some more later and wait. If other more critical folk are satisfied with the prose then I may consider that part done cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw your copyedit - thanks very much, it looks a lot better now. The problem with a bit of 'spice' is that I'm struggling to find sources which do more than report dry facts (which, as you noted, is because this isn't the most inspiring type of subject matter), otherwise I would have added it. Thanks once again for all your copyediting and fixes which kept lighting up my watchlist (while simultaneously bringing a smile to my face). Cheers, Daniel 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes you wonder how far back digital online subs for the smh go and whether there'd be something there (or a trip to the library to look on microfiche...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never actually used stuff like that, so if you could have a look for me, that'd be great. Daniel 02:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Erm, I doubt I'll have the time for it, sorry. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries, thanks anyways for the copyedit which the article desperately needed. Daniel 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, comprehensive, as DMHO. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support excellent work. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, definitely improved since I last reviewed the article. Definitely featured article quality. Great work :) Spebi 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 23 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Arthur Morris[edit]

    A member of the one Bradman's Invincibles, regarded as one of Australia's best ever left hand batsmen and openers. First step towards WP:FT I think.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. A lot of work has obviously gone into this article, and it has lots of great information. (He appears to be an important figure – although I know nothing about cricket – so well done.) However, the writing is in need of some significant copy editing. Examples:

    • (lead) Morris is best known for his key role in Don Bradman's Invincibles which toured England in 1948 undefeated. The end of this sentence is awkward.
    • (Style) Morris was an elegant and aggressive batsman… POV.
    • The "post war" section (which should be hyphenated and would look better with the picture before the heading) starts out discussing his activities during the war. This is confusing to me.
    • Why does the "Later career" section come before "Captaincy"? That seems out of order to me.

    Was this article peer reviewed? It would benefit greatly from that, and from work by someone at the League of Copy Editors, and I don't think it's in FA range right now. Good luck with it! – Scartol · Talk 03:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I shouldn't have reviewed this article. I know nothing about cricket, and I expect there are Australian English variants that are giving me problems. In light of all the support votes below, I feel like a jerk for saying that I still don't think this is in the FA range.

    The copyedit work has improved things, but (for example) I don't understand why the "Style" section comes first. "Early years" is one very long and (to me) disorganized paragraph. I'm unclear on why the Morris-drive image is hard-coded to 300px. Statements like "opponents spoke of his imposing appearance and his apparent air of complete composure at the crease" are unsourced. And so on.

    I'm really not trying to be obstinate or obnoxious. Really! I just feel like there are still too many medium-scale things that need repairing, and I generally don't think FAC is the place for such matters. Good luck, though, and thanks to Blnguyen for talk-page-ing me. (I did indeed forget to Watch this page.) – Scartol • Tok 12:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved the style to the end. It's not a big deal, since he was not known primarily for his stylishness, it doesn't hurt to have it lower down. I divided the early years into paragraphs. I've shrunk the drive image so that it is smaller and similar to the others but I have always tinkered with whatever size seems to go well. If there is a regulation about uniform px then do tell me. As for the sourcing, everything is sources, but sometimes one source covers most of the paragraph, so I just put the source at the end of whatver info it referemces. If you are concerned about anything, then just {{cn}} it and I will stick a ref from the bottom of the paragraph to wherever you want it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I still feel like there are copyedit issues that need resolving, but I also feel like I'm being an obstinate jerkhead by opposing, and my objections are, I suppose, not enough to get in the way of FA. So I'll both support and urge another round of copyediting. (Maybe at the LoCE?) For example, the phrase: "His family moved when he was five to Dungog…" would be much easier to read as: "When he was five, his family moved to Dungog…". Also: "He was chosen to make his debut, aged 18, for New South Wales…" This makes it sound as though his debut was aged 18. Et cetera. – Scartol • Tok 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man
    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    Well, as always, a thoroughly good read with lots of hard work from Blnguyen. Allow me to make some comments...

    • "...Invincibles which toured England ..." - reads strangely to my English mind - Invincibles who toured England?
    • As per Scartol above, the end of the sentence goes awry. Perhaps "...on an undefeated tour of England...?"
    • "...Morris became a batsman during his teens.." well, he must have been a batsman before that time unless every game he played as a bowler they never got that far down the order! I know what you mean, but perhaps you could expand.
    • Second World War instead of the US sequel version please!
    • "servied" typo.
    • "on the first assignment to South Africa..." whose, his or Australia's?
    • "Morris had amassed nine Test centuries and averaged over 65..." in total or on that SA tour?
    • "Morris was twice dropped..."...from the team as opposed to in the field?!
    • Give the source in the infobox some text (e.g. Cricinfo) rather then empty external link.
    • "five foot nine inches" - as a minimum it's five feet, but it's best to use the {{convert}} template.
    • Since when does being 5ft 9 give you an "imposing appearance"?
    • "stuck the ball" - struck?
    • "Morris was especially noted for his cover driving, square cutting and on-driving. Morris had a reputation..." 2 x Morris in a row, reads stilted.
    • "first class" or "first-class" - consistency required.
    • "...his average rose to 57.42, and to 61 in 46 first class innings." - confusing.
    • "Morris took two wickets in Tests, one of them Bedser in 1953.[1] He was rarely used as a bowler and was a reliable catcher.[3]" these could be flowed together.
    • "his parents had split." - split up or left? Separated?
    • "under 16" - usually hyphenated.
    • "Morris' first class cricket career was interrupted by the Second World War, enlisting in the Australian Imperial Forces in 1941.[6] " - "..., with him enlisting..."?
    • Link first use of Sheffield Shield.
    • "The selectors persisted..." hmm, not sure. I know what you mean but again not sure this is the best way of putting it.
    • "of 503 runs, average 71.85" - "of 503 runs at an average of 71.85"?
    • Link Lord's.
    • Double check all en-dashes are present (I saw a 2-0 in Invincibles tour section).
    • "54*" I know what this means but I suggest you use not out for non cricket experts.
    • "...wicket expected to take spin." - bit jargony, need to open it up to non-experts.
    • "He was unable to maintain his peak form in his later career." - I think this is going to apply to every sportsman, isn't it?
    • "relationships:Morris" - consider semi colon or em-dash or something other than no space colon no space.
    • Make sure all averages are given with same level of precision.
    • "life-ending" - terminal?
    • Agree with Scartol, the captaincy section seems misplaced.
    • Link MBE. In fact, should his name in the lead have the MBE after it?
    • Ref [1] needs a "pp" for the pages field.

    So I think that's enough for my first run through. If you had a peer review, my apologies for missing it, I hope this is useful for you. By all means move it over to the talk page of the article or, when finished, we can put it in a collapsible box so we can 'hide' it to make the FA easier to read! Let me know if anything's unclear or if I can be of further use. All the best. The Rambling Man 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support following the copyedit. Really this is a great article. A few really, really minor things/suggestions:
      • The first paragraph of the lead is very "He"/"His"-heavy, and this is compunded by shortish sentences (not a problem by itself). Maybe change the odd one to "Miller"?
      • "Morris developed as a batsman during his teens and became the first player in the world to score two centuries in his first-class debut" - maybe tack on a year for historical perspective (I understand the lack of specifics for the lead, but it needs some precision).
      • Link Australian Army in the lead?
      • I don't think the phrase "a fixture of the team" is fantastic given the context. Thoughts?
      • Could the second paragraph of the lead be split up into two, or is it fine as it is?
      • Link South Africa in the lead for consistency through England.
      • Have we got an article explaining what a cricket average is? Might not be a bad link for the lead if we do.
      • "Despite standing only five feet nine inches (1.75 m)" — the topic is Australian, so shouldn't metric be used first?
      • Link hoodoo, I think, as well as maybe pessamist.
    However, these are all minor. I confess I still need to go through the rest of this article with a fine-toothed comb as I did above, but on the most part it is fantastic (having read it generally both before and after the copyedit). It is most certainly some of Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, Daniel 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT to the he/his, they seem to alternate... I tweaked the others except for the height, since imperial was std in those days and is still widely used for height in the colloquial sense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's fine. My support still stands, obviously. If I get a chance I'll see what I can suggest with the rest, but regardless I think this is FA quality. Daniel 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per the stuff below being fixed - I saw nothing else that needed attention having read the rest of the article. Cheers, Daniel 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support most, if not all of my comments now dealt with. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is a good article with a lot of work put in. I took the liberty of going through and doing a copy edit, I hope that’s OK. Mainly, I edited a lot of passive language and corrected a couple of facts, and added that the press called him Bedser’s Bunny in describing his struggles against Bedser and that his 1st wife died from breast cancer. I have a few thoughts: the paras are too long and the text could benefit from some more headings (or sub headings); the phrase, “he ended the series with xxx runs at xx.xx” is repeated many times; Perry is cited many times, therefore we keep seeing Morris through Bradman’s eyes, what about other opinions?; the pic of Hassett says he was Morris’ regular partner, but this only happened on the 53 tour; Morris was an opener, what about his partnerships with other openers, in particular his union with Barnes?

    A mistake by me. I rmved the thing about Hassett being an opener. I have found a pic of Barnes and Morris together in a book. Unfortunately the library does not allow loans, and I currently do not have a camera. (I usually take photos of the photos in the books in that library when needed). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have dug up another book and put in quotes from Benaud, Tyson, Arlott and other opinions. I added the info about Barnes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of debatable points: (a) the article says he was Bradman’s successor as Australia’s best bat, yet Harvey’s article says the same (Harvey has a better claim to this, particularly on figures and longevity) (b) too much detail in the section on the 48 tour (c) the claim that he is best remembered as a member of the invincibles.

    The article says that Morris inherited the "leading batsman" but definitely, over time, Harvey kept on going while Morris waned after the RSA tour. But at the time of retirement, people looked to Morris as the #1 batsman since he was the topscorer on the Ashes tour and during the Ashes, Harvey only played in two Tests and wasnt yet a permanent fixture. If you can reword it so that the immediacy of the statement to 49-50 is more apparent, then that would be good. The part on the detail in 1948 is there because I looked at the bios of him and they do tend to cover 1948 in twice as much detail as the other tours. Point 3, I think this is obvious, although it wasn't the only thing he did. Obviously people remember him as a great batsman, but this was about his best remembered performance. I have moved the statement that he is regarded as one of Australia's best lefties to the very front....That way people know that he is best known for being a great batsman....then I note that his best known performance was the 1948 tour. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to reword the lead so that it says that Morris was burdened with the expectation of being the #1 bat instead of actualy being teh #1 bat since Harvey superceded him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Finally, I got confused when I got to the section on the 51-52 series where the series is covered, and then goes back to Morris captaining the side in the 3rd Test, but says it was the 4th. The circumstance is not well described. Originally, Barnes was selected in the 12 for the 3rd game, but this was vetoed by the Board under their secretive “ exclusion on grounds other than cricket performance” rule. Bradman and the other selectors delayed naming the player to replace Barnes because they didn’t want to take the rap. The team arrived in Adelaide (with the selectors) and Hassett pulled out at the very last moment, but had to act as 12th man as the Board couldn't be convened in time to approve a replacement. Phanto282 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed the captaincy thing against WI. It was indeed Third Test. I didn't include the Barnes incident because reading it seems that the political selection was before they got to Adelaide. The Hassett thing appeared to be separate, and when he got injured, the selectors chose Ridings but the board couldn't be convened for the official approval in time, so Morris was stuck with five bowlers instead of a replacement batsman for Hassett. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comment I have done some more research & found that the vote by the Board over the captaincy for the 49-50 RSA tour was Hassett 7, Morris 6: pretty close. This probably affected the decision to replace him as NSW captain, as the NSWCA would be pushing for their man as Australian captain and figured Miller was a better chance. Also, I think Morris' partnership with Barnes should be mentioned as it was significant in 48, and it seems Morris was not the same when partnered with other players - that is the relevance of the Barnes omission in 51-52 when there was an opportunity to reunite the two. It is also relevant in that Morris was left "holding the can" with an unbalanced team due to politics within the game between the selectors and the Board; they got caught out when Hassett withdrew at an unexpectedly late stage. His 206 in 50-51 is significant in that he overcame his "Bedser complex" with help from Hassett, who shielded him from Bedser early in his innings until he got his footwork sorted out. IMO, if you replace some of the stats with these anecdotes(I don't think that it's necessary to list his runs and ave for every series - suggest putting them in a table at the bottom of the article, nor is it necessary to list Australia taking the lead etc., just give the series result), this will overcome the next reviewer's objection to the article being "dry and technical". Phanto282 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. thanks for the info. I have included it. I have also found some other interesting events in his cricketing career that are not shown in raw stats and have incorporated them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object I see a few issues to correct, other than those cited previously. A general problem which the article suffers from is dry, technical or otherwise not "engaging" prose. Writing of a "professional standard" should be able to hook readers who are not familiar with cricket, and the writing was often a chore to read (even for someone - like myself - who is casually familiar with the sport). Conclusively, I find the article to presently be of a basic sufficiency, but certainly not part of "the best of Wikipedia".
      • Both Early years and Style need paragraphs. One huge block of text is not good prose. The last paragraph of the lead could also be broken into two.
      • There are uncited direct quotations throughout (I'm assuming that the article is using British English, in which case irony quotations should always be single ones, doubles are only for quoting a person): "Bedser's Bunny" in Style, "moderately skilled" in Early years, in the 3rd paragraph of Later career. Having quotes without direct cites doesn't even pass GA standards, much less FA.
      • There is a single-sentence paragraph in Decline.

    In general, it would be preferable for there to be more than three published general references. The article also relies relatively heavily on one source (The A-Z of Australian cricketers). More variance in sourcing is desirable. VanTucky Talk 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC) All issues resolved adequately. So support. VanTucky talk 04:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As with the dot points, I think I have gotten to these, apart from my dour writing style. The ones by TRM were ticked off at User talk:Andplus. I'm not sure about the irony quotations. I'll look for a 2nd opinion. In terms of the refs, it can be misleading actually. I did the initial job on the article with the AZ profile, back in April, this yielded only about 4-5k of prose despite it being referenced 8-9? times. The Perry and Pollard books which are there have been used much more often, and I have just added another two. Of the 85-90 inline cites atm, only 8-9 are AZ. There are five books listed, as well as the AZ profile and the Cricinfo database. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a more conscious check of my cricket books and other Commonwealth English books and found that they used the same type of quotes for irony quotations and actual speech quoting. Some used single some used double, but all used the same for both. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found some more general and anecdotal information about Morris beyond the stats and cold numbers, that hopefully humanise him some more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It looks like the concerns have been addressed. I have a minimal knowledge of cricket but it held interest and read well, sufficient images and refs. Good job Blnguyen and Andplus.--Sandahl 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full support great work. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It held my interest the whole way through. Well done guys. —Moondyne 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, it's apparent that the concerns of others have been adequately addressed, and the article looks as good as any article that Blnguyen can whip up :) Great work. Spebi 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment placeholder... pending completion of copyedit (I've just started) and resolution of some hidden comments. But NB it's another brilliant bit of work off the Blnguyen production line. It may be early next week before I can complete copyedit, so if Raul wants to promote before then on the basis of all the supports above, I have no objection, hence no oppose. If you catch my drift. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 23 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Harriet Tubman[edit]

    I've worked on this article for the past few weeks, adding all the relevant info I could find from five biographies. Two (Larson and Clinton) are heavily cited, because they are the only adult bios published since 1943. It has been thoroughly peer reviewed. Thank you in advance for participating in the process. – Scartol · Talk 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Support - I like the article, but think I should mention these issues first.
    • If everyone new her as Harriet Tubman, then why is her birth name prominently featured in the infobox? Her birth name is already displayed well in the first sentence of the article. It doesn't look too hot formatting wise, either.
    • I was under the impression that the style used here was standard, but after looking around I can't find other examples. So  Done I've removed her birth name from the infobox. – Scartol · Talk 12:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am, of course, in favor of removing the infobox altogether. :) Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any more images or paintings of Tubman during the time she was helping the slaves? Looking at pictures of people who the article doesn't belong to seems a little un-encyclopedic; if no more images of Ms. Tubman can be found you may want to remove some of the ones of other people, focusing more attention on the article's subject.
    • Actually, I think four pictures of her is a fair number. The other images are designed to give context and draw in readers who are interested in the different aspects of her life. – Scartol · Talk 12:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pictures seem well-chosen to me. Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but the book reference formatting is not completely correct (although Harry S. Truman's is similar, but you might want to visit Ronald Reagan)
    If I may respond to just this one point. Though this article uses a different style than Ronald Reagan it is internally consistent and both are valid styles. (I actually slightly prefer Harriet's style. It's more concise, but creates no ambiguity.) --JayHenry 07:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer HT's style as well, which has been used for quite a few FAs (speaking from experience). Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, the article is very well cited and it was an intersting read. Happyme22 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that seems to take care of it. Great job! Happyme22 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I made my comments at peer review. They were all addressed. DrKiernan 08:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. A very impressive article, as I said at the peer review. The industrious Scartol has done wonders and managed to avoid the pitfalls of articles based partly on oral history. I had never heard of Tubman until last week, and this article was the perfect introduction. -- qp10qp (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wonderfully well-written and engaging article. I was really shocked to learn that there isn't more written on Tubman. I suppose I was misled by all of those juvenile biographies I read as a child - I assumed that would be mirrored by adult biographies. A few tweaks:
    • When a powerful Fugitive Slave Law was passed in 1850, she helped guide fugitives further north into Canada, and helped newly-freed slaves find work. - "far-reaching" rather than "powerful", perhaps?
    • She died in 1913, and became one of the most well-known individuals in American history. - I think that the statement about her iconicity in American history could be made a bit more precise than this.
    • At the age of five, she was hired to a woman named "Miss Susan" as a nursemaid. - "hired out"?
    • Tubman at first prepared to storm their house and make trouble, but then decided he wasn't worth the trouble. - repetition of "trouble"
    • I would like to see expanded captions under the portraits per WP:CAPTIONS. I think it adds that little extra to the article. (I've been converted ever since Joseph Priestley.)

    Another excellent article by Scartol! Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much, Awad. I've made all the repairs you've indicated, except for the captions – I'll expand them later. (In a way I think smaller captions may entice people to read more of the article: "Hmm. I wonder how she was involved with Frederick Douglass?" But I can see the value in expanding them too.) I wanted to remove the "Jailbreak" link, but I always hate removing stuff that people might have added in good faith. (That's why I had to rewrite a big chunk of the lead during the Peer Review process. I'm too nice!) Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whereas I just slash and burn. :) Awadewit | talk 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the captions, although I'm having trouble dealing with the two conflicting directives:
    1. Captions should not be complete sentences
    2. Captions should be descriptive and evocative
    It was hard to do both at once, unless I wanted to use nothing but "[name], who worked with Tubman…" constructions. If you have ideas on how to make them better, be my guest. – Scartol · Talk 12:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, captions can be full sentences. This is evidenced by the MOS rule that states that captions that are full sentences must end in a period and those that are not should not! (wherever that is). Anyway, I think the captions are much better. Perhaps the only one that could still be improved is the Hunter one. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Captions should not be complete sentences." I've never heard that directive on Wikipedia. Is that in the Captions manual of style? Ironically, I'm pretty sure that it used to recommend that all captions be complete sentences back in the old days. I tend to favor complete sentences and longer captions myself, although I believe both styles are acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:CAPTIONS, which Awad cited earlier, seems ambiguous. I've only recently read that (silly me), basing my understanding of how they work on WP:MOS#Captions, which says: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but extended phrases, which should not finish with a period." Maybe we need to reconcile these? (Yeah, right. Proposing a change to MoS is like sticking one's finger in a Cuisinart.) – Scartol • Tok 01:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well referenced. But if it is a good article and has undergone a peer review, should not those two events be listed in an Article History template on the talk page? Currently, there is none, and the wikiprojects are still incorrectly rated as "B", instead of "GA". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I bypassed the GA process, since I figured my work with Balzac and Chinua Achebe had given me the footing to jump right to FAC. The article was peer reviewed, however – as noted above. – Scartol • Tok 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Certainly meets the FA criteria: well-written, well-referenced, and in compliance with the manual of style so far as I can tell. A strong article on a vital subject of U.S. history. VanTucky Talk 21:03, 20 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    One Hot Minute[edit]

    Another Chili Peppers album up for promotion. This one has probably had the most outside review before nomination. Passed as a GA one month ago and since then I've been ironing out a few kinks while Grim-Gym executed a thorough copyedit. Overall, I'm pretty confident in this one. Questions, comments and concerns will be dealt with immediately. NSR77 TC 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - As a contributor to the article, I know the article thoroughly and endorse it. I must add however, that I've mentioned to NSR that the sample of "Coffee Shop" needs to be removed and replaced with "Warped". The latter is mentioned directly in-prose and thus would better meet fair-use criteria. -- Grim (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is willing to upload it, I'd be very grateful. NSR77 TC 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. xihix(talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - had to iron out a couple of unusual grammar constructions but very good flow of prose. Only odd bit I didn't touch was One Hot Minute contains far darker, more suicidal and less sexual themes than previous records - more suicidal? Suicidal is a highly specific concept and I find it hard to believe there'd be so much around self-harm directly. The more general term nihilistic or just leaving as darker captures sombre/negative mood better if that is what is meant. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I didn't know you were taking this to FAC yet. There's still stuff I wanted to add to the article; nothing so essential the article is lacking without it, but rather that adds some detail to the whole affair. In particular I have Navarro quoted as outright saying there were songs on the album he didn't like. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be really good to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going away in a week or so for a while, so it was now or never. NSR77 TC 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - The article has a few prose issues:
    • The 2nd sentence of the lead uses "successful" twice. Done
    • It also integrated use of heavy metal guitar riffs. - isn't there a "the" missing? Done
    • and received a far better response from critics. - change to "and received far more critical acclaim. Done
    • Navarro was fired from the band due to creative differences in 1997. - the paragraph would flow better if there was a "Subsequently," at the beginning of this sentence. Done
    • despite producing three successful hits change to despite producing three hit singles. Done
    • Isn't "The band's previous album," in the 2nd para of the lead redundant since its been mentioned already? Done
    • Stunned, the Chili Peppers had no plans as to who could replace Frusciante, hiring Arik Marshall to finish out the remaining dates after being forced to reschedule. - needs to be rewritten. Maybe "Stunned, the remaining Chili Peppers, who had no idea about a suitable replacement for Frusciante, hired Arik Marshall to play the remaining dates after being forced to reschedule." Done
    • Several weeks prior he had a dental procedure change to "he had had a dental procedure" Done
    • He returned to Hollywood in late January, - include "1995" there to remind the reader of the time frame. Done
    • Because Kiedis had resumed heavy drug use and ... - Cannot start a sentence with "because". Done
    • which he both sung and played bass on. to "which he also both sang and played bass on.". Done
    • His writing style in Jane's Addiction were independent from other contributors, whereas the Red Hot Chili Peppers were far more of a collaborative group - "His writing in Jane's Addiction was independent from other contributors, whereas the Red Hot Chili Peppers was a far more collaborative group" Done
    • Navarro himself noted the band's dynamic was more even than that of Jane's Addiction, which was often dominated by frontman Perry Farrell. - to "Navarro himself noted that the band's dynamic was more than that of Jane's Addiction, which was often dominated by frontman Perry Farrell." But can a band's dynamic be "more" than another's?  Done
    • as a way to break the monotony - to as a way of breaking the monotony Done
    • since then it has gone 2x multi-platinum in the United States to and has since gone 2x multi-platinum in the United States Can "2x multi-platinum" be replaced by something like "double platinum"? Done
    • Some however, praised the record. to "Some, however, praised the record." Done
    • When the U.S. leg ended. Umm, leg may not be the best word to use there when you just talked about a broken foot :D. Done
    • Months went by without any scheduled concerts. One Hot Minute was not selling as well as the band expected. - Rewwrite that into one sentence... Reads like 2 random disconnected sentences now. Done
    • By April 1998, the band had not written any new material, so Kiedis and Flea decided it was time to fire their guitarist. to "By April 1998, the band had not written any new material; Kiedis and Flea decided it was time to fire their guitarist."
    • necessary to call it quits is not encyclopedic. Done
    • He made one last attempt to keep the band together, by asking Frusciante to rejoin. - remove "by". Done

    Phew! I think other than these issues, the article is excellent and tells an interesting story. Good job Tommy Stardust (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Alright, I believe I've fixed everything. Some of this stuff I wasn't even aware was here as I've been pretty busy off-Wikipedia these days. Thanks a lot! NSR77 TC 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What about note 7 and 8? Done Skizzik (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed! Didn't even see that! NSR77 TC 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Quality article. No problems with the writing or references as far as I can see. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support - Very nice article. It's an album I don't enjoy as much as the other albums, because of the problems the members and the then-gone Frusciante were going through, but this is definitely great. Good job! xihix(talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, I forgot I didn't support yet :) Tommy Stardust (talk) 08:01, 20 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Manchester[edit]

    I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a very well developed article now with a very large team of editors. There are plenty of citations, the article is balanced, it covers the full range of topics a city article would need, and it is stable. It is at the centre of the Greater Manchester WikiProject and is always up to date so anything found wrong with the article please post here and it will be sorted promptly. Thank you in advance for your comments! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - I've peer reviewed this article and helped out with it a lot, I'm sure And-Rew will do a good job in fixing any issues. I have none. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I helped bring the article to GA standard a few months back, and it's really progressed since then. A hardworking team, which I am proud to be a member of takes this article seriously and there is no doubt in my mind that that team will assist in the articles development to FA. Rudget.talk 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Manchester is an amazing city and an article like this really helps in reflecting its stunning achievements and capabilities. I have every pride in And-Rew and the team helping to make this happen. After all, it’s not just a city; it’s a way of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfab27 (talk • contribs) 00:45, November 19, 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - It has been fantastic to watch this article over the past few months develop and improve to the standard that it is today. There are some outstanding editors backed by an enthusiastic team who have helped this to happen who will ensure that this is, at all times, an article of very high quality.GRB1972 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A very good and well sourced article which covers all aspects set out for settlements in the UK. Evildarkone - Bringing Darkness and Cold News (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've been closely involved with this article, and would love nothing more than for it to pass this, but please don't be shy in finding flaws please(!); we at WikiProject Greater Manchester really want this to be the best of the best! Be brutal if need be! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I made some changes to the demography section. Also, why are there two weather charts covering pretty much the same thing? Mangostar (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thank you for your input it is always valued. Your idea to use a graph for population history was great and a slightly nicer looking graph already existed so I replaced it and put the table back in as it is often regarded as very useful. I also expanded the section as it was quite weak for such a good quality article. Also with regards to the weather, if you take a look at London they use both styles and I think they compliment each other rather well. Thanks again! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was skimming past this nomination and noticed the comment "be brutal" so have had a look. I've read through it and can't find any real faults. The only one thing I would say is, do you need the full addresses of the consulates? Apart from that this is excellent stuff. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will bring this point up at the Greater Manchester WikiProject and get some input, personally I don't see why we should or shouldn't have them. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done After a very short conversation it was decided they were in breach of WP:NOT#DIR so we're removed. Thanks for your comments! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Some minor issues:
      • Left aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections.  Done except for the first image in early history, if it was aligned right it would cause major style issues.
      • Image captions should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.  Done
      • The millimetre measurements in the climate section need inch equivalents.  Done
      • Europe doesn't need linking. Roman doesn't need linking twice. London doesn't need linking three times.  Done
      • "ie 1979 onwards" - dots may be needed after the i and e  Done
      • "First World War" "World War II" - consistency probably needed.  Done Epbr123 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I and User:Malleus Fatuarum have corrected all these points now. Thanks for you support! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:24, 24 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    John Knox[edit]

    This is a self-nomination. With assistance from Awadewit from her peer-review, this article reached A-class. Qp10qp provided an even deeper pre-FAC review and a copy-edit. I thank them both for sharing their time and expertise. I believe this is now ready for your consideration for FA status. RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. First glance, this looks great. One thing: Why not use an infobox and place the first image on the right in the box? I'll be back after I have had a chance to look it over more closely. Pastordavid (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did have an infobox originally. But I often wondered why it was necessary because it repeats the information in the lead. The clergy infobox is rather large and unsightly. In the end, it isn't required for FA, so I removed it. As for the placement of the image, it was also originally on the right. Qp10qp noted that as Knox is facing right, the image leads the reader away from the page. He suggested putting the image on the left. When I did move it, much to my surprise, it looked a lot better. The FA article Joseph Priestley uses the same reasoning. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does an overly crowded, confusing, left side of the page that does not have the information where it is expected to be look better? The convention of page layout and the general aesthetics of the page put the image on the right. The problem of looking to the right (which is not a problem at all in my opinion) aesthetically is not fixed by making the page look worse. Medvedenko (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Overly crowded and confusing? Perhaps we could have a screenshot because it looks fine on the three separate computer setups I have over here. Also, according to WP:MOS#Images and all the principles of aesthetics I was taught as an undergraduate (for whatever that is worth), portraits should not lead the reader off of the page or, in this case, the screen. If Knox's portrait were placed on the right-hand side of the page, he would look lovingly down at my phone - is that what we want? :) I don't think there is any reason to have every wikipedia page look exactly the same. Infoboxes are not required and as RelHistBuff points out, they unnecessarily repeat information. This page looks better with the portrait placed according to conventional aesthetic principles - those used by art historians and the like when they publish books. Obviously we want the layout to look good on all computer setups, so if you could post a screenshot, perhaps we could see what the exact problem is that you are referring to. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This article is well-researched, clear (not easy to achieve with religious topics), and comprehensive. My hat is off to RelHistBuff - this article took time and patience, especially with myself and Qp pestering him/her.
    • A change of fortune occurred when on 29 May 1546, Cardinal Beaton was murdered within his residence, the Castle of St Andrews, by a gang of five persons in revenge for Wishart's execution. - a bit chipper sounding for a murder?
    While thinking about a better way to phrase that part, I saw that the description during his time of hiding was still rather confusing. I reordered the sentences and I think it is better now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, their fathers sent word to bring them to the relative safety of the castle to continue their instruction in reformed doctrine. He arrived at the castle on 10 April 1547. - Who is the "he"?
    Changed with the reordering of sentences. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the "they's" are mixed up. :) Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few days later, a debate was staged that allowed him to promote a thesis that would be his central theme throughout the rest of his life: that all ceremonies without express warrant from the Bible are idolatry. This included the sacrifice of the Mass. - Can a person have a theme? That word sounded odd to me. Also, "sacrifice of the Mass" - is this a common phrase?
    I rewrote the sentence removing "central theme". The phrase "sacrifice of the Mass" is the phrase used by the source, Percy. I also found it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I changed the phrase to "the celebration of Mass". I don't think the two are exactly the same, the former specifically referring to the Eucharistic sacrifice, while the latter is a popular description for the ceremony. But it is probably not worth going into technical details and it fits in the context of Knox's thesis. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds Catholic to me - not everyone thinks the Eucharist is an actual sacrifice. Protestants go with the symbolic interpretation, so I guess I wondered why in a Knox article we would use "sacrifice". I think it might be a tad confusing to the general reader, too. "Celebration" is more usual, I think. Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These days, Protestants might be polite about it, but in those days, the reformers emphasized that the mass was sacrificial, because they wanted to make it seem pagan and superstitious. Even so, perhaps "celebration" is clearer to a modern reader (though it sounds rather cheery for Knox). qp10qp (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Knox's wife, Marjorie, died in December 1560, leaving Knox to care for their two sons, aged three and a half and two years old. John Calvin, who had lost his own wife in 1549, wrote a letter of condolence. - This sentence is just stuck in there (I know, I know, it's hard to work in).
    I merged the paragraph into the previous one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could more be said about Knox's History in the article itself? The stub doesn't really elaborate...
    I guess I ought to expand the stub. It's better there than in the article. I will do so. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks and I look forward to more excellent articles from RHB! Awadewit | talk 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. As I said on the talk page after my review, I believe this article to be of featured standard. RelHistBuff writes well, and there's an attractive clarity and fluency to the prose, in my opinion. The information is comprehensively covered, and though some of the sources used are old, the information stands up to fact-checking. The article achieves a nice balance between Knox's good and bad points. Many congratulations to the nominator for his hard work and his determination to make this article as good as it can be. qp10qp (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Saying "Frankfurt, Germany" as the article does in the lead is problematic. Germany did not really exist until 1871. In the 16th century, Frankfurt was a Free Imperial City in the Holy Roman Empire. The same goes for the use of "Germany" in the rest of the article. --Carabinieri (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped "Germany" when used with the name of the city and wikilinked Frankfurt to Free City of Frankfurt. However, I hesitate on "...refuge in Germany..." and "...fleeing to Germany...". The secondary sources for these sentences, Laing and MacGregor, used "Germany". I think there is good reason. I looked up the primary source, the History by Knox. He used the word "Germany". I could say something like "fleeing to Protestant parts of the Holy Roman Empire" but a historian or biographer should say that and I am somewhat reluctant to make that kind of interpolation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. Take a look at this article: Albert I of Germany. If you read the writing on the picture, it seems to say that Albert was the Roman and German king. The picture postdates the period but probably doesn't postdate Knox by much, if at all. It is true that there was no German state, but there was a Germany in the sense of a shared language and culture that crossed state boundaries. It was the same with Italy; we can talk of Italy in the sixteenth century, even though it was divided into separate states. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider 16th century Frankfurt German, based on its language, then you also have to call Geneva part of France.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Geneva was not under the aegis of the French monarchy, whereas Frankfurt was part of the Holy Roman empire and therefore within the authority of the kings of the Germans ("King of the Germans" was a title that preceded that of emperor). The article shows how Knox was ousted at Frankfurt owing to his views about the emperor Charles V. The king of the Germans at this time was the emperor's brother, Ferdinand I, who became emperor himself the year after Knox was pushed out of Frankfurt. Ferdinand's son Maximilian was elected King of the Germans and crowned at Frankfurt in 1562, becoming emperor on Ferdinand's death in 1564.qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the HRE is not Germany. Or would you consider Medieval Genoa to be part of Germany?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Titles under the Holy Roman Empire included the kingships of the Romans, the Italians, and the Germans.qp10qp (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what outweighs the matter here is that at least two secondary sources and one primary source say "Germany" and it is in Wikipedia's interest to write what the sources say rather than trying to interpolate. It is clear that when Knox wrote "Germany" he did not have the Federal Republic in mind, but there must have been some concept of a "Germany" in the 16th century or he wouldn't have used it. The historians/biographers use the same term. As editors, we must accept their expertise in the use of that term. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to endorse RelHistBuff's contention that we should stick to the language of the sources. Good sources are the bedrock of wikipedia's featured articles. Let us not stray from what they say. That way lies madness. :) Awadewit | talk 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, ver nice, and ... not a fan of infoboxes, don't believe they must be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with comments I think the WP:LEDE would be more effective if the first paragraph were a summary of his several accomplishments, similar perhaps to the very last paragraph of the article. I think the first thing readers want is to see at a glance who Knox was and why we should care about is life, rather than read through his early history. I know the first sentence mentions his notability, but it seems too little... The last sentence of the lede looks like something that should be moved up, in my opinion... If the Sommerville Knox portrait is dubious, should it be in the article? Plus "worked himself out" later in the article seems a bit informal. But none of these are deal-breakers. Good work! Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. The lead was written when the article was nearly finished which is why it follows the order of the article. I moved the last sentence up to the first. I debated about removing the Somerville Knox picture for some time. In the end I kept it because it is used as a cover page for one of the sources (Whitley) and since it may be seen by readers, I thought it should be included if only to note that it is dubious. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:00, 25 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Vega[edit]

    For your consideration, this article is about an important star in the constellation Lyra. Recently I have added a significant amount of material to this page. It has undergone a peer review and is at good article status, so I think that it can satisfy the FA criteria. Please take a look and see if you agree. If not, an identification of specific concerns would be appreciated.

    Unfortunately I couldn't find a good astrophotograph of the constellation that could be used on this page, although I did ask for one on the requested pictures page. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Great looking article, I just have one minor thing that annoyed me, I noticed in your references you have notes, and actual references mixed together, others may disagree but is there anyway to separate them? --Cloveious (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - all the technical stuff looks great and you've done a good job of making technical information accessible to a wider audience. I corrected a couple of typos and reduced a couple of commas. It is comprehensive though I thought a mention of other common names, in Allen I recalled him calling it Wega alot, and saw it written elsewhere. I can't recall any other cultural stuff and right now don't have the Allen book handy, though not a strict deal-brekaer. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked the etymology text slightly to mention the earlier name Wega. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Looks like a strong article, well referenced, although I would agree with the above, that the notes and references should be separate for an article of this complexity. Owain.davies (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Unfortunately I'm going to politely decline. If they ever release a <ref>-like capability for maintaining a separate notes section then it would make sense. But my experience with a separate notes section has not been good. The old-style notes are awkward to maintain and somebody is liable to merge them back into the references. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 17:50, 25 November 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

    Ulysses (poem)[edit]

    previous FAC withdrawn

    I am nominating this article about one of Tennyson's best-known poems. Unique challenges present themselves in writing an encyclopedia piece on a 70-line poem, one which has been extensively analyzed. Much research and revision have gone into this article (including three rounds of comment from one of WP's lit luminaries :) and I believe it is feature-worthy. –Outriggr § 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This is a solidly-researched, well-written, and comprehensive article on "Ulysses". I checked a couple of quotations for Outriggr in the dusty stacks of my local research library and was happy to discover that what I was reading was so lucidly explained in wikipedia's article. Awadewit | talk 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very well crafted, constructed, and written. Meets all criteria, and them some. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting, well-written and thorough look at a subject that I would think is not easy to handle in a Wikipedia article. My knowledge of poetry ends at "There once was a man from Nantucket...", but I found this easy to follow without feeling I was being spoon fed. Nicely structured and balanced, it gives enough background on Tennyson and the poem's reception to put the it in context, but doesn't skimp on analysis of the poem itself. Andplus (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, beautifully done, Outriggr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for commenting. I appreciate the support. –Outriggr § 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Admittedly I haven't studied 19th century English poetry since high school, but this seems like a brilliant article to me (and it makes most Wikipedia articles look really, really lame, including a few I've written). A few comments/questions, though: I have the feeling that both "I cannot rest from travel" and "always roaming with a hungry heart" are oft-remembered/quoted phrases from the poem, is this so? While the critical reception of "Ulysses" at the time is discussed, was it popular at the time among the literate reading public? The most famous modern interpretation of this story is Joyce's Ulysses; what influence did the Tennyson poem have on that, if any? Did Joyce quote or refer to it at all? (The article cites the work Reading Joyce's Ulysses, but in another context.) Finally, regarding the Scott memorial cross, you might mention its exact location, which is Observation Hill (McMurdo Station). Also, I've seen that nine separate sections or lines of the poem are included in Bartlett's Famous Quotations (15th Ed.), which is a lot for a 70-line poem; is this any kind of useful metric for the poem's fame or degree of canonization? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments here. I'm going to investigate the Bartlett's quotations and add that fact to the Legacy section. The Observation Hill link was present in an earlier version; some editors didn't think the Scott commemoration needs to be mentioned, while I find it a worthwhile way to close the article. I'll add the link. Regarding Joyce, there is no connection other than in title that I'm aware of; the article once had a sentence about Ulysses references after Tennyson, which was found confusing because it was read as if the works were influenced by Tennyson, when they really weren't. The article is trying to get at (the lack of) general popularity of the poem in the early days here: ""Ulysses" was well-received by critics, yet its rise within the Tennyson canon took decades. Tennyson did not usually select it for publication in poetry anthologies..." Do you think that's sufficient? There isn't much I can add and wouldn't want to misrepresent that source.
    On a lighter note... I can picture the Homeric Ulysses sailing around listening to "Everybody's got a hungry heart" or Dante's Ulysses blasting "Wherever I May Roam" (And the road becomes my bride / I have stripped of all but pride / So in her I do confide)... but I haven't seen anything in the literature about the lines you mentioned as oft-discussed quotations. –Outriggr § 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the responses. I definitely think the Scott memorial deserves mentioning here, and indeed Bartlett's also mentions it in a footnote to its inclusion of the final line. And while I knew of the alleged Springsteen song connection, I never imagined a Metallica relation, although now that I think of it, some 19th century British poetry and certain strands of metal probably have a bit more in common than one might think ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (I didn't mean there was a connection to the songs, just so that's clear!) It may take me a day or two before I update the article with your suggestions. Thanks, –Outriggr § —Preceding comment was added at 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a reason why {{-}} is there after the lead? I use a wide screen monitor and there is a rather ugly white space between the lead & the table of contents. Tommy Stardust (talk) 08:50, 25 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Rob-B-Hood[edit]

    Self nomination: I've worked on this article for a while, inserting and expanding sections on production, a plot, release information and reception sections. Having gone through a peer review and some minor copyedits by others. I think it's time for it to be nominated. Feel free to write down any problems that remain with the article.--Alasdair 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're going to want to review the non-free images. Most of them don't seem to be showing something that could not be adequately explained without the image. Although you did explain why the images cannot be replaced by a free image, you did not explain why they cannot simply be removed. For instance, the image in casting shows that two people were in the film together for the first time in a long time. Anyone can understand that just by reading the text, why show the image? Jay32183 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll add reasons to most of the pictures in that regard. I'll try to find a replacement for the Yuen Biao pic.--Alasdair 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was actually that you may be able to do without the images, rather than trying to find replacements. "There needs to be an image" does not satisfy WP:NFCC. Jay32183 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • To make those images satisfy "significance" criteria, I will explain why they are significant. Some people think any image is not necessary for them to understand the topic, yet others do. Hence significance is still a subjective term. The discussion at WT:NFC#Confusion about the NFCC and Board's language? indicates this. The reason why I go lengths to write rationales is that I really wanted the images to be there, and if a convincing reason is made, at least some people will agree that it is significant.--Alasdair 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there is a free means to convey the information you cannot use the non-free means, WP:NFCC#1, not #8. I'm not saying the images are insignificant, I'm saying there is a free means to convey the same information. An image can be replaced by a non-image. I want you to reconsider the images, not make up fancy wording to defend them. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to be free, which means you should always try to avoid non-free content. Jay32183 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having talked about it further in WT:NFC, it is commented that it is not required for the image to be "impossible" to be expressed by text for it to be used. "Considerably difficult" is sufficient, and that the intepretation of some users of the critierion may have been too strict.--Alasdair 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, I guess I will replace the remaining screenshots with shots that have a 640x480 resolution.--Alasdair 05:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I did some minor copyediting and don't see any major problems with the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I find the structure quite odd – I would begin with plot. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines suggests the same; could you explain your rationale for how you have organised it?
    • I find the article concentrates heavily on Chan; given his start status, this may be valid, but there are points where I feel it breaks through. For example, in Casting each commentary on a cast member focuses on his relationship with Chan. Yuen Biao’s paragraph spends so long detailing his relationship to Chan, that his character isn’t named until the end. Surely good practice is to state actor and character straightaway, then explain casting background?
    • Is Jackie Chan’s birthday party really relevant to the film?
    • We have Casting, and then Cast, which appears redundant. I would suggest merging the two.
    Feel free to disagree with any of the above J.Winklethorpe talk 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's answer your comments one by one.
    • When it comes to the structure of the film, I believe that it should follow a logical order of production -> plot -> release -> reception. Since a film always starts in the production stages. When the audience have seen it entirely, they'd know the plot. Following the first screening, the film would be released everywhere around the world, and what's left is to listen to what reviewers have to say (reception). Hence such an article structure.
    • The reason why the article is so "Chan-centric", is because, well, the Chinese media tend to idolize Jackie Chan. Whenever a film involving him is made, the press would swarm over him, and even the lesser actors would be asked about him. Also, Chan plays a significant role in production besides being an actor. He co-wrote the script, his production company found the cast and he is the stunt director. Anyway, you do make a point, and I'll attempt to find interviews of the cast that don't involve JC.
    • Per your comments, the paragraph has been removed, and the Stunt Work section has been merged with the Filming section.
    • The casting section refers to how the stars are picked for the film, and their experience, and what they said in interviews and such. The cast section refers to the characters in the film, and I guess I'll rename that section as "Characters" to avoid confusion.
    In short, I'm following the format of a previous article I made which became a FA (Kung Fu Hustle), whose format is based on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Cheers.--Alasdair 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, well the structure makes sense. I appreciate the Chan-worship issue, hopefully you can find some useful sources to work on it. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Much improved.

    • Horribly over-linked. Take the lead. Why is "Jackie Chan" linked twice in eight lines? Why "October 2006" and other non-full dates? MOS says not to link currencies unless they're obscure. And why dilute important links with silly ones such as "Europe" and "North America"? And hello? Why "littering" and "perfectionist" and "homosexual"? We do speak English here. Please FIX.
    • MOS: em dashes normally unspaced.
    • Contractions (e.g., "wouldn't")—see MOS.
    • Lots of red links in the infoblot. Delink or start articles? Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, long time no talk. Anyway, I just moved into my new dorm, and have set up the internet, so I can finally reply to you. Let's take those points one at a time, shall we?
    • I've delinked many redundant words in the article. Things like continental links and incomplete dates have been delinked, as well as those words which you mentioned.
    • The spacing with the em-dashes are removed.
    • I've also removed the contractions, they were by another editor, it seems.
    • Red links have all been removed.
    If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers.--Alasdair 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be tardy in responding to request to revisit my oppose. The ony thing I notice is that HK dollars might be converted into US dollars on first occurrence, just to give the readers a general idea. Six to one, is it? (But most people won't know that.) Tony (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This has clearly had some work put into it, and it has pretty good coverage. My main concern is with the prose. In most places it is adequate, and some places, like the plot section, it just plods along. Many sentences are very short, and it feels choppy. Another issue is the name 'Chan' shared by the film's director and lead actor. Reading the article is difficult because sometimes I can't tell which Chan it is referring to. I also had a problem with at least one citation, for example "...make cameo appearances as homosexual security van drivers during a car chase in the film" would seem to require a citation [34] which, when I checked, linked to a page written in broken English that didn't say anything about the characters' sexual preference (Though it listed "Broke Broke Mountain!" (sic) as a highlight). The production and writing sections probably need some expansion and prose editing as well. I get the impression that this movie has a pretty crazy plot, I can't say I've seen anything like it. That got me wondering about how this fits into any existing film genres. The article mentions repeatedly that Chan was asked to do a villain for the first time in his career, but it doesn't say anything else about how this film relates to others he has done, or any the director has done. Perhaps a good peer review is in order, have some people with fresh eyes and good writing/copyedit skills work on it, and you can get it up to snuff. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for you comments. I've made a couple of preliminary changes so far:
    • The Chans have been disambiguated, Benny Chan and Jackie Chan.
    • The homosexual security guard statement is given an extra reference that refers to them as "greenhorn security guards".
    • Greenhorn means "new, inexperienced"
    More changes pending. Keep your eyes peeled.--Alasdair 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still looks strained, as though it is just trying to barely meet the minimum criteria. Take a look at some of the current FA in the media section for comparison. The content with this article is thorough and the writing is sound, but that's not enough. The prose needs to be compelling and engaging; this article is just an autopsy of the movie. It will take some work to make the prose come alive. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current status: The plot is being reworked, the rest of the article will follow.--Alasdair 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose looks a lot better. I'll strike out my objection as my concerns have been taken care of. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose changed to Support Learnedo 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's only B status, not even GA. Absolutely not! Stop wasting FA reviewers' time! Please come here when the article's ready. Leranedo 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't appear to be an actionable comment. There's no requirement to go via GA before FA. And personally, I don't consider my review of this article to have been a waste of time. J.Winklethorpe talk 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the impression that this would promote the article into the main FA page, so nevermind my comment. I still think it should at be a A status article before coming here however.
    • It has most of the content matters that are relevant.
    • In Reception, add ratings/rankings it received from various outlets.
    • Break the section on how much the film grossed into a separate section or within an appropriate one.
    • I moved the Characters section under Plot. It can work either way, but I feel this makes more sense as they are closely related.
    • Other then that maybe have more internal links to other wikipedia articles.
    • Will change to yes after these are fulfilled. Leranedo 05:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's reply to your points one at a time.
    • It should be noted that the film was NOT released in the United States and most of Europe. Therefore, it won't receive many reviews from the media there.
    • Wherever the reviews come from, that is what should be in the article. I never suggested it should be from western places.

    Current practice is that the scores are only quoted from RottenTomatoes or MetaCritic, and although there were 3 reviews, they were not enough to generate a "% fresh" rating.

    • It does not demand that editors "only quoted from.." It states: "Also useful are websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([5]) and Metacritic ([6]).."
    • When it comes to reception, the Style guideline for films recommend that the box office figures are placed in the section marked Reception, so there is no need to further split that paragraph.
    • I noticed that you have unilaterally changed the guidelines to coincide with your views. However, it should be noted that guidelines are not something to be changed lightly. Community consensus must be obtained before you change guidelines.--Alasdair 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the previous opposes was due to the fact that there are far too many internal links in the article. So, it has been delinked. For instance, the names in the infobox, if linked, will generate a lot of red links, which aren't desirable.--Alasdair 08:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if a link produces red links because they are broken, then why would we make an internal link to it?... I said "maybe have..." Learnedo 08:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWeak Object [mainly due to 1a, 2a ]Is this really FA level?
    "Crude methods were sometimes used to coax the baby into cooperation." what is meant by crude? (easily fixed)
    I think Jackie Chan should be expanded it's into own section. the "good guy" typecast, the chinese censorship of the character "too evil"- "one of the best things Chan can do for his flagging movie career" - This movie and this movie article, are both really about Jackie. I think it would be a great way to improve it significantly, and moving it away from walmartness and into brilliance/FA quality. I don't think it's FA quality yet.
    --Keerllston 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Separating topics into a "Jackie Chan" section goes against the Manual of Style of film articles. Oh, and by the way, why the heavy focus on Jackie Chan? This is because he is not just an actor in the film. I know it sounds crazy, but he's also a producer, writer and stunt director. In fact, he does them all! This is typical in his films these days. Also, Jackie Chan is extremely admired in China, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia in general. Even if other people co-stars with him, they don't get half of the attention in interviews and reviews (the reliable sources for the article), even so, they are almost always asked, "What do you think of Jackie Chan?" It's just unavoidable. I hope you understand.--Alasdair 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it is currently it seems the only notable thing about this movie was x, the only reason the movie succeeded was x, the only reason it was made was x. x is jackie chan in all three. Which is unusual. (I didn't ask why the focus on Jackie Chan) Jackie Chan is a huge star. He is maybe bigger than Bruce Lee in martial arts movies, but that's not a reason for an article veering off into talking about him. In fact, most cases this talks about jacking chan distractingly, and if you take off the parts that are about him, it is clearer, concise, perhaps all this talk about Jackie Chan could fit in the Characters section.--Keerllston 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe I said some conflicting statements. He's important and talk about him is distracting.--Keerllston
    Continued/Elaboration
    "After a production schedule lasting 10 months," this, in the lead, notes the production length and then goes on to talk about the unrelated reception, it is better without that sentence, the lead could use some increase of size..I think I have found that the lead needs to be rehashed in general. You said Revenge of the Sith was a guideline for organization of the article, the lead is substancially better both in that one and in Kung Fu Hustle.
    I think that the problem with hurrying articles is that they don't get very long.
    In characters, it should begin with the name of the character, not the actor. Not Jackie Chan as Thongs, but Thongs, played by Jackie Chan (unless you want to change the heading to "Casting"
    Comparing the prose to that of "Jackie Chan" it becomes apparent the difference in the quality of the writing.
    "As in many of his previous films, Chan made use of improvised weapons in combat[...]" Chan or Thongs? - Perhaps better would be that "his combat coreography included [...]"
    "It took over 100 auditions[...]" better would be "100 auditions were made before[...]"
    I now object due to criteria. Oddly enough I like it more now, doesn't seem so walmarty.
    --Keerllston 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your oppose, I've done the following things so far:
    • The lead section has been reorganized, now the first paragraph talks about who wrote and directed the film, as well as the starring actors. Then, it mentions the production budget and filming dates, as well as how the stunts are performed. The 2nd paragraph talks about the plot and setting, while the 3rd is about its release date and reception.
    • Mentions of Chan have been greatly reduced in the Casting section. However, they are still left in the Writing section, since Jackie Chan did write the film and design the concepts at the beginning. Also retained is the fact that it's the first film in which Jackie Chan plays a bad person. It's one factor that makes it unique among his filmography.
    • Prose changes made regarding "100 auditions" and "combat choreography". The Characters section has been renamed to Cast.
    These are the changes I made for now.--Alasdair 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead section still needs work. It should definitely note that this movie is due to Jackie Chan's intention moving away from being typecast, "The stunts, some of which involved the baby,[1] are performed by Chan himself and choreographed by the Jackie Chan Stunt Team.[2]" I would delete/severely trim (repetitive, not notable) -jackie chan does this in all his movies), instead putting the information I suggested. Maybe they could even be merged.
    Rather than "set in Hong Kong" should go about it "Rob-B-Hood tells the story of a kidnapping gone wrong in Hong Kong" or similar
    --Keerllston 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made changes to the lead. I've removed the emphasis on Jackie Chan's stunts, instead talking about his character role. "Rob-B-Hood is notable as the first in which Jackie Chan, tired of being typecast as "Mr. Nice Guy", plays a negative character—A burglar and compulsive gambler.". Also changed is the first sentence in the second paragraph: "Rob-B-Hood tells the story of a kidnapping gone wrong in Hong Kong".--Alasdair 10:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've recently discovered that many of the notes are in another language, usually when this is the case an admonition to this fact is placed before any other information about the source, I was wondering why this was different.--Keerllston 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why most of the sources are in Chinese is that it is a local film, that has not been released outside Asia with the exception of Greece. In addition, the Chinese press happened to be the ones which provide the most coverage on the subject, hence there are just so few reliable sources in English.--Alasdair 13:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: as in: Spanish Libro de libros. 2005 - while currently it is "Hero Killed Kat" (Chinese characters) (simplified chinese).--Keerllston 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I've removed the translations of the source titles in English, this is because all the citations are made using the standard citation templates, and the position of the source language could not be changed without causing a great distortion.--Alasdair 09:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better.--Keerllston 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have discovered how what I thought was standard is done. It is done by <ref name=example> '''Language''' {{citation template}}... I think the way it is now is standard.--Keerllston 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! I like the changes I see
    In Reception it notes very weasely that "some" say something and then goes on to quote a single person that says that. This should be changed to either have "(person A) says that (this) was (this way)" or "some critics said that (event) was (judgement) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]" (or do you know perhaps a third option?)
    "Chan stated that he [did not] wanted to play a different character rather than the typical nice guy role [he has] played by Chan for over 20 years. " possible rephrasing? "wanted to play a villain"?
    Section "Cast" should be renamed "Characters" and have "Character" played by "Actor" or merged with casting in production. Reasoning: 1 title should be reflected in content 2 two sections should not have the same topic.
    --Keerllston 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here are the next round of changes.
    The reception section has been changed so that it mentions the identity of the reviewers or newspapers who give the specific comments.
    The offending phrase has been rewritten as follows: "Chan stated that he did not want to play the typical nice guy role that has been the staple of his previous films."
    Cast section has been renamed to characters, and the format's been changed per your request.
    That's all for now.--Alasdair 14:03, 18 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    BioShock[edit]

    Hi. Myself and several other editors have been working on this article, and I believe it fully meets the FA criteria. One issue that one might point out involves stability; the article is expected to win a few awards at GotY this year (or early next), but I don't really see this as a stability issue, as that addition of information will involve a few sentences of text, and the article is stable currently anyway. Thanks for your consideration. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:FAC instuctions, "An article should not be a featured article candidate and at the same time be nominated for peer review or as good article candidate," please close and archive the peer review to {{oldpeerreview}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Sorry. Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per me. — H2O —  09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I copyedited it not too long ago, and it seems solid, and just as good as most FAs. Andonic Screw wikibreak enforcer! 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A few things I noticed immediately.
      • Citations are inconsistent. Not all of them list accessdates. Of those that do, some are in "Retrieved on November 2 2007." form, and others "Retrieved on 2007-08-20." form. A good number of the references don't have author names, but could.
        • Well, I will try to get to it, but bear with me - I have 116 refs to check over. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All  Done, I believe. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not done. Many, many citations lack author and publisher information, and I still see a number of inconsistencies in the accessdates alone. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine. I will get to work on finding publisher information for over 100 references, so please be patient. You should also be aware that that kind of information is not always available. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • If publisher information is not available, then perhaps the source is not sufficiently reliable. How can we check the source's "reputation for fact-checking" or "editorial oversight" if we do not have the publisher information? How can we check as to whether the source is self-published if we do not have the publisher information? On the other count, take as long as you wish; I understand that other obligations can press the Wikipedian for her valuable editing time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (unindent) The date forms are still inconsistent. I'm seeing half the citations in "Month Day Year" and half in "#Year#-#Month#-#Day#" Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An unhealthy amount of data is cited to weak references: Why use an about.com reference, for example? Is the Yale Daily News a recognized authority in the field? Some of the work simply seems unclean: Why does reference 90 link to a blog's summary of a paper rather than to the original paper itself, linked within the very same article? I also feel like the article fails to take full advantage of the source material out there. The article fails, for example, to make use of the developer interviews on Bioshock's collectors' set: a lot of the material they contain is simply omitted, and it could make for a much better development section. The EGM quote in "Influences" doesn't have a citation, and it's written in italics, where other quotations aren't. Not that quotations are a bad thing, but I think that more quotations in the development section could be paraphrased and balanced by more prose description.
        • Well, the article is sourced to 116 references. I'd say it is fairly well-sourced, when you look at other video gae FAs, they use many ".com" sources, so I'd say that it is fine. If you can help us take advantage of the vaguely described "sources out there", then it would be appreciated. Fixed the quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article cites a web forum's self-reportage for a sentence on "current user efforts to create a Pixel shader 2.0-compatible version of the software"; it cites a blog called Gaming Bob; it cites a Yale student newsletter. The quality of an article's sourcing isn't dependent on any raw number; good sourcing requires user discretion, assessment, and the full-scale exploitation of the best sources. 116 isn't an impressive number for the largest PC and Xbox game of the year: GameSpot alone has 125 pieces on the game. Such a figure could probably be multiplied tenfold to get an accurate gauge on the number of sources available everywhere, without resorting to the citation of minor sources. For video games, I expect fuller sourcing than I do for less ephemeral topics. Because the sources for video games are at once both numerous and superficial, and because there are no real authorities in the field, an article that must "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" will need to use a larger number of sources to meet that requirement than a comparable article in another field. I believe this article does not currently meet Featured Article standards in this regard. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Irrelevent to the subject matter, 116 sources is an impressive number, and it is not as if we have blindly selected those sources; we have inherently applied our discretion. We have scourged a large number of areas for these citations, which I feel is a good thing, for we have achieved a broader understanding of the content, and have seen different views on the content, instead of searching in the same places. As you say, there are no real authorities in the video gaming world, so why are you placing more emphasis on the more published and well-known websites? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Odd formatting: In the reviews section, there is a capitalized sentence following a colon, an ellipsis used contrary to MOS guidelines, and a quotation followed by text that is finished with a period, rather than a comma. There is a period following reference 15 and the already full-stopped quoted sentence that it follows: ."[15]. There isn't much italicizing of journal, magazine and newspaper titles, as required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Why is the "Technical" in "Criticism and Technical issues" capitalized? A good cleanup seems in order.
        • All  Done. Left the ellipsis as it was part of a quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not done. The journal, magazine and newspaper titles are not yet italicized. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now I think it is all done. I have done a clean sweap of the reviews/awards section, where they are all likely to be in. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I caught some more: Atlas Shrugged and The Orange Box. Oh, and Tribes: Vengeance also needs italicizing. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • One more: EGM. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some awkward phraseology: 'In the realm of current events, Levine has also mentioned an interest in "stem cell research and the moral issues that go around."'; "According to the developers, BioShock is a spiritual successor to the System Shock games, and was developed by former developers of that series."
      • "Chat" in the sense of "speaking with" is insufficiently formal. Perhaps "spoke"?

    These are just some general flaws. I believe the article needs a good copy-edit by a user unfamiliar with the article. I'm also not comfortable stating that this article fulfills 1 (b) and 1 (c). The sources don't seem to have been mined in any consistent or comprehensive way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • These are minor flaws. I mean, really - look at the last one. You could have fixed that yourself. I don't agree that a good cleanup is in order; I doubt that there is any article here on Wikipedia which has utterly immaculate formatting. But I will try and see if I can get it to the standard which you are asking. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but I'm seeing them all over. I used them as illustrative of larger-scale problems: I don't think this article meets FA standards for engaging, professional prose, for MOS compliance, for sourcing, for full and accurate citation, and for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot work with such a vague comment. Make specifications and contructive criticism, rather than pure criticism not backed up by examples that I can work on improving. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My examples are above; I do not expect you to work on my summation of the criticisms with the article. Rather, when you have addressed all particular criticisms, the general criticism will disappear, just as when you cut down every single tree, the forest will disappear. I will attempt to be precise in the future. My apologies for raising your ire with vague commentary and pure criticism. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I am not angry at all. Just feel a little swamped, by what is, I think we can agree, mostly minor issues. But, as you say, eventually the forest will fall. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for your persistent hard work, AnonymousD! Minor fixes add up to a prettier, cleaner, more accessible and more useful article.Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, thanks to Masem for his hard work behind the scenes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some more precise commentary:
      • "BioShock takes place during 1960, in Rapture, a fictional underwater dystopian city[28] secretly built in 1946 on the mid-Atlantic seabed, entirely self-sufficient and powered by submarine volcanoes." has too many clauses. Splice it down.
      • There's a dash being used in place of a spaced ndash/unspaced mdash.
      • Too many quotes used in the reception section.
        • I'm not sure this is really a problem. I thought it would be a good thing, enforcing the accuracy of the section by making quotes and giving context. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grand Theft Auto isn't italicized.
        •  Done
      • "Versions and merchandise" falls prey to proseline. Try to vary your sentence-commencing techniques.
        • Please give an example of this so I can see it elsewhere and eliminate the issue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Each paragraph begins with "On Month Day Year,..."
            • Reworded
      • There should be no external links in the text.
      • 2004-2005 needs an ndash.
        •  Done
      • Does "BioShock: Breaking the Mold" need both italics and quotation marks?
      • I'm not sure Kristan Reed should speak for "reviewers" "overall". Perhaps you could make clear that that final series of comments comes from one reviewer working for one publication alone?
      • Wired should link to Wired (magazine), right? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does not talk about "morality-based" storyline mentioned in lead. In line with that, the article might perhaps discuss the prominent moral/dramatic issues surrounding the harvesting of Little Sisters. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This talks a goodly amount about the Objectivism/Ayn Rand connection. Might help there. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have two pairs of Game Rankings citations. I understand there being a pair, what with the Xbox and PC launches, but there's no need for two pairs. The two pairs are not consistently formatted anyways. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure waht you mean; the 360 ref has is used twice, as is the PC. so what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then that means it's  Done! When I was looking at it, the two locations were cited to different references. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a Metacritic citation called "Critical Acclaim". That's not what MetaCritic called their page, and the citation is redundant anyways; there's already another pair of Metacritic citations. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why does the "Story" begin with "The character of Jack"? It sounds a bit awkward. What's wrong with "Jack"? In-universe issues? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, if "immaculate formatting" means compliance with all Style Guidelines, then this article, as per the Featured Article criteria, needs immaculate formatting to pass FAC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although some references in the Story section for the text between "Ryan further informs..." and "...Here the game ends" would possibly be beneficial. Daniel 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support: per WP:LEAD, I'm sure the lead can be a little more comprehensive. Manderiko 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, very well referenced and written. This is something to be proud of, regardless of the outcome. Great work ~ Sebi 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fair use images should be reduced in size to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The rule of thumb is that non-free images should be no larger than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. -- Chris B • talk 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually now  Done (the actual images had to be rescaled, and since I had uploaded them all, I've gone and fixed them all to be no larger than 300px in one dimension. --MASEM 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - great job, the article is very detailed - I only miss sales data, only "shipped units" are reported. And the article will certainly fulfill the "Stability" criteria, since the only things yet to come about the game are awards and sales. igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 4 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    The World Is Not Enough (song)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for FA because it has been doing well since long. Vikrant Phadkay 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • A lot of information here. Well written. Well referenced. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment Oppose Comment: multiple unsourced paragraphs, particularly in Music video, but also elsewhere, and including some uncited quotations. At least one of those quotes also needs logical quotation, per MOS. In the same section, a couple of stubby paragraphs, and repetition of the android Manson. Various punctuation problems: a quote without a closing ", one ending ."[12]". Years on their own linked (well, at least one, anyway), and a strange hyphen hanging around after bridge. That's what I spotted on a very quick glance through it, so there may be more along these lines. Carre 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have answered these issues below, so why oppose now? Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now changed comment to oppose. Carre 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done It has all been corrected. Some of it was just trivia, probably kept after removing its section. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just examples, following another very quick scan through:
    • really quickly".[14] – logical quotes
    • Bond theme. [32] – citation placement
    • turned out."?"[30] – punctuation
    • version - 15 or 20 – dashes
    • "predictable "Goldfinger" permutation – punctuation
    • There remains at least one quote without citation
    •  Done The website in that sentence was not mentioned. Thats out. Vikrant Phadkay 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are "just" MOS things, for the most part, but again, this is only from a quick scan. In other words, it looks like it needs a copy edit. Carre 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done So MOS is now fine. I dont see problems about the other criteria. Vikrant Phadkay 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [Edit - I take it this was an answer to me, not Avala, so I took the liberty of moving it here... if that's a problem, just move it back. Carre][reply]
    • I just went through and fixed a few more. Can't see anything else personally, so I've gone back to comment now. That doesn't mean there aren't any more problems, just that I couldn't see them. Carre 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N What is bothering you? Everything is done, I suppose.Vikrant Phadkay 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well written. --Avala 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support since I improved the article for/during the GA nomination, I was already thinking about an FA nom. But we'll need to fix the broken refs. igordebraga ≠ 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to mention, as part of the WikiProject James Bond, that User:Vikrant Phadkay, who a recent contributor to this article, is currently on a short Wikibreak and will return soon and will answer queries then.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have returned. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments This article is good. I was expecting a stubby article when I saw this in the list, however it is very comprehensive and well written. There are a few things needing cleanup/attention.
    • "It is the third theme of the series sung by a Scotswoman (Shirley Manson) after..." -- This is interesting Bond trivia. However I would question whether it is worthy of mention in this article. And it is most certainly not notable for the lead. Also violates the point that the lead should not contain info. not discussed later.
     Done Removed, as I couldn't find any place to fit igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was always sure the lyrics were "there's no point in living if you cant feel alive", however I listened to the song again and it's undoubtedly "there's no point in living if you cant feel a life" as the article states. However the actors make reference to this line several times and it's the former - "there's no point in living if you cant feel alive" e.g. Elektra in the Casino, Bond confronting Elektra in Baku palace. For such an important line/part of the plot a discussion about the discrepancy would be good.
    Check the lyrics, please. igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For unspecified reasons the song was not allowed to be written in any studios based in USA" -- I'm guessing this whole paragraph is a brief summary of the section? Otherwise various elements need linked, i.e. the later quote that the work in Vancouver was "Garbagising" the song. Also since that is what is stated, perhaps written not the best word for "written in any studios..."
     Done Maybe Igordebraga edited it. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Space missing between TND and "and Scott"
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wilson and Broccoli's status could be better explained than "principals of EON Productions" - what positions?
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same paragraph - "collaborating on the song" is redundant.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next para - Nobody Does it Better needs italicised. As does Sunday Times later in article.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paragraph beginning "Arnold was quoted on The World Is Not Enough DVD commentary speaking about the challenge of creating a Bond theme tune" and the one beginning "During an interview for documentary Bond Cocktail, David Arnold spoke of the challenges in creating a Bond score" should be linked I think. Yes score and theme not the same, but in terms of difficulty/challenges etc. they are.
     Done reworked both paragraphs into one about Arnold, and moved a quote to the last one
    • Again with the paragraph "Arnold was quoted on The World..." -- The punctuation is akward, dashes and brackets for no good reason. Also "which was ended up as the end title theme" is bad writing.
     Done removed igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referring to MGM as plural - Companies should be singular, i.e. MGM initially disliked the song because it was a ballad and it had hoped for a theme song.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same paragraph, rmv dash.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Increasing use of bigger and bigger quotations as the article goes on. IMO the balance tips toward overuse - consider paraphrasing some and using the quotations as refs?
    That will be a hell of a challenge - I started to turn some quotes into simple paragraphs.igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also MOS says " A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation" -- that would include many quotes in this article, e.g. the "part of the reason I thought Garbage would be such a good idea" quote.
    Turned this one into BQ, will try more later. igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this should stay limited. Too many blockquotes is a cleanup category and will target this article's GA status too. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same para as above - "Arnold expressed his desire" sounds like he was talking prior to signing them? Maybe better say "expressed his rationale for wanting" or the equivalent of.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First instance of Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is spelled out, then the enxt instance is abbreviated. The correct format is first instance: Mr Kiss Kiss Band Bang (MKKBB) and second instance just: MKKBB.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One instance of MKBB - missing a K
     Done igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Initially, MGM had resisted composer David Arnold's suggestion to work with Garbage on the theme, they had wanted an artist a more mainstream profile, but Arnold convinced them that the group would bring a certain credibility and commercial clout to the Bond theme stable. Eventually the company relented, and the producers and the band reached a deal after a few weeks of negotiation" is too significant IMO to be uncited.
     Done This is nowhere in the sources and also contradicts many quotes. Removed.Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butch Vig quoted around here but not introduced to later in the article as "drummer". Also he's quoted many times - the first instance should be Butch Vig and later just Vig. Too many "Butch"s - bit too informal.
     Done turned Butch into Vig igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Garbage drummer Butch Vig told CNN .... This was the first time we ever recorded with a 60-piece orchestra and that was a most excellent experience" is repitition.
     Done removed the orchestra part igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "scenes were filmed first(laboratory scene" space needed
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The director, Philipp Stoelzl, came " repitition - consider just using surname 2nd time.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The version of "The World Is Not Enough" in the actual movie is a remix of the song, edited "
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The single just failed to give Garbage their sixth top ten hit, stalling just outside at #11, but had a nine week chart run, which as of 2007, no Garbage single has achieved previously or since" -- sentence goes on too long and uses just twice.
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in a surprisingly more sturdy digipack sleeve than the UK pressing;[37] both the printing and card sleeve was of better quality." an unnecessary fixation on the CD sleeve?
     Done how did I miss such cruft I'll never know.
    • "The single was a success in many European countries that had previously not been receptive to Garbage before"
     Doneigordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a disrepancy between the Holywood Reporter list and the Sunday Times denial issues by Arnold. So did the ones Arnold fail to deny audition?
     Done I have cleaned up the lines but the discrepancy continues. All sourced content ends (and OR begins) with David Arnold's denial. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclusion in other media section - 1st paragraph: too many Alsos - merge a few sentences.
     Done igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark83 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Stanley Cup[edit]

    previous FAC

    Failed previous FAC, due to copyediting/style concerns. (Big thank yous to User:Awadewit for the copyedting and for User:SandyGeorgia for the MoS assesement). All have been addressed. I feel this exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. All comments/concerns will be addressed. Thanks, Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Perspicacite 06:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments. I've done a copyedit on the intro and first section. Minor issues:
    • Is there a better way to phrase "most coveted" in the intro sentence?
    • Is "official du jour redundant?
    • Citation #7 doesn't refer to the Generals anywhere.Sorry, made a mistake here -Wafulz 00:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [[40] defines it as "highly sought-after"; that can work, but personally I prefer coveted. I like the word. :-) I've fixed the redundant de jure/offical part. But nothing about the Generals is being reference by citation 7. Maxim 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There are some minor issues (overlinking comes to mind), but the article is written well enough.-Wafulz 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there should be something about the competition that this cup it awarded for. Also it's best to avoid see also sections if you can. Buc 09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is it best to avoid see also sections? They add useful links to the articles. Most featured articles have them--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not requirement for an article to be FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes having the links are fine but see if you can incorporate them into the article. Buc 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel competition is covered throughly in the history section. Sorry for the tardiness. :'( Maxim 02:53, 14 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Oldham[edit]

    I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because, having some experience in obtaining FA for other settlements, I believe this one is up there with the best. It's not gone through the GA process because, as pointed out by another user, there is little to be gained by it (by which I mean for this article specifically! - not GAC itself!), and I've been assured that it not uncommon for articles to go straight to FA. If this upsets reviewers I apologise, but I hope they agree that this article flys through GA anyway.

    A point of communication for reviewers. That "Oldham is in Greater Manchester" has a reference is there to assert verifiability for the benefit of a former distruptive editor with an unusual view of British geography; his various accounts banned (not blocked) about 6 times last year. The article is totally stable now however. Furthermore, as a UK settlement, this article is WP:UKCITIES compliant.

    Other than that, all I can say is enjoy reading about my town! It may be ugly, but it's home! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose:
      • 80 KiB. This article seriously needs more subpages. The TOC is also extremely lengthy.
        The article has 39KB prose, well within WP:SIZE guidelines of 30 to 50KB readable prose. The TOC looks fine, where do you see problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concur; there are comparable geography/place class artices at FA with much more prose and lengthier contents. It is also inline with the relevant MOS on article size. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This system came to an end however on 3 August 1946.—Awkward.
        •  Done, copyeditted. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second paragraph of the sports section needs sources.
      • Oldham Athletic have had considerable success—Singular.
      • The town has a notable theatrical culture.—POV.
        •  Done, rephrased and sourced, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all I have for now. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:40, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Comment, per the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, please archive and close the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does one close the peer review? I realise its old and gone stale, but I understood that a bot had to close it? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reference no. 31 is a dead link. Also the link where you sourced your data from in the demography template is not working. Both the links are from 'visionofbritain.org.uk' website. DSachan 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Could you please re-check this. Both appear to be functioning fine to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they are working fine now, I guess there was some problem with the website at that time. DSachan 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is looking good, however, I was slightly confused by the comment in the lead that "with little early history to speak of" followed by a paragraph about the history from neolithic, roman and anglo-saxon times" I would say they provided significant history. I also found the sentence "Unmentioned in the Domesday Book, Oldham during the Middle Ages, from the time of its founding in the 9th century through to the Industrial Revolution, is believed to been nothing but a mere scattering of small and insignificant settlements spread across the moorland and dirt tracks which linked Manchester to York." complex and I had to read it 3 times.— Rod talk 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that sentence might be a little ambitious!.... As for the early history, it is the absolute sum- there is nothing else in the published realm about pre-industrial Oldham! There have been no castles, no battles, no great disasters, or cathedrals, nor any plots or visits by the monarch. The sentence itself appears, almost word-for-word in A Centenery History of Oldham, one of the major sources for the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a few refs for listed buildings but in the education section the article talks about Blue Coat School, but the reference I found "Henshaw's Bluecoat School". Images of England. Retrieved 2007-11-14. uses a different title & uses Blue Coat as one word - can you confirm which is correct?— Rod talk 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the additional reference material. The official school website [41] and Ofsted [42] use The Blue Coat School. As such, I'd stick with using it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support not so bad --Mini@ 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a very balanced and well structured article with great sources. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well sourced article that has a good compliance with all criteria. Anything wrong with the article could be easily fixed without compromising the article. Rudget zŋ 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well written and sourced article with the required coverage. Kbthompson (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - comprehensive & well supported.— Rod talk 09:58, 18 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Society of the Song Dynasty[edit]

    This Chinese history article has achieved GA status already, and is one of 7 articles in a wikipedia featured topic for the main theme of the Song Dynasty. It's written quality is arguably on par with the other two featured articles in that wiki topic. Therefore I nominate this article for FA status.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Another fantastic Song Dynasty article. Pictures, citations and textual excerpts are of the highest quality. --Hemlock Martinis 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment In the section named 'Court cases', there is a multi-paragraph quotation. Each paragraph has a citation to the same reference. Should there just be one citation for the entire quote? Hmains 01:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Since they are separated as paragraphs, I think it is safe to put the citation after each one, instead of just after the very last quoted paragraph. In the meantime, I will look into wikipedia's guidelines for quotations and see what I can find.--Pericles of AthensTalk
    • Comment It looks great. A couple coverage concerns I have are the lack of information on the status of minorities, and the minimal information on entertainment. You don't need to duplicate the things that should be in the culture article, but some discussion of what entertainment was valued, what was accepted in high and low class, etc would be an important aspect of society. The only place I saw even a short mention was in the Urban life section. - Taxman Talk 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: ??? There's additional information about entertainment in the next sub-section on social class; see the second and third paragraphs. I would add additional information on entertainment, but my Chinese history sources do not go overboard on the subject. Since entertainment is mentioned in two different sections of this Society article, I do think it is sufficient in coverage. With minorities in the Song Dynasty, yes there were plenty of different ethnic groups living in the major cities, especially the two capitals and the southern seaports such as Guangzhou and Quanzhou. This merits some discussion; I think I will add a paragraph at the end of the social class section about minorities. As to their status (legal or unofficial), I have never read any source that covered this thoroughly; I will check Jacques Gernet's book. Although he has a taste for nuance, he does not go into incredible detail on the subject, if I recall.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, yes I didn't see that. It almost covers it, but only in terms of occupations and what the poor did to entertain the wealthy. It would be better to cover it in general, but if it's not in the sources, then it's not. Otherwise looking again at the article, the structure seems a bit odd. There's a large section on urban life, what about rural? Obviously there's some information, but not at the same level of detail and presentation. The family and gender section is entirely about women. There's very little there about the family structure and respect except as it relates to women. I see the new section on minorities it looks pretty good. Is there any information on the relative proportions? You may be hard pressed to find that, but it would be good to compare it a little. Is it 1% minorities or 40% for ex. Does enough information exist to say their participation in society was minor and/or rare? Otherwise what's there does seem to imply it's small, so if there's no more info that's as good as it gets. - Taxman Talk 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added an entire new sub-section on China's foreign community. However, not much is said of their status except for a couple Muslim guys who became a Quanzhou Shipping Commissioner and a Chief Court Astronomer, respectively.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response It's not that the information doesn't exist, it's just that I don't own every book in the world. The only book I own that covers entertainment in detail would be Jacques Gernet's book, which I've already used pretty heavily for this article (almost half the citations). There is not a gigantic wealth of information known about rural life, spare farming techniques, religious customs, and some family traditions and pasttimes, etc. Gernet points this out actually; naturally much more will be known about the towns and cities, where most of the literate people and men of letters congregate and live. As for minority proportions, that's asking a bit much. I'm sure there's an estimation somewhere (afterall, the census was quite an accurate system back then for the medieval period, and overall Song population was 100 million). However, I don't think they were tedious enough back then to tally up every foreigner or person of ethnic difference and then figure out percentages related to the population as a whole. As for the family and gender section, actually quite a bit is mentioned about family matters (legal and other), but you're right, the information does center around women's involvement in the family. I suppose I could mention something about Confucian order and father-to-son relations. That will mean more searching of books for citations though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment! I'm happy to announce that I've recently gone above and beyond your concerns with new large scale edits and improvements to the article. I expanded information on both the family and entertainment. Have a look!--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comments' I am so happy that someone is taking on these important articles! What an undertaking! I am slowly reading through the article. I am about half-way through. I thought I would post my first set of comments and the second set later.
    • The article is overlinked. See WP:MOS-L for advice on linking.
    • Why are some scattered names in Chinese and others not? All names should either be translated or all not.

    Small clarifications:

    • Something seems off about the first sentence - perhaps a more parallel structure wold help it?
    • The first time any dynasty is mentioned, it would be helpful to have its approximate dates.
    • These covered bazaars known as 'pleasure grounds' were places where strict social morals and formalities could be largely ignored. - not clear what "these" refers to in the context of the article
    • Gaining a scholarly degree by passing prefectural, provincial, or palace exams in the Song period was far more a prerequisite in being selected for higher posts than in the earlier Tang period. - a more important prerequisite?
    • "greatest prerequisite" doesn't make sense either - you need a word, I think, like "important" or "significant" Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much more so than scholar officials in the earlier Tang Dynasty, access to ranks, honors, and career appointments of Song scholar-officials were enhanced by their own merit and on far more objective criteria than in standards of the past. - a bit convoluted
    • New version is still hard to follow. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about something like this: "Song scholar-officials were granted ranks, honors, and career appointments on the basis of merit, the standards of which were codified and more objective than those in the Tang Dynasty." Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fan set out to modify and erase corruption from the recruitment system, to provide higher salaries for minor officials in order to persuade them not to become corrupt and take bribes, and the establishment of sponsorship programs that would ensure officials were drafted on their merits, administrative skills, and character more than etiquette and cultured appearance. - needs parallel structure
    • During the Song Dynasty, the whole of Chinese society was theoretically modelled upon this familial social order of superiors and inferiors, and how one regulated his or her behavior appropriately when dealing with an inferior or superior member of one's family or society. - It is not clear what the second half of the sentence adds.
    • It is often perceived that women during the earlier Tang Dynasty were brazen, assertive, active, and relatively more socially liberated. - "It is often claimed" perhaps?; "more socially liberated" than when? Comparatives need a comparison.
    • Evidence of foot binding as a growing trend in the Southern Song period would certainly reinforce this notion. - Can a period have a "South"?
    • The economic prosperity of the Song period prompted many families to provide their daughters with larger dowries in order to attract the most potential and wealthy son-in-laws. - "the most potential" is just hanging here - awkward
    • new version is still awkward - how about "desirable marriage candidates" or "eligible marriage candidates"? "potential" doesn't make sense there Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were also many professional courtesans in the cities (or brought back home as concubines) to keep men busy in the pursuits of entertainment, relations, and romantic affairs. - parenthetical is awkwardly phrased
    • Earlier native Chinese religious beliefs in Daoism and beliefs in foreign-originated Buddhism continued into the Song period. - awkward
    • new version contrasts "ideologies" with "minorities" - non-parallel Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although many followed the teachings of Buddha, there were also many critics of the ideology. - An ideology, philosophy, or religion?
    • Under "Court cases", there are three large block quotations. Since they are all from the same page, why don't you put ellipses between them instead of breaking them up with separate footnotes to indicate that they are from separate sections of the page?
    • The first block quotation begins "A proclomation" - is that a misprint in the source? If so, it should have [sic] after it.

    This is a long article, necessarily so by its topic, but I think that some of the length can be cut by reducing the wordiness of the sentences. Here are two examples of what I mean:

    • Much like the earlier Tang capital, though, the Song capitals of Kaifeng and Hangzhou still featured wide, open avenues to create fire breaks that would ensure fires would remain isolated to one district should they occur.
    • Rewrite: "Much like the earlier Tang capital, the Song capitals of Kaifeng and Hangzhou featured wide, open avenues to create fire breaks."
     Done I replaced the sentence in question with your own rendition.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although urban life was orderly and organized, in order to maintain a properly-functioning empire, the Song court had to make sure the countryside was run efficiently and was just as orderly.
    • Rewrite: "In order to ensure an orderly urban life and a properly-functioning empire, the Song court made certain that the countryside was run efficiently."
     Done I replaced the sentence in question with your own rendition.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS, etc.:

    • The MOS discourages the use of "call-out quotes" in articles (see WP:MOSQUOTE).
    • The "References" need to give the original publication date for Castiglione's book, otherwise it looks modern.
    • The Cambridge Illustrated History of China - give only the ISBN for the edition you used (page numbers will be different).
    • Journal titles should be italicized in the "References".

    There are many large paragraphs in this article. While I personally don't have a problem with this, wikipedia-style tends towards the shorter paragraph. I think that this is because readers are scared of big blocks of text. Are you planning on doing a "Government in the Song Dynasty" page? I would have thought "Justice system" and maybe even the "Armed forces" sections would have gone there.

    Excellent job - I am learning so much. That is the best kind of article to review. Awadewit | talk 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Wow! I will certainly take everything you've suggested to heart. I'm glad that more people are taking an interest in the article. Unfortunately, I am very busy at the moment, and will be for the rest of the week. Hopefully I will be able to properly address all of your concerns within the week, if my now busy school schedule permits it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand completely. I look forward to being able to support the article soon. I definitely think that after a little polishing, it is FA material. Awadewit | talk 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have somehow found the time (even though I just took a midterm exam this morning) to address all of your concerns about rewording and clarification. I'm quite fast when it comes to typing I suppose. Lol. As for your confusion about the "Southern Song" period in the women's section (when talking about the rise of the tradition of footbinding), I don't know if you got around to reading the "Armed forces" section yet, but it explains why the Song period is divided between Northern Song and Southern Song (so does the intro of the main Song Dynasty article). It is because northern China was conquered by the Jurchens, and the court fled south from Kaifeng to Hangzhou, making the latter the new capital, a move which demarcated a new era of the dynasty, the "Southern" period.
    I am not planning on making an entire new article on Song government, since the military and justice system sections have much to reveal about Song society, the focus of this article. Plus, the Song Dynasty is already an accepted featured topic, and people who nominated it as such pointed out that there were no obvious gaps of missing articles that could make Song Dynasty a featured topic.
    I could attempt to break up some large paragraphs in the article for sake of the reader's patience with large blocks of text, but seriously, many of them are reasonably lengthy and do not have sentences that stray from the topic of the paragraph.
    As for a map, the only place I think that would be appropriate would be the military section, where geography is somewhat important in the description of the northern-southern split of China. But really, if someone wanted to see a map of the Song Empire, they could easily refer to the lead picture in the main article, as well as another map in the first section on history that shows the bounds of the Southern Song and Jin Dynasty to the north after 1127.
    If you have strong objections to these and truly think the article could do better with a map and such, please state them here. Otherwise, I have addressed all your technical concerns (like clarifying that the Ebrey book used was the paperback edition), and I think the article is fast approaching FA class.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny. I am grading midterm papers. :)
    • I had not reached the "Armed Forces" section when I asked about the "Southern Song" - I wonder if there is some way to forestall questions like that, in case someone doesn't read Song Dynasty first?
    • I would seriously think about a government page of some sort. Just because no editors mentioned it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good addition. See Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt, for example.
    • I agree that your paragraphs are on topic - it is more of a wiki-style issue. If you feel uncomfortable changing them, do not.
    • I would strongly encourage you to include a map. I wanted one the minute I started reading the article. Knowing very little about China myself, I wanted to know where all of the cities were exactly and where in relation to each other that were mentioned in "Urban life". Try to put yourself in the position of the lay reader. Someone could go to the main article, but why force them? Offer knowledge on a silver platter. Obviously I won't oppose based on the lack of a map (how absurd!), but I do think that you should consider it.
    • The article is looking better. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, you're a professor! That's cool. I aim to become a professor one of these days.
    • Alas, I am a lowly graduate student. I, too, aim to become a professor. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the information about the distinction between Northern Song and Southern Song in the second paragraph of Urban Life, where it talks about the two capitals, Kaifeng and Hangzhou. I thought that was a fitting place to introduce it. I also added two maps to the Armed forces section, one for the Northern Song boundaries, and one right below that map for the Southern Song boundaries.
    • I addressed your second round of concerns about the wording of some awkward sentences. I hope this second attempt of mine to reword some of those awkward sentences is better than the first!
    • I am still diametrically opposed (lol) to the notion that a separate Government of the Song Dynasty article should be created, although that title does have a nice ring to it. :) I think that the sections on partisan politics, the justice system, and the armed forces are pivotal to understanding Song society. The Partisan politics section follows the sections discussing the scholar official class, education, and recruitment of officials into government. The factionalized government itself is a subject of the workings of society, including the educational and political reform of the era. The two subjects are inseparable, and deleting it from this article will only damage its quality and the reader's ability the understand the topic fully. The justice system is an extension of this as well, as the scholar officials are the judges themselves! It is but one of their duties. It shows the moral outlook of that period on how to govern a just society, along with legal issues amongst different groups of people, how courts were maintained, and how law and order was related to Song society. The military section provides information on soldiers and their position in society, and is an extension of the information provided in the social class section, in order to provide the reader with a fuller sense of that social group (along with necessary info on events). Song society was affected by martial events and its own military. It was also a section that had to be added in order for the article to pass GA review, and I agreed with the reviewer at the time (look to the discussion page).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel that this is the best arrangement, I will trust you, since I have absolutely no knowledge of this topic. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I replaced that one sentence about ranks, honors, and appointments with the cleaner, adjusted sentence that you suggested above.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed that you haven't crossed out your statement that the article is over-linked, so I have taken the liberty of combing through the article a second time and deleting about 30 or 40 links that could be considered low quality and somewhat irrelevant to the main topic. I hope the latest round of link deletions will be sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted some more myself. Looks better. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! It does look better. I have a question though. You have not yet struck out the statement about the scattered Chinese character names in the article, even though I deleted those (the only ones I found were in the education section, which were Chinese translations for the various academies listed). Is there a reason why this statement is not yet struck out? Also, you have not yet struck out the statement on Fan Zhongyan and the statement about him needing more parallel structure. I thought that I had remedied that situation when I split the sentence into two...is there still a problem?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still one translation - for the New Policies Group. Perhaps this is a necessary translation? (By the way, it helps reviewers enormously if you write below each comment "done" or even paste in a copy of your reworded sentence so that they know you have addressed an issue. That way they don't have to go hunting through the article to check or click through all of the recent changes.) Awadewit | talk 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I just got rid of the translation, and added a hidden link to the History of the Song Dynasty article. The reason I do not use the done marker at the beginning of FA review bullets is because a certain FA reviewer a while back told me to stop using them, as they were very "annoying" to that wikipedia member. I took that advice to heart, but for you I make this one exception. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I was just saying you should somehow indicate that you had addressed the concern. Yes, apparently many people don't like the checks (I don't care either way - why get upset over that?). Awadewit | talk 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Beats me, I just stopped using them after the initial complaint, thinking that person's opinion was a general consensus of FA reviewers. That episode happened during the first time I nominated an article for Featured Article status. I was young then, full of venturing confidence, fiddling with new wikipedia command codes in a vast and uncharted featured article nominating process (lol!), but the scars of that merciless, cold-hearted rebuke and beratement for daring to use the check mark have inflicted pain and doubtfulness upon my psyche, esteem, and groove on wikipedia ever since! [/dramatic sarcasm]. Lol. Oh, by the way, are you going to support this article now? Have I jumped through enough fiery hoops in order to satisfy your high standards for impeccable use of grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure? Please say yes!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC can indeed be merciless. I think I've been through about twelve now or something. I'm sorry I have made this seem like hoops - I never wanted to do that! Actually, the most important thing - reducing wordiness - hasn't been taken care of. I gave two examples of sentences to change, which you did, but those were only examples. The idea was for you to see those and say "ah ha! now, I totally understand the problem!" Why don't I copy edit one section of the article to show you what I mean. You can spend some time studying the edits and hopefully do the rest yourself. One of the best ways to improve your writing is to have someone go over it meticulously with you (as I tell my students daily). Awadewit | talk 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick copy edit of "Urban life" so you can get a feel of what I am talking about. Awadewit | talk 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just completed some major edits to the Urban Life section as well, but I will need more time to comb through the rest of the article. As for today, I have yet another midterm! It comes at 4:30 pm. So I will naturally be very busy today. And guess what? I have a paper due tomorrow! Busy bee.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Best to take the time to do it well. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes & support
    • Comprehensive article.
    • I don't feel there is enough internal links to wiki articles though. Learnedo 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It might be a good idea if you listed some words/phrases you think should be linked as we have just spent time removing a bunch of unnecessary links per WP:MOS-L. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the editor. You'd make better decisions than me, hopefully. Learnedo 06:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pericles is the primary editor of this article. Usually when reviewers make comments, they try to be as specific as possible. It is difficult for us to know what you think should be linked unless you offer us some examples. Obviously, between Pericles and myself, we have linked what we think is appropriate. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...I'm guessing the "Yes" means "support", yes?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Recent edits to the article's section titles got me thinking, and I realized that some of the titles did not adequately reflect the content that was described in the sections, so I have made a few drastic changes and rearrangements with new sub-sections and new title changes. I hope everyone favors these recent changes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made even more changes to the article with additional information about the gentry, commerce, etc., have a look see!--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the copy editing coming? Awadewit | talk 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pericles, do you know a good copy editor? I think what this article needs at this point is someone unfamiliar with its prose to tighten everything up. It is still quite wordy. I would volunteer myself except I am extremely busy at the moment - it would probably take me 2-3 weeks to finish a copy edit. What do you think of posting it at the League of Copyeditors? You might also ask Scartol. He is an excellent copyeditor and might be willing to help out. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It usually takes a long time for the League to get anything done, I've seen that first-hand with other articles I've raised to Featured Article Status in the past. I will instead leave a message on Scartol's talk page. Thank you for suggesting Scartol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and contacted the league anyway; hopefully they will help out soon.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Scartol is now helping to tidy up the article, and it reads much better now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: The article does indeed read better now. I support. Awadewit | talk 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome! I'm glad you like the article, and the new painting I just added to the women's section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose until fixed. SUPPORT: nice. This is very promising, but does need a copy-edit throughout. See my light copy-edit of the lead, with quite a few inline queries. In AmEng, surely you don't hyphenate "land-holder"? And it was conjoined at one point. Have I got it wrong? "[Women] nonetheless enjoyed a wide range of social and legal rights that benefited them in an otherwise patriarchal society"—let's be careful claiming that; I hope there are good references later on in the article. The lead contains many unreferenced statements that should be cross-checked for verifiability where they are covered below. Can we drop the "UPon"? It's the 21st century. Issues of logical connection in a few places. Rather long first caption, and check MOS about final period. "108,840 kg (120 tons)"—is that really the conversion? I though ton and tonne were almost the same. Do we need a link for "telegraph" and other dictionary words? Readers should just look them up if they don't know what they mean; or learn English. There are some abstruse piped links that look as though they lead somewhere useful, but will readers ever click on them? ("restaurants", for example). Perhaps think of putting the link into a more likely item? And "actors" goes to "Chinese opera"; I think this is a distortion. Links need an audit. Read MOS on the spacing of ellipses, and logical punctuation. Tony (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response
    "In AmEng, surely you don't hyphenate 'land-holder'? And it was conjoined at one point. Have I got it wrong?" - Tony
    Nope, my mistake. There was one other place in the article with the hyphen between "land" and "holder", which I have now fixed.
    "let's be careful claiming that; I hope there are good references later on in the article." - Tony
    There is not one, in fact, since I put that statement in the introduction to intentionally mislead you...because I am evil. Lol. No, seriously, read the sub-section "Women: Legality and Lifestyles," it is carefully and meticulously cited.
    "The lead contains many unreferenced statements that should be cross-checked for verifiability where they are covered below." - Tony
    A lead should contain no inline citations unless that introductory information does not appear somewhere in the article below, or is there but without citations (to be honest, it should always have citations in the body of the article). An introduction is merely a brief summary of everything found in the article, and everything in the article is well-referenced.
    "Can we drop the "UPon"? It's the 21st century." - Tony
    Lol. If you can't stand it, by all means, change it, be my guest.
    "Do we need a link for 'telegraph' and other dictionary words? Readers should just look them up if they don't know what they mean; or learn English." - Tony
    Good point. I have changed that. I swept through the article earlier and delinked many low quality wikilinks...I must have missed that or not thought much of it until you mentioned it.
    "There are some abstruse piped links that look as though they lead somewhere useful, but will readers ever click on them? ('restaurants', for example). Perhaps think of putting the link into a more likely item?" - Tony
    That is a good point; the "restaurants" link brings you here to a high quality link specifically about Song Dynasty cuisine and restaurants. I think I can find another spot to link that, or link a phrase about restaurants to make it more suggestive of a special link.

    Good suggestions, yet I would save some of the criticism until you've read the entire article, such as doubting the validity of statements in the introduction.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "'108,840 kg (120 tons)' —is that really the conversion? I though ton and tonne were almost the same."
    Gernet says 120 tons, and since it is not spelled as tonnes (as in the metric tonne), I used the English or imperial ton in figuring the amount of kg. What, is there a problem with that?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good article. Coloane 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Kicking ass and taking names! --Ghostexorcist 07:42, 8 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Animaniacs[edit]

    Hello, this is a self nomination of the article. It's passed GA requirements, and I believe the article is of Featured Artcile quality now. Everything looks well organized and cited. Thanks, Gak Blimby 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Meets the criteria, readable, well-referenced and pleasing to the eye. Only a little problem - red links should be adressed or removed. --Shahid • Talk2me 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done OK, I got rid of every red link but the one for the cartoon series Detention because it is relevant to Warner Bros. animation history and an article may be created about it in the future. Gak Blimby 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Concur in general with SandyGeorgia. Removal of redlinks are not an explicit requirement for FA status. However, this can be somewhat covered under "...the best Wikipedia has to offer..." Personally, I would prefer there be no red links, but I will not oppose an FA nom on this issue. — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object This article doesn't meet 1(a). From the first paragraph of the body (where I started):
      • "Although Animaniacs had been set in Burbank, California,[2] the series took place in various places and periods of times."—did the location move later? Why not simply "is set in"? If the series took place "in various places", is it fair to say it's set in Burbank?
      • "The Animaniacs characters also interacted with..." Why also?
      • "Although characters from Animaniacs acted in their own segments..." Is the alternative even possible? (Characters did not act in their own segments?)
        •  Done I removed the sentence, as it didn't belong in that section anyways. Gak Blimby 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Animaniacs segments had varied in both length and setting", "Animaniacs segments ranged in time...", and "Although some episodes went on for longer or shorter periods" all in the same paragraph, and all say the same thing.
        •  Done Only one sentence says it now. Gak Blimby 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All throughout this paragraph there are strange tense uses. "Andrea Romano... had said that the Warners had functioned to..." instead of "Andrea Romano... said that the Warners function to...", etc.
      • Three of the eight sentences start with "Although"—try to mix things up and not reuse the same sentence format too much.
      • One sentence is missing a period.
    If the entire article is of this quality, you need to enlist the help of some good copy editors to help rework things. Pagrashtak 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to do a check of the rest of the article to look for what else is not up to par. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • I don't have time to read the entire article right now, but I read random pieces and the prose seemed fine, so I'll strike my objection. Pagrashtak 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's fine. Learnedo 07:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, but there are things to fix. Here are just examples.

    • "The studio's first series, Tiny Toon Adventures, was a success among younger viewing audiences, and it attracted a sizable number of adult viewers as well." Try: "The studio's first series, Tiny Toon Adventures, was a success among younger viewers, and attracted a sizable number of adult viewers."
    • You couldn't list in running form, separated by commas in the infobox? That would save its huge vertical range, which causes bad formatting at the bottom.
    Unfortunately, when I tried that, it changed the infobox length only a little and made it hard to read. Gak Blimby 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read up on ellipses at MOS. Need to be spaced. MOS breach in the final punctuation in quotes, which should be outside the quote unless it belongs in the original.
    • "won it's last"—ouch.
      •  Done Although I didn't really consider it a problem. Gak Blimby 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "forty", but "8". Please read MOS on this.
    • I like that fact that almost all of the dates are unlinked/autoformatted. Pity a few still are, though. Tony (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although I preferred the other WB animations, the article is in great shape, well written and referenced. Hope Pinky and the Brain gets the FA treatment as well... igordebraga ≠ 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Meets the criteria; comprehensive, well-written and well-referenced. Good use of images.--Opark 77 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support i'm impressed Legalbeaver 21:56, 14 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Golden plates[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well researched, documented, and notated in a style that is very neutral and informative. The article is a controversial topic but has been forged into a very neutral stance and all editors are happy with it's tone and scope. The article is among the best I have worked on for wikipedia, although my role is more minor than others who have contributed. It is formatted properly and upon review for GA status it was recommended to be submitted for FA status, so here we are. Twunchy 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This is a good. article that stays neutral about its controversial topic. A good example of how an article about a controversial topic can be well-written. Zeus1234 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass & support Learnedo 08:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Full disclosure: I'm a contributor to the article. However, a lot of people have worked on this over the months, and the article has been stable for a long time, which is remarkable considering its controversial nature. I think it is one of the most thoroughly referenced articles out there. I hope that reviewers will take a look and add their votes and comments. COGDEN 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS breach in the placement of final quotation marks after sentence-final punctuation. It's inconsisent, anyway. See MOS on "logical" punctuation. No final period in captions that are not full sentences; e.g., full-scale model and Hill. Opening letter upper-case, please. Tony (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I believe I have fixed all the punctuation and capitalization, and converted to logical quotes. COGDEN 01:41, 17 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Chew Stoke[edit]

    previous FAC

    This article about a small Somerset village was previously nominated and the issues identified addressed. Many of the comments were about the need for copyediting which I believe have now been addressed by User:Malleus Fatuarum and others from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I beleive that the artcicle now meets the featured article criteria.— Rod talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Pretty thourough article, but I do have some comments before I can make a decision on whether to support:
      • Those convert templates are very useful and it thought me something new. However, the WP:MOS requires that the first instance of a unit is wikified. The template allows for it, but none of the units are linked in the article. Done
      • "Bilbie clocks date from 1724 and are highly prized." Do you mean that all clocks were made in 1724? If not, perhaps 'date back to' may be more a more accurate phrase. Done
      • Coverage: How many members are there on the village council? How many people are there on the police force? Which fire station serves them? Done
      • "It is currently represented by Councillor Malcolm Hannay,"
        Does 'it' refer to the village council or the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset? Done
      • In demographics: "The area is largely rural, with several farms, both arable and dairy." Done
        This phrase is a repeat from the previous section and the lead. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response - thanks for pointing these out - hopefully they have been revised appropriately?— Rod talk 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass & support
      • On the basis that its good enough. Leranedo 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have slight concerns about the sources below, but I would need a second opinion before opposing.
      • [43] - seems to be self-published. Although, it might be acceptable as it is by a local historian.
      • [44] - the article is based on an unpublished survey. Unpublished works may not have had enough fact-checking to be reliable.
      • [45] - based on an unpublished survey. Epbr123 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to take your concern individually
    • [46] is self published but the author is an established local historian & tour guide - I ahve not heard any complaints about its reliability but would accept it is not verified by external sources.
    • [47] & [48] are both from the "Images of England" site by English Heritage & are about as authoritive as you can get in England. To quote from their web site "English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Officially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Our powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983) and today we report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." I think they count as independent and reliable. Many of the descriptions used in granting listed building status come from the books by Nikolaus Pevsner, which are one of the most definitive reference sources we have for historic buildings. — Rod talk 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Excellent article. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:59, 12 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Thich Quang Duc[edit]

    This article is about the Buddhist monk who burned himself to death in South Vietnam in response to religious discrimination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the pictures of which became highly symbolic and iconic across the world. Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting of the event. This article discusses the life of Thich Quang Duc, religious background of 1960s South Vietnam, and the political, religious, media and cultural impact of the self-immolation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comments
    1. Over a dozen redlinks, which I found rather distracting.
      Note; there is nothing wrong with redlinks, nor is their removal required for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. He returned in later life to open the Thien Loc Pagoda at the site of his hermitage.[3] This made me stumble. By hermitage, do you mean "where he was a hermit" or "the building in which he lived while a hermit"? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have. Good piece, very informative. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - an iconic moment and a fine article (I have given it a few minor copyediting tweaks). -- !! ?? 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although I fear we are developing a Vietnam FA systematic bias :) In all seriousness, a couple of things:-
      • In the infobox, the Date of birth cell is not vertically aligned properly. Although this isn't article-specific, may be worth fixing.
      • [[prostrate]d
      • Do we link individual dates like June 16, May 22 etc.? I'm not sure :|
    Daniel 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second point is fixed. The first point, don't know why it is the way it is, the code is the same as other implementations of the box. Dates, apparently so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a look. Daniel 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, good article with excellent content. However, I need some clarifications:
      • The lead section, why is it "Hòa thượng Thích Quảng Ðức"? "Hòa thượng" in Vietnamese means "Buddhist monk" which is also introduced later in the same sentence. So what's your point in using two languages to indicate one meaning?
      • The note: Hòa thượng means "Most Venerable" in Vietnamese? Hòa thượng may be considered the most venerable people but the word itself, imo, doesn't mean that. I highly doubt the accuracy of this definition.

    @pple complain 09:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hoa thuong is definitely "most venerable" - see the correspondence here [49]. English temple profile [50] uses "Most Venerable" - also see this [51] - "Venerable" <-> "Thuong toa" aand [52] - "Dai Duc" <-> "Reverend". These are ranks of monks: Hoa thuong > Thuong Toa > Dai Duc. "Thi/ch" is equivalent to "ty\ kheo" which is a prefix which denotes a fully ordained monk (bhikkhu). If a person is a novice monk then the prefix is "sa di" (samanera). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support A clear, concise, and interesting article. I have a few picky questions and clarifications before I support:
      • Thich Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhism - "persecution of Buddhism" or "persecution of Buddhists"? aren't people usually persecuted?
      • Thich Quang Duc's act increased international pressure on Diem and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the Buddhists. However, the delayed implementation of the reforms saw the situation deteriorate. - I feel like these sentences are a bit wordy.
      • The language of "worldly name" and "religious name" in the "Biography" section should be explained or changed. It sounds a bit POV. Also, why are these names in bold?
    • Noramlly I would put only the lead in bold (for a normal person), but since he changed his name, and then took a religious name, I felt it appropriate to rebold the first instance of each of his name in the main body to remind the reader. In Buddhism, people who become monks are given a religious name, because they are no longer referred to by their given name like "Michael" or "Bob" or whatever. That is why I have made the distinction here. It can't be classed as a title because it is not a rank or a post. Do feel free to change to a more suitable one, I can't really think of one at the moment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, I see about the bolding - that is fine. What about the phrases "worldly name" and "religious name"? Are these common? They struck me as a bit odd. Awadewit | talk 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just eliminated the wordly name because people will assume that it is a secular name unless mentioned. When he becomes a monk I changed it to dharma name, with a wikilink and article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is more informative. Awadewit | talk 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In 1934, he moved his activities into southern Vietnam and traveled throughout all the provinces of the southern region. - This sounds slightly sinister.
      • Although Diem's decline and downfall had already begun, the self-immolation is universally seen as the pivotal point in the Buddhist crisis. - "universally"? That is usually a hard claim to prove.
    • *Ending with South Park seems to detract from the seriousness of the article a bit.
    • I'm not sure how to change this. It is not in a specific "pop culture" section, but is only there to note that the event is remembered in comtemporary society. I can prune the details if necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have to retain it, it seems a shame to end the article with it. Isn't there something more solemn we could end with? Awadewit | talk 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I moved the southpark into the media influence section, which is the second to last section. It's more appropriate there since the last section was about real self-immolations. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tucker, Spencer C. (2000), "NOT SPECIFIED", Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-57607-040-0 - Something funky here
      • Last footnote for South Park doesn't show anything but "2000" for me.
      • Any possible images for the last two sections?

    Reading Blnguyen's series on the Vietnam conflict has certainly taught me a lot - thanks! This a solidly-researched and well-written article. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Image:Thich_quang_duc_heart.gif has a clearly invalid reason for an image to be PD. This needs to be removed or a fair use rationale added (which might be hard, considering one of the nonfree criteria is that we know the author of the image). Is this still on display anywhere? Calliopejen1 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Thich Quang Duc.png is likewise not free. Calliopejen1 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did put FU tags on them, and it is sourced, as in, it is on display on websites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to Raul654 - Calliopejen is currently on exam break and is unable to attend to his concern, but I believe I have done what he asked for. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an interesting article Blnguyen. I echo Awadewit's comments and find that the lead could be better organized, starting with the general and the more intrinsic biographical details, then hitting some of the specifics. The sentence about the journalists in the first paragraph seems to come too soon, and the transition between lead sentences here—"However, the delayed implementation of the reforms saw the situation deteriorate. Thich Quang Duc's heart remained intact after his cremation,..."—is rather jarring. –Outriggr § 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rearranged the part about the cremation, so that the religious parts are away from the more poltiical stuff. Secondly, I deliberately omitted the biographical details because he is not known for his achievements as a Buddhist teacher, but for his self-sacrifice. The part about his life as a monk is only covered by Buddhist sources and is not covered by the wider studies of Thich Quang Duc, so to put him in the lead would give undue weight I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The heart sentence still sticks out (for me, anyway). It just doesn't fit yet. Awadewit | talk 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my suggestion for a re-ordering of the lead material. I realize it sacrifices a strict chronological ordering... Implement it only if you (or others) think it's an improvement, not because I'm a FAC commenter:–Outriggr § 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [the basics] Hòa thượng Thích Quảng Ðức (help·info)[a] (IPA: [tʰic wɐːŋ dɨk]; (born Lâm Văn Tức in 1897 – died June 11, 1963) was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on June 11, 1963. Thich Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem administration. His self-immolation is widely seen as the turning point of the Vietnamese Buddhist crisis, which ("eventually"?) led to regime change.
    [political context/fallout] Thich Quang Duc's act increased international pressure on Diem and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the Buddhists. However, the promised reforms were implemented either slowly or not at all, leading to a deterioration in the dispute. With protests continuing, the Special Forces loyal to Diem's brother Ngo Dinh Nhu launched nationwide raids on Buddhist pagodas, seizing the holy heart and causing deaths and widespread damage. Several Buddhist monks followed Thich Quang Duc's example and burned themselves to death. Eventually, an Army coup toppled and killed Diem in November.
    [legacy] Photos of Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diem regime. Malcolm Browne won a Pulitzer Prize for his iconic photo of the monk's death, as did David Halberstam for his written account. After his death, Thich Quang Duc's body was re-cremated, but his heart remained intact. This was interpreted as a symbol of compassion and led Buddhists to revere him as a bodhisattva, heightening the impact of his death on the public psyche.
    • Support - A well researched article on a figure that really represents the religious conflicts in Vietnam during the 1960's.Bakaman 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very well done Arbeit Sockenpuppe 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment It would be helpful if each of the fact assertions in this sentence could be given citations: "Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform, and U.S. aid was disproportionately distributed to Catholic majority villages by Diem's regime" Hmains 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something covers a range of things in the para, I put it at the end. In this case, I duplicated it for you. In those paras where there is only on ref, all of it came from the given book pages.Blnguyen (bananabucket) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support well written, article about this individual and those turbulent times.--Sandahl 06:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well written, well sourced and comprehensive. Meets all the FA criteria. Thanks, - KNM Talk 04:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Shouldn't Self-Immolation be the heading for "Funeral and aftermath", "Intact heart and symbolism", "Diem reaction", "Political and media impact", and "Precedents and influence"?--Dwarf Kirlston 19:25, 6 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Therapies for multiple sclerosis[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because after several months working on it I believe it has all main scientific information on the treatment of the disease but at the same time is lain enough to be understandable. On the other hand I think is the best article on the treatment of a disease I have seen in wikipedia. Its alredy a good article but I think it should clearly be a FA. Anyway any improvements will be welcome Garrondo 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SUPPORT. Sorry I forgot to say that obviously I support the nomination --Garrondo 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. All my comments are addressed. DrKiernan 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find some of the phrasing curious: in the lead two of the sentences have no punctuation.
    • "better recovery of disability" and "improvement in disability": surely "better recovery after disability" and "improvement after disability"?
    • Why is "Natalizumab was finally approved in May 2006 after a long process" relevant? Surely it is always a long process to get drugs certified? MOVED AND EXPLAINED IN SIDE EFFECTS OF MEDICATIONS
    • Why "have been proven" rather than "are proven"? I HAVE CHANGED IT SIMPLY TO "ARE EFFECTIVE"
    • Why are drug names sometimes italicised and sometimes not? NOW ONLY TRADE NAMES ITALICED
    • The point about mitoxantrone's cardiac toxicity is made three times. NOW ONLY TWO TIMES (I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SIMPLIFY MORE)
    • I'm not sure what you mean in the section on PML. Was the PML caused by the natalizumab, or were the patients included in the trial misdiagnosed with MS when they actually had PML? DONE
    • "abnormal muscle spasms, or difficulty to move; difficulties with coordination and balance; problems in speech (dysarthria) or swallowing (dysphagia)," please check your use of commas and semi-colons here. DONE
    • Diets: Can you find a better reference than the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics; I couldn't figure out what this organisation was or whether it is reliable but it looks amateur, and contrasts sharply with the other references, which are excellent. DONE
    • et al. is an abbreviation for et alia and as such should have a stop at the end of it.DONE

    DrKiernan 14:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Better recovery of disability" and "improvement in disability": surely "better recovery after disability" and "improvement after disability"? My mother language is not English so I´m not sure if what I´m going to say applies; but I'm not sure that is better your proposal than what is alredy in the page. Disability is not really a temporal state but better a trait of the person that suffers the disease, therefore I don't feel very comfortable with the "after" you propose. Nevertheless I don't know if the prepositions that are right now in the article are the better ones for those expresions (prepositions in English are a real pain for forign people like me :-)--Garrondo 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the changes. There is only one point which concerns me now: the natalizumab issue. Kappos et al.'s review says that patients "with multiple sclerosis and PML were receiving concomitant interferon beta-1a and natalizumab; however it is unclear whether combination treatment increased the risk of developing PML given the small number of cases." On the basis of this assessment, isn't your wording, "conclude that PML had appeared in these patients due to the the inmunomodulatory effect of interferons combined with the action of natalizumab" too strong? DrKiernan 10:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I´ll try to find some other citations and rewrite the sentence. I will look at the review you sayGarrondo 10:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the sentence to: An intensive safety evaluation was conducted which led to conclude that there was an increased risk of PML in patients taking natalizumab in combination with interferons. I believe its not so strong as before. Garrondo 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made one further change, from "increased" to "potential". DrKiernan 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Caution: I would be hesitant about calling this a featured article unless two doctors reviewed it. The article is entitled "therapies for (disease X)". A doctor might see the big picture and say that something major was missed. I have confidence that everyone means well and that everything is supported by citations. For example if there was an article about tooth decay which talked about extraction, crown and bridges, etc., what if a dentist said that a major therapy, brushing teeth and flossing was missed?

    The fact that we call it a featured article might cause some people to think some editorial board reviewed it. I think I saw a discussion a while ago about putting warning tags on all medical articles. It was defeated because some people said it looked unsightly but the concern is valid. Another concern is that the feature article is on the main page. That's why I think a doctor needs to look at it. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I´ve been the main author of this article and althought I´m no doctor but a psychologist, I work in investigation of multiple sclerosis in a hospital so I`ve been reading a lot on the theme of the article. Secondly I can assure you that the article follows perfectly the clinical guidelines on multiple sclerosis; where is summarised every treatment that has shown efficacy on the disease so its almost impossible that something major is missed. Every doctor will be welcomed to review it, however I don´t think its a condition to get the featured article status. If what you say applied to every article only history teachers could review an article on history or mathematicians on maths and the truth is that wikipedia doesn´t work like that. On the other hand the fact that two doctors review really doesn´t mean that is more factually reviewed since for example I probably know more about MS that a general doctor, or a surgeon... A different thing would be if it was a neurologist who reviewed it. --Garrondo 08:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it would be good if a neurologist reviewed it. MS is more serious than a history teacher's lesson. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard at it or that the article is bad. It's probably good! Mrs.EasterBunny 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I might note that the discussion page of the article had a request for a science review. This shows that there was some concern. There were no responses. This shows that there was a perceived shortcoming that nobody addressed. I don't know what the answer is. If editors are credited, maybe some neurology professor will edit. With funky names (mine included), experts may not come aboard. Overall, my biggest concern is that there is not verification that the article covers the big picture well. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was me the one asking for peer-review as a way of further improving its quality and not becouse I thought there was anything incorrect. I agree that it would be perfect that a neurologist reviewed it, nevertheless its not easy to find one and I believe that in the absence of them clinical guidelines can give us the full picture of the treatments of the disease as they cover all the aspects that doctors need in their daily labour.--Garrondo 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments The article is well-referenced, of appropriate length, makes good use of images and is very comprehensive. However, I think it could use further copy editing, particularly of the last few sections. I found a few sentences still too confusing, such as

    When several health care and other professionals are involved with a person with MS they should work together with the person and his or her family, as a team towards common agreed goals and using an agreed common therapeutic approach.

    • I also find your addition of links to NLM drug information as footnotes a very interesting approach (I've said this before), but the "References" section should probably be renamed "Notes and references". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I´ll try to address all your comments during the week. --Garrondo 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE?: I have tried my best to adress both of your comments. Take a look and tell what you think. Garrondo 12:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, looks good. I'll have another read—see if I didn't miss anything—but I'm close to supporting. By the way, when using a reference more than once, you don't have to repeat <ref name=example>...</ref>; just use <ref name=example/> instead. (If you were repeating the content for a reason, I apologize; please feel free to revert my edit :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have three more comments:
    • Could you find a more reliable source for The Optimal Diet? The one in the article now looks a little... promotional :)
    • Does the herbal medicine study (Ho et al.) actually mention potential use in MS? The link seems a little tenuous, and we have to be careful of WP:SYNTH.
    • Would you mind moving "Further reading" up to before "Notes and references", as suggested by WP:GTL? I'd do it myself, but you may object, so... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer
    • A more reliable source for The Optimal Diet: The fact is I cant. As I see it the optimal diet is promotional by itself. I looked in pubmed (no articles) and google, and this was the best I could find... We could either eliminate any references to it since you right on your comment and leave only the other diet (Swank) which is better known; or assume sometimes alternative treatments are a bit of a "bluff" even when you present them in a NPOV. What do you think?
    Fine with me... Anyway in that website it said something about MS in a subpage (I found it looking for optimal diet and MS), but as you say if theres nothing in literature is better simply to remove it. Garrondo 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herbal medicine study: You are right I will just eliminate the paragraph since the relation is quite tenous...:::::*Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving "Further reading" up to before "Notes and references: no problem, i´ll do it.
    Garrondo 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One final comment: in "Relapsing-remitting MS", there is a sentence "Comparisons between immunomodulators (all but glatiramer) [...]"—however, glatiramer is an immunomodulator (see e.g. [53], I don't have another proper reference off the top of my head). Perhaps that particular study didn't include glatiramer? If so, that should probably be noted instead. Also, I only noticed now that there is very little mention of IVIG; however, that's probably appropriate, since studies of its use haven't produced encouraging results as far as I know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that... it was a mistake, it had to say mitoxantrone; which is an inmunnossupressor. Garrondo 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I am ready to support this article. The prose is improved in my view, the references are excellent and, as I said above, the article is both comprehensive and of appropriate length. It is also, as far as I can assess, remarkably accurate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My neuroscience professor happens to specialize in imaging for multiple sclerosis, so if you guys want, I could see if she'd be willing to glance over this article for glaring inaccuracies. Pandacomics 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be perfect. --Garrondo 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the article, but I am a little bit concerned a couple of sections. On the treatment for symptoms, it would be good to indicate where products have indications for usage within this population. Any report of efficacy in this setting should be balanced with risks. For example in the donepezil trial about 3-4 times as many patients reported irregular dreams. Also a few comments regarding the Alternative treatments section. The claims regarding the Best Bet diet seem to be based on the ongoing trial involving only 30 patients and this seems to be very small to be generalizable to a broader population. Perhaps this can be deleted? For Swank, Can you check the 2003 Nutrition article on Swank to make it clear that he is not just trying to sell his book? The 1991 Swank article only has 15 folks citing through the years. Somewhat shaky ground. In the therapies under development, you might want to point out the late-stage therapies only (Phase 2 completed or active Phase 3 programs) just to keep the content more narrow. I did not see the BG-12 dimethyl fumarate from BiogenIdec listed. --Chrispounds 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don´t think that indications for usage in this population is needed: as they are precisely symptomatic treatments they would be used in almost any population and disease when the symptom appears.
    • Altought the treatments in the alternative section have also to be referenced and proved, the threshold for the quality of the studies has to be lowered per se with respect to the others sections: alternative treatment means exactly that are used without a proper quality of the studies that prove their efficacy; the moment they are fully proven they become common treatments and not alternative treatments. Therefore I believe the best bet diet ref is enough. On the other hand I would take a look to the Swank article you mention.
    How about we make a note that the burden of evidence is different for this section compared to the rest of things? --Chrispounds 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done--Garrondo 09:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The focus of the therapies under investigation is broad precisely to show that many different approaches are ongoing right now. The treatments that appear in it are only examples of many that are carried on. In this way there is not such a need to maintain it actualized. Nevertheless I´ll look for some references of the treatment you say. (It would be perfect if you alredy had one) --Garrondo 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the reference for Swank. I have also been searching for some info on efalizumab ( BG-12 dimethyl fumarate); but I could not find anything realiable. Do you have a ref for the phase three clinical trial? --Garrondo 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One link to the phase 3 trial is here: [54] with a press release [55]. More background on the chemical as it relates to psoriasis is here [56]. efalizumab is a totally different compound and has not been (publically) studied in MS. --Chrispounds 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done--Garrondo 09:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support --Chrispounds 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. The length is appropiate. The assertions properly referenced. MS is a changing subject under heavy research and the article will have to be maintained, but it reflects the current status of the therapies. --Juansempere 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support well written article, but for consistency, I would suggest moving this page to Treatment of multiple sclerosis, consistent with articles such as Treatment of Crohn's disease, Treatment of bipolar disorder and others. --WS 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think its a good idea, but I dont know how to do it. Can anybody help? Garrondo 11:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty straightforward, but the timing could be better :) There should probably be some discussion on this, preferably at the article's Talk page. I can see a clear precedent, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, proposed this on article talk page, I will rename it if nobody objects within the next few days. --WS (talk) 23:34, 16 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Yasser Arafat[edit]

    previous FAC

    I am renominating the Yasser Arafat article for FA status. The issues from the previous nomination have been fixed/solved.

    • I have looked into all internet citations to make sure they backed the text. I have also looked into the Aburish biography (which also covers several other book refs in the beginning sections of the article. The Jimmy Carter and Michael Oren books on agreements and the Six-Day war have been looked into as well. (I have these books and the biography). I have removed several passages of info because they were falsely referenced.
    • Bolding, italics and excess slots in the citations and their templates have been removed.
    • An enormous amount of trimming and cleanup has been done to bring the article to an acceptable size and to stick strictly to the bio.
    • Portions of the article have been relocated, in particular the illness and aftermath sections. More subsections have been created.
    • A tremendous amount of images have been added to the article.

    Over all I know this article deserves a bronze star. --Al Ameer son 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Two of the images have been labeled as having uncertain copyright status. 82.71.48.158 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed. There was actually three but I removed two until their fate is decided. I kept the one with Arafat and Ahmed Yassin because it is leaning towards survival. --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Leaning towards opposition, I would like to point out that in "Tunisia and First Intifada" the prose at the end of the section is not nice with the presence of these stubby seamlessly inter-connected paragraph. Most importantly, though, IMO the dealing of Arafat's record as president of PNA between 1993-2001 (prior to the second Intifada) is unsatisfactory. Human rights violations issues? Bureaucracy and corruption accusations against him during all these years? The way international community treated him and his government despite these accusations until 2001? And if the international community swallowed these accusations against the President of the PNA until 2001, why did they do that? How did Arafat build the first Palestinian quasi-state between 1994-1996? Pros and cons of his choices? I would also like to say that the lead is not necessary to be over-cited. During the analysis all the issues mentioned briefly in the lead can be exhaustively analyzed and properly referenced.--Yannismarou 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded Arafat's decision on his support for Iraq during the Gulf War, and its consequences as well as mentioning top aide Abu Iyad's assassination in that same time period. I am not sure what you are referring to by Human Rights violations. How and why the international community treated him despite corruption accusations is getting into choppy waters and will seem like POV which is something we have worked hard on eliminating. However the way Arafat built PLO authority in the territories is a major transition point and is a missing piece in the article. I will try to add a new subsection after Oslo and before Elections elaborating on it. This would include the construction of a police force, assignment of posts to certain people, confiscating or taking control of independent Palestinian businesses, etc. Here I could briefly mention the accusations of bureaucracy and corruption. I will work on this section ASAP and the lead as well. It should be finished by the end of the day. Hopefully you will change your mind about the article after the ending results. Also I would like to mention that the primary reason we I do not want to go all out on the details is because of size concerns. From the previous discussion there was an issue on the article's text passing the limits of FA standards (30-50KB). --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is done. The new section might take a little bit more than a day. --Al Ameer son 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I do not care so much about size limits. FACs with over 80 kbs of prose have gone through this page or have survived FAR(C). Of course, not exceeding 65-70 kbs of prose is IMO a fare goal. But do not sacrifice thoroughness and quality in favor of some unclear size limits. And I do understand what you say that you cannot go into many details about the issues I brought here, but some mentioning and analysis is needed. When I speak about HR violations, I refer to all the accusations against PNA and Arafat personally that misused their powers and their control of security forces, in order to suppress dissidents. There are many relative analyses (e.g. Forgione (2004), Kelly (1998), Brynen, Rex (2000). A Very Political Economy: Peacebuilding and Foreign Aid in the West Bank and Gaza, 175-176, Le More, Anne (October 2005). "Killing with Kindness: Funding the Demise of a Palestinian State", 985-986 etc.). Looking forward to your improvements as you have announced them here!--Yannismarou 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the new section entitled Establishing authority in the territories. The section might need some copyediting which will be taken care of by a professional English teacher who is a user on wikipedia. The section mentions Arafat's need for financial backing, his leanings to dictatorship and clear financial corruption. However I did not write any of these statements exactly to avoid POV but the reader will infer this by reading about the actions he committed. I can't really explain it, you should read the section to understand. If you see anything missing, then inform me and I'll add it to the section or subsection. I am going to add on more about the PSS (the new police force Arafat developed) and how they wounded over 50 and killed one after attempts downsizing Arafat's dissidents and even torture in some cases. Your sources for these allegations will be useful in this area I think. I personally never had a problem with size but it was a factor in the article's FAC failing the last nomination. However the article still has not exceeded 50KB in text and there is some room for more editing. --Al Ameer son 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added accusations of human rights abuses in the new section with your Forgione reference. I also added bits of financial corruption in the Financial dealings section with a reference already existing in that particular section. --Al Ameer son 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat that in FAC size limits were never so strict. I respect other editors' opinions (and Sandy is one of the most respectful around) on this issue, but I can name a series of nominations where size over 55 kbs was no problem for FA status. I say again that, of course, we shouldn't overdo it, but this does not mean that there are specific strict size limits. Concerning the corruption issue, I understand your POV worries. I just want to mention the 1997 report of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which dealt with the issue of the financial mismanagement (not using the word "corruption"), and provoked a political crisis within the PNA. As a result of this report, the Palestinian cabinet resigned, but Arafat refused to accept the resignations (See Halevi [1998], "Self-Government, Democracy, and Mismanagement under the Palestinian Authority", 42). And these are facts ... Just in case you think this information could be useful in your article. Anyway, I still see ground for improvements (in terms of content and prose), but I'll give my support, taking into consideration that the quality of the article is already high.--Yannismarou 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll certainly add the 1997 event especially since there is somewhat of a gap between events in '96 and in '98. Also it does not incite and POV. Thanks for your suggestions, sources and support!

    --Al Ameer son 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the 1997 event. I also wanted to point out there is more info on Arafat's corruption in the Financial dealings section. I know there is other content that could be added in this section such as a Romanian flour import incident and another with a refusal of proposed Palestinian cement. --Al Ameer son 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I worked to copyedit this article in earlier stages, and I've been impressed with the level of dedication Al Ameer son has put into it. I'm a little concerned with the possibly-unfree image of Ahmed Yassin, but I believe the quality of the research and documentation is very high. – Scartol · Talk 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arafat-Yassin image is in discussion. Apparently the image is not free but the fair use rationale for its place in the Yasser Arafat article is valid. I'll remove it until the discussion is officially over. See the discussion here --Al Ameer son 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Seems pretty well-written. MOS breach in "1973–4" and in the hyphens after "...ly". And there are a few hyphens used as interruptors—see MOS on em dashes. And the one-sentence paras need merging. Tony (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One-sentence paragraphs merged. I will separate some again but expand on them soon when I obtain more info. I'll fix the en dashes tomorrow. --Al Ameer son 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Articles about controversial figures will never please everyone and will inevitably attract criticism. Al Ameer son has shown remarkable dedication and tenacity in achieving such a high standard with such a difficult subject. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Truly great article. Great work Al Ameer Son. I just have some questions about the "Lebanon" section in the article.
      • The primary component of the Christian militias was the Maronite Phalangists loyal to President Camille Chamoun. Weren't the Kataeb/Phalangists loyal to Pierre Gemayel instead, while the National Liberal Party) were the ones loyal to Camille Chamoun?
      • against the Lebanese Army, a primary backer of the Christian militias. Could you provide a source for that?

    Thank you. -- CG (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, for finding those errors. It has been corrected;Phalangists loyal to Gemayel, Tigers Militia loyal to Chamoun. Its all mentioned correctly in the Aburish biography, but I mistakenly added misread text from the bio into the article. I removed the primary backer of the Christian militias portion of the statement above, until I find it firmly written in a reputable source. The fact that the DFLP carried out attacks against the Army is from the bio. The Lebanse Army as well as the Syrian, did back the seige of Tel al-Zaatar and that is mentioned with a ref. Damour casualties have also been specifically cited. I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work!! Thank you!! This article deserves a support. CG (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Well-written, thorough and balanced article which is hard to do considering Yasser Arafat's long and complex life. Shoukran Al Ameer son, excellent patience shown. - Fedayee (talk) 04:35, 18 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow[edit]

    Nominating for FA status after a substantial rewrite and acquiring of GA status. I feel that it qualifies under the featured article criteria, and I will endeavor to answer any and all questions, comments, and concerns. Much appreciated, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure if direct quotes from the game quailify as ref. Buc 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
    • Comment - This is a Japanese game. Could we get a more global scope on the sales and reception? - hahnchen 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It looks good, very strong, especially for a Castlevania article. :) Judgesurreal777 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I believe it meets all the criteria of a Featured Article. It is well written, comprehensive, and factually accurate. I support it. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support - This article has come a long way since I last made contributions to it. However, personally, I feel the Story section is too long and should be shortened, preferably to get rid of game spoilers. Wolf ODonnell 13:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, since Wikipedia isn't censored, spoilers are generally not an issue. Also per WP:SPOIL, the section heading "Story" already implies spoiler details for the story. But I'll see if I can do a little trimming here and there, it probably won't be much though. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose julius mode is not unlocked when the player beats the game it is when they loose the game (going to castle's center without the talisman equipped) and get the bad ending that this is opened up. After that point there is still additional play left if one restarts and equips the talisman. I have not read the whole article. I beat this game and want to do a full review, hopefully i'll have time tomorrow. -Ravedave 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Julius Mode is unlocked when the primary game is completed normally with the talisman. The bad ending simply allows you an alternate method of acquiring it. In any case - the statement still is true, you still complete the game, regardless of what ending you acquire. The nuances aren't relevant. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is an error or not, I don't feel that this single poit of information should determine whether you support or oppose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced it with Image:19022.jpg. It shows the game's primary character, and emphasizes the point about the anime style that is used for the character designs. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:58, 12 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Body Count (album)[edit]

    Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is well-written, well-referenced, and is as detailed as possible, in addition to providing an interesting read regarding the history of American music. The article is currently listed at requests for proofreading. Any problems concerning copyediting should be cleared up. (Ibaranoff24 13:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose for the moment. When it's copy-edited, I'll have another look! ;) Right now, for example, there are two uses of "focus" in the same sentence, as well as a misplaced modifier ("Previously known only as a rapper, the album... Really? The album was previously known as a rapper?!)—and that's just in the first paragraph. Also, is there a reason why the same album cover picture is used in two places in the article? MeegsC | Talk 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that last question; I just realized they've removed the words "Cop Killer" from the guy's chest. Yes, I'm clueless... MeegsC | Talk 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I do think this still needs a bit of copy-editing work; there are some awkwardly written sentences in the opening paragraphs, for example. (For instance, is "various social and political issues, with lyrics describing topics ranging..." really necessary, or could you just say "various social and political issues ranging...") However, I'll be away from my computer for a few weeks, and don't want an outstanding "oppose" to potentially keep this article from getting through! MeegsC | Talk 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I did a copy edit but found it already well written. In particular, the article does well at keeping track of the band, the album, and the song, all entitled Body Count - I was never left guessing to which it was referring. Few things I wasn't sure how to handle: (1) "The performer formed Body Count..." could be re-written to avoid the double form. (2) "Over the next month, controversy against the band grew." - which month? no timeframe is specified in the section. (3) Second paragraph of "Controversy" begins with a very long run-on sentence. --maclean 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — I was able to make a few of these changes. (Ibaranoff24 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Support: Seriously an article I never thought would be that good. For me it's got to do with me only for Ice T not that I'm a punk fan. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 18:03, 12 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Prince's Palace of Monaco[edit]

    A self nom. I wrote this a few months ago to clean up a stub [57]. Not one of the world's greatest buildings but quite interesting (I think) nevertheless. Giano 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    • This very promising and well-illustrated article needs a rigorous copy-edit.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple capitalisations of "Palace", "Lord/s", "Prince", "Royal", "King" etc when used generically. (e.g. This event is commemorated by a statue of François Grimaldi in the precincts of the Palace and in the coat of arms of the Royal House where François is depicted wielding a sword while in the garb of a monk and he incurred the ire of the English King Charles II by showering expensive gifts on Hortense Mancini, the King's mistress.)
    • I think I have found them all. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typos: architecture od possible, palace us far older, Heres two tiers of frescoed open arcades.
    Addressed. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monegasque is missing its acute accent (Monégasque).
    Fixed. Giano 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the Grimaldis a royal family? They were originally a client principality of the kingdom of France. I think they're one rank down, hence "Serene Highness" rather than "Royal Highness". And, following on from this, are sovereign princes monarchs?
    No they are definitly not Royal but I think Monaco likes to think they are. The palace is often referred to as the royal palace, and of course it has a throne room. I have tried to be no specific as often as possible using ruling rather then reigning ect. I'll have a look in a moment and take out "monarch" that must have slipped in. It is difficult though as many of the Monaco references refer to them in royal terms. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason why Milan is called Milano?
    No - Freudian slip on my part. Fixed.Giano 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ;Remaining copy issues
    • It's a bit wordy: The Grimaldi ruled the area first as Lords, and from the 17th century as sovereign princes, but their power was often derived from fragile agreements with their larger and stronger neighbours. Thus in times when other sovereigns were building luxurious palaces, the rulers of Monaco could not relax into magnificent Renaissance or Baroque edifices as did their more powerful fellow sovereigns.
    Is this any better [58]? Giano 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copy is flowery (and clunky) in places. Example: It was apt that the staircase and entrance, two of the most flamboyant and extravagant features of the palace, should have been added by Prince Louis, as these adjectives could also be applied to the Prince's private life which was as noted for permissiveness as those of his ancestors had been for their skills in war.
    How's this [59]. Giano 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repetitions: However, the cost of upholding his position at the Papal court caused him to sell most of his grandfather Honoré II's art collection, thus denuding the Monaco Palace which he had earlier so spectacularly enhanced.... Louis I was succeeded by his son Prince Antoine. The new prince inherited a principality impoverished by the extravagances of his father, which forced him to remain in Monaco almost penniless in a Palace empty of many of its former treasures.
    Is that really repetition? More emphasis on the plight of the new Prince, I'll take out the last few words. Try this [60]. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it's repetition, even if it's done for rhetorical effect :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I much appreciate your efforts here. I must stress that this isn't badly-written simply rather too expansive to be encyclopedic. I've now also had a go at copy-editing this. I'll look at it again later. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: A very engaging read, and charmingly illustrated. Ceoil 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I had the privilege of watching this article grow from a stub, and I've briefly looked at the changes since March 2007. Seems fine to me. One possible addition might be a timeline of some sort? Carcharoth 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, the trouble with timelines is that they run dow the side of the page and shove everything to one side, and everyone's screen shows them differently. We did one on John Vanbrugh and it was useful in such a long complicated page but this page is quite chronologically written and in ordered sections and dated maps so I beleive it would just be unnecessary clutter on many screens and the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. Giano 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, stumbled across this via Giano's user pages when he was first working on it (I forget what took me there in the first place), and even then it seemed a fine article. With the copyediting sorted it deserves elevation. David Underdown 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did some very minor dash fixing. Is the list of websources in the References section meant to be sources or external links? If those websites were used as sources, it would be better to list their publishers; if they are intended as Further reading or External links, a new heading could be added. The size of the lead image reduces the text next to it to only one word per line on both of my browsers; can it be reduced from 500 to 400, so that the text will be less sandwiched? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Do you want to link the full dates in the "Regaining the palace" section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead image is now reduced, though it looks ridiculously small on my screen and fine before. The websites are references and cited within the text. The publishers are now listed. I don't see the point of linking every date in such a long and historicall page, it is not necessary for the reader to know that a Monagasque prince mentioned in the page shared his birthdate with an American called Eddie Rabbitt born 200 years later so with that in mind I have removed the full date and given just the year. Giano 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So are you Tony. Giano 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - beautifully illustrated, and a surprisingly interesting story. Just a few minor matters, some even trivial:
      • family which in 1997 celebrated 700 years of rule from the same palace - they were expelled from both palace and rule for a noticeable period during the French Revolution; is there a way to rephrase?
    No, because the source is saying that not me. Note - I do not say uninterupred rule. Giano 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • while the overriding atmosphere of the interior - capital W
    Fixed, really AnonE you could do these things yourself when you notice them! Giano 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But then I'd be too tempted to also zap the short paragraph below which you like. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Princess Grace predeceased her husband dying in 1982 - comma after husband
    Fixed! Giano 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • both his palace and his country in a stronger and more stable state ... than it had been - than they had been
    Fixed! Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Louis died before securing the Spanish throne for France; an act which would have earned the Grimaldi huge rewards. - comma, rather than semicolon;
    Fixed! Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honoré III married Catherine Brignole[17] in 1757 and later divorced her. Interestingly, before his marriage Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.[18] After her divorce Marie Brignole married Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé, a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798. - while very interesting, this has nothing to do with the palace per se. I think the whole paragraph should go to the individual articles on these people or the Monagasque royal family or something.

    No, not at all, keep it in, people like a bit if sex and drama in a long boring architectural page, keeps em reading to the end

    As a card-carrying member of WP:P*, I'm shocked, shocked that you might want to resort to prurience to draw attention! :-) More seriously, you don't need it. It's actually one of the more boring paragraphs in the whole piece, which is quite interesting, as I wrote, I do think it should go. But I won't oppose over this issue. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glamour and theatricality became reality when the American film star Grace Kelly became chatelaine to the palace in 1956. - this is in the lead, but you don't actually say anything about what she did to the palace in the body, and the lead should be a summary of the body; expand (preferable) or just move from the lead to the body --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very moot point AnonE, this is not one of the world's great buildings, most USA citizens will want to see her there in the lead, as they associate the place with her. However, the refs suggest that she was not that great a brick layer, in fact while the palace was restored during the period she held the consort title, they don't actually mention her too much. So we cannot go to much into the realms of own research. I'll spin out a paragraph conected with her. Thanks for the support. Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. An engaging and fascinating article which informs the reader not only about the architecture but about the rulers who made the various additions. Clear, fluent prose which holds the attention; architectural terms aren't skirted round, I'm glad to say, but they never obtrude. By the way, it would be a nice tidbit to hear what Queen Victoria actually said. Do we know? qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 18 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Joseph Priestley[edit]

    Joseph Priestley was an eighteenth-century polymath—a theologian, scientist, educator, political theorist, and clergyman—and wrote over 150 works. Writing a concise biography of him has been near impossible. This has been one of the most difficult articles I have worked on at wikipedia, but, with the help of a wonderful group of editors, I believe it is now worthy of featured article status. Ragesoss has assisted with the scientific explanations, Scartol has ruthlessly (in a good way!) copy edited the page to reduce its size (we are now at around 8,000 words/50 kb), and Finell has meticulously checked the article for adherence to the MOS. Additional editors have carefully reviewed the article at both a peer review and a scientific peer review which greatly clarified the article. This article demonstrates the best of wikipedia's cooperative editing. Awadewit | talk 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I participated in the scientific peer review, and looking over the article in the state it is today, this is definately a quality biography article. It seems to pass each of the criteria at WP:WIAFA in spades, and I can see not a single reason for myself to object to it. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Any particular reason why the top image is on the left side? Wrad 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been discussed at length on the Talk page. All portraits of Priestley are right-facing and should therefore be left-aligned. Flipping the portrait has been suggested (and even done), but would be downright criminal in my humble opinion :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thinks it's necessary. The intro looks pretty weird on my computer. Flipping it won't make him turn over in his grave, will it? Wrad 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your screen resolution, if you don't mind my asking? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you might ask. 1280 x 800. And I'm using Firefox. The text is just getting smashed between the image and the TOC and it just looks unnatural and odd to me. (Unnatural meaning no what you normally see on wikipedia). Wrad 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd. I'm 1024 × 760 (ugh) also on Firefox and it's always looked fine to me (by fine I mean "not unnatural" :) For the record, some text will be "smashed" between the image and the TOC even if it's right-facing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I see a screen shot? For me the TOC is below the text and image. It was supposed to be that way. That is why there is a "clear" code. By the way, I find the practice of flipping images amazingly irresponsible. These paintings were designed to be shown in a particular way. To flip them is to distort the art work. Wikipedia has a very conservative policy regarding changing quotations - it should obviously be consistent and not alter images either. There is also a very good aesthetic reason for not placing right-facing images on the right of the screen - it leads the reader off of the page. It is not practiced by art historians and we don't practice it here (see WP:MOS#Images). It is very distracting to look with Priestley off of the page. One other option was to place the TOC in the first section. You can look at a diff for this at Talk:Joseph Priestley#image. Awadewit | talk 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (kind of copied from Sandy's Talk page) In all fairness, and if this is indeed a make-or-break point for others, Priestley is facing right but looking outwards. Again, I still personally favor keeping the image as is, and I still vehemently object to flipping it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, to make that single issue the make-or-break point on this article seems rather petty. As has already been pointed out by several others, the MOS is ambiguous on this one: Right facing images should be left-aligned, while it also recommends that images should be right-aligned when placed directly under a header. The point is, there are two equal ways to do this, each one contradicts the other, so it seems like one could not object to EITHER alignment. Honestly, the prose is fantastic, the referencing is superb, the organization and flow of the article is great, and the images are apporpriate to the article, and all follow image usage policy. To hold up this articles featured status over an issue that the MOS can't even agree with itself on seems unreasonable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I personally Support anyway. I just personally think the image should be flipped and moved to the right. Wrad 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was serious about the screenshot, by the way. We all obviously want the lead to look good, but most of us are against flipping the picture since it would violate the artwork (like changing a quotation would - you wouldn't remove the poetic breaks in Shakespeare's lines, for example, right?). We just need to figure out the best layout with the image on the left. I had set up three other options at the link above and I still think this is the best of the three, but if it is showing up strangely on other systems, we need to know that. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um (*face turns red*) how do I do a screenshot? Wrad 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem - I just learned myself a few weeks ago - it is very helpful at wikipedia. Start with screenshot and see if that helps. The people at the wikipedia IRC channels showed me how. :) Awadewit | talk 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. I have been following this article since before its listing as a GA. I participated in the Peer review at Awadewit's request, and any concerns I had were addressed then. The article was painstakingly researched over several months, is based upon the best, most reliable sources available, is comprehensive (it was so comprehensive it had to be trimmed for the sake of length :), makes the best use of summary style possible, excellent use of images, has been extensively copyedited by several contributors and adheres to the MOS as closely as this editor (perhaps not discriminating enough) could wish for. I've said it on Awadewit's Talk page, I've said it at PR, and I'm saying it again—this is one of the best-written, most comprehensive articles I've come across on Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agree with everything Fvasconcellos said. My mind boggles that one person could achieve so much (I refer to both Priestley and Awadewit). Something Wikipedia can be proud of. Colin°Talk 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support The extraordinary care that has been lavished on this article by several editors, especially Awadewit, truly shows. A superbly written summary of a seminal scientist and thinker. Willow 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. Outstanding work by Awadewit, as always. If there were a category higher than FA, this article would deserve to be in it. By the way, Awadewit overstated my contributions. I did not do a thorough MOS review, but I did do some grunt work to fix some departures that I found; others helped in this process as well. Finell (Talk) 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)8[reply]
    • Support. Quality work in every dimension.--ragesoss 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support superb, wish all the FACs were this good. Sumoeagle179 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Well done. Tony (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Extremely well done - I have two questions (which do not detract from my support). 1) Why isn't universal salvation wikilinked in the section "Early life and education (1733–55)" (especially when election is linked just before it)? 2) The caption on the picture of Priestley's Pennsylvania house (which in the interests of full disclosure I took) now reads "The Priestleys expected a small community to spring up around their home in rural Pennsylvania, but the community did not materialize.[133]". While I understand what it is trying to say, I think it is misleading, and wonder if there is any better way to express it? I think it refers to the desire to establish a utopian "pantisocracy" (equal rule of all), which failed to materialize. It makes it sound though as if they built a house in the woods and no fellow settlers came to live nearby. Northumberland, Pennsylvania had been a village for about 20 years before the Priestley's arrival and had about 100 houses when they moved there. It was no Birmingham or Leeds, but it was a small community that materialized before the house was built and continues to exist to this day (the population was 3,714 in 2000). So could this caption please made clearer? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have linked universal salvation.
    • The reason the whole situation in America isn't explained more is because we were trying to cut down on space. Apparently we cut down a bit too much. What do you think about this sentence: The Priestley's expected a small utopian community to spring up around their home in rural Pennsylvania, but the expected emigrants could not afford the journey. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. I am fine with that caption. A slightly more concise version such as ''The Priestley's rural Pennsylvania home never became the center of a utopian community, as the expected emigrants could not afford the journey. Not sure if that is any better - as you like it, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using your version - I'm a wordy writer. :) Awadewit | talk 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, my only quibble being the excellent in the "excellent explanations of early optics experiments" sentence in the Natural philosopher section. Ceoil 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sources say the explanations are excellent, so I just repeated that. It isn't my personal evaluation of them or anything. Awadewit | talk 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand. Ceoil 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – well-written, carefully referenced. Having participated in one part of the review process, I can also attest to the great care taken by the article's main authors in dealing with reviewing editors' suggestions. --Markus Poessel 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well, Awadewit and co, you have succeeded in the impossible by making this dreary chap almost interesting. I'm so impressed by the improvement in the pace of the article since I last read it; it seems to me now a concise summary of all the many fields in which the man dabbled. I congratulate Awadewit on a tremendous feat of reading, synthesis, judgement, and patience. It has all paid off outstandingly. -- qp10qp (talk) 21:17, 16 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Javan Rhinoceros[edit]

    I've been working on this for about two months. I'm pretty confident that the sources are the best available (it's a relatively small community researching these rhinos, and they're all in the references). Circeus mentioned that he's not happy with the ordering of information -- I'm totally open to suggestions for restructuring, but haven't really had any luck soliciting other opinions on this article or with rhinos in general. As with my other nominations, I'll be extremely responsive to this page, so please let me know what needs addressed. I'm confident that we can get this article across the hump during the FAC process. JayHenry 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comments - sorry, been busy elsewhere. What was Circeus' issue. If I were doing it I'd rename Habitat and distribution to Distribution and habitat and put it before behaviour as with other WP bio articles in general. I mused on this with lion and felt that a standard format was really worth pursuing. Eventually it'll look really cool and professional when clicking between FAs. I don't think it is a total deal-breaker or anything but...anyway, I'll keep reading. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh no worries, we have 2,100,000 - 1,600 = way too many non-featured articles to work on! Not sure what he wanted, hopefully he'll weigh in. I moved it to match most FAs. I guess the issue I was having is that it's entire range is now within nationally protected conservation areas, so I was having trouble deciding if it should be distribution or conservation, but actually reading it this morning I think it works pretty well the way it is. --JayHenry 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than that, I think you're just about there. MOS calls for a lead of 2-3 paras. Paras 2 and 4 slide nicely together though whether you put it before or after para 3 is hard to decide...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I merged paragraph 4 into paragraph 2 rather than vise-versa. What do you think? My reasoning is that with only 50-60 survivors, the species is a little bit more conservation-focused than biology/zoology-focused, though that could be my bias showing through as I'm primarily interested in these topics from the conservation standpoint. --JayHenry 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - ok, I'm happy :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh don't make it too easy on me. I'll get lazy! --JayHenry 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick Comment I'm planning on giving the article a thorough review soon (tonight/tomorrow), but I noticed that what you call the Javan Rhinoceros changes between Javan Rhinoceros, Javan rhinoceros, Javan rhino, and Javan Rhino. Could you pick one or two (in my opinion, either Javan Rhinoceros or Javan Rhino would be fine) and standardize it throughout the article? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Good catch, I switched all references to this and other species to Javan R... I think I've seen debate in other articles on whether or not to capitalize animal names and I want to say: I have no preference in this debate, and am happy to go with whichever style the community prefers. --JayHenry 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking over the literature, it actually looks like the preference is for Javan rhinoceros. Can someone who's been involved in these discussions previously weigh in regarding capitalization? --JayHenry 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments. There are a couple of issues:
      1. In the lead section, the assertion of possibly word in the statement "It is considered possibly the rarest large mammal on earth" needs some supports.
      2. Per WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section, some controversial statements should have sources. So I'd like to challenge sources of (1) the fact that the trading horn is only conducted because of Chinese medication using the horns (What about European's hunter picture with the dead rhino? Were hunting horns for fun attributed to the rhino decline also?), and (2) the fact that Vietnam Wars has something to do with the rhino's habitat (Are there sources saying the figure of rhinos before the war is significantly higher than after the war?).
      3. There are some repeating number of rhinos throughout the article, but some have inconsistencies. The Vietnamese rhino is said of no more than 8 alive, but in the Taxonomy and naming section it mentions less than 12 (though it's correct by math logic, but it's less accurate). The Javan rhino at Ujung Kulon is said to be 50-60 in the lead section and in other places, but in the Distribution and habitat section it says 28-56. We need more accurate figure for a feature article.
      4. I find the last statement of the Cat Tien subsection: "While it may be nearly impossible for the population of Vietnamese rhinos to recover, conservationists point to other species which neared extinction but made recoveries, or survived for centuries, such as the collared lizards of the Ozarks" is unnecessary. It shows an opinion by conservationists and it has no encyclopaedic value to be inserted there.
    Overall, the article looks already good. Some subsections are still not comprehensive enough (reproduction and diet), but maybe because studies of this animal are scarce. I've massaged a bit the text: (1) changed the section name of "Javan Rhineceros in zoos" into "In other captivities" per WP:MOS (avoiding article's title in the section name), (2) disambiguated sunda into sundaland and it should only refer to the biogeographical region, not the Indonesia province. As an addition, it'd be better if there is a diagram of the physical characteristics as in other featured articles of flora and fauna. — Indon (reply) — 10:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you so much for giving it such a thorough reading. Very good points!
      • I can add citations to the lead. That's no problem.
      • I think it is pretty clear in the article how the war altered their habitat. "Extensive defoliation, land mines, agent orange, etc." I don't even think it's a controversial assertion that the Vietnam War wreaked havoc on the wildlife, especially the megafauna, of the region. You are right that hunting for sport was once a contributing factor and I'll add that.
      • The different numbers come from different estimates, I will make it clearer by whom and when different estimates were made.
      • Also, I tried to make it really explicit that the animals are not studied directly, so there's very little known about their behavior. I already mentioned this in the lead, but should I make it even more explicit?
      • As for the opinions of conservationists, I'd like to see what other people think. It seems to me that there's a really important distinction between a subspecies that conservationists agree is doomed, and a population that conservationists believe has a chance of survival. Perhaps it could be worded better, but the opinion of conservationists (and these aren't, like, college students with GreenPeace T-shirts; the people that do this research are conservation biology Ph.D's) seems like really important information to me. ** Thanks again for reviewing the article and hopefully we can iron all this out! --JayHenry 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the Vietnam War, when I was reading the lead, it looks like that the only culprit that is now only no more than 8 Vietnamese rhinos alive is the war. For the last point, of course I believe they are highly respectable scientists who made that comment. However, that kind of comment, in particular with non-quantitative words like it may be nearly impossible statement, fits in a news article rather than in an encyclopaedia. It doesn't even fit in a scientific publication without some proofs. That's my two cents. — Indon (reply) — 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Upon further reflection, I think you're right. The way it's written now could even be considered weasel-wording. I'll make adjustments to all your comments later this evening. --JayHenry 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey Indon, I took a stab at making fixes per your suggestions. Thanks again for your attention, the article is definitely improved from your input! Let me know if you can think of any further suggestions (or if I didn't quite get these satisfactorily enough). --JayHenry 04:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I edited a bit, and now the article looks very good. I'll support it (see below). — Indon (reply) — 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (as per discussion above). — Indon (reply) — 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Tony (talk) 14:19, 9 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Variegated Fairy-wren[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is as comprehensive as possible, is properly referenced with inline citations, has a lead which summarises the article and illustrated with images directly uploaded to WP commons by the authors. I developed it at the same time as Splendid Fairy-wren and Superb Fairy-wren and didn't nominate it at the time as it was teh subject of a recent survey which was not published at the time. It is shorter than those bird articles as this species has been less studied. I have used some of the corrections to prose noted on the first to pages to assist in improving the prose of this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support I just gave the article a copyedit; however, there are a few phrases I'm confused about:

    In the lead, it says that the bird was formerly known as... Why is this formerly and not also known as?
    There's been a concerted effort in the last 20 years or so to reduce ambiguity in names of unrelated birds, much more common in Australia I suspect where there are many named after unrelated species, hence the Painted Button-quail was Painted Quail when I was a kid and all the wrens, were simply called that (eg Blue Wren, Variegated Wren etc.). The Fairy-wren has been part of a systemic push to 'fix' common names. Now that I write it, I figure we can leave it out as it is a discussion better placed on the genus page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the subspecies assimilis, who is North?
    Good spot - Alfred John North - done cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second paragraph of behavior, the first sentence uses the word either but does not give two examples. Should this be "or" or are there more reasons to carry flower petals that got lost along the way?
    There is other speculative stuff, which I removed or reworded. In any case I've removed the either which was supposed to have gone before. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you completely redo the next sentence? It seems to either be missing parts or is worded poorly.
    reworded to "In this species, the petals that have been recorded have been yellow." it's those passive tenses that make it sound weird...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In Reproduction first sentence, what does "under 1 m" refer to? Please rephrase.
    reworded to "less than 1 m (3 ft) above the ground"cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than these I think the article looks pretty good. However, is there a way to get a range map? I know Jude knows how to make them if you want to ask him... Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll drop him a line posthaste...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. However, I made a mistake in my comments. I meant the sentence after the sentence after the one in Behavior. I thought that the previous one was fine. Sorry for any confusion. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, the whole section was a bit choppy and has benefited from a bit of a massage. done now cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Only other thing is a range map, but I don't think that that should hold the article back. I supported above. Good job. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    left a note for Jude to see if he's ok with it before i email him a chunky image file.... :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (starting at the end of the article, for no good reason at all!)

    Diet
    ”The Variegated Fairy-wren is predominantly insectivorous, consuming a wide range of small creatures, mostly insects...” repetitious
    Good spot - fixed. Easy to lose insectivorous in section. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Breeding
    ”the nest is a round or domed structure made of loosely woven grasses and spider webs, with an entrance in one side, generally less than 1 m (3 ft) above the ground and in thick vegetation” As it reads now, this means the entrance is less than 1 m above the ground. Is that correct, or is it the whole nest? (the nest - switched clauses to reduce ambiguity)
    "A clutch of three or four matte white eggs with reddish-brown splotches and spots, measuring 12 x 16 mm (.45 x .6 in).” I think there’s a word or two missing here! :) (consists added)
    “...after hatching, nestlings are fed and their fecal sacs removed by all group members for 10–12 days, by which time they are fledged.” This is worded a bit awkwardly. (removed 'after hatching' which is redudant)
    “Parents and helper birds will feed them for around one month.” In addition to the time in the nest, or in total? (source doesn't specify, at least it is approximate)
    “...though some can move on and breed in the first year” Any need for the “can”? (no, removed)
    “Variegated Fairy-wrens also play host...” Any need for the “also”? (no, removed)
    There aren’t many wikilinks in this section. How about nest, or eggs, or clutch or brood parasite? (done) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a look at the rest later—must dash at the moment! MeegsC | Talk 11:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support
    • Why not Australian spelling? ("ise" and variants, not "ize")? It's inconsistent, anyway. (ok, got the last -ized now)
    • "Brightly-coloured"—Read MOS on hyphens. Happens again. (found both of 'em)
    • "Distributed over 90% of the Australian continent, the Variegated Fairy-wren prefers scrubland with plenty of vegetation providing dense cover; with a preference for rocky outcrops and patches of Acacia, Eremophila or Lignum (Muehlenbeckia) in inland and northern Australia."—Semicolon is wrong. Lots of second clauses run on using "with"; this is not optimal. (fixed that one; not sure what you mean by others, I used CTRL-F to find other semicolons and none were followed by 'with'. Do you want me to remove 'with' from some subordinate clauses?)
    • "for 14 to 16 days; nestlings are fed and their fecal sacs removed by all group members for 10–12 days"—consistent? (I added 'after which newly hatched' - to clarify. The eggs are sat on for 14-16 days then the babies are nursed for 10-12 days)
    • Consider using "ALthough" in formal text. Tony (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (Oh, is that a deal-breaker? I was never really fond of 'although' and to me the latter is so soft that it is ofte nredundant. I was trying to find it on MOS, there was a bit on conjunctions somewhere wasn't there?)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Comprehensive and well-referenced. Any issues with prose that I noticed have already been outlined in comments by Tony. --heyjude. 03:14, 10 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Thespis (opera)[edit]

    Thespis is the first of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. It's now lost, but there's a surprising amount of research that has been done on it, so we've been able to pull together quite a lot into this article. It contains all known contemporary illustrations, for instance, as well as coverage of the ideas of all the prominent scholars in the field. Marc Shepherd managed to dig up a century and a half's worth of critical commentary, I played the sceptic, making sure that the points of dispute and uncertainty are clearly so described, and Ssilvers did a lot of copy-editing and reworking, as well as research in his own right. In short, I think it's probably one of the best articles on Thespis in existence. Vanished user talk 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Excellent article: very well-written, and well-cited as well. My only comment is that it's a bit jarring to jump right into the characters and songs from the lead; I'd suggest moving the Background section up and letting the previously-mentioned sections come later. MeegsC | Talk 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, we've had quite a bit of discussion about order, but we'd have to figure out what to do with the "Production" section. I'll poke at it. Vanished user talk 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've had a poke at it. I suspect Silvers and Marc will rearrange it some more, but it should settle down within a day. Vanished user talk 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right. The consensus is currently "See what other people think". We're open to rearrangement, but are somewhat hindered by there being no standardised style as of yet for opera articles. If no-one has strong views, we can put section order aside for the moment and start up an RfC to collect opinion? Vanished user talk 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've come up with something that seems to work - I suspect the list of musical numbers might shift around a bit yet, but it should be fairly stable otherwise. 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I see that Magic Flute, which is probably the closest to G&S among operas, has
      1. Premiere and reception
      2. Background
      3. Roles
      4. Synopsis
        1. Act I
        2. Act II
      5. Noted arias

    amd then assorted cruft. Beginning with the premiere is their reaction to special circumstances, but otherwise this seems a good plan. Production will make more sense when the reader knows what is being produced, and works well where it is, after the plot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Right. I'll have a poke at it - at the worst, we could move the Genesis section to the top. Vanished user talk 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, more or less. Vanished user talk 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would you think of the synopsis before the cast ( and perhaps the reception)? That's a long way down to find out what happens, longer than in Magic Flute.
          • I think it's standard to have a list of who the characters are before talking about what they did in the show. Give this a couple days - it's proving difficult to please everyone. Vanished user talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reviews differed from the published libretto. Were these first-night reviews, as they would be now, or were things different in 1872?
          • A couple are first-night, most aren't. Between the weekly newspapers, time for preparing engravings in the illustrated newspapers, and Victorian rehearsal practices that meant shows were rarely, if ever, quite right the first night, the first night review hadn't really developed to the extent it would later. Actually, Gilbert was one of the major contributors to getting sufficient rehearsals before the first night, but that was a bit later. Vanished user talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would be a kindness to us ignoramuses to clarify a bit, then, especially if there were first-night changes in the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's the trouble, though: Only one edition of the libretto was printed, and scholars now believe it's full of errors, and may even just be an early draft. We know the ballet moved about from various reviews, and Rees, at least, thinks it was abridged sometime after the first night, but we don't know how. Tell me anything specific you find confusing, but realise that there are some things we just cannot know. =) Vanished user talk 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please say the reviewers weren't all first-night; readers will assume otherwise. inserting "reviewers , writing during the first week of performances," or whatever the facts are, would be enough. If Rees doesn't say,fine
                  • If there was only one ecition of the libretto, what does But the text of the libretto, as published, remained "virtually unchanged" between December 1871 and March 1872 mean?
                  • When was it published? Do we know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I misspoke a bit: There were four reprints or so over the ~3 months (Late December to mid-March) Thespis ran, but they never updated the text to reflect changes on stage. I presume there must be enough differences to let them be told apart or Allen wouldn't be able to count the reprints, but the differences are presumably advertisements changing and things like that, as scholars are fairly unanimous in saying the libretto was corrupt and never got updated, even if they disagree to why. Vanished user talk 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has "Little maid of Arcadee" been recorded?
          • Checking here, yes, but it looks like only on LP, and don't think they're currently in print. Vanished user talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, in case it's not clear from the tone, Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks! 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Haven't read it all yet, but my first impression is that is very well researched, written, and cited. A small thing: the word "ballet" is overused in the section "ballet". Ceoil 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Well done all involved. Ceoil 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the edits. I put the "notability" stuff back into the first paragraph per WP:LEAD. Let's discuss if you feel strongly about moving it, but I think it also flows more logically where it is. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering, though, if the cast list wouldn't be better just after the synopsis: we do mention the cast rather a lot in the background sections. Vanished user talk 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with the "notability" stuff; but I really think the cast list should be at the end, as a footnote. Did ye sort out the ballet issue bty. Ceoil 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The ballet issue? If you mean where it appeared in the opera, that's one of the many things that noone is quite sure of. Vanished user talk 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the ballet section, and I don't see how we can reduce the number of times we say the word ballet. We are talking about three different ballets and other ballet music that Sullivan wrote (or re-used), so it is difficult to reduce the incidence of the word. I really think the language is OK as is. -- Ssilvers 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written and well sourced article, with a good sense of its context in the overall works of the time. Kbthompson 10:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Well written, thoroughly researched and comprehensive --Broadwaygal 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A well-sourced and clearly written article on an interesting topic, a lost G&S opera. Jack1956 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Clear, well-referenced, and much informative and interesting material that would be new to even the most dedicated Gilbert/Sullivan enthusiast. Right and proper that the debate above should go on about the arrangement of the facts, but as it stands it is wholly admirable. -- Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 16 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Acrocanthosaurus[edit]

    After only 100 million years or so, Acrocanthosaurus finally has a Wikipedia article worthy of its magnificence. Or at least WikiProject Dinosaurs seems to think so. So here it is, nominated for featured article. The article was mainly written by myself and User:J. Spencer and largely illustrated by the amazing User:ArthurWeasley. It has been vetted by WP:DINO and is currently the 12th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. Thanks for any comments in advance. Sheep81 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Sheepy's prose good as always, nice and comprehensive. well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral support as a WP:DINO member and contributor (although I think Sheep overstated my contributions; there wasn't much I could do for this article after he finished it). It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-referenced. I will be around and ready to help with any concerns, as well. J. Spencer 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you write the classification section? I can't remember. Anyway it wasn't just me. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far superior to many of the articles I've seen on the main page. It is nicely structured, written and illustrated, and J. Spencer has cleaned up most of the issues about which I left hidden comments. I found the constant parenthetical definitions in the forelimb section wearing - all the terms are also linked after all. If you can persuade your artist, an illustration of the forelimb would be more of a help than telling us that extending means straightening and flexing means bending. The first sentence of the description: "Although slightly smaller than gigantic relatives like Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus was still among the largest theropods", could do with a little more context; after reading that I don't really know whether it was one of the largest of the time, largest ever, largest in its ecosystem, or what. Was Giganotosaurus contemporaneous? I also found the section on classification hard to understand until I realised that the vertebrae were being classified into a genus in lieu of the species. I now assume this is common practice when classifying fossil remains, but it makes for difficult reading unless you explain that. Good effort overall though, well done. Andplus 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words and the constructive suggestions. Hopefully some of the changes made by me (anonymously from work) and J have improved the article in your eyes. I'll run the forelimb image idea by Arthur and see if he thinks he can do something... it's a very technical image though, not his usual style. There are very nice images in the article that is cited in that paragraph actually. Unfortunately we can't use them as they are copyrighted. And yes, classification can get highly confusing when people are giving generic names or even naming whole families for isolated teeth or vertebrae. If you really want your mind blown by a taxonomic puzzle check out Paleosaurus. Thanks again, and please let us know if there is anything else you want to see beyond what you've already suggested. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now - The opening paragraphs look a bit short; does there really need to be 3? Or you could expand a couple of them instead - either or, I don't mind. And a couple more of the paragraphs throughout the article look a bit on the small side; it there any way you could merge them and/or expand them? Sorry, I'm just used to much larger paragraphs - we can't have our FAs running around looking like bullet-point lists can we? :) The rest looks good. Excellent in fact. post when you're done. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Spawn, I'll see if I can combine some paragraphs. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – This is a comprehensive, well sourced and well written article, which deserves FA status. Ruslik 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment: Another wonderful article from Sheep. I'm close to supporting, because it's an awesome article that as far as I can tell is well-written and close to comprehensive. However, the nomen nudum "Acracanthus" redirects to Acrocanthosaurus. DinoData indicates "Acracanthus" was a dissertation name for Acrocanthosaurus. The paper was Langston, W.R., Jr. (1947). "A new genus and species of Cretaceous theropod dinosaur from the Trinity of Atoka County, Oklahoma". University of Oklahoma unpublished M.S. thesis, 73 pp. Although this was an unpublished paper and the name has no real validity, Wikipedia readers who are seeking information on the name "Acracanthus" will be directed to our article on Acrocanthosaurus with no explanation why, and with no mention of the name "Acracanthus" in the article. I really think the name should be discussed somewhere in the body of the text, with perhaps a mention in the lead as well (for clarity to readers wondering why they've been directed to another article). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added "Acracanthus" to the article, although I don't think such a small part of the story should go in the lead; perhaps the taxobox, if we want it up-front? J. Spencer 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from "Comment" to "Support". No further observations from me; I can't find anything on this genus that isn't already in the article; FAC 1b "comprehensive" seems met. The prose has been refined a bit, and the topic seems clear. Plenty of citations from peer-reviewed sources, and great images by Arthur Weasley. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support : Sourcing needed for lead and infobox.--Redtigerxyz 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been avoiding citations in the lead and taxobox except where material is not redundant with the body; what would you suggest be cited in the lead/taxobox of this article? J. Spencer 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Acrocanthosaurus (pronounced IPA: /ˌækrəˌkænθəˈsɔrəs/ or ak-ro-KAN-tho-SAWR-us; meaning 'high-spined lizard' is a genus of allosauroid theropod dinosaur that existed in what is now North America during the mid-Cretaceous Period, approximately 125 to 100 million years ago. Like most dinosaur genera, Acrocanthosaurus contains only a single species, A. atokensis.

    Like most theropods [citation needed], Acrocanthosaurus was a bipedal predator. [citation needed] As the name suggests[citation needed], it is best known for the high neural spines on many of its vertebrae, which most likely supported a ridge of muscle over the animal's neck, back and hips. Acrocanthosaurus was one of the largest theropods, approaching 12 meters (40 ft) in length, and weighing up to about 2.40 metric tons (2.65 short tons), comparable to a modern white rhinoceros [citation needed].

    Acrocanthosaurus was the largest theropod in its ecosystem and likely an apex predator [citation needed] which possibly preyed on large sauropods and ornithopods."

    Since Acrocanthosaurus is an extinct dinosaur, the facts are likely to be challenged.

    --Redtigerxyz 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These claims are all covered in the text, Redtiger, with appropriate citations in those sections. Few Featured Articles have citations in the lead of the article, because the material in the lead is covered in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. If there's something in the lead which isn't covered in the body, it should certainly be covered. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything is referenced. I found references for recent discoveries and period. So removed it. What about the rest? Comparsions like "comparable to a modern white rhinoceros", "Like most dinosaur genera" can considered OR unless sourced. --Redtigerxyz 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Acrocanthosaurus is named for its tall neural spines, from the Greek ακρα/akra ('high'), ακανθα/akantha ('thorn' or 'spine') and σαυρος/sauros ('lizard')."[17]
    • "Several teeth from the Arundel Formation of Maryland have been described as almost identical to those of Acrocanthosaurus and may represent an eastern representative of the genus."[22]
    • "However, scientists have long considered it likely that the footprints belong to Acrocanthosaurus."[29]
    • "Acrocanthosaurus was still among the largest theropods ever to exist. The longest known individual measured 11.5 meters (38 ft) from snout to tail tip and weighed an estimated 2400 kilograms (5300 lb). Its skull alone was nearly 1.3 meters (4.3 ft) in length."[1]
    • "Potential prey animals include sauropods like Paluxysaurus[35] or possibly even the enormous Sauroposeidon,[36] as well as large ornithopods like Tenontosaurus."[37]
    These citations are already in place, Redtiger. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed suitable citation needed tags.--Redtigerxyz 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your OR concerns, but c'mon, this seems a little extreme. A source is provided for the mass estimate for Acro, and the reader can easily click on the linked white rhinoceros article and see the similar weight. Do we really need a source to tell us that two numbers are similar? That is just mathematics. Similarly, the reader can easily click on the theropod article and in the first two sentences discover that yes, most theropods were in fact bipedal predators. This is just basic knowledge, certainly unlikely to be challenged, and I don't believe it needs to be specifically cited. Sheep81 06:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    * The theropod article is not a FAC and not as referenced as Acrocanthosaurus. If it is basic knowledge, a source would not be hard to get.
    * A ref can be added for second occurence of bipedal predator in Description last para; if one does not want to add it in the lead.
    * Does WP really believe in just mathematics? --Redtigerxyz 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the WWII article were to say "World War II was a war. Like in most wars, lots of people died" would we really need a citation to prove that people die in wars? I'm not arguing the fact that a ciation would be easy to come by, I'm saying that we don't need to clutter up the article with citations for such basic information. There aren't any citations for the fact that 4 is the square root of 16. Sheep81 07:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As the name suggests{{fact}}, it is best known for the high neural spines on many of its vertebrae is covered by "Acrocanthosaurus is named for its tall neural spines, from the Greek ακρα/akra ('high'), ακανθα/akantha ('thorn' or 'spine') and σαυρος/sauros ('lizard')."[17]
    It should be easy enough to come up with a citation for the fact that most theropods were bipedal predators. The citation needed for "apex predator" is superfluous: there's already two citations ([36] and [37]) in the same sentence which states it preyed on giant sauropods. You don't get any bigger than a giant sauropod: there's nothing higher on the apex. That just leaves the rhino thing, which isn't all that important, and can be jettisoned if that seriously will hold up the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "apex predators" are defined in simple terms as those predators not eaten by others and not just who eat big animals.--Redtigerxyz 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, man. The animal was a 40 foot long carnivore; what animal do you think was preying on it? The article already states - with citation - that the other carnivorous dinosaur living in the area and time "provided only minimal competition for Acrocanthosaurus". Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out the "like most other theropods" clause, since the Theropod page is the more appropriate page to establish the bipedalism and predatory behavior of theropods in general (they were all bipedal, but not all were carnivores, for the record). J. Spencer 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost supportive: The only issue bothering me is that the comparsion with white rhinoceros may be OR. The rhino article says(not ref): "This rhino can exceed 6000 pounds [approx 2721.55 kg], have a head-and-body length of 3.35-4.2 m (11-13.9 feet) and a shoulder height of 150-185 cm (60-73 inches)". Acrocanthosaurus says "12 meters (40 ft) in length, and weighing up to about 2.40 metric tons (2.65 short tons)". ---- Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What bothers me is that the one making the comparison here is innumerate enough to express that number (6,000 pounds) from the white rhinoceros article in his conversion for this talk page as "2721.55 kg". Not very good evidence of being able to comprehend comparisons like this. -- Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6,000 pounds = 2.68 metric tons.[61] Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparison removed, not that important anyway. Another solution would be to put "comparable in weight to a modern white rhinoceros" or something, as rhinos surely aren't 40 feet long. I'm glad the reviewer has come around on some of the other issues. Sheep81 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To Gene Nygaard, is 2721.55 kg really wrong??? What the conversion really wrong ? I wrote the kg thing as i dont deal with pounds. I just presented the facts. I strongly object to the "innumerate" comment.
    Comparsion removed. Support granted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, he was getting at significant figures, specifically, what is known as superfluous precision. In short, we can calculate the conversion to more digits than are supported by the precision of the original number. In this case, the rhino was weighed as 6000 lb; a conversion of 2721.55 kg implies that the rhino was measured to a hundredth of a pound (6000.00 lb). Since this was not the case, 2722 kg is the most precise conversion that is supported by the precision of the original number (assuming that the rhino was weighed to 6000 lb and not just rounded at some point). Worst-case scenario, where the rhino was weighed on a really lousy scale only accurate to thousands of pounds, only the 6 is significant and the conversion should be 3000 kg (only 1 digit; a better way to write this to avoid those zeros would be 3*103 kg). Unfortunately, with three trailing zeros and no indication of the precision of the scale, we can't be sure how many digits are significant. Since only four at most are present in the original, the conversion can have at most only four. Oh, and Firs, you seem to have used the UK Long Ton, not the metric ton (tonne) :) .J. Spencer (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm innumerate, too, y'know. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well written, illustrated and referenced article, i honestly can not find any issues with the article prose or information at all. I would also suggest that Redtigerxyz is a little over enthusiastic in his calls for references in the lead. It is not needed, as all these claims are well supported in the body of the article, no matter how closely you want to examine them. Excellent work from the Dinosaur team. Kare Kare 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Sheep81 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    American Black Vulture[edit]

    Self-nomination:I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it matches the featured article criteria. It is part of a potential New World Vulture featured topic. heyjude. 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'll raise the same query I did on Turkey Vulture; do the dates in the "Reproduction" section accurately reflect what happens in South America as well, or is this information only correct for North America? MeegsC | Talk 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ah, I see the problem (and this does need to be fixed also in Turkey Vulture). The dates used here seem to apply only to North America; this needs to be addressed to conform with WP:SEASON (the information should reflect their full range). It's too bad Turkey Vulture slid through without this being addressed. I hope this isn't occurring on other bird articles when their range crosses hemispheres. This issue should be raised on the Bird Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the only link I've found (by searching on zamuro Venezuela—a search on buitre negro or buitre americano Argentina may turn up something.). The site is silent on dates, but does give numerous links for further searches. If anyone turns up something and wants help in Spanish, please ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found a lead by searching on "Coragyps atratus Argentina".[62] If this is a good site, it appears the seasons are reversed, as suspected, in the Southern hemisphere, and there are different dates near the equator. "Entre octubre y noviembre en la Argentina (enero y abril en el hemisferio norte y febrero y junio en la zona ecuatorial) el jote negro modifica su rutina diaria e inicia su ciclo anual de reproducción." This says the reproductive cycle begins between October and November in Argentina, January to April in the Northern Hemisphere, and February to June near the equator. I believe Joelr31 (talk · contribs) will probably have journal sources in Spanish to help you get to the bottom of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Jude, I didn't mean to drop you in it here! Do you have Raptors of the World? That will undoubtedly have the information. If not, let me know ASAP and I'll try to find out for you. I'm leaving for Gambia tomorrow and didn't want to spend too much time tonight researching if I didn't have to—I still have to pack! :) MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have it. If you could find the information for me, I would be extremely grateful. Cheers, heyjude. 22:35, 7 November 2007
     Done Have a look and see what you think. As for me, I now support this one! MeegsC | Talk 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great. Thanks so much! heyjude. 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I've already given this article my two cents and Jude has answered all of my questions. Great article and great job Jude! Though this calendar thing does need to be adressed... Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Ditto, they're getting more polished each time...well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very informative but I would like to see the distribution and habitat section expanded a little bit --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This article is well written, well-sourced and comprehensive. --Carioca 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As with the others, an excellent and well-sourced article. Coemgenus 16:07, 9 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    USS Kentucky (BB-66)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all established featured article criteria. Unlike my previous battleship FACs, this one is for a battleship that was never completed, therefore the material presented is a little short due to the lack of service history. This can be compensated for if you think of this article as the third in a series of three: the articles Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship discuss in much more detail the history of the class design and construction and the weapons and combat systems installed aboard Kentucky respectively. This is a self nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOTE I am currently in the middle of a college semester; if I seem slow to respond be patient; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak object The in fiction section section appear very short, and some of the history section should be re-worded and provided with explanation, for example what is "the treaty"? The history section doesn't go into when the ship was sold off for scrapping either, which seems like a rather important detail to omit --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed "the treaty" to show what the blue link there goes to. I don't follow your comments about the history section as the relevant sections are: 'Background', 'Construction', and 'Fate'. The fiction section does appear short because a canceled battleship doesn't have much of a reason to appear in fiction. That particular section has been removed previously, and I don't know if it belongs or not.-MBK004 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a 'fiction' section is justified, and I've removed it again. The Land 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The info in the fiction section should be on the main class page, thats where the generic discussion regard the battleship in fiction was moved to keep the short stub sections out of the article page. By 'when the ship was sold off' do you mean the date (31 October 1958) or something else? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ignore my last objection I misread the article. My concerns have been addressed and this article is very well written --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The recent addition on the (almost) rebuild as a missile ship helped the article a lot. The article still seems a bit short to me, but is well written. And no worries about a fiction section that no longer exists. Hellbus 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While this article may be short compared to other Featured Articles related to it (i.e.: Iowa class battleship, Armament of the Iowa class battleship, USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64)), the quality of the information presented and the way it is presented scream Featured Article to me when considered as a natural addition to the series of articles on the Iowa class. Plus, since the ship was never fully completed, the amount of information logically will be less than the completed sister ships since the completed sisters have had such a long and distinguished career.-MBK004 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is one thing I'd like to see done. Fix the red link in the Fate section for the Sacramento class fast combat support ships. It looks like there are articles on the individual ships of the class, and on the type of ship, but not for the class itself.-MBK004 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, subject to a few suggestions:
      • In the background section, you write "By late 1939, it had become apparent that the navy needed as many fast battleships as possible and it was decided that BB-65 and BB-66 would follow the same design as their sisters." Who decided this? The War Department? Congress? FDR?
      • Under the Fate section, "It was during this time that several plans were proposed to complete Kentucky as a guided missile battleship (BBG) by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system." Again, who proposed this? Active voice makes things clearer.
      • The bit at the end about being the highest-numbered battleship seems irrelevant. Is there some significance to the numbers, other than to identify the ship?
      • All in all, a good article and worthy of FA-status. Coemgenus 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectively:
          • I always presumed from the wording that it was the USN's decision to build that last two battleship as "fast battleships", but you have raised an interesting point; I will look into nailing that down for you when I get home.
          • Again, I presume this to be the Navy's idea, and again, I will look into nailing that down for you when I get home.
          • There is some ambiguity as to which US Battleship was the last battleship; I put this in the article to inform people of that ambiguity so they could see why different ships could hold the title of the last US battleship. It was intended to resemble the note on the pages USS Constitution and HMS Victory which inform readers that both battleships hold a portion of the title of the oldest ship in commission. If it bothers you I can remove it, I just thought it might be of interest to the average reader. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, don't take it out on my account. I just wondered if it was relevant and, as you've demonstrated, it is, to someone. Coemgenus 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a very good article which meets the FA criteria. As a note, these criteria don't require FA's to be long - they need to be comprehensive. --Nick Dowling 06:51, 10 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Battle of Red Cliffs[edit]

    • Self-nom and co-nom by User:Ling.Nut and dk. A-rated within WP:MILHIST, this article has been exhaustively researched and referenced. It covers a major battle in Chinese history which is the source of many modern cultural references. It is the result of extensive collaboration by several members of WP:3K.
    • Very hesitantly and well aware of WP:BEANS, I'll say that there is no need for any reviewer to slag the Harvard referencing style due to any personal preference for the footnote style. The Harvard style is well and clearly sanctioned by WP:CITE. Ling.Nut 07:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The...uh...weird citations you call Havard Referencing are a little hard on the eyes, but otherwise I see no reason to object. Its good, it agrees with the UTEP professors account of the battle, and above all it meets the criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object - sorry but it requires more inline citations --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: More citations? I'm sorry, but this comment could become helpful/actionable if you would indicate where you want additional citations (perhaps you may wish to refer to Wikipedia:When to cite as well). I thank you in advance for your reply. --Ling.Nut 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OH I bet you just don't see the abundant examples of Harvard citation? Is that it? It's not uncommon for newer editors to think that the footnote style is the only style that exists... --Ling.Nut 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Harvard style is uncommon, but hardly unusable. Just because somebody's used to seeing little numbers as opposed to Harvard references doesn't make the article any less factual or incorrect. The emphasis is supposed to be on referencing the information, not the fashion of display in which it's presented. Gamer Junkie 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Concise, clear, and understandable even to someone unfamiliar with the era. Well-cited, but the maps are the best part — they're absolutely fantastic. Excellent work creating those. Definitely worthy of being a featured article. JKBrooks85 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — An excellent article, you have my support.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Are there any other FAs that use Harvard referencing? I don't think I've come across this format anywhere else on Wikipedia. Tommy Stardust 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to. It all falls within Wikipedia's rules and policy. Nobody can argue the legitimacy of Harvard referencing other than to say that they don't personally like it. Gamer Junkie 09:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments It would be nice to have the Wade-Giles (once) for names and places; there will be English sources which use only WG for Ts'ao Ts'ao, for example. I think i know what the hill destoyed "for stone exploitation" means, roughly, but it's both vague and un-English. Was it a gravel-mine, a quarry for flagstones, or what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Hi Pmanderson, thanks for your comments. I would be very happy to comply with the suggestions in your comments, but unfotunately I would run into some roadblocks...
    • To clarify, do you want Wade-Giles after the first use of every Chinese-language name and place? To me that sounds like a stylistic issue which would need to be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language) [and I note that you have made a recent comment on that forum regarding this issue]. Also relevant to this question is the essay at m:Use pinyin not Wade-Giles.
      • You will note that I also have expressed myself on the meta essay. The claim that pinyin is intuitive for anglophones who are not fluent in Chinese (the bulk of our readers) is not convincing.
      • In response to your question: where to add WG is a judgment call, based on whether what was notable in the first half of the twentieth century. I would add it, once, to the Han generals; placenames are more complex. We sensibly use Yangtze and not the pinyin Cháng Jiāng; on the other hand, purely modern placenames do not need it. I would add it wherever we include Chinese script, and for much the same reasons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for "stone exploitation", you are correct that the source of that info is a published English translation from an original Chinese-language article. That translated version uses the term "stone exploitation." I knew it was awkward when I added it, but the article simply does not specify what type of "exploiation" it is referring to. I briefly considered researching a "most likely case", but I live in fear of WP:OR. I suppose I could also email the author, but that would be a primary source. If you can suggest an English phrasing which preserves the unintentional ambiguity, I would be quite happy to modify the text accordingly. Thanks again, --Ling.Nut (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    a range of hills levelled in the 1930's to use their stone as raw material? or perhaps a direct quote from the English translation, to make clear to the reader what the problem is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Lovely piece. Beautifully written and nicely illustrated. I particularly enjoyed bits like: "Even a powerful arrow at the end of its flight cannot penetrate a silk cloth". A few minor suggestions:
    • provided a line of defence that was the basis for the later creation of the two southern kingdoms Unclear. Did the line become a frontier? Or permit the creation of prosperity?
    • Typos: A few missing hyphens—a 16-year interruption, the 3rd-century historical text—oh, and fifth-century to 5th-century for consistency.
    • Tense disjunction: Although Cao Cao boasted. Perhaps Although Cao Cao had boasted or Despite Cao Cao's boasts of?
    • Slight tweak: and so lacked to and thus lacked (to avoid readings of so as an amplifier)?
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "line of defence" already implied that the line was a frontier. Other than that, I addressed all your points. :) _dk (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Pmanderson, to work out the details of your suggestion... would Wade-Giles in the infobox be acceptable for the major characters? I tried to imagine how it would look after every name in the WP:LEDE, and in my mind it looks kinda cluttered... then later on we could put Wade-Giles once in the body text for a few other key people and places... --Ling.Nut (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox would be a good idea. I don't think it's needed after every name in the lead anyway; Wu is probably the same in both systems, and some names are unimportant. I also commend {{zh-tspw}} in the first sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 19 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Joey Santiago[edit]

    Guitarist of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Quite an interesting article to write actually. Objections should be addressed quickly. CloudNine 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. My comments at the peer review were professionally addressed. Santiago is not exactly the most documented figure in rock, but this article represents a systematic marshalling of the information available. Another valuable contribution to the Wikipedia Pixies coverage by CloudNine.qp10qp 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very nice. All of my concerns were taken care of after I passed it as a GA. At that point a Peer Review was unnecessary in my eyes; it's FA class without a doubt. NSR77 TC 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great work, again Cloud nine. To take issue with Qp10qp; a lot has been recorded, spoken, and written about this guitarist. In quite places though; and CloudNine has found them all. Ceoil 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. There's a surprising amount of information about said guitarist. Expanding Dave Lovering is the real challenge now. CloudNine 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I like this article a great deal. I made some edits, many minor, to help tighten it up a bit. I have some other concerns and questions, but I lean toward support. Here are the problematic things I saw (in order of appearance, not importance):
    NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but to make this now long page easier to read, I've taken the liberty of replacing your instances of "Done" with the template  Done, and also added it in other places where you indicated that you finished off the issue but hadn't written "Done." --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead, there are several years mentioned, but no years are given to place the Pixies heyday. It's a little strange to be introduced to Santiago in the first sentence and be told he's best known as being part of the Pixies, then be told they broke up in 1993 without having been told when they were playing in the first place. Perhaps this is as simple as adding "in the late 1980s and early 1990s" to the first sentence, or perhaps there's a better way to do this. But I think it's pretty important to place the era of Santiago's best known music in the first sentence.
        •  Done I think I had this before, but removed it in the interests of brevity.
      • In the "Youth and college" section, does his birthdate bear repeating? I've seen many WP biographies that do not repeat it, since it's in both the lead and infobox.
        • In my opinion, yes. It gives a context to the start of the biography.
      • In the "Pixies" section, the following sentence is confusing: "They both took temporary jobs working in a warehouse, with Santiago working for a butcher block company." The first clause makes it sound like they worked in the same warehouse, but the second phrase makes it sound like Santiago worked at the butcher block company and implies that Thompson worked in some other warehouse. Which is it?
        •  Done Hopefully I've clarified this now.
      • "Pixies" section. "The pair arrived at a name after Santiago selected the word randomly from a dictionary and liked the definition, 'mischievous little elves.'" Should that comma be a colon?
        • When I've seen sources mention the definition, it's usually with a comma.
      • "Pixies" section. "The Pixies rehearsed throughout 1985 and 1986, and began touring around Boston in late 1986 and during 1987." Were they playing only in the Boston metropolitan area at this time? (I think so.) If so, "touring" isn't the right term. "Touring" implies leaving home to go on the road. They lived in Boston, and therefore it is more correct to say that they "began performing around Boston." If they actually played beyond the metropolitan area that early, then say something like they "began touring around New England."
        •  Done Nope, just Boston in the early days. Clarified with "performed".
      • "Pixies" section. "Santiago met his future wife, Linda Mallari, when he sat beside her after a 1987 Pixies concert at The Rathskeller." The Rat is (was?) a tiny club. What a hole! But what a great venue—I fell in love there in 1986... but I digress. Ahem. Anyway, The Rat was just a small club (not a theater or concert hall), so most people would not label a performance at a small club like that a concert. The most accurate American rock term would be "show," or "gig," not "concert," or in lieu of those, "performance." But "concert" implies a longer performance at a large venue, neither of which were true about a Pixies show at The Rat in 1987.
        •  Done Indeed. I've always "gig", "show" and "concert" as interchangable, but I can see your point here. Replaced with "show".
      • Also, no one called The Rat by its full, formal name. If I remember correctly, all their advertisements and the club's sign during those years said simply "The Rat." I think you'd be more accurate going with that. How do your books refer to it? Are there any photos of the door? Reprints of Pixies bills?
        • I tend to use "The Rathskellar", because that's the name of the Wikipedia article on the place and its proper name. An analogy would be "Coca-Cola" and "Coke".
          • I see your logic, but I'm not sure the analogy works in this case. Everyone knows that "Coca-Cola" is "Coke", but most people from Boston I know would say, "Where was The Rathskellar? I never heard of it." I don't think it's correct to use the WP article's name as your guide on this; if your reference material says "The Rat" 99% of the time, then I think you should say "The Rat." I doubt you will find a single quote from the Pixies or journalists referring to "The Rathskellar"—or a gig flyer, etc. Go to your sources for guidance, not the WP article on the club. If no one, including the club itself in its ads and signage, called it "The Rathskellar" in the 1980s and beyond, then its original "proper name" has ceased to be in usage and is not correct. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Replaced it with the Rat for now. You were right; I couldn't find a quote. I'll probably put in a move request on The Rathskellar soon to clarify things. CloudNine (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Pixies" section. You write, "his trademark erratic lead guitar." I think this comes off more negatively than you intend—it can be taken to mean that he lacked control over his instrument, and I'm sure we agree that that's not the case. It also doesn't illuminate what he sounds like very well, and this is the first mention of his style in the body of the article. I think "angular," "stabbing," "piercing," "volcanic" and a host of other adjectives would be more appropriate.
        •  Done Good point. I've replaced it with "angular" for now.
      • Also, I know that the main Pixies article is linked, but is there further information in your sources that could be discussed here about how Santiago developed his guitar sound during this early Pixies time? It was quite remarkable and influential, and it might be nice to hear more about some of the landmark moments that happened musicially during this time, if possible. I know that as a musician, I'd like to hear just a few key Santiago arranging and/or recording anecdotes in this section, lest it be too weighted toward being a chronological list of events.
        • Sure. I'll be working on this.
      • "Pixies" section. "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, as well as constantly touring." This seems grammatically incorrect, though I must apologize that I can't explain exactly the term for it. I think the verbs need to agree; as it is, the last phrase seems to dangle. How about "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, while touring constantly"?
      • On to "The Martinis..." section. "The band played live only occasionally, and toured until 2001." This is an odd combination. First you say that they rarely played out, then you say that they were touring until 2001. Did they actually play extended tours or did they only play occasional shows? Not sure what the reality is, but this needs more clarity.
        • Hopefully I've clarified it now.
          • That's better, but it might be good to additionally write (in the Smitten paragraph) that although they did continue to do studio work, they no longer played live.
            • Done. Thanks.
      • "The Martinis..." section. You write, "a limited edition extended play"—perhaps this is WP's encylopedic style, but I've never seen this written out in writing about rock. Is it OK to say "EP"?
        • I tend to favour clarity over brevity; not everyone knows what an EP stands for.
          • True, but because almost no one says or writes "extended play," it's not particularly clarifying to know what "EP" stands for. No one commonly says "I just bought a fantastic '70s soul long play"—they say "LP". That's the term that has more meaning, because it has more usage, and many people have no idea what the abbreviation stands for. It's the same for EP; many music fans know what "EP" means—fewer songs than an "LP" but more than a single—but couldn't tell you what the abbreviation actually stands for, and the word "extended" is not specifically meaningful anyway. Also, "extended play" is awkward to say within a sentence without saying "extended play record" or "extended play album," whereas "EP" is commonly said on its own. Therefore, I'd suggest using "EP" with a link rather than "extended play". I think it's better for Wikipedia to follow the style of how music writers write about these things rather than to impose phraselogy that isn't commonly used.
            •  Done Replaced with EP for now. I see your point.
      • Section organizational problem. "The Martinis and later projects" and "Smitten and Pixies reunion" are a little odd organizationally. These were the thoughts that arose as I read these two sections: 1) Why did a new section start when I'm still reading about The Martinis? Shouldn't The Martinis stuff be together in one section? 2) Wait, that first section was mostly about things other than The Martinis... 3) Why is this section named for a rather obscure album, Smitten? 4) Why is that obscure album given equal weight with the Pixies reunion in the section title? 5) Why am I reading about his **Weeds work twice, at the end of both of these sections? There are probably several ways you could solve these problems. Both sections are short—you could combine them into one. Or, put everything but the Pixies reunion in the first section, then have the final section contain only the reunion info. Whatever you do, you'll need to retitle the section(s), and I would suggest putting something about film and TV composing in the title, since this seems very important to his recent career, and is emphasized in the text.
        • A very good point. I believe I've addressed all your points (except perhaps the last).
      • "Musical style" section. You write, "Santiago still often speaks of a lack of confidence on the guitar; as he was learning the instrument, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur." This is oddly contradictory. First you say he still speaks of something that hasn't been mentioned before. Then you link the idea via semi-colon to how he felt when he was learning, as if this backs up or carries on the idea in the previous statement. I think it would make more sense to say, "As Santiago was learning the guitar, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur; surprisingly, he still often speaks of a lack of confidence in his playing."
        • That sentence has always been an awkward construction. I've replaced it with your version.
      • Discography. I could be missing something about WP music article style here, but having each subsection start with "With..." seems to imply that Santiago was a guest who recorded with the listed groups, and that's only true of Frank Black. Disregard my take if this is the dominant WP style, but I would do one of two things instead: "Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "The Martinis," or "As a member of the Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "As a member of the The Martinis."
        •  Done Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
      • Discography. Could you distinguish between which projects he was a sideman on, which he composed, and/or which he was the headlining act? In particular, how is he billed on the Weeds soundtrack—simply as composer, or is he also the artist?
      • Notes. The citation punctuation seems inconsistent in its use of periods at the end of items.
        • Hopefully I've addressed this.
          • Hmm, not sure what you did, because I still see inconsistency. This is why I don't like cite templates; some of them show periods (full stops?) at the end of each citation, but others don't. The resulting Notes sections then display an inconsistent format. Not sure what to say about this. I find it irritating, but it's not that big a deal, I guess. But if it was me, I'd forego the different cite templates and simply write out the footnotes as they should be, because that gives you complete control over how they appear. BTW, I just added a period to the end of the first book reference; the second one had one, but the first one didn't. Then I realized that the books were in quotes (like articles) instead of in italics, so I fixed that, and then I saw that the formats weren't the same for both books, so I unified them as per WP:CITE#HOW. The only thing missing is the city where the books were published, so you may want to add that per Harvard referencing style for books.
            • I'm guessing you mean the book references? I've seen many FAs that have a period at the end of a web reference, but not a book one. I do use {{cite web}} though, as it's incredibly helpful. I'll look up the city.
    Good work! --Melty girl (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for such a thorough review. I'll be working on your detailed comments throughout the week. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for writing a great article—it was fun to read. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Wales national rugby union team[edit]

    I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It is well referenced, well written, comprehensive and illustrated where appropriate. It has been written very much along the lines of national rugby union team FA articles England national rugby union team, France national rugby union team and All Blacks. Thanks. Shudde talk 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support but source the second paragraph. Perspicacite 09:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph of what the lead? I don't think referencing the lead is necessary unless it's particularly controversial or contains quotes. If you could be more specific I'm sure I could find a reference. Thanks. - Shudde talk 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments
    • Nicely written (particularly given the shopping list nature of much of the material) but I recommend a quick run through by a disengaged copy editor. For instance, the opening sentence—"The Wales national rugby union team represent Wales in international rugby union."—hangs. (Rugby union what? Football? Tournaments?) Later, there's a mild howler: "Wales play in red jerseys, embroidered with the Prince of Wales's feathers, white shorts, and red socks". The main copy issue is wordiness and inelegance: "which was felt particularly hard in South Wales" ("which hit South Wales hard"?); "and there was a different captain for each one" ("with a different captain for each"); "as many of Wales' best players decided to convert to rugby league" ("as many converted to rugby league"?); "Due to legislation concerning advertising of alcohol" ("ban on advertising alcohol"?) etc. These, I stress, are examples only and it does need the blue pencil.
    • The Early Years date range doesn't correspond to the dates in the text under it. Perhaps move the pre-1881 stuff back to below the history heading as a preamble to the sections.
    • Various small Mos issues: date ranges in headings (no spaces, en dash) centuries in numerals;
    • And, frustratingly, you don't explain why they wore black to celebrate their 125th anniversary :)
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. To address your concerns:
    • What is the difference between representing Wales in rugby union or rugby union football? They are the same thing right?
    • I've fixed those sentences you wanted copy-edited. You said there are more, but you are going to have to point them out to me.
    • I've fixed those MoS breaches.
    • I don't know why they decided to wear black to celebrate the 125th anniversary! All I know is that it was part of the celebrations. Who knows, was probably some marketers idea for how to sell more jerseys! :-)
    Please let me know what else needs to be done to get your support. - Shudde talk 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have it now. I see nothing here to warrant outright opposition. It's a well-researched lucidly-written piece. --ROGER DAVIES TALK
    [Disclosure] I have since given this a quick copy edit at Shudde's request. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Brilliant subject. Well written and illustrated. Even has an image of the Millennium Stadium with a blue sky, something I have never managed to see. This is how FAs should be. Giano 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Very good but I can see a few writing problems.
    • Is professionalisation a word? (Yes, in the Shorter Oxford - RD}
    • "Millennium Stadium which was finished" not "finished" is the best word to use here. (Recast - RD)
    • "triple crown" is a proper noun. (The uncapitalised ones have been fixed - RD)
    • "one of the Home Nations" what are the Home Nations? (Explained - RD)
    • "the Ireland versus Wales match" why "the" (Normal usage but recast anyway - RD)
    • "lineouts" line-outs (Fixed for consistency - RD)
    • "24–3;" why the colon? (Recast sentence and replaced with comma - RD)
    • "Five Nations (that included France)" I'm guessing this mean there was a Five Nations before but it didn't included France but I can't be sure. Also why is it in brackets? (clarified - RD)
    • What is the logic the Modern era starting in 1983?
    • Use either "quarter finals" or "quarter-finals". (Fixed "quarter-final" - RD)
    • "Wales also donned a black jersey" is donned the best word to use? (Fixed - RD)
    • Maybe something about them being the founding farthers of rubgy and there rivalry with England and the All Blacks in the lead. Just a suggestion.
    • There is maybe too much stuff in the Grounds setion.
    • Slight format problem with the Test recordtable and Gwyn Nicholls image.
    • Since the Notable players section only appears to be about hall of fame players how about renaming it "Hall of Fame players" (Changed. Shudde may disagree - RD)
    • Readers may not know what WRU stands for. (Linked at the beginning - RD)
    • See if you can imcorperate the See also links into the article.
    Buc 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments, just a few things that have not been addressed by RD:
    • The modern era started in 1983 because was after the second golden age, and because the game has become more professional since then. It's the best description I could think of.
    • I don't see why there should not be rivalries mentioned in the lead because they are not mentioned in the main article. Rivalries are often very POV, and hard to reference because of this. The 1905 All Blacks game is mentioned in the lead because that is particularly notable, but I'm not sure if there is an England equivalent (to the best of my knowledge there is not).
    • Maybe they should be. Buc 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They shouldn't I don't think for the reasons I said above. - Shudde talk 09:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the grounds section is fine, basically summarises the history of Millennium Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park — both very famous rugby grounds.
    • I have changed the section title back to Notable players. This is consistent with other FA class national rugby union team articles. One of the main reasons for not being more specific is that there may be other criteria for inclusion, there is now an IRB Hall of Fame as well as the International Rugby Hall of Fame, but the IRB one is very new. Gareth Edwards is going to be inducted into the IRB Hall of Fame, but has not been yet. Also there are the IRB Awards that may be incorporated into this section (no Welsh players have won IRB Player of the Year yet so not an issue at the moment).
    • I've removed misc see also links.
    Hopefully this addresses everything. - Shudde talk 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Don't see any glaring ommissions apart from perhaps the colour of the change strip - is it still white, not gray? --Bob 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right! I'll fix it soon. - Shudde talk 22:53, 15 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Poliomyelitis[edit]

    (Self nomination) This article was gradually rewritten and expanded by myself and MarcoTolo. Based on comments I received during a peer review the main article was spun off into several daughter articles. This main article has since undergone an extensive review and copyedit by Colin, Fvasconcellos and SandyGeorgia. I feel that the article now meets all of the Featured Article criteria. All comments are appreciated. --DO11.10 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comments - ok, I am massaging the text a bit. Looks ok but needs a bit of Reiki to get to 'brilliant'. I will list a few things that are not straightforward fixes. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Para 1 of Causes - 'Poliovirus' is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, however I concede it will be tricky to address without introducing ambiguity.
    I agree, it gets a bit tedious reading the same word over and over, but as you rightly point out, I was worried about intruding ambiguity here. I substituted the abbreviated "PV" for some instances of "poliovirus". Hopefully that spices it up a bit.(?)--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Factors that increase the risk of polio infection... intramuscular injection.. (huh?) I have no idea what this IM injection refers to well I'll be...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the reference: "A number of conditions likely to involve only isolated individuals rather than whole populations are considered to increase the likelihood of paralytic illness. Among these may be listed pregnancy, previous tonsillectomy, and injections during the month before infection."--Is there a better way to word this in the article?--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :::Yeah probably - just that I am not sure what the injections refer to, any injections? Like flu shots, IM metaclopramide...steroids..If I get a chance I'll looks osme stuff up later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    I found this article... --DO11.10 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wants me to log in...cheers, Casliber (talk · (UTC) contribs) 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shoot sorry, try this--DO11.10 16:05, 14 November 2007
    Clarified this based on the above article.--DO11.10 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank's Casliber. I don't think any of us three would claim to be great copyeditors, so a bit more polishing will certainly be welcome. Colin°Talk 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, by all means, a bit more polish can never hurt!--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I'd prefer 'poliovirus' to 'PV' with some more judicious use of the word. I haven't heard it referred to as PV before (though I haven't done much with infectious diseases as such for a long time) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments-I need to read it another couple of times before I'm willing to jump on board in support. First, and I'll admit to this being a very minor issue, but wouldn't it have been nice to get GA status first? I know it's not mandated by any rules, but it's nice to see it get to one level first, even you jump to FAC right away. Second...well, so far, I don't have a second comment. The article is nicely written, and I don't see any Alternative medicine crap in the article. That's always a big issue for me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the approval of one editor via the GA process is not always and need not be part of the FAC process; many experienced editors forego the GA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - when I read this last night, it seemed to me that the article (and especially the introduction) failed to adequately distinguish between poliovirus infection and poliomyelitis. Reading it again this evening, it has been improved through editing, but it remains a concern and should be taken into consideration with regards to further editing. (If there's no inflammation of the spinal cord, there's no "myelitis"....) - Nunh-huh 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While that would be logical, it is not actually the case. Disease symptoms caused by poliovirus infection are called "poliomyelitis" whether or not they actually involve inflammation of the spinal cord. There are abortive/minor illness, non-paralytic and paralytic varieties. A few sources are: Sherris Medical Microbiology (page 536 if the link dies), this e-medicine article and this CDC article.--DO11.10 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no instance of an unadorned "poliomyelitis" meaning anything other than what I've stated; and if such instances do occur in a textbook or cdc document we should take care not to repeat the mistake, as it would do nothing but confuse. - Nunh-huh 06:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have reworded the "classification" section to exclude the asymptomatic infection for the term "poliomyelitis". I think the rest of the article primarily focuses on the paralytic forms. Have I missed anything here?--DO11.10 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • further comment - under treatment for these sort of chronic thingies we always sling in the catchphrase 'improving function' - and the idea of management of symptoms rather than cure per se. Improving comfort sounds a little too colloquial but I can't think of a better way to say it currently. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to less colloquial "relief of symptoms".--DO11.10 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a final interim word, I feel much better about the prose now and think that this article is in better shape than lung cancer was when it was promoted. As well as the injection issue and the point immediately above, I reckon it would be great to get a paragraph on the Polio Hall of Fame in the latter part of the history section or maybe a legacy section underneath. I am just wondering, have there been any notable movies or novels with a protagonist with polio? Can't think of one off hand. Also, in a legacy section, I'd put a statement or two along the lines of 'many notable people' have had polio - with a link to the list there. Some of them seem to credit prolonged inactivity with their interest in a particular field (eg Donald Sutherland and acting). This is a great opportunity to show human triumph thru adversity and normalising disability etc. Ian Dury is another example which comes to mind. Doesn't have to be long but I feel in a disease such as this is really important. I can help collaborate on it if you want. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am working on this a bit, but it will surely need some "text massaging" :). I'll post a rough draft on your talk page when I am done, please feel free to do what ever you would like to it.--DO11.10 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I think such sections are a bit controversial. Listing people by their disabilities is not always "normalizing", as Casliber writes. In fact, it could be read as defining them through their disability rather than through whatever other achievements they happened to have made. I think that the wikilink to "list of persons with polio" is sufficient. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I never said it wasn't controversial :) - ok, I like the little bit that DOI wrote on my talk page. I just feel that 3-4 lines of text on the subject is better than a see also, but look the more I think about it it isn't a huge dealbreaker so I'll consider anything from here on in as a bonus :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ergo - Support...
    • Support I have already reviewed and commented on this article over the last week (see talk page). Any issues raised have all been swiftly resolved. This is a very readable and comprehensive article on a fascinating disease. It is well supported by good daughter articles and appropriate wikilinks. The text is precise and reliably sourced. The pictures and diagrams are excellent. Colin°Talk 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pre-support comment There seems to be a bit of repetition between the second paragraphs of "Classification" and "Mechanism" (non-paralytic aseptic meningitis, etc.). Is this intentional, or did things just turn out like this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly cannot remember how the article came together in its current form, and I know that Marco and I struggled with the organization several times. But looking at it now I see the "classification" section as sort of an overview of what happens, while the "mechanism" section details the how and/or why it happens. Is there a better way to organize it?--DO11.10 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support This is an excellent article - I found it greatly informative. I just have a few questions.
    • The term derives from the Greek polio (πολίός), meaning "grey", myelon (µυελός), "spinal cord", and -itis, which denotes inflammation. - All the punctuation confused me in this sentence, but I'm not really sure how to fix it - semi-colons, perhaps?
    Originally I think it said: The term derives from the Greek polio (πολίός), meaning "grey", myelon (µυελός), referring to the spinal cord, and -itis, which denotes inflammation. Which I personally find to be more clear. Any suggestions?--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is better, too. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paralytic polio is classified into three types, depending on the nerves involved. Spinal polio is the most common form, characterized by asymmetric paralysis that most often involves the legs. Bulbar polio leads to weakness of muscles innervated by cranial nerves. Bulbospinal polio is a combination of bulbar and spinal paralysis. - I found the introduction of the term "paralytic polio" slightly confusing - I thought it was a different type. Would it be incorrect to say "Polio is classified into three types"?
    Then there would be four: abortive polio. Colin°Talk 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have some sort of clearer structure, then? I found the opening a bit confusing. I had to reread it. Awadewit | talk 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded this a bit...--DO11.10 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the page not named "polio", as that is the most common word?
    A judgement call. WP:MEDMOS prefers "recognised medical name rather than the lay term", however polio is also quite acceptable in scholarly work. I'd argue that it is a shortening of the full, proper word that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia (Encarta has poliomyelitis, Britannica appears to have separate articles on both). An analogy would be Beethoven vs Ludwig van Beethoven. Colin°Talk 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is seasonal in temperate climates, with peak transmission occurring in summer and autumn.[11] These seasonal differences are far less pronounced in tropical areas. - Why?
    I can think of a few questions that you might be asking here. 1) Why is polio a seasonal disease? The answer: I don't think anyone knows, but (and I am guessing here) it probably has to do with differences in behavior and contacts that occur during the summer and autumn. It could also have to do with the virus itself. 2) Why isn't polio seasonal in the tropics? So the original source here said: "In tropical climates seasonal differences are far less pronounced." That's it. Another source says: "The virus is endemic throughout the year." I would infer that this is because seasonal differences in general are far less pronounced in tropical areas than in temperate ones.??--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of those "we don't know yet" answers. I get those a lot. :) Ok. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Therefore, isolation of wild poliovirus constitutes a public health emergency, and appropriate efforts to control the spread of the disease must be initiated immediately. - What are these "appropriate efforts"? This sentence seemed to be hanging off of the end of the section.
    Removed "appropriate"... (this info was moved to a daughter article, but the "appropriate" reference was never removed from the sentence.)--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't express myself clearly enough - sorry. What I meant was that this sentence introduces an entirely new topic which the article does not go on to address in that section. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This was meant to explain why PCR/fingerprinting is done. I've tried to clarify.--DO11.10 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I found this article eminently readable, I wonder if it isn't a bit technical at times for the average reader (I'm thinking of my undergraduate students, for example). Have the editors thought about an "Overview" section?

    Nice work on an important article. Awadewit | talk 09:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An overview section should be redundant as that is the rôle of the lead. All an extra overview section serves to do is to waste more space with duplication of info for a thrid time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of something a bit more expansive than the lead and I don't feel that the overview would be redundant in a bad way - I feel that it would offer an explanation that the majority of readers could follow. At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about the technical level of the article. Awadewit | talk 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the problem here is I am a doctor which means that there is jargon here that I will use without batting an eyelid. I believe just about any scientific concept should be able to be written in plain English. I'll have another look but may be blindsided by my job so list some words or concepts you're concerned about and we can go from there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there's fecal-oral rroute right there at the start...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your replacement of "asymptomatic" but await a polite replacement for "fecal-oral route" with interest :-) Actually, I'm not convinced that "fecal" and "oral" should be considered beyond the reader. Sure, they are educated terms, but they're hardly medical jargon. And the term is wikilinked too. Colin°Talk 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left an example on the article's talk page. Awadewit | talk 10:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support

    This is a well researched and well written article on a very important subject. Tiny errors of grammar and spelling remain to be fixed, but these should not be allowed to prevent the article from reaching the wider readership that it deserves. User:GrahamColm-- —Preceding comment was added at 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly Support: The Polio article Poliomyelitis should be upgraded to a featured article. The subject matter is significant: Polio survivors constitute one of the largest disabled groups in the world with estimates of 10 to 20 million polio survivors worldwide. In 1921 Franklin D. Roosevelt became totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down with Poliomyelitis as a probable cause. In 1938 Roosevelt helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes), that raised money for the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio, and was instrumental in funding the development of polio vaccines. The inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) developed by Jonas Salk and the oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin are landmarks in the history of vaccine development. Polio survivors were in the forefront of the disability rights movement and pushed legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and lead the Independent Living and Universal design movements.

    The Polio article is well-written. It consists of a main article Poliomyelitis and seven daughter articles that go into further depth: Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis, Post-polio syndrome, Polio Hall of Fame, and List of polio survivors. The opening two paragraphs of the main article provide an excellent summary of the subject. The body of the main article strikes the right balance between technical accuracy and readability; it is written at a college level. The article is clearly written and expertly summarizes a complex subject.

    The Polio article is comprehensive and factually accurate. It covers the cause, transmission, classification, mechanism, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, prevention, eradication and history citing credible sources, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and historically significant research papers. The article accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge while maintaining a neutral point of view. Other than vandalism, the article is stable, although the primary authors strive to keep the article up to date.

    The polio article follows the style guidelines. The lead section summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections and daughter articles. The series effectively uses hierarchical headings and table of contents. It consistently uses formatted inline citations using footnotes. It appropriately uses images that illustrate the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

    As someone who has lived with the aftereffects of polio for over 52 years, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. I have read extensively about polio over the years, both technical and general interest articles. Their Poliomyelitis article is the best written general interest article I have read on polio.

    --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I haven't read the full article yet, but what I read so far gives little reason for opposition. One question though: How do they know over 90% of the cases is asymptomatic? People who don't have symptoms don't go to see a doctor and if they do, the doctor is unlikely to test them for a disease he has no indication of... - Mgm|(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infection by polio virus is, in most cases, asymptomatic and this has been shown by numerous prospective epidemiological studies. [1][2] The virus is often isolated from the faeces of children who show no symptoms. This is the case with all the enteroviruses. Exactly why so many polio infections remain asymptomatic is not fully understood but the size of the innoculum of the virus, the size of the resulting viraemia, the virulence of the infecting virus, and the presence of circulating antibodies have all been implicated . It is also clear from epidemiological studies that the same virus can cause a broad spectrum of disease from mild fever with diarrhoea to flaccid paralysis. User:GrahamColm
    1. ^ Nwachuku N, Gerba CP (2006). "Health risks of enteric viral infections in children". Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. 186: 1–56. PMID 16676900.
    2. ^ Rasch G, Schreier E, Kiehl W, Kurth R (2001). "[Worldwide eradication of poliomyelitis]". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. (in German). 113 (20–21): 839–45. PMID 11732120.
    --GrahamColm 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    So they DO test people who don't show symptoms, contrary to what I would've expected. - Mgm|(talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, a beautiful example of what medical FAs aspire to, and one that has received sustained and careful attention. Goodness, D011.10, my contributions were utterly trivial; you didn't need to credit me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overdue support :) In my opinion, this article was FA quality by the time the Talk page reviews were finished. After Casliber's copyediting efforts and some extra changes, it has only improved. Although some interesting suggestions for further improvement have been raised, I don't think that is any reason for FA to wait—after all, there is no such thing as a finished article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations

    A well deserved FA! User:GrahamColm

    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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Dream Days at the Hotel Existence[edit]

    previous FAC

    I've worked a lot on this since the last FAC, fixing prose etc., as have other people from WP:FING, WP:AUSMUS, WP:ALTROCK, and other random projects. So yeah, here's the second FAC - I await your suggestions. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, with a couple of suggestions:-
      • The "Controversy" section header could be changed to a title which is more specific, given all the "controversy" mentioned in that is the one incident (the Island trials).
      • What song number was "Black Tears"? First line of the same section as above.
      • The "Cover art" section is underreferenced for the information in there.
      • Is the "Across the Great Divide Tour" subsection really needed? I reckon it'd look fine without the third level header.
      • "DVD Orchard rated the album 9/10" - the first time I read this, I thought it meant it was rated in ninth position out of a selection of ten albums. Any ideas on modifying it to make it more clear?

    Cheers, Daniel 07:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I renamed the section and added the track #. I also removed the L3 header. I reworded the DVD orchard thing. As for the cover art - it's all referenced from the cover art image, I haven't been able to find RS that talk about it. I suppose I could trim it down so it's more obvious, less OR-ish... Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed the cover art section to remove stuff that you can't see clearly on the image used as a source. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic, thanks :) Strong support. Daniel 07:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I think the prose is looking good now. Just what is meant by "more crafty than" ? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Cas. The "more crafty than"...I dunno how else to word it - it's just more technologically "advanced", I guess... Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Well written prose, excellently referenced, and improvements based on Daniel's suggestions were right on the mark. Definite support. Regards, Neranei (talk) 00:57, 18 November 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

    Ian Chappell[edit]

    Self-nomination: this article is about the former Australian cricket captain Ian Chappell. It has had a substantial re-working in the past few months, including the addition of images. Phanto282 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment lots of references, great coverage. I'll give it a comb-through and give comments. SGGH speak! 08:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yeah, this'll get there pretty fast, I'd have thought. Working my way through, with some copyedits and some comments at article talk page. Look forward to supporting very soon. Great piece of work. --Dweller 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm not sure if this is possible, but I'd like to see the infobox a bit less wide, as the lead cramps a bit on my screen. However, that may not be feasible, and I have no other concerns. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I massaged the text a bit - the prose had good flow though was a little too informal in places, and paras a little stubby. I can't think of any other issues left out really. congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - nice work, some suggestions:
      • "bat at first wicket down" - this links to the batting order article but the phrase isn't explained there, so it's a bit jargony, difficult for the non-expert. This is also the case where you describe his idiosyncratic way of playing, the non-expert reader may not understand "playing back and across" and "mid on" etc. It's difficult because those phrases describe precisely what is needed, but the lead needs to catch people's attention, even those who have no understanding of the finer points of cricket.
      • Lead has two nicknames, infobox has one, neither cited.
      • Infobox, space between years and the en-dash not required.
      • "...found the going tough." - POV?
      • Link the Sheffield Cup.
      • "He retired from first-class cricket at the end of the season, aged only 32." - needs citation I think.
      • Ref [81] needs to be placed per WP:CITE
      • "destabilized " - British English is applied throughout but not here.
      • " a relic of the WSC era" - POV.
      • The "Accessed on-line" references should be Cite web'ed, not in-line linked.
      • I hate succession boxes (but that's personal) - the information ought to be encapsulated in the article.

    Hope that helps. Give me a shout when you're done. The Rambling Man 08:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply
      • I think this matter is one of style. I notice that the Bill O'Reilly FA discusses O'Reilly's bowling style in a similar manner in the lead. Perhaps someone else would like to comment?
      • Deleted his early nickname, unable to find a cite. His autobiography was titled Chappelli, which is mentioned later in the text.
      • Fixed info box.
      • Altered "found the going tough" to "struggled to make an impression".
      • The Sheffield Shield is already linked.
      • Added cite for his first retirement as requested.
      • Ref [81] appears after the punctuation mark, as per WP:CITE.
      • Altered to "destabilised"
      • I have left "a relic of the WSC era" as it sums up the situation as set out in ref [90], which contains the phrase "Identified with the cause of the board by former Packer signatories," wrote Gideon Haigh, "Hughes was only suffered by them as a skipper." I don't have a cite for this: the problem went back to when Chappell listed the players he wanted for WSC and excluded Hughes. Hughes claimed the opposite, that he had knocked back an offer from WSC to stay loyal to the ACB.
      • List of "ccessed on-line sources" altered.
      • I'm with you on succession box, however I think if I delete them, they will be replaced? Can someone else comment on this as well?

    Phanto282 10:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I meant ref [82]! The Rambling Man 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A very enjoyable read. Just a list of mostly very minor points I have picked up on, but
      • Change 'first wicket down' to 'number 3', and link to [[Batting order (cricket)#Top order]] which more accurately describes the qualities needed.
      • Move the 'Chapelli'/captain section after the Arlott batting description paragraph to keep batting description in one place.
      • 'Since his playing retirement' reads awkwardly for me, for my money I'd try 'After ending his playing career in 197(8?)' or 'Chappell retired from competitive matches in 197x and has since pursued a high-profile career...' (when was it??!)
      • Greg and Trevor, who would also play for Australia. - would scan better for me. (maybe)
      • St. Leonard's primary school - where? Adelaide? Primary School needs caps in this case as it is part of the school's title.
      • Garry Sobers was selected for a Test match... (not needed)
      • Chappell made his initial first-class century against a New South Wales team led by Australian captain Richie Benaud — should read 'Australia captain', otherwise it just shows that Benaud was Australian. (As should the sentence in 'Rebel skipper'
      • Ramsbottom Cricket Club (At first I couldn't decide whether it was a player or a side). Maybe link to [[Ramsbottom#Sports]], or just [[Ramsbottom]].
      • Did he start the 1963–64 season as the youngest member of the side? The sentence seems to make two points that don't quite fit together.
      • "At this point, the selectors and captain Bob Simpson considered him an all-rounder as he batted at number seven and bowled 26 (eight-ball) overs for the match.[17]" — sentence structure not quite right, consider "At this point, Chappell was regarded, by the selectors and captain Bob Simpson, as an all-rounder; he batted at number seven, and bowled 26 (eight-ball) overs in the match."
      • I'd say 'winner-takes-all'.
      • one-all, not 1-all.
      • You can link suspended sentence if you wish.
      • Try: "Chappell struggled to make an impression as Australia lost 3–1."
      • "His highest score was only 49". Just implies that he very nearly didn't quite make it at all.
      • Chappell rewarded the selectors...scoring the most runs on the tour. (Specifies this tour rather than any others).
      • Question: Does 'back play' mean shots played off the back foot? I haven't heard that term specifically.
      • The Ashes needs two caps.
      • big scores- POV. (Are the big scores the 188*, 123, 117 etc.? Or were those for the following series/season?
      • When he became an occasional bowler, did he bowl more or less than as an all-rounder?!
      • Lawry's praise needs a citation.
      • There's a stray " mark at the end of the Gideon Haigh quotation...
      • Politically unacceptable South Africans could do with a reference if you've got can find one.
      • "indifferent pitches" - POV.
      • " "Glorious" " - why the quotation marks? If it is a quote, you need the reference. Otherwise its POV I'm afraid.
      • The 6 catches in the match record - I assume that doesn't include the WK, but it doesn't say so...
      • "he was frequent user of profanity who was often at "boiling point" on the field," - in English please!
      • Adidas needs a cap.
      • Do we need the photo of a family member? A very important one I'm sure, but... Perhaps you would check the guidelines on relevant images. Just a thought anyway.
    • Sorry it seems such a long list, but it shouldn't take long to look through them. I'll then come back and give my support. –MDCollins (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply To deal with your suggestions in order:

      • Changed to "number three", as per this and another suggestion.
      • I don't agree with this one. The Arlott quote is in the middle as a pivot between his captaincy/leading the move to professionalism and the desciption of his batting. That's because I believe Arlott's quote can be taken two ways, ie. with regards to his batting and his general demeanour and attitude.
      • Rephrased as requested
      • ditto
      • Clarified where he grew up & went to school
      • I think this is needed as Sobers was the best player in the world in 1962 and the need for his replacement should be given.
      • "Australia captain" is an awkward phrase, IMO. I have seen "Australian captain" , "English captain" etc. used countless times, doesn't seem to be a problem?
      • Linked Rams-botty
      • Rephrased as requested
      • Added punctuation
      • Rephrased as requested
      • ditto
      • Can't really link to suspended sentence as that refers to a matter dealt with by a court. Technically, it was a suspended suspension, but that sounds a little silly, dunnit? I have added "from the ACB" to clarify that it was a disciplinary measure.
      • Rephrased as requested
      • Removed "just". This was added by a recent editor.
      • Rephrased as requested
      • Rephrased this; "back play" is an old phrase that you don't encounter often these days
      • Capitalised The Ashes throughout
      • Yes, they are the big scores. The sentences in this para all flow into each other in talking about this season. Not sure how saying the scores were big, then listing them, is POV.
      • It is implicit in the term "all-rounder" that he bowls regularly; therefore he became an occasional bowler and bowled occasionally.
      • Lawry's quote is cited in the ref provided.
      • Removed stray punctuation
      • Added ref as requested
      • The comment re West Indian pitches is contained in the ref drawn from Wisden, as cited.
      • It is a quote from Wisden, and it is cited. Used because it was one of his best innings.
      • Clarified that it is a record for a fielder, as requested.
      • Added missing word to the sentence.
      • addidas is not capitalised; the company's registered name uses lower case.
      • Absolutely! Chappell started his career as "Vic Richardson's grandson", just as Greg started as "Ian Chappell's brother". Plus, I think there is an interesting physical resemblance; there was certainly a similarity of attitude. Remember that Richardson wanted to bowl Bodyline back at England, then Chappell had Lillee and Thomson....
    Don't be sorry, i'll just sue for RSI :) Phanto282 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention the few remaining comments:
      • Arlott quote - fine, leave it as is.
      • Sobers replacement - you miss understood, I meant 'Sobers was selected for the Test' rather than 'Sobers was needed for the Test' (I've taken the liberty of adjusting this one!).
      • Re:Australian captain - you usually see England Captain, Arsenal Captain, Scotland captain, but I'm not going to make a fuss over it.
      • suspended sentence - was only a suggestion, so fine.
      • Re: big scores - its not POV if those listed are the big scores, so that's fine.
      • all-rounder/bowling frequency - I've rephrased that if you don't mind so it is a bit easier to understand.
      • Lawry quote - I've duplicated the reference just for ease.
      • "Glorious" - that's ok, it was just that the reference is quite a distance from the the quotation meaning I wasn't sure on first glance that it was reffed. (suggest duplication if you wish).
      • adidas is referred to as Adidas throughout the article, but I'm sure its fine.
    • All in all, it looks good. Well done.
    • Support –MDCollins (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 18 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Blyth, Northumberland[edit]

    Self nomination: I've been working on this article since January and it has been GA since August 4. I've done further work and carried out suggested fixes, and having received positive feedback from the GA reviewer regarding the article's FA potential ([63]), I feel that it now meets FA criteria. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentsSupport
    • I’d merge the first two paragraphs in the lead.
      • I think these should be kept seperate. The first paragraph is giving the fundamental details of the town at present and the second is explaining the history; I think their subjects are too disparate to merge. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tend to dislike short paragraphs. However, I've just had a look through for other featured UK towns/cities, and their leads seem similar to yours, so I can't really argue. Sheffield and Sheerness both exhibit the pattern of one para on location, and then one or two on history and development. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • “It was during the 1960s that things began to decline” is a bit informal. How about “Blyth entered a period of decline in the 1960s”? That paragraph needs expansion and explanation – that’s a lot of industries that went downhill with no reason given (and, yes, I know it was all part of the industrial decline, but other readers might not)
      •  Done I've reworded the first bit and explained briefly the closures of the shipyards and the mines, i'm hoping this is what you had in mind. The closure of the railway i'm not sure about; I know the station was closed by Beeching but I don't know for sure if the closure of the line was directly related to this or not, so i've left it as it was. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might be of interest on the railway issue (look for "Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway" about a third of the way down).
          • Thanks for that, but the line being discussed by Denis Murphy is the main line of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway which runs past the outskirts of Blyth. The line which actually ran into the town centre was a branch line which terminated at Blyth station for passengers and continued in a loop, rejoining the main line, for freight. It's this particular line that, while i've found some info on it, I can't find anything to say why the whole thing was shut down and removed. It was probably a combination of Beeching and the decline of the coal industry, but like I say I don't know for sure. Anyway, I have been meaning to expand the Transport links section with more rail info so this link should come in handy for that, cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain or wikilink Trust port?
    • “while Indonesia and Malaysia are both monthly” how about “services to…are both monthly”, otherwise it implies a periodic status for those countries.
      •  Done I've used “connection” rather than “services” though, as this is how it's described in the ref. Dbam Talk/Contributions 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d avoid “in recent times”, for vagueness.
      • I'd agree with this if “in recent times” was by itself, but the following text gives the dates of the various projects and therefore the time-scale to which “in recent times” refers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have to say I don't like it, but as you say, the context is given later. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done I've removed “in recent times” now, since it was picked up on by a second editor. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there any public opposition to these energy projects? If it was notable, then a mention would be appropriate.
    • “They also assist with the development and integration of large- and small-scale renewables into the energy mix” sounds like press copy to me; it doesn’t really tell me what they do. Umm, a read of the citation explains why it reads like press copy…
      •  Done Yeah, I don't really know what that means myself, to be honest -- I think at the time I was just trying to beef up the article. Anyway, I've cut it down to just the basics. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be mean to Blyth Spartans, but I personally wouldn’t class them as “one of England's best-known non-league football clubs”. You’ve got a good ref for their FA cup fame; I think a similar ref is required for this.
    • You’ve got “also based in Blyth are” and then a single sentence paragraph starting “Other sports teams based in Blyth”. I think merging the two para’s might be a way forward.
    • Could “interactive water features” be changed to something that describes what’s actually there?
    • If you have a ref for the “generally considered” in “the four chimneys of Blyth Power Station were generally considered to be Blyth's most notable landmark”, that would be good.
      •  Done I didn't have a ref for that specific statement so i've reworded it and used an existing ref. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the port, which is apparantly still active, and the Quayside, which is now quiet, different places? If so, some note to distinguish them would help.
      •  Done "The port" more refers to the town of Blyth as a port rather than the port being a specific place within the town, the Quayside, on the other hand, is a specific place so i've reworded that section to make that clearer. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to disagree with any of the above. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—I hope this standard of writing will continue in English city FACs. But:
    •  Done"Between the 12th and 18th centuries, records show ...", then a reference. Just "records" is not worth saying; either make the claim (with the reference) or tell us what type of records.
    •  Done"by 1855, 250,000 tons"—See MOS on this: use words for "a quarter of a million".
      •  Done"the filling-in of"—Why the hyphen?
      • Would be easier on our readers with a few more commas: "At this time it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast with five dry docks and four building slipways." Try "At this time, it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast, with five dry docks and four building slipways." Audit throughout. I see good uses of commas further on in "By 1930,..."
      •  DoneLaboured thematic equative: "It was during the 1960s that Blyth entered a period of steep decline." Just "During the 1960s, Blyth ...". Tony (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Epbr123 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do think this is a very good article, but I have a few concerns:
      • "Blyth is also home to the non-League football club Blyth Spartans, famed for their giant-killing feats in the FA Cup". "Giant-killing feats" is not very encyclopedic terminology, and to the less knowledgable or impaired, possibly very misleading. Done
      • "These industries have largely vanished, but the port still thrives, with the shipment of paper and pulp from Scandinavia for the newspaper industries of England and Scotland." Is it just England and Scotland, or the the United Kingdom? - there's no source so I can't verify it. Done
      • The third paragraph contains some questionable statements about the local shopping centre's role in regeneration. Done That The Quayside is "peaceful" could be a POV term, is there a source to support this? Done
        • I've elaborated to say why the shopping centre helped revitalise the town and included a ref in the appropriate section. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible to add the distance from and direction to London in the infobox? (by adding |london_distance= ) Done
      • Is there anything on the built environment, land use and topography of the local area which could be included regarding the Geography of Blyth? Doing...
      • I personally would like to see the article more closely matching with the WP:UKCITIES standard, though wouldn't oppose the article if it did not. Done -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      •  Done"The land was bought by Matthew White and his brother-in-law Richard Ridley, with accumulated fortunes from town-based trades." What is a "town-based trade"?
        • This was a left-over from the article's stub days and probably not something I would have put if i'd written that sentence from scratch. I don't know how they made their money and the ref doesn't elaborate on it, so I've removed it. I'll see if I can find out, though. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done"Things got worse during the Napoleonic Wars ..." seems a bit too colloquial. More importantly, the article seems to be suggesting that it was the salt tax that forced the salt trade in Blyth into decline. But it wasn't a local tax, and salt was still produced in other parts of the country. Was it simply too expensive producing salt from the salt pans?
        • I don't see how the tax being local or otherwise is relevent. It just seems to have been the primary factor in the decline of Blyth's salt trade and the ref I have doesn't go into any further detail. A couple of articles i've found about Seaton Sluice also cite the tax as the reason for the industry's demise there. I've reworded the "Things got worse..." bit. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd would suggest that it's relevant because I don't think that it caused the Middlewich salt industry to collapse for instance. What was different about Blyth's salt industry? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  DoneI'd prefer to see the paragraph third from the end in the History section, about Blyth's civic history, in a separate Governance section, along with the political representation information given in the Government and demographics section, as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
      •  DoneI don't see the logic of having a section that combines Government and demographics. I'd prefer to see separate Governance and Demography sections, again as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
      • A few awkward uses of English, for instance "... the last passenger train departed Blyth on the 12 August."
      •  Done"Blyth once boasted four cinemas ..." One of my pet hates. Why is having four cinemas something to boast about? I'm not sure I see the benefit either of a list of cinemas that closed down 40 years ago.
        • I've reworded that first bit. As for actually having the list in the first place, well I think it is important to say that Blyth has no cinemas, since they are a major form of entertainment that one could reasonably expect to find in a town like Blyth. I think it's important to also explain that Blyth at one time did have several cinemas, rather than possibly giving the impression the there have never been any in the town. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done"It has recently undergone a £602,000 regeneration project ...". "Recently" is a term that will age. When was the project carried out? In 2007? How can anything "undergo a regeneration project" anyway?
      • "Prior to their demolition ..." is mistakenly formal. "Before their demolition ..."?  Done Dabomb87 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done""Two were 167 metres (548 ft) high and the other two were 137 metres (449 ft) high and they were visible for many miles". Trying to cram too much into one sentence.
        • I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I've replaced that first "and" with a comma. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done"It will cost an estimated £2.4 million and it is hoped that work will commence in September 2007". It's now October. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & Support

    • On the basis that the article meets current Featured article criteria to a sufficient degree.

    Requests:

    • "England's economy is the second largest in Europe and the fifth largest in the world." Please cite source of claim.
    • "As part of the United Kingdom, England is a major centre of world economics." Please cite source of claim.
    • "tourism is the sixth largest industry in the UK, contributing 76 billion pounds to the economy" Please cite source of claim.

    Request: "In recent times, several renewable energy projects have been established in Blyth. In 1992," Recent times is too relative; perhaps starting from 1992 or something more precise. Done

    • I've removed “in recent times” altogether. I personally felt it was OK since the following paras gave the dates of the various projects and therefore context. But as you're the second editor to point it out, it's probably best to remove it. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Learnedo 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Serious concern, the article relies heavily on keystothepast.info, which doesn't appear on the surface to be a reliable source. Can you please explain: "In the list of references for the Keys to the Past records it may say that unpublished sources were used. Further information about these sources can found by contacting the relevant SMR/HER. It is important to note that the information on this website is not always up to date and that any commercial organisations should contact the relevant office to do an archaeological data search for desk based assessments or other commercial archaeological work. " and "Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council can accept no responsibility for any inaccuracy contained therein." Also, if the two items in See also are important enough to be included, why can't they be worked into the text of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source is fine which is a reason to pass many things. Like three external link is fine so we should let that pass??? Leranedo 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to echo Sandy's concern about that reference. It's partly a matter of balance: there's a host of web references, and probably too many from the "Keys to the past" (supported by a lottery syndicate, I see). That site provides contact numbers for the librarians of three local organisations, almost to underline the proviso that Sandy reproduced above concerning verifiability. Is it going to be hard to gain access to a properly researched local history through those professionals? If just a few references from the suspect site were changed into authoritative ones, readers would at least know where to go for more information on some of the statements made. The only two books listed concern images. Tony (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS The writing has improved significantly. Thanks.[reply]
    • These are nothing new that the two previous has stated. I've seen this lack balance before and others have voted support on those articles. I've seen far worse, and this article is currently considered acceptable, and thus I maintain my pass vote. Of course the concerns should be dealt with but the main issue is that of feasibility. Leranedo 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The only two books listed concern images." 79 references is better than most. Some don't even have book sources, and that astounds me. Leranedo 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and before I forget, the lack of balance may point to potential NPOV issues, but again, it's better most, and I like to fulfill my pass quota, so onlookers do not falsely assume I oppose every single article without just cause. Leranedo 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Announcing that you have a "pass quota", which I take to mean that you support a given number of articles, regardless of their quality, may cause you a larger problem with onlookers. Feel free to oppose as you see fit. I'd rather have an editor who votes his or her conviction, even if that means never supporting. Pagrashtak 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I believe that the concern expressed above concerning the reliability of one of the sources used is not well-founded, and results from misinterpreting a standard disclaimer. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up comment I've supported above; I'd consider "keys to the past" a reliable source. It's a joint venture by two councils, and the teams from those councils running it will be professional archeologists (a normal practice: all UK councils have responsibilities for archeology in their area). The councils will keep archives of archeological records, which will be the "unpublished sources" referred to. The UK planning process can require archeological investigations (usually for any mid-size development, or even small ones in archeologically sensitive areas), and commercial organisations will usually provide those investigations. The disclaimer will simply be usual practice for an organisation that prefers not to be sued. The "lottery syndicate" is actually government-controlled funding for "good causes", funded by a levy on the UK National Lottery. They splatter money about like water for "worthy" projects such as that website. I'll leave it to Dbam to comment on whether a decent history based on those records has been written, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that it hasn't. I see the point about balance of sources, but as I don't mistrust the site, I don't judge it to be a problem. J.Winklethorpe talk 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I can say is that i've used the best sources i've been able to find. Blyth's a pretty unremarkable town, so finding any detailed information on it isn't all that easy—Keys to the Past, however, has quite a bit of specific info and is cited accordingly. But I don't think the article relies heavily on it, as it's only used in one paragraph, it's just that KttP happens to keep individual bits of info on seperate pages, so requires several citations to cover it all. As for the reliability of the site, I totally agree with the two preceding comments. Regarding Tony1's apparent concern over the book sources, I'm not sure how being image-based makes the info they contain any less reliable. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Tony1's concern was that lack of book sources possibly means the article isn't comprehensive. Have you checked your local library for any further info that could be added? Epbr123 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be visiting Blyth very soon, so i'll pop in and have a look while i'm there. Dbam Talk/Contributions 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I'm still working on this FAC, but due to real-life stuff, i'll be unable to respond to further comments, requests or queries until Saturday, 10 November, sorry. Dbam Talk/Contributions 11:04, 4 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Dungeons & Dragons (album)[edit]

    I wrote this article from scratch, got it on DYK?, submitted to a peer review, got practically no response, took it to GA status and now I feel it is good enough to be a featured article. This is my first FAC, and I am ready and willing to make changes based upon the suggestions of reviewers. Thanks in advance for any comments. J Milburn 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment "Support for Midnight Syndicate's music as a role-playing aid grew so much that the band decided to set up stalls at gaming conventions, and it was at the first one that Midnight Syndicate was approached by Wizards of the Coast and asked if they would be interested in recording an official soundtrack, which they said they would be.[8][9]" - I find this sentence a bit of a mouthful, and feel it would benefit from being split into two sentences. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done J Milburn 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "The now defunct Living Dead Girls ezine said that music within the album was more diverse than music on Midnight Syndicate's earlier albums, allowing Dungeons & Dragons to display for the first time the musical diversity Midnight Syndicate were capable of.[24]" - Could whatever the ezine said be put in quotations, and the name of the reviewer in question given? LuciferMorgan 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Although I do not know the name of the author, so I have referred to them as 'an unnamed writer'. J Milburn 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • For FA, I'd lose the red links, either create stubs or unwikify, just for aesthetics.
     Done Or done some. I'll knock up some stubs for the albums later. J Milburn 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Douglas said that writing the album came very naturally.[8] The word "very" is not used in the source, I would remove it. Ooops, a little farther down: Douglas said that, for him, instrument choice came naturally and that "sounds and sometimes even melodies fall in line themselves".[8] So I think these two statements are a bit redundant, especially being so close in proximity to each other.
     Not done It does use the word 'very'. To quote the source- "Not only were we fans of the game but Dungeons & Dragons sessions often provided inspiration for the music on some of our other discs. The writing for the D&D disc came very natural and working with the developers at Wizards of the Coast was great." The second part is in reference to instrument choice specifically- later in the interview, Douglas says that "I think instrument choice comes naturally. When you have a specific image or setting that you are writing towards, the sounds and sometimes even melodies fall in line themselves. Before I begin writing, I pick pictures and images that I feel reflect the world I'm trying to create musically and keep them near to me in the studio. I think that helps me maintain focus. For the Dungeons & Dragons disc I had the floor covered with D&D module covers and artwork." J Milburn 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Yes, I see it now. My bad. It was late and my eyes were crossed...:) ♫ Cricket02 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Years earlier, another album, First Quest: The Music[13] was released by Filmtrax and licensed by TSR, then owners of Dungeons and Dragons,[14] for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.[13] The flow is really broken up in this sentence with the references, and all refs need to come after a punctuation mark, i.e. #13 does not follow a punctuation mark. I think I would simply put refs 13 & 14 at the end of the sentence.
     Done Although I think the comma does belong. I brutally overuse commas, but then owners of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be in parenthesis. J Milburn 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, we had an edit conflict when I was removing my statement about the comma. I agree now, it does belong. ♫ Cricket02 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Midnight Syndicate typically create, according to Mario Mesquita Borges of All Music Guide, "darkly blended compositions", described both as "gloomy" and "brooding."[19 For better flow of this sentence, I think I would reverse the first two segments, i.e. According to ..., Midnight Syndicate typically create "darkly blended...
     Done J Milburn 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref #20 is "currently not available"? Otherwise, I think refs look good.
    No idea. AMG hates me; it took me ages to get it to work in the first place. Could someone familiar with AMG please have a go? J Milburn 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I should have used links last night instead of ref #s because the order has changed. I looked at my last edit and this is the link that is not working right now, looks like its #21 now, hauntedattraction.com. Sorry about that. It might be a temporary glitch, or maybe you can find the original in web archives. ♫ Cricket02 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I think- does that work for everyone else? I can link myself with the new URL, when I couldn't when I just tried with the old one. AMG I still can't work out, does anyone know what the problem is? J Milburn 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haunted Attraction Magazine - example of a cited publication that should be italicized. I fixed this one but need to check for more.
    • Need to review throughout for un-needed commas that break up the flow.
    Overuse of commas is one of the problems with my writing. Maybe someone else should check that- I'll get in contact with the league of copyeditors. J Milburn 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also WP:MOS#Quotation_marks and review throughout. (I fixed a few within the Musical Style section as an example).
     Done That's something I didn't know. J Milburn 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Serial comma is used at times, and at other times not. Either way is correct, so just choose one way or the other for consistency.
    • Not required but a sound sample or two may be useful to enhance sourced track discussion.
    • Are there no additional categories this album can be placed in? Maybe have a look in Category:Albums and see if it fits in other places.

    Okay, I think that's all I can find for now. Great work so far. To all concerned and for the record, I will be gone for about a week, but I will be back for another look. ♫ Cricket02 07:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • SUPPORT - all issues have been addressed and I feel this article meets FA criteria. ♫ Cricket02 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & Support

    • On the basis it's readable. Learnedo 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair length. Fair amount of references. Don't think there's much more to say about the album. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:37, 3 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Shelton Benjamin[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it follows all the featured article criteria, and is an excellent article which can easily pass FA. User:Lex94 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The article predominately sourced from the onlineworldofwrestling.com website. Can you describe the reliability of the website in accordance with the policy of the same name? Thank you. 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply, the site is only used to source event results, which are hardly controversial, and in that respect they are very reliable. They have a staff of writers that list the results, checking the accuracy before they are posted. While they do accept columns from outside writers, none of those are cited in this article, so it isn't an issue. Nikki311 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even so, someone else may not think they are reliable. I would replace the results with either WWE.com sourcing, or as I did with December to Dismember (2006) article, replace some with SLAM! Sports references. Davnel03 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: A well sourced, well written article that stresses out of universe style.Gavyn Sykes 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass & support, Good enough. Leranedo 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass: I'm on 70:30 now. 70 Pass, 30 not... It's still a pass for me. BariumSULFATE ilyk2learn 11:55, 1 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Pinkerton (album)[edit]

    After much hard work, I finally think I got this article to FA status. I've added numerous sections, added tons of sources. The article is visually pleasing to the eye. It follows all the formats. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Well, anyway...I hope it made it. cowbellcity45   talk  22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Meets the criteria, as you said pleasing to the eye, interesting, and very well written overall. --Shahid • Talk2me 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Looks good. Well written. sohmc 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It's OK, but needs close scrutiny, preferably by someone who's fresh to the text.

    • I wonder who does own the copyright of the map.
    • "U.S.S Pinkerton"—dot missing.  Done Dabomb87 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ambiguous: "After finishing the record, the label's fear was put to rest that the band would be a flash in the pan after the success of the "Buddy Holly" video."
    • a "very brave record,' but worried "what sort of light does this put the band in? I could have been interpreted as them being a disposable pop band.'"—floating quote mark?
    • The label overall was pleased with the record and felt "no one's going to be disappointed" with the album. Why not cite the author of this phrase? Done
    • Geffen spokesman Dennis Dennehy, defended the title stating "to Weezer, Pinkerton is a character in Puccini's opera Madame Butterfly...It was not meant to be aimed at any sort of corporate entity."—Are the ellipsis dots yours or in the original. Presuming that they're yours, please see MOS on spacing. Check others, too. MOS breach concerning the final punctuation, here and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Cool, Well-written. FA quality.--Tamás Kádár 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Remark

    • "most of them after a painful leg surgery; as a result, they were written in first-position on his guitar's fretboard so" I never seen many articles use semi-colon; perhaps rephrase the section. Learnedo 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor MOS fixing needed throughout, and some citations are missing info, sample edits left. [64] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Prose is a little jerky in some places, but nothing too serious. Good work. JimmyBlackwing 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. References and writing quality both look good. (Ibaranoff24 13:34, 3 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Lawrence Sullivan Ross[edit]

    This article is a comprehensive look at a former Texas Ranger, Confederate general, Texas governor, and president of Texas A&M University. The article is well-cited. Self-Nom. Karanacs 14:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent work. It's not only comprehensive, but also looks pleasant stylistically. I've got a few questions and comments before signing off, though.
    • The article mentions that he completed a course of study at Baylor University without receiving a demerit. While I can infer that it's a pretty big deal, it's not stated outright in the article. Was he the only person to do this? Some context would be helpful.
    • I haven't been able to find much else about the demerits, so I just removed that phrase.
    • I removed the word "reserve" from a sentence talking about the Wichita Village fight. In the original context, it wasn't clear whether the sentence was talking about Indians held in reserve or Indians from the reserve.
    • Is there any information about his recovery from the wounds he sustained at the Wichita Village fight?
    • I added a little more about his recovery. I don't think there is anything more to find, though. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few scattered problems with comma usage and men/man agreement. If you'd like me to make a runthrough of the article, I'd be happy to do so.
    • If you have the time and wouldn't mind looking through it, I would appreciate it. I think I am a little too close to the text and am reading what I think it ought to be rather than what it is right now. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last years of his tenure as governor are extremely unclear. When did he leave office to become president of Texas A&M? Were the positions held concurrently? The article isn't clear on that.
    • I added in the date that he left office in the area where it talked about him not running for a 3rd term. If you think of a different place it should be, that's fine with me. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you address these problems, you'll have my full support. The article is really quite good, and I hope it successfully passes as a Featured Article. Good luck! JKBrooks85 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • In addation to the above, I have a few suggestions as well:
      • I am not entirely sure about this, But I am fairly certain that the first time a thing is cited the ciation should be given in its enterity. I am aware that the books you have cited for most of this are cited in the bibliography section, but they should also appear in the notes section as well.
    • Other than that, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. I checked WP:Reference#Footnotes, and it says "Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself." I think this should be okay in the article. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alright then, I guess I can accept that response. Everything still appears to be in good order. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — An excellent, comprehensive, easily-understood article about an individual important in Texas history. Stylistically it looks very good, and it adheres to all points of Wikipedia style. I'm currently running through one final copyedit for grammar, but I'm finding very little to change. It's extremely well-written. JKBrooks85 22:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some questions I had:
      • "The senior Lawrence Ross had been captured by Indians..." - can Indians be narrowed down to specific group or tribe?
        • No, I wasn't able to find any sources on which tribe it was. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ambiguous quoting:
        • His "aggressive tactics of carrying the war to the Comanche fireside (as it had long been carried to that of the white) ended charges of softness in dealing with the Indians."[28] - I'm assuming from the footnote to the book that this is the biographer Benner's summarization, and not the opinion of another in the book or a contemporary account. If so can you please clarify who is saying this. Like "According to his biographer, his "aggressive tactics of...""
          • The generally accepted way of quoting from a book is to use regular quotations if you are quoting the book, and double quotations "' '" if the book was quoting someone else. Since that is standard formatting, and the citation makes it clear that the quote is from the book, I don't see a need to make a change here or in the one below.Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "..."compel the criminal to obey the mandates of the law."[63]" - again, is this Benner's summarization or is this what the actual resolution said?
        • "By 1873, "Reconstruction was all but over in Texas."[60]" - why quote here?
          • I was feeling decidedly uncreative and haven't come up with a better way to phrase that. This is the phrasing that the book used, and I liked it. If you have a better way to phrase it, feel free to make the change or suggest here! Karanacs 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ross's application on 22 October 1886" - double check that date.
        • Good catch! I changed this to the correct date of 1866. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Reconstruction did not harm Ross's fortune" - like the above quote, is it Ross' or Ross's ? (I don't know, so I ask). --maclean 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a singular name, even if it ends in an s, 's is the proper way to do possessive. Just the apostrophe would be use if we were talking about the Rosses' fortune (that of his family). See WP:MOSQUOTE#Possessives, which actually uses "Ross" as an example. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, but the "By 1873, "Reconstruction was all but over in Texas."[60]" should probably not be quoted to a biographer of Ross. Fine to use as a reference/footnote but quotes tend to be reserved for when it matters what specific words the person said (like critical reviews, summaries, etc). How about By 1873, Reconstruction in Texas was coming to an end.[60] - I never got what "all but over" was supposed to mean...so it isn't over? --maclean 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you! I don't know why my brain refused to come up with new wording for the Reconstruction sentence, but I've replaced the quote with your suggestion. Karanacs 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's OK. Learnedo 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Note, Leranedo altered his comment above that I was responding to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This was three days ago. Don't have the time to give another detailed layout. It's not too bad at least. Leranedo 09:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but please get someone else to go over the prose again. Here are samples of little issues.
    • Spaced en dash for his dates: see MOS.
    • What is "Waco"—a company?
      • Specified in the lead that Waco is a town.Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comma fairy has been out in force: "After graduation, Ross became a Texas Ranger, and, in 1860 led troops in the Battle of Pease River, where he rescued Cynthia Ann Parker, who had been captured by the Comanches as a child." Perhaps just remove the obvious clanger, which is the one after "and".
      • I think I've chased the comma fairy away. I deleted the obvious one here and have made adjustments throughout the article. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nineteenth", then "19th"; I prefer that latter, but whatever you do, be consistent. The numbers throughout need an audit.
      • I've gone through the article and edited some numbers. I think it's more consistent now, and if you see any other instances that need improvement let me know. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "abutted"—rather ugly word. Does "adjoined" exist?
      • I swapped abutted for adjoined. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the young girl he had ordered rescued during the battle"—"Ordered rescued" is just a little too elliptical.
      • rewrote the sentence to "the young white girl who had been rescued during the battle" Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need "miles" and "km" linked?
    • The currency values could do with conversion to current equivalents, if you can be bothered. They were very different in those days. See MOS on currencies.
    • Please see MOS on ellipsis dots. The straight three or four dots are preferred, spaced in the correct way. Tony (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed all the ellipses too. Thanks for pointing out the policy. Karanacs 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I helped copyedit this article and it seems to meet all FA requirements. — BQZip01 — talk 15:57, 30 October 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Edward Low[edit]

    This article, about one of the lesser-known but most brutal pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy has recently been labelled as a good article. However, my intent has always been to take it on to FA. Given the length of the article, the fact it (to my eyes) meets all the featured article criteria, and has been through some pretty extensive checking, I would like to submit it to be a featured article. It's well written, particularly now it's been rigorously copyedited by User:Malleus Fatuarum and User:Maralia. It's fully referenced. All pictures are legit to the best of my knowledge. It's comprehensive without going "overboard" (pirate pun there), bearing in mind Low's piratical career only lasted 3 years tops. Peer review (which didn't provide any human advice) can be found here. Let me know what you think! Neil ム 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment
      • An images caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.  Done - now consistent
      • There is incorrect dash usage in the infobox and footnotes.  Done, I think - if it's still not correct, please do tell me what is incorrect
      • All web references need the author, publisher and publishing date, if known.  Done
      • Full dates in the footnotes need linking.  Done - they were all linked already (I can't see one that isn't, unless you mean the American Weekly Mercury one, which is a date range (6 - 13 June 1723) and should not be wikilinked)
      • Non-breaking spaces should be places between numbers and units.  Done
      • Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa.  Done
      • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, as in the Influence section.  Done
      • "The Victoria's Portuguese captain allowed a bag containing approximately 11,000 gold moidores (worth at the time around £15,000)" - is that £15,000 in today's money?  Done - it says "at the time" - I am unsure how to say it in any clearer a manner
      • "an 80-ton schooner" - is that a long ton or short ton?  Done - references say "ton", as opposed to "tonne", and given the period and usage, it's long ton - first use wikilinked to inform reader
      • A bit more copyediting needed, for example:
        • "Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719, he became a pirate two years later" - either "following" or "two years later" is redundant.  Done
        • "operating off the coasts of New England, the Azores, and in the Caribbean" - I think an "and" is needed between "New England" and "the Azores".  Done
        • "a reputation for violently torturing his victims" - all torture is violent  Done - no it isn't!
        • "Low led the twelve man gang – which included Francis Farrington Spriggs – in taking over a small sloop off the coast of Rhode Island, killing one man, and officially turned pirate determined "to go in her, make a black Flag and declare War against all the World."" - difficult to follow. And is it possible for someone to officially turn pirate?  Done - split into two sentences. It's not needed so removed, but technically you would officially becomes a pirate in the eyes of the law once an act of piracy has been committed.
        • "a bounty was placed on his head, and Low headed for the Azores" - repetition of "head"  Done
        • "are still being combed by treasure hunters looking for treasure in the ships he sank." - repetition  Done

    Epbr123 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your suggestions! Dones / not dones added. Neil ム 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some more:
      • "In a later trial on 10 July 1723 for a number of Low's crew" - "later" is redundant, "during" might be better than "in"  Done
      • "Harris returned to the UK, and was hanged at Wapping." - the UK didn't exist at the time  Done (doh)
      • "intending them to starve to death slowly" - I think the "slowly" is redundant  Done
      • "his crew refused to carry out his orders to torture the fisherman" - it should either be "a fisherman" or "the fishermen"  Done, typo fixed
      • "newly-captured ship" - -ly words don't usually need to be hyphenated as it's clear which two words belong together  Done
      • "he attacked thirteen New England fishing vessels" - 13  Done
        • Elsewhere states, "mounting 14 guns on her" - the decision whether to use numerals or words should be consistent. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Johnson – considered to be Daniel Defoe" - maybe best to include the "Charles"  Done
      • "silk", "theft", burglary", "cannon", "postage stamp", "torture", "17th century", "seaweed" and "barnacles" don't need linking  Done - I've delinked a few of these, but some really should be linked.
        • None of those words adds context. A link to "theft" will not help readers understand this article better. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A pipelink to "theft" will help readers understand what the archaic term "thievery" means (Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker). Ditto "burglary", which is not a widely-used word in many English speaking countries. Barnacles and seaweed ought to be linked - the link you give says "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully". Plus the article has a reasonable "link density" at present. Neil ム 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check that linked words are linked at their first occurence, eg. "Edward Teach", "cutlass"  Done
      • Some ship names need italicising  Done - one use missed and fixed
      • The Arthur Conan Doyle part of the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article.  Done - why?
        • The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, therefore, there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't in the body. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does Articles belong as a subsection of Flags?  Done - nope
      • Some ref titles and the External links section have improper dash usage.  Done - it might be better if you just fix this yourself, as it looks fine to me. If the title of a document or website doesn't use an em or en dash, I wouldn't use one when stating the title.
        • The dashes do need fixing. Wikipedia's formatting style has to be used, rather than the other website's. For the same reason, the upper case text needs to also be removed from some refs. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done. Neil ム 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Epbr123 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Responded. Neil ム 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to say: Support as nominator. Neil ム 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Epbr123 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Very interesting article, comprehensive and well-written. Karanacs 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Karanacs

    Here are a few things that need to be fixed

      • Lead prose issues -- a) "in around" -> pick one, please; b)"Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719 he became a pirate two years later" doesn't flow well at all  Done - first fixed (but not below, see your 4th point). Second one flows if you reinstate the comma you omitted. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation directly after quote in second sentence (I assume the following sentence's citation covers that, but it needs to be duplicated for quotations)  Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two paragraphs in first section are both very short and could be combined into one  Done - no, they're fine. One paragraph looked ugly, and was too long. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are five sentences total in those 2 paragraphs. I think if you take the first 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, then add the second paragraph, and put the sentence about his brother last, you would have a solid single paragraph. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The paragraph would be too long. Those are long sentences. Neil ☎ 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I very much disagree with you - it would be about the same as the last paragraph in Life in Bost section. Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I just realised when you said "first section", you meant the "early life" section - I assumed you meant the introduction.  Done Neil ☎ 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "in around" is not proper grammar, and is used within the body of the article as well as in the lead. Please fix with an alternate phrase.  Done Neil ☎ 10:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article says "Boston" 3 times in one and a half sentences in first paragraph of Life in Boston section; I would rewrite the second sentence to say "On August 12, 1714, he married Eliza Marble at the First Church of Boston."  Done Maralia 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than "labour" I would say childbirth; it is a more common phrase  Done Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a nonbreaking space between numbers and their qualifiers (three years, twelve men); use {{nowrap}} or & nbsp;  Done - that's only for digit numbers and units of measurement (eg 6 cm) according to the MOS. Neil ☎ 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the MOS for dates and numbers, the non-breaking space applies to "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space" Although the examples use kg/yds/etc, nowhere does it say that it applies only to units. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Numerical" means e.g. "12", not "twelve". Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "came back aboard hungry" doesn't sound quite right; how about "he reboarded the ship searching for food?"  Done, but not "searching for food", which the reference doesn't say he did, it says he was hungry. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • month and date combinations should be wikilinked (10 July and 12 July)  Done No they should not - see WP:MOS and Epr123's point above. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the MOS for Wikilinks, you should always wikilink a month/day combination so that the user's preferences will dictate how it is displayed (as 10 October or October 10, for example). Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know, but the above guy insisted it wasn't the case. Anyway,  Done Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it necessary to mention in this article that Charles Johnson might be Daniel Defoe?  Done - why should it not be? Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, it didn't add anything to the text, and was a little distracting. The article is not about DeFoe or Charles Johnson, and therefore I wouldn't include the detail about them. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it adds context and interest to the prose, and belongs there. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boston News-Letter should be italicized as it is a newspaper {{done}} Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not include articles in the See also section that have been wikilinked in the article; that would remove the first two; I also don't think you need the History of Boston in the list  Done - Privateer removed, but see Epr123's comments above. The Piracy in the Caribbean link in the text is piped. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of your citations have publishers listed  Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not done. See, for example, 13, 19, 27 and 29 Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • 13, 19 and 29, the publisher is the author (those are websites). 27 the publisher is Project Gutenberg as stated. Please actually check the references. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You still need to have the publisher specified. For example, in reference 13, the publisher would either be Rob Ossian's Pirate Cove or thepirateking.com (and how reliable a source is that, anyway?). Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done Okay, I'll fix that now. Ossian is reliable, he's been cited all over the place and used by the History Channel among others as a pirate expert (see [65]). Neil ☎ 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There was one more citation that needed a publisher. It was one of the last ones, called "Pirates Site", and then I think you'll be done with that nitpicky task ;) Karanacs 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Avast, ye pernicious harridan ;) Done. Neil ☎ 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: I see there've been many comments and alterations since I read this article, so feel free to ignore objections that have been met in the mean time.
      • In biographies the birth and death dates are usually put in brackets behind the name instead of in the lead's prose.  Done
      • "A thief and a scoundrel from a young age, he was born into poverty in Westminster, London around 1690 and moved" This is one of those inverted compound sentences that doesn't work. The clause before the comma is no bearing on his birth and so they shouldn't be linked together. Besides, it's probably better to use that description after you've described his birth so you don't label him as a scum baby.  Done (although he may have been a scum baby!)
      • Why is his birthdate in the 'Early life' section less specific than the one in the lead?  Done
      • "A brother was hanged at Tyburn for "thievery"." Was that one of his brothers or a monk/priest? What is the relevence to his criminal exploits? Sentence seems a bit disjointed from the rest of the text.  Done, sort of - clarified it was a brother as in relative. I think there's relevance in that it suggests his family were all impoverished criminals.
      • What was the birthdate of his deceased son?  Done - don't know, it is not in any of my resources.
      • "The loss of his wife had a profound affect on Low" That should be effect. (affect is verb, effect is noun)  Done
      • You might want to briefly mention why Francis Farrington Spriggs is worth mentioning by name when the rest of the gang wasn't.  Done - it's because he subsequently became a famous pirate in his own right
      • "Acquiring a taste for cruelty, Low taught Spriggs a torture technique which involved tying a victim's hands with rope between their fingers and setting them alight, burning their flesh down to the bones." When you teach somebody that, you aren't just acquiring a taste for cruelty, you already have it. Probably needs rephrasing.  Done
      • "no quarter would be given if any resisted"? Quarter as in shelter or money. To who, the captives or the pirates?  Done - neither money nor shelter - "no quarter" means no mercy (it's a fairly standard phrase). I have amended to "mercy", which is probably less evocative, but fine.
      • "Remaining off the coast of North America, a fishing boat was taken off Block Island." Who was remaining off the coast of NA? The fishing boat or Low? If it was Low, you should include a grammatical subject.  Done reworded
      • How can Low be both never heard from again and be hanged in Martinique?  Done - the section explains that there are conflicting accounts of Low's demise.

    -- Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded. Neil ☎ 10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how my first objection was addressed... Also, I think I what the problem is with the death section. Some sentences that are attributed to particular sources are written in such a way they appear to be statements of fact. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh, I just realised what happened - I had two identical editing windows open and put the years bit in the wrong one. I've now put the years of birth and death in brackets behind the name. I'll have a play with the death section. Neil ☎ 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it now? Neil ☎ 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a final tweak on the death paragraphs. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No & Oppose Pass & support

    • On the new basis that there really isn't much anyone can do with it, unless they are the subject matter themselves, and that creative writing can be considered fancy. Learnedo 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis it does not fulfill #1d NPOV, regardless that having extensive biases makes for an interesting read. Learnedo 07:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What biases? - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will edit it later on today. In the meantime, please review the following in its entirely as you apparently do not understand it.
    Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It reads like a story of a person who went from poverty to infamous fame, and as if we should feel pity for him, at least near the beginning. It wasn't encyclopedic. If someone who reads this cannot tell, I would be astounded. Some source are unreliable and apparently wrote for entertainment purposes and not for neutrality so the article can't really be balanced out. I would classify this as fiction for that is what it might as well be. Why are there "conflicting reports"? Because these are completely unreliable sources and I know I would want no knowledge than crap, false knowledge.
    I had made minor editing, and will change to support when it's adequate enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to revert a couple of the changes, because you mutilated the grammar. And I mean really badly. Or should I say "you were said to have been described as having changed the grammar in an ill-mannered way"? Ah, I'm just joking - thank you for the edits. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you're being silly. Two minor errors doesn't constitute mutilation, though I should have read it again however. Leranedo 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Leranedo, commenting at FAC without providing examples makes it very hard to evaluate your concerns. Please provide at least an example of unreliable sources. You can't just ask other editors to read your mind or take your word for it; we need something to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Comments. I left some notes and sample edits on minor WP:DASH issues, and you have some text terribly squeezed (on my browser) between an image and a quote in the "Early 1723" section. Can you pls doublecheck your sources on this?
    • Costa Garda isn't grammatical in Spanish and it doesn't mean Coast Guard; maybe those pirates didn't have correct grammatical Spanish, though. Google coughs up the term a lot wrt piracy (first on Wiki though), but it does not translate to Coast Guard as we think of it in English, so I'm wondering about your translation and whether it's original research or a source actually says that's the translation (if so, pls doublecheck other sources). First, garda isn't even a Spanish word; second, Coast Guard in Spanish is guardacostas or guardia de la costa or guardia de costas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS, if you can't figure that one out, the PR Project might have someone who speaks Spanish piracy. Maybe it's a Portuguese permutation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dashes  Done Someone else can fix the dashes. Three different people have now told me to do three different things with them so they would support the FAC, citing different parts of the MOS. I am sick of messing about with dashes. If you want them fixed in a "just so" way, fix them yourself - I don't own the article. They look fine to me. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read through the comments above and didn't find any incorrect dash advice; at any rate, I'll run through the article and fix any stragglers myself. If you have questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask me to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Resolution  Done - what resolution are you at? I've checked it at everything, 1600x1200, 1440x900, 1200x760 down to 800x600 - it looks fine, although a little tight at 800x600, there are FAs that looks heaps worse at such a low resolution. It looked horrible at 640x480, but surely nobody runs their computer at that any more?
        • Um, I use five computers :-) When I made the comment, I was on my old laptop, and I don't want to walk upstairs to check that now, but I'm sure it's not 640 x 480. I'll check several computers and fiddle; pls revert me if I change anything you don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm struggling as it looks fine on my compter - I've dropped the size of the image in the Early 1723 section, has that fixed it? You may need to play around with it yourself. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done subject to Sandy doing any rearranging as seen fit. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Costa garda"  Done - that should definitely be "Guarda". There are references for it being "Guarda del Costa" ([66], [67]). I think people may have got it mixed up because it tended to be simply referred to as the "Guarda". Fixed. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good; but not done. I was noticing that Spanish bastardization coming up at Google thanks to Wiki :-) Um, it cannot be Guarda del Costa either, because it's La Costa (feminine)—I'm fluent, but not a native speaker. You may still need to get the Puerto Rican Project involved to straighten this out and help you find a highly reliable source relating to the piracy days, or let us know if it was just an example of poor Spanish grammar back in those days. I see the Gutenberg source at one point says guarda del costa, but later uses the grammatically correct guarda de costa; these are the kinds of issues that come up with translations (note that we are talking about a difference made by one or two letters here). Maybe you can punt this one and just use guarda de costa, since both of your sources use that, but I'd still recommend checking with the Puerto Rico Project, as they will know piracy stories. Sorry, but I have a big pet peeve about subtly incorrect original translations on Wiki, as they do tend to spread via Google, and we must get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put it to "Guarda de Costa", I think unless the PR guys say otherwise, we're probably okay. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a better fix; I'm going to strike my comment now, since I'm confident that you'll sort this out with the Puerto Rican group if they are able to shed any light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Awesome. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment The correct Spanish word for Coast Guard is guardacostas. A guardacostas is a vessel used to protect against smuggling.[68] However, Old Spanish may have indeed used guarda de costa. Joelito (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just a couple of image issues:
      • Image:Lowstamp.jpg—I believe it's Wikipedia convention that non-free postage stamps should not be used to depict the subject of the stamp. (Cf. "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" from {{Non-free stamp}}.) I suggest removing. Image has been marked as orphaned.
      • Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg—A photograph of a work of art like this inherits the original copyright. That is, davelandweb.com does not own the copyright of this image—I would guess Disney does.
    Pagrashtak 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Part done - I've removed the stamp image - it didn't add much to the article. The Disney artwork image - could you clarify? Do I need to update the copyright statement, remove the image, should it be fair use, what? Neil ☎ 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The copyright tag should be updated to indicate that the image is non-free. At that point, you'll need to either remove the image as replaceable, or, if you feel that only that particular image can serve its purpose, add rationale to the page stating why it can't be replaced by a free image. Pagrashtak 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. (btw, I've deleted the Lowstamp.jpg image), and have updated the rationale of the Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg - is this satisfactory? If you still don't think it's fair use, let me know, or just remove it yourself - I tihnk it adds something and is discussed within the section, but am open to argument. Neil ☎ 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You'd probably get different opinions on the image, depending on the editor. I'm striking the comment, as the image page has the correct copyright information. Pagrashtak 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Oh, this is excellent! Tony (talk) 01:17, 29 October 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Hurricane Dog (1950)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because its meets all criteria, and is also made by User:Hurricanehink. The article would be the first from the 1950s to reach FA and is very much notable. The article has used up all the information our users could find and is of good length. Feel free to leave comments and Hurricanehink, me or someone can fix them. Mitch32contribs 18:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Hmm. Would it be possible to move the note on naming a little earlier? It looks very odd to us used to the modern conventions. Otherwise, ho hum, another excellent article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Why must they always flaunt their excellent research skills and good writing? =P Adam Cuerden talk 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment article contains several statements that look like quotations, but they are not placed in quotation marks; instead, they are placed in italics. This is not standard WP handling of such material Hmains 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support

    • On the basis that it meet #1b Comprehensive.

    Remarks:

    • Only one external link?!?
    • Criterion #1b is of low-standards.

    Learnedo 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-evaluate. The external link is to provide more information on the subject. There are, in fact, 15 references in the article. Seeing as it does not neglect any major facts, it does not fail Criterion #1b. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Few things:
    "At least 17 naval ships were moved in preparation for the hurricane." Please cite.
    "Damage throughout the Lesser Antilles totaled $1 million." Please cite.
    The total damage should be stated in the lead as its a important number.
    It states it became "extratropical on September 12," and on the side, it uses "Dissipated." Can we not go with one?
    Should add more than one external link.
    "thousands left homeless just weeks after Hurricane Bake" a bit more precise, no need for the exact number but this is far too vague.
    "in newspaper reports, and its name was scarcely used" Perhaps change the phrasing of "scarcely used."
    "Operationally, hurricanes were not referred.." Change 'Operationally' to something along the lines of "according to such and such."
    "In the aftermath of the hurricane, the newspaper The Daily Gleaner started a hurricane relief fund" It's hard to believe they are the only major entities to start a relief fund; perhaps that was the case however.
    Request: More images if possible.
    Note: Fifteen references is really slim. There really should be more than fifteen references even if it's not a requirement. I'm sure there was other major media/news coverage besides the Associated Press and the Canadian Press. Learnedo 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Those facts are already cited, I'm not sure of the problem (the ref for the first one appears a sentence or two later; all of the info from that ref is referenced only once). I added damage to lead. To clarify, the dissipation date in the Infobox means the day when a storm is no longer a tropical cyclone, while the mentioning of it becoming extratropical refers to how it lost its tropical characteristics. In short, no, we can not go with one. I don't believe any other external links would be appropriate; the tropical cyclone Wikiproject generally reserves the See Also section for the most official source of information. The "thousands left homeless" is indeed all that was printed in the newspapers. Scarcely was changed to seldom. Operationally is appropriate, as it refers to how it was treated at the time. Sadly the info on this hurricane is quite small, probably due to its relatively minor impact (worst damage occurred in an area already struck by previous hurricane, so focus is more on the first one) and the fact that other severe hurricanes followed it (including a major hurricane threatening Florida, which naturally captured the headlines more). Thus, there could've been other relief funds, or maybe there weren't, but it wasn't reported, and information in that time period is rather poor. Also, that's why there are only fifteen references. There might be other images, but I'm not sure how available they are. The only possibilities I can think of are an unofficial rainfall map, maybe another fair use image, or maybe another image of Surface Weather Analysis, meaning another image is not likely. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exceptionally neat, complete, objective, and impressive response. I'll be looking forward to your future articles. Leranedo 10:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as primary editor. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor oppose - the article looks a tad short, but given it was 1950 when the event happened, I think we can forgive that. Support Davnel03 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    **Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 inches, use 4 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&nbsp;inches.[?]

      • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
      • In the "Storm history" section there doesn't seem to be many refs. Does the reference cover the whole of the paragraph(s)?
        • Yes, the references cite everything from the sentence before the ref to the previous reference.
      • Preparation section could do with a little expansion if possible.
        • That is probably not possible. Preparations in the Lesser Antilles was not documented in the newspapers I accessed, although I believe the preparations for the US is adequate. Hurricanehink (talk)
      • Steering current - red link in 2nd para of storm history. Could it possibly link to anywhere adequate?
        • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I put in that redlink while copy editing, so it was actually added after the article was nominated here. I didn't know what a steering current was, and it looked like it might merit an article of its own. On the suggestion of stubbifying it, I must say that, personally, I despise stubs created solely to fill a redlink; if it doesn't merit the time to write a comprehensive article then please don't waste my time with a dictionary definition; point it to Wiktionary if that's all you are going to provide, that way the link colour tells me what I'm getting before I click. Andplus 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any chance you could insert referencing inside the infobox?
      • Looks good, please leave a message on my talkpage when you have rectified these problems as I am bound to forget to come back here at a later date. Cheers, Davnel03 21:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which units are missing nbsp;s? It is possible we missed one, but I checked and it looks like the article has non-breaking spaces throughout.]
          • There was only one, inside the title of a ref. I went and fixed it. Davnel03 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pushed down the External links section to the end.
        • Storm history sections are usually referenced to a few, or even one, canonical references.
        • Preparations info may not be available, considering the age of the storm.
          • Could you possibly try and find some. If not, its not a major issue. Davnel03 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. We can't add the reference to the infobox, per Bug 8693. Besides that, it is not necessary, as the numbers are covered and cited elsewhere.

    Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Great work. Only one question: in Preparations "...if any, are unknown," is ambiguous and I cannot find it in the references. Is it supposed to mean that the preparations were undocumented, or that research hasn't uncovered any evidence of any preparations, or is it that the appropriate reference (maybe buried in some library in the Lesser Anitlles) hasn't been found by WP editors yet? --maclean 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, it's the last one. Since they are unknown, should that part just be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think so. If the sources aren't available, then WP cannot be expected to report on them. This would become an actionable objection only if someone could show that the sources existed. --maclean 01:29, 2 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Ganesha[edit]

    I'm self nominating this article for featured article because it has passed a good article (since Feb 2006) review and has been peer reviewed (April 2007). It has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. The article is sourced by 247 citations. Thus in my opinion it meets with FAC criteria.--Redtigerxyz 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong support: The article covers numerous aspects of the subject and is well sourced. This is IMO an exemplary article about Hindu devas/devis however I would suggest adding a section about the Avataras of Ganesha and perhaps using not so many quotes from books. Kkrystian 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Plenty of prose issues throughout. "Most worshipped" is used twice in the lead, the 2nd para in the lead begins in the wrong tense etc. "evil eye" needs to be linked. Nearly identical variant versions of the same passages are quite unnecessary. "The translation "Lord of Hosts" may convey a familiar sense to Western readers." - that, quite simply, does not make ANY sense. Tommy Stardust 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyeditor Finetooth has has replaced one "Most worshipped" with "Most venerated". The tense was corrected by him/her. "Lord of Hosts" sentence is removed. The translation "Lord of Hosts" is retained. --Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Few niggles -
    The two quotations in each of the "Aum" and "First Chakra" sections are nearly identical. Is it necessary to have both of them? The readability of the article suffers because of many quote boxes. Indeed, are they necessary at all and can't the quotes just be incorporated into the prose? Especially in the "Obstacles" section, Brown and Courtright are explaining something, it is not a translation of an ancient text. They could probably be inserted into the prose.
    Shouldn't "most worshipped" have a dash?
    Tommy Stardust 15:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One quotation of Chinmayananda and the other of Courtright retained in "Aum" and "First Chakra". Other quotation removed.--Redtigerxyz 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All issues have been addressed Tommy Stardust 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Nice article, surely deserves a bronze star.But i must say, not flawless. Indianescence 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I like it but there are some problems I'm coming across.
      • In the second para is this: "A sect of devotees, called the Ganapatya, (Sanskrit: gāṇapatya)" I'm assuming that there should be actual Sanskrit in the parenthetic as well as the pronunciation/IPA. I'd fix it but for my complete lack of Sanskrit skills. ;)
    gāṇapatya is IAST for the Sanskrit pronunciation for Ganapatya.--Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm finding some phrasings a little vague. They may not really be a problem but they are poking at me. "Veneration of Ganesha is considered complementary with other forms of the divine." I understand what is meant by this but "other forms of the divine" is so vague I want to know if Jesus Christ is included. Maybe so but I'm thinking it's referring to the Hindu pantheon and probably doesn't include the Judeo-Christian deities.
    Sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to try doing some work on the article but I really think the things I'm finding are tweaks and copyediting chores, not hard problems with the article. I'd give it a "support" but these little things which need attention. Pigman 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well-written article. Too many references are a distraction to the reader, though. utcursch | talk 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Informative and comprehensive. Nice read. Lead has a lot of references which can be avoided and may be present in later sections. There have been a few 2-line, 3-line paragraphs. Wherever possible, they can be merged into relevant bigger paragraphs. Good luck. - KNM Talk 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The few things I've noticed are too minor to keep me from supporting a well-structured and informative article. Pigman 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I found the boxed quotes to be a little overpowering in places, though others' views may differ. Nevertheless, I found it a great article. I learned a lot. — BillC talk 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good read and prose smooth for me too, though paragraphs in Common attributes are a little choppy. Would it lose anything to combine them like thus? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We must thank User:Buddhipriya, User:Redtigerxyz, User:Abecedare and others for the outstanding effort they have put into this article. As a few people have mentioned above, perhaps the prose can be tightened up a notch, with shorter sentences and merging small paragraphs. It may even be "over-sourced" (soreness to the eyes) but that is hundred times better than "under-sourced." Otherwise, a wonderful article. GizzaDiscuss © 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to Conditional Support. I forgot about this comment I made recenty on the talk page. At the moment, the article just fails 1b) IMO. Although WP:HINDU hasn't really created a standard structure or MOS for Hindu deity articles, I consider a section on temples to be almost mandatory, and Ganesha is no exception. Temples are such an integral part of Hinduism, and there are plenty of famous temples of Ganesha that can be discussed in the article. Other than that, it is still a wonderful article and if it passes FAC without this section being created, I will pursue this matter further on the talk page. GizzaDiscuss © 12:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added List of Ganapati temples link. I really wanted to talk to Gizza about the matter; but he is now on a "long wikibreak". --Redtigerxyz 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've removed my long wikibreak notice now, even though I still consider myself to be only semi-active. I think the Ashtavinayak deserve their own sub-section in "Worship and festivals." For all who are familiar with other Hindu deities, sages and their temples, it is like not mentioning Jyotirlinga in the Shiva article, the Mathas in Adi Shankara, Badrinath temple and Tirumala Venkateswara Temple for Vishnu and the Shakti Peethas and Vaishno Devi for Devi/Shakti. I guess I'll to change to Weak Support because it is not urgent that the section is added. But I still consider this article incomplete without at least one paragraph on Ganesha temples. Like I said above, if this passes FAC, I discuss this issue later. GizzaDiscuss © 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to form a small section on "Ganesha temples" with Ashtavinayak as the main focus in a day or two.--Redtigerxyz 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. One issue is not enough to stop me from supporting, but eventually it should be added. GizzaDiscuss © 03:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Section "Worship in Temples" written.--Redtigerxyz 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have now changed to Strong Support The newly created temples section may need to be copyedited though. GizzaDiscuss © 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass & support

    On the basis that it's readable. Leranedo 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Comprehensive, nicely written and nicely illustrated. Axl 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There are numerous issues of missing citations and other MOS violations. The article could also do with a copyedit, as some sections do not read well.
    The User:Finetooth , member of the League of Copyeditors has copyedited the article twice. The second being as recent as 27 Oct. See Talk:Ganesha#Copyediting.--Redtigerxyz 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I request Karanacs to strike out issues that s/he feels are resolved.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "honoured with affection" seems a little overly POV. Can this just be "honoured", or is there a special meaning behind the phrase that I don't know?
    Replaced with "honoured".--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lead: I would take the last two sentences of the last paragraph and add it behind the first sentence in the lead. (delete the first sentence in that paragraph) Then make the remainder of the first paragraph (beginning with Although he is known by...) a separate paragraph. It will flow better and allow you to eliminate the second occurence of mentioning he is one of the "most-venerated" or "most-worshipped" divinities]
    Any WP editor is welcome to approve the lead.--Redtigerxyz 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it is not my FA and not my practice to make large changes to the text when reviewing. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But, nobody else has objected to the lead.--Redtigerxyz 06:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this suggestion by Karanacs will stregthen the lead. The only problem is that the sentences which you say are virtually the same have a small difference. One is referring to India while the other is about Hinduism. It would be awkward to say "most worshipped deity in Hinduism and India." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done but the awkward "most worshipped deity in Hinduism and India." Maybe needs a copyedit.--Redtigerxyz 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is usually best practice to put other common names that the subject is know by in the lead. I would try to incorporate Ganapati and Vighneśvara in the lead (both bolded)
    Each Hindu god like Ganesha has many common names. Thus, all can not be listed in the lead, but they are highlighted in the "Etymology and other names" section.--

    Redtigerxyz 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The most common names, however, should be highlighted in the lead. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--Redtigerxyz 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for the sentence "The name Vignesha (Lord of Obstacles) refers to..."
    The association is discussed throghly in "Obstacles" section with references. The name Vignesha (with meaning) is cited in lead.--Redtigerxyz 05:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it should also be cited in this point in case someone removes the other text (you never know). Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--Redtigerxyz 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for the last part of the paragraph describing Ganesha images ("In the standard configuration....")
    ref for attributes given. Removed "as symbols of his ability to cut through obstacles or to create them as needed". part as didn't get a ref.--Redtigerxyz 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is a dramatic overuse of the word "common" in the Common attributes section. Every other sentence appears to use the word.
    Replaced "common" in some places in the section.--Redtigerxyz 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is dramatic overuse of the word "common" still an unresolved issue? --Redtigerxyz 10:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you need a separate section heading for "mouse or rat as vahana". This could go perfectly well in the "Vahanas of Ganesha" section without having a separate heading
    Though the Separate section was removed, I feel that the sub-heading be retained as Mouse is the prominent Vahana of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't repeat the title of the article in the section headings. This means "Vahanas of Ganesha" should just be "Vahanas".
    Renamed "Vahanas".--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for meaning of word "priya" in Buddhi section
    Citation for meaning of "priya" from Sanskrit to English dictionary. Citation for Ganesha as Buddhi's husband added.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't offset short quotes. The Coutright translation in First chakra section should be a part of the paragraph.
    Expanded a bit on importance of the chakra and role of Ganesha. The quotation box was retained as translation of the text Ganapati Atharvashirsa. --Redtigerxyz 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, only citations of 4 lines or more should be offset. I haven't seen a policy that say translations need to be offset. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotebox merged in prose.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first chakra section is very short. Can this be combined with any other section or expanded in any way?
      • The "For more details on the topic" should go at the beginning of the section instead of the end.
    Done.--Redtigerxyz 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need citation(s) for first paragraph of Worship and festivals and for last sentence of 2nd paragraph in that section.
    Citation from Grimes added for mantra. First para reworded and referenced. --Redtigerxyz 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need ciation for last sentence in 1st paragraph of Ganesh Chaturthi
    cited web.--Redtigerxyz 06:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can format the citation to meet the WP:CITE requirements I'll cross this off. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to ref from book.--Redtigerxyz 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the information from Anita Thapan in section scriptures a direct quote? If so, it needed quotation marks; if not, can it be reworded a bit, as it sounds like a direct quote.
    Done.--Redtigerxyz 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are too many long quotes in the Possible influences for the shortness of the section. Can you paraphrase one of the quotes so that there is less quoted material there?
    merged smaller quote in prose.--Redtigerxyz 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for "The worship of Ganesha by Hindus outside of India shows regional variation."
    sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template on Ganesha goes at the bottom of the article, not in the See Also section.
    Done.--Redtigerxyz 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's usually not normal for citations to read "For...., see..." The citation should be made directly after the material it is citing, eliminating the need to begin with "for....", leaving just the source itself (e.g. Nagar, pp. 191-195.).
      • Please use named refs when possible to reduce the number of total references, especially considering the number you have here. For example, refs 180 and 182 are the same, refs 233 and 234 are the same, etc

    Karanacs 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Concur with Karanacs about work still needed, and I was surprised to find a basic WP:MSH fix still needed after all these reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was suprised to find you not reading through this FAC carefully and realising that the WP:MSH "error" you fixed was in a section created after most of the people above reviewed the article. GizzaDiscuss © 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, DaGizza, when I approach an article the first time, I try *not* to read and be influenced by other reviewer comments. Karanacs was the last, and rather than retype my concerns, I added on. I'm relieved to hear that news, as I was surprised so many had missed that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the apology SandyGeorgia. I do think many of Karanacs' concerns are valid but I strongly doubt most of the people above did a pile-on oppose.
                • To Karanacs, one of the major contributors to the article, User:Buddhipriya has strongly objected to the use of named references in the articles that he has worked on. While he by no means WP:OWNs this article, I suggest you discuss this issue with him. Unfortunately, he's on a Wiki-break at the moment but at least I digged up Talk:Ganesha/Archive 4. I could try to find more of his argument on other pages he worked on, or on user talk pages if you really want me to. Also, is your point about the "For ..., see,..."'s supported by policy and MOS, or is it just a personal dislike? If it is the former, I would be grateful if you could provide me a link to the page. GizzaDiscuss © 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Karanacs, thanks for your detailed comments! To address a couple of referencing issues that you raise, and which I have discussed on the article talk page before:
                  1. Use of named references: By my rough count using named references will perhaps reduce the number of "notes" from 254 to ~230-240, which is perhaps desirable, but not greatly significant. On the other hand, it will introduce considerable complexity in naming of references since we will have to use "Getty52", "Getty53", "Getty55-56" etc, which may be hard to maintain in the long term.
                  • I do this all the time with author and page number and it is not hard to maintain (it's actually pretty easy to take a quick look at the editing and see where it is coming from). Reducing the number of refs by almost 10% is a very, very good thing. Wikipedia:Footnotes recommends named refs. Karanacs 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  1. Using the "For ... see ..." gloss: The thinking behind this is to guard against scenarios in which editors change a previously cited sentence's content (in good faith) without updating the reference, in which case the sentence appears to be cited but is not really referenced. Of course, it is still possible for an editor to introduce referencing errors by changing the gloss along with the sentence, but such deliberate bad-faith editing is easier to spot and revert. I know this approach is not commonly used on wikipedia, but I think it is worthwhile to give such ideas (which AFAIK are not forbidden or discouraged by the MOS) a try and see if it works as intended. I welcome other editors input on this issue, although perhaps it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. Regards. Abecedare 07:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. We are supposed to cite sources using an accepted citation format (which this is not), and these are detailed in this guideline. The article currently partially uses Harvard referencing (author (year if necessary), page number) but not completely. All articles run the possibility of referencing errors being introduced. That is why it is wise for several people to watchlist the articles and double-check that information is not inserted where it shouldn't be without a proper citation. Also, having the reference there allows people to check to see what is in the reference, leaving them to make that determination themselves. Karanacs 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comprehensive, well-written, well-illustrated and very-well-referenced article (both in terms of quantity and quality of cited works. Disclosure: I have contributed to the article over the past few months, although most of its current content is owed to User:Buddhipriya and User:Redtigerxyz Abecedare 07:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seeing that Karanacs (juding from her other FAC participations) doesn't mind her comments being crossed once they've been fixed, I'll do that now so we can keep track of what still has to be done. I will only cross obvious things, issues that have been 100% fixed, not grey areas. GizzaDiscuss © 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best practice is to let the reviewer cross off his/her own comments. I don't get upset when others cross mine off like some editors do, but I prefer to do it myself so I can verify that the editor understodd what I was asking. Thanks! Karanacs 14:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • one more comment: There is also an uncited "millions of people" reference in second paragraph of [edit] Ganesh Chaturthi section. Karanacs 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am combing ref as in FA Islam, to reduce the oversourcing issue.--Redtigerxyz 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Combing ref complete. --Redtigerxyz 10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are definitely on the right track there, but I'd remove the "See.." and just put the references. Karanacs 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I used "See" on lines of Islam. Probably "See" was used to avoid a blank line that rises dur to the point system.--Redtigerxyz 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In Ganesha; there are refs for sucessive sentences like Krishan p.121, Krishan p.122 ; Getty, pp. 37–45., Getty, p. 37., Getty, p. 38., Getty, p. 40 and many more. Now Getty, pp. 37–45 takes care of all the rest of possibilities. So instead of citing every sentence; if one ref e.g Getty, pp. 37–45 is given at the end of the para; the no of ref will be reduced. IF this is permitted by WP policy; I will execute it. Waiting for other editors' reactions. --Redtigerxyz 10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine the way it is. The issue with combining all the refs is if other information gets added to the paragraph from a different source, you may have one sentence from Getty p37 cited to a 9 page spread, which is more difficult for a potential verifier. Karanacs 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Comprehensive content. Do we require so many citations? Probably yes, but not sure. Anyway, the article is fine and deserve to be featured. --Bhadani (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The section heading "Rise to Prominence" does not quite fit. I would consider something like academic perspective or debate on origin. --Blacksun 13:13, 5 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Flight feather[edit]

    Self-nomination: I'm nominating (and obviously supporting) this article for featured article status because, after working on it for several months, I feel it's comprehensive, well-written and well-illustrated. I believe it meets all the FA criteria. MeegsC | Talk 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - normally I'd demand the small paragraphs get combined but...this is tricky here. Prose has good enough flow so as I don't notice it (which is good). A bit jargony in places but it is a very specialised topic and I think the judicious use of bluelinks has solved that. Well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since the citations point to the publications in the "references" section, perhaps the latter should be moved up, so the publications are already named when they are mentioned in the citations. You might even be bold and put both together under one "References and notes" section as in Borobudur. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done MeegsC | Talk 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But please see additional comment lower in this section, left by another editor. MeegsC | Talk 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The first paragraph of the lead is not at all inviting. It's very technical and doesn't really tell a casual reader anything. I'd suggest trying to make the lead more accessible and get into the "with the rachis running closer to the distal side of the feather" language further into the body. --Elliskev 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Please have another look and tell me if that's better! MeegsC | Talk 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Nice. The rest of the article looks good to me. It's well-written, cited, etc. I'll just assume it's accurate. :) --Elliskev 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks for taking the time to have a look. MeegsC | Talk 07:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I can't think of anything significant I would add Jimfbleak 08:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment shouldn't it read "tertiaries" rather than "tertials"? 82.71.48.158 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope! The term for those feathers is tertials—though presumably it comes from the same root word. MeegsC | Talk 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MeegsC asked me to emphasise that I changed the order of reference sections to agree with longer-standing biology FAs, in case anyone objected. Books should be listed after specific references, and everything else should follow WP:ORDER. 82.71.48.158 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's nice you want to follow an established format, but what exactly is the logic behind it? It doesn't make sense to refer to a book that hasn't been mentioned in the text yet. I'd expect a list of books to come before the notes. Can anyone clarify the justification? --Mgm 87.212.40.234 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the WP:ORDER article, it appears that the only books that are to be listed above the notes section are those that weren't used in the construction of the article—that is, those that are suggested further reading only. Any references used for the article are to go in a "References" section after the notes. If this is going to cause problems in getting the article approved, I can certainly incorporate all of the references into the footnotes section, which would eliminate the need for separate categories altogether! :) MeegsC | Talk 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I will use the example from this Wikipedia article (entitled "Citing sources") to set up the reference and citation sections. Any quibbles with that order should be taken up on the talk page there! MeegsC | Talk 09:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)  Done MeegsC | Talk 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Well-written and well-cited. The illustrations are also very informative. Great work. Cheers, heyjude. 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great article. and very well cited!--Mike Searson 00:24, 2 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Motörhead[edit]

    Self-nomination, collaborative effort – the article has undergone a complete overhaul in the last few months to ensure it is comprehensive, flowing, and extremely well referenced, and is now ready to be subjected to the FAC process. Any criticisms and suggestions will be gratefully received and addressed, I am sure, by the many and varied experienced editors who have worked hard on this popular article. – B.hotep u/t• 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • support - well written, well referenced. I realise IPs are not allowed to vote (even static IPs like me), and that my vote will be struck... but I was encouraged by an admin to express my opinion anyways :D . 156.34.142.110 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking over the references, writing quality, looks pretty solid. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support The prose are a weak in areas (some very long sentences in there), and some of the refs are incomplete, but I enjoyed reading the article; well done to all involved. Ceoil 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realise before that the White Line Fever references were six of one and half a dozen of the other, thanks for drawing my attention to them, those are now complete.--Alf melmac 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Article is well written and decently referenced. Was generally informative and interesting to read. ScarianTalk 14:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support great job, almost every sentence is referenced and is well written and illustrated. igordebraga ≠ 23:23, 4 November 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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

    Borobudur[edit]

    After having been improved into an article with enough reliable sources and provided with good images for almost a year, I'd like to nominate this article for FA. Any suggestions, critics, comments and supports are all welcomed. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – Its got a really messy Toc. The headings should be more terse. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply – Thanks Nichalp for quick comment. I've fixed it. — Indon (reply) — 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I believe the assertion that Mahayana is dominant in SE Asia is wrong. Only Vietnam is Mahayana. Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Thailand are all Theravada. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply – I removed the assertion. I am not an expert of Buddhism in Asia, but I believe I took that fact from a source. I can't access all the source right now, but I'll check about it later. Thanks for your note. — Indon (reply) — 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment It is dominant in East Asia:China, Taiwan, Korea, Mongolia, Japan and Tibet though. so its true of E Asia but not SE Asia. So you can leave the E Asia part there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply – Done. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've massaged the prose and tried to get rid of the frequently repeated monument, which was used far too much. I cannot speak authoritatively on comprehensiveness but nothing springs to mind that should be included that isn't thus far. Others may still find some prose issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Did a little more prose massage & confirmedsome details agains sources (see article talk page) I did the trans from the large nl wiki article in early '06 - since then Indon and others have done a marvelous job fleshing it out, adding sources etc - altogether this article has been worked on by a very diverse group & as such is IMHO balanced with various religious & ethnic/political POVs considered. Bridesmill 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well written, fully referenced, great illustrations- this article was close to FA already at the peer review, and the new section and plan drawings really make it the rest of the way, and further. Congratulations Indon. D. Recorder 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks a lot, but the article is developed by other editors too, who'd shaped my lousy grammar, suggested citations and drawings, added more materials, etc. It's really a nice collaborative project, though. — Indon (reply) — 00:10, 3 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Branded to Kill[edit]

    This is about the 1967 Seijun Suzuki film. I've scoured all English language sources I've been able to get a hold of over the past six months or so, plus the few Japanese pieces I was able to with my remedial skills in that area. My thanks to Skarioffszky and Benjamin.pineau for providing information I never would have found otherwise, Erik (I think it was him), Ilse@ and FilmFemme for their invaluable critiques and Andrzejbanas for really getting this thing started in the first place. And thanks to anyone reviewing this for your time and for not counting me as a douchebag for basically giving an awards speech directly on self-nomination. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't state it explicitly but, as is the convention, I'll add that this was promoted to GA class in May and was peer reviewed in June. Doctor Sunshine talk 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I was thinking of nominating this awhile back, you really took it over after I shakingly added the plot in. Everything is relevent and well written. It seems good to go for a featured article. Andrzejbanas 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Muchos gracias. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I like the article - It's a lot more in depth than other Featured film articles and it's well set out. There's a couple of things I'd like to point out though. 1) In one of the image captions, there's the word "discombobulated". Is it possible to simplify this term for those of us who aren't gooder at English? At the risk of sounding dumb, I've seriously never heard of that word before, and probably neither have a lot of people. My general philiosophy is too keep writing at a highschool level all over, and for more scientific articles, at a higher grade. 2) The image in the section "Reception" makes some of the text jut out; it'd be great if you could swap it to the other side to remedy this. Other than that, everything looks good. I have no problem supporting. :) Spawn Man 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. Yeah, I had a feeling discombobulated would have to get the ax eventually. I just love it because it mixes the pretentious with the silly. It and indubitably. I'll survive with a synonym though. For the latter, do you mean the paragraphs are sticking out or was pushing the Legacy header over on your screen too? I've fixed it so it won't obtrude into the next section but the former's common everywhere.[69] Admittedly, I'm just holding out on this one to maintain symmetry but I'm willing to reconsider. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed it and shifted the other pictures around to retain the symmetry... Feel free to play around with it though. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That does read a little better. I'm sold. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, looks good and is pretty comprehensive as far as I know. The only problem I have with it is the plot section, which feels too busy, but I guess it's a necessary compromise between telling the main plot points (and some details that are discussed further in the article) while staying at a reasonable length. I like Tokyo Drifter more though. - Bobet 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you mentioned that. I think I've whittled the plot down enough since the GA suggestion that it can stand an extra sentence or two. The sink drain shot is among the most famous in the film so it definitely deserves a mention. I'd tended to skip over a lot of the absurd touches that make the film in order to pare it down to just the facts but I've added a few touches so hopefully it's a better balance now. Many thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I forgive you for preferring Tokyo Drifter. :) Doctor Sunshine talk 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support -- while I find the article to be in otherwise great shape in terms of referencing and writing and comprehensiveness, I still don't find the Criterion Collection DVD cover's fair use rationale to be sufficient. The rationale says that it "illustrates current marketing methods", of which there is no actual coverage in the related Home video section. Per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The usage of the DVD cover does not appear to enhance the article in any way besides as an identifying image that would not be missed. If there is concern about breaking the monotony of the Reception section, I would suggest possibly implementing a quote box in the cover's place. I'd like to give the article my full support, but I'm concerned that this will set some precedent for future articles in saying, "This Featured Article displays a DVD cover with no supporting context, why can't this article of a newly released DVD have one, too?" If this can be addressed, I believe that there would be no other issues with Branded to Kill. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I didn't win you over on the talk page. Well, I'm all out of arguments. I think its loss is unfortunate but it probably won't be harmful to anyone's understanding. C'est la vie. Thanks for your comments and help with the article. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Maybe if you can find some verifiable content describing the artwork of the Criterion Collection DVD for marketing context, you can restore the DVD cover. I wouldn't have a problem with that improved restoration. I've struck out "Conditional" to fully support this article. Nice work! :) What's your next big project? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - on the soundtrack section, the first column is the translation. Transliteration is what you're calling Romanization. Girolamo Savonarola 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support Request: Lead can be broken into shorter paragraphs. Learnedo 07:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you and done. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I know it's not a valid objection, but three red links in the first sentence? Can't those be stubbified? It's not aesthetic to be confronted with redlinks in the first sentence, and if those folk are worth mentioning in the first sentence, surely they're notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No trouble at all. They're stubbified. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I again want to clarify that removal of redlinks is not required for FA status, but I asked in this case only because the first sentence was overloaded; it is not necessary to remove redlinks for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 30 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Stede Bonnet[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the featured article criteria. This article was initially written by PirateDan. I stumbled upon it in July 2007, and I expanded and referenced the article thoroughly. It quickly passed GA, and after a few copyedits and readthroughs, I think it's ready for FA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question: I'm sure this is easy to solve, the reference link to his birth and death dates only explains the date notation used, there is no reference for the actual dates. P.S. Since the books mentioned in "Further reading" were actually used as sources based on the notes, I've included them in the reference section. - Mgm|(talk) 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • MacGyverMagic, are you referring to a reference for his December 10, 1718 or a note indicating what his death date would be in New Style dates? Nishkid64 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about the difference in style. I'm just missing a source that confirms that was when he was born and when he died. It's a fact that can be questioned especially with the dating differences in that period, so you need a reference that tells us his birthday and death date. You probably have that reference already, so all you need to do is link it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. It was my intention to leave those references out because they were already covered (see ref 3, 4 and 61) later on in the article. In any case, I'll add a different source in the introduction. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with using the same source twice. I mentioned it, because we write in summary style and people who want to know the basics about Stede Bonnet, need to be able to read the lead section without having to hunt through the article for further sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few more comments:
      • "and engaged in some level of militia service" why not military?
        • REPLY Militia would fit under the larger umbrella term of a military. Militias are armies of ordinary citizens, while militaries are more formal. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • checkY Sounds fine.
      • Somewhere halfway through their collaboration, Blackbeard acquired Queen Anne's Revenge. What did he sail before meeting Stede. Did Stede give command of his ship willingly?
        • REPLY Not sure what Blackbeard sailed before meeting Bonnet. Charles Johnson's 1724 work A General History of Pyrates says that Blackbeard commanded a ship called the Guiney. Also, from Johnson's work, it seems that he took command of Bonnet's ship after asking Bonnet's crew. Blackbeard felt that Bonnet was not skillful enough to command his ship. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • checkY Doesn't need to be included, just to satisfy my curiosity and explain the background.
      • "Bonnet accompanied his Blackbeard to South Carolina," Huh? I think 'his' is misplaced here. Either that or you're missing a word.
      • "King's Evidence" Since this is about the US, shouldn't that be State's Evidence?
        • REPLY This all occurred prior to American independence, so the American colonies were under British rule. However, "turned state's evidence" should work just as fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • checkY Not needed to change it. Your explanation makes sense. - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "and modern scholars generally agree that the whole concept of pirates delivering prisoners to a watery grave via a narrow timber road is largely mythical." Unsourced claim.
        • REPLY  Done There's a lot of material that says it's mythical, but it's hard to find one that says "most modern scholars" believe it is mythical. So, I have reworded the sentence and referenced it to a notable pirate historian and scholar. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A plaque regarding Bonnet stands near Bonnet's Creek in Southport, North Carolina, on the Cape Fear River." I think 'regarding' is the wrong word here. Perhaps 'commemorating'.
      • "Bonnet's flag is featured in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End as Capitaine Chevalle's flag." Unreferenced. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • REPLY I thought this would come up in the FAC. I looked, but I could not find a reference for this statement. It's a known fact, but there seems to be sources for this statement. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Not done - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of the guys at Brethren Court had The Pirates Code Guidelines and he told me Stede's flag is mentioned on page 10. I have appropriately sourced that now. I will also have the book myself in a week or so, so I can double-check that. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: a few bits of prose that could do with looking at:
    • In the lead, Incapacitated to lead his crew - this just doesn't look right to me. Is it grammatically correct? I'm not sure, but it could surely be replaced with something less... odd?
    • REPLY  Done Reworded to "Incapable of leading his crew..." Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pre-criminal life: Allamby died before 1715, while the others survived; perhaps while the children is better?
    • Collaboration with Blackbeard: At Nassau, Bonnet met for the first time Captain Benjamin Hornigold and Edward Teach, better known as Blackbeard, who played a large role in the remainder of Bonnet's life. - "for the first time" is clumsy there. Perhaps something like While at Nassau, Bonnet met Captain Benjamin Hornigold and Edward Teach for the first time; Teach, better known as Blackbeard, played a large role in the remainder of Bonnet's life.?
    • REPLY Done Reworded to your version. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section - Blackbeard and Bonnet were blockading Charleston, and then the next sentence they fled. Why did they flee?
    • Resumption of pirate command - perhaps Resumption of piracy?
    • REPLY Bonnet committed piracy while his ship was under Blackbeard's command. In this section, Bonnet regains command of his pirate ship. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section (actually, I should just go change this myself) - Topsail inlet should be Topsail Inlet (end of 1st para). Changed it myself.
    • Same section, last para - the careening was done by the prisoners; is it relevant that there were several black slaves among the prisoners?
    • wait out the hurricane season in this location -> wait out the hurricane season there
    • Battle of Cape River Fear: in an effort to bracket the Royal James between them - bracket makes between them redundant.
    • Same section - The battle was stalemated for the next five or six hours - urgh, stalemated. I know English allows pretty much anything to be used as a verb, but something like The battle was at a stalemate for... is simple enough, and doesn't induce the cringe!
    • What's a wiff knot? I did a search on WP and google, and couldn't find it anywhere else; can it be explained or something?
    • REPLY  Done Removed the word. I don't know how that got in there (it was probably in the text before I got to it; I assume PirateDan wrote that bit). Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awww - I wanted to know what one was... I don't know if I can support without this vital information!  :)
    • Escape, recapture... - last para, sentence beginning with But; could just replace the full-stop (period) with a comma.
    • Walking the plank: concept of pirates delivering prisoners to a watery grave via a narrow timber road is largely mythical.; mentioned in previous comments for lack of citation, but in this case cited for flowery language... a narrow timber road?
    • Possessive apostrophes: this one I'm not sure about - what's in the article isn't wrong (Royal James' powder magazine or Tim Powers' On Stranger Tides), but I'm not sure if there's a WP policy on this. Perhaps a MOS guru can answer if it's ok as is, or should be Royal James's etc.
    • WP:MOS#Possessives - It should be apostrophe and an S, unless it would make pronunciation difficult. Hence I've changed the "Royal James'" to "Royal James's. But I think "Powers's" is fiddly to say, so per MOS have left it as "Powers'". Neil ☎ 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    to It should be James's (fixed that), That's it for now. Carre 10:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the MOS link Neil - I knew there was a reason I used "s's" in my recent FA (even though my preference is without!). The only thing stopping my support is the reason for fleeing after the blockade. Either they just gave up the blockade, in which case they wouldn't have fled, I think; or, the RN or some heavily armed merchantmen turned up and ran (sailed) them off. It just looks a little strange to me to go from blockading to running for no apparent reason. I take it you don't disagree, else you would have said above, so you're just looking for the info or waiting for PirateDan to help out? Carre 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY Actually, I missed that comment entirely. However, I have now looked into the matter, and I have removed the word "fled". Essentially, Bonnet and Blackbeard set up the blockade, and then left Charleston to find a place to rest and refit their vessels. They went up the North Carolina coast, and settled at Topsail Inlet. It was there that Blackbeard lost the Queen Anne's Revenge. I hope that clarifies the situation, Carre. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Yes, that's a lot clearer - I figured it had to be one or the other. Incidentally, looking at Neil's current FAC, there was a comment there about whether "ton" is long ton or short ton - the same applies in this one somewhere, so you may want to consider wikilinking "ton" to "long ton" just to close that possible MoS issue. Carre 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've checked all my points. Congratulations! - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although I will be cross if this gets to FA before my piratey FAC which has been up for ages (sad face). I enjoyed this article, no referencing holes. This PD, full account of his trial might be interesting if you wished to expand that section. Neil ☎ 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably worth to add it as an external link. We want to be comprehensive, not complete. - Mgm|(talk) 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've come to this rather late (and straight after Jack Sparrow too) so most of the wrinkles seem to have been ironed out. Nice piece, with enough anecdotal detail to bring Bonnet to life off the page. The only bit I really question is he was christened in a parish on 29 July 1688. Why mention a parish? Either specify it or delete it, I'd've thought. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added the specific name of the parish. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Great article, really interesting! Just two issues:
      • There are some MOS issues with the dashes. Please review WP:DASH and adjust the article accordingly.
      • "Bonnet is alleged to have been one of the few pirates to make his prisoners walk the plank." Who alleges this?--Carabinieri 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's "alleged", because it's usually agreed upon by scholars that walking the plank was a Hollywood myth. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But who made the claim that Bonnet did actually make his prisoners walk the plank?--Carabinieri 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure who first made the claim. It's just been reported in a number of biographies of Bonnet. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also made some changes with dashes, but I'm not sure if I've made all the necessary fixes. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only remaining ones I could see were in the page ranges in references; I've just been through to change all those on your behalf. I also tweaked the Date of Birth/Death a bit to match MOS. Don't see any others. Carre 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that its acceptable based on my very low standards.

    "Bonnet set sail for Nassau," change to Nassau, Bahamas Learnedo 00:35, 28 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Jack Sparrow[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because its very well written, vigorously referenced, complies with the manual of style and has pictures to make it look good. Hadseys 21:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nominator --Hadseys 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I passed this article for GA, and its only improved since then, so I'll lend my support. Gran2 07:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Good to read. Lot of information.--Tamás Kádár 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Great piece: pacy, well-informed, well-written. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments, mostly on prose. Quite happy to be disagreed with, or corrected if I'm wrong:
    • From the lead: Jack Sparrow is a fictional character in the Pirates of the Caribbean universe. He was introduced in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and appeared in the back-to-back sequels, Dead Man's Chest (2006) and At World's End (2007), where he was portrayed by Johnny Depp. This, to me, implies that Depp only played Sparrow in the sequels. Of course everyone knows this not to be the case; suggested changes are to either move Depp to the first sentence (Sparrow is a fictional character [...] universe, played by...), or lose the , where he was and replacing with something like ; he was portrayed by.... Just suggestions.
    • Addressed in a recent copyedit Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence, 1st para, Film trilogy: This is how Sparrow escaped the first time, but we've just read that he & Elizabeth have been stranded. Without going on to read the second paragraph, that is a touch misleading, and with reading the 2nd, confusing. Could either lose it, or use something like on that occasion?
    • Small copyedit on this bit done, to try and better distinguish between Sparrow's first marooning, and this one with Elizabeth. See what you think. Carre 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last para of that sentence. We've just been reading about Sparrow hallucinating a crew of aspects of himself, and then After the crew finds him. After Barbossa's crew finds him, perhaps?
    • Whole section - Jones' should be Jones's per MOS. Ugly, I know :(
    • Tie-ins: the first para has no sources. Of particular concern is His role in the game is presumably non-canonical with the rest of Pirates fiction. making a presumption with no citation smacks of OR (I'm not accusing you of OR, just saying what it looks like).
    • Characterization: Sparrow seems to have created, or at least contributes to, his own image - mixed tenses. Should be contributed?
    • Addressed in recent CE Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spaced emdashes in that section too (yep, another FAC commenting on dashes ;) )
    • Character creation: Director Gore Verbinski admitted, "The... - should that comma be there?
    • Same on the Jonny Depp section, a comma before the quote that looks misplaced - am I mistaken in this? Quite happy to be corrected if so.
    • Jonny Depp section: Johnny Depp returned as Jack Sparrow in 2006's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, the first time the actor ever made a sequel. We already know he returned. It seems you're using sentence start as a carrier for it being Depp's first sequel, so perhaps Depp's return [...] was the first time ... is better?
    • Make-up section: In addition to a red bandana Sparrow wears numerous objects in his hair, which was influenced by Keith Richards' habit of collecting souvenirs from his travels,[41] which includes Sparrow's "piece of eight". -> travels, and includes gets rid of the repeated "which". Richards' is probably OK, since Richards's is so clumsy to say it meets the MOS's exception rule.
    • How strict do we want to be on grammar? If strict, Depp's study of nomads who he compared to pirates, "who" should be "whom", but that may fail Tony's "misplaced formality" suggestion.
    After a brief discussion with Tony (here and here, barring archives), he, at least, agrees that it should be whom. Carre 10:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but they were abandoned when they stuck up when Depp laid down -> because they stuck up when avoids repetition of "when".
    • None of the costumes from The Curse of the Black Pearl survived: this allowed tougher linen shirts to be used for stunts. I'm not sure what this is getting at. Does it mean the linen could be used in the sequels?
    • Popular culture section, 2nd para: popularity can be attributed to being "scoundrel whose occasional bouts needs an "a" before the quote. fixed.
    • and Sparrow's personality contrasts to previous should read contrasts with according to Fowler. fixed
    • free of much of the responsibility from most heroes. I think should be free from much of the responsibility of most heroes? fixed

    The list got a little longer than I'd been expecting, and I hope you find it constructive criticism! Carre 10:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed Comments to Oppose, for the following reason: having just checked the article's edit history, the nominator doesn't seem to have made any contributions. Of course this is fine, but I'm concerned that the issues raised above won't get addressed as a result. I don't see how the article can be promoted with an un-sourced presumption in the middle of it! I've also left a note on the article's talk page suggesting the regular contributors pop over here to look at what needs sorting, so I hope to be able to go back to Comment, or even Support, in the near future. Carre 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the principal contributor Alientraveller, is on holiday, I think until today. So your shouldn't have to wait to long, although I'll see if I can solve the sourcing problem now. Gran2 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gran - this would be so simple to get to FA, I really don't want to stop it! A couple of the issues have been addressed already, by a coincidental copyedit. Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a little off topic, but there are two principal contributors, Alientraveller and myself. BlackPearl14 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [←]Back to comment again, since the OR bit has gone (thanks Gran), although as per BIGNOLE, the section still needs source(s). I'd also like to apologise to Hadseys for suggesting (s)he wouldn't address the issues. The recent changes show that was a completely unfounded concern, but at the time seemed legitimate to me. Carre 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Are both paragraphs being sourced by the one source in "Tie-ins"? If so, you should put the source on both paragraphs. If that information isn't from source #6, then it needs a source, because there's speculation about his next appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it meets FA criteria to a sufficient degree.

    Remark: I had made only minor edits. Leranedo 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Your edits haven't always made sense. No offense meant :) [ BlackPearl14 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
    • Support being primary author of the article, I stayed away from this page to have a look at a building consensus. The article has been copyedited heavily from other parties, and I thank them for it. I shall add my own support then. Alientraveller 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support being the other primary author of the article, I have made sure that no unnecessary information be posted. I'm very happy that we have made a lot of progress in this article. I thank everyone, especially Alientraveller for their help in this article. Once again, I'm supporting as the other primary author. BlackPearl14 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - still waiting on reference(s) for first para of Tie-ins; as BigNole mentions, if the source using in the 2nd para of that section covers the whole, then simply repeating it would address this. Carre 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good work. A mention of his presence in Kingdom Hearts II (considering that it ranks slightly above cameos in other shows) would be nice. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm blind. Looked in the completely wrong section. =/ Oh well. Good job on the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's okay :) Thanks! BlackPearl14 23:04, 3 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Chetwynd, British Columbia[edit]

    previous FAC
    FARC
    Former featured article: has not been on main page, adjust WP:FFA if re-promoted.

    I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia as an FA because it is a fine model for an article about a small town and the recent edits have brought it to an FA standard. --KenWalker | Talk 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Still no luck putting leaves on the trees? --Carnildo 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's good enough. Leranedo 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Beautiful! Manderiko 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Great article: very in-depth and informative.CindyBotalk 01:52, 31 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    James II of England[edit]

    previous FAC
    FARC
    Note for Raul: has already been on main page, update former featured articles if re-promoted.

    This article was featured in 2004, then de-featured earlier this year. Its most notable failing at the time was the lack of citations. I have added quite a few from several sources, and have reworked a great deal of the prose. I believe it now meets the FA standards. Coemgenus 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's always nice to see articles restored. I fixed a few of the image captions (see samples and WP:MOS#Captions), but there are more to do. Can you ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes on the page ranges in the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, will do. Coemgenus 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great article. DrKiernan 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Mini@ 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not yet Certain weakness of language remain.
      • Did James actually act as Lord High Admiral before the Restoration? if so, when?
        •  Done Fixed. According to Callow, he collected prize money from Royalist privateers while in France, but did not wield any true power as Lord High Admiral until after the Restoration. Coemgenus 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "proved his gallantry upon the battlefield". See WP:PEACOCK; better to say which battle, and what he did.
        •  Done I replaced this language with a contemporary quote, cited in Miller. Coemgenus 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Fighting against his former comrades". The wars of the 1650's are confusing enough without being allusive. Is this the English navy, Turenne, or somebody else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done It was the French. I added a clarifying adjective. Coemgenus 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cromwell died in September 1658. There had been much confusion after Cromwell's death in 1658; in 1660 Charles II was restored would be clearer.
        •  Done I've reworded it to illustrate the length of time between Cromwell's death and Charles's return. Coemgenus 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He and his wife, Anne, became drawn to the Catholic faith, Treacly writing, and (about Anne Hyde) novel teaching.
        •  Done I've reworded and expanded the point, but it's not wrong. Miller, at pp. 58-59, says that James and Anne converted at the same time and that Anne pressured James to go public with his new faith. Callow, at 144-145, makes the same point. Coemgenus 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • James was forced to consent to his daughter Mary's marriage to the Protestant Prince of Orange Really, now? This sentence would be improved by saying who "forced" the heir to the throne; and vastly improved by a neutral source. Somehow Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who Stole Their Father's Crown does not reassure this reader's qualms about POV. Please do not cite a polemic as though it were the consensus of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done James was compelled to acquiesce in the marriage because his brother, the King, had already agreed to it. I've added a source. I'm unsure if Miller constitutes a "vastly improved" source, but I've found him to be quite reliable. Coemgenus 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a suspected Catholic, as their president when the Protestant incumbent died. "Suspected" Catholic only? It would also be nice to mention that this was also resisted as a violation of the rights of Magdalen to elect, no matter who the King's friend was.
        •  Done You're quite right about the king infringing the college's statutes, which I added. The "suspected" part is because the sources disagree on whether Farmer had actually converted to Catholicism. I'll add that to the footnote when I have the sources in front of me later today.
      • Belloc's thesis failed to alter the course of historical opinion completely. "At all" would be closer. Belloc's claim was not novel in Catholic apologetic, and we really should have a source that he had any real influence outside Catholic scholarship. The implicit denial in this whole paragraph that James sought a modern, up-to-date, absolutist monarchy, in the manner of Louis XIV, as good in itself, seems tendentious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The following extract from ODNB seems both more reasonable and more likely to be widely supported among historians:\
          James was genuinely committed to religious toleration, but also sought to increase the power of the crown. He wished that all his subjects could be as convinced as he was that the Catholic church was the one true church. He was also convinced that the established church was maintained artificially by penal laws which proscribed nonconformity. If these were removed, and conversions to Catholicism were encouraged, then many would take place. In the event his optimism was misplaced, for few converted. James underestimated the appeal of protestantism in general and the Church of England in particular. His was the zeal and even bigotry of a narrow-minded convert. But he was aware that not everybody would see the light as he had done. Religious toleration was still desirable because it encouraged commerce and helped a nation to prosper. This view was shared by many of his critics. But where James looked back nostalgically to France before the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when toleration and absolutism had gone hand in hand, they tended to look to the United Provinces, where toleration and republicanism combined to create a powerful mercantile economy. James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to say that I think your posting of a POV notice on the historiography section is over-hasty. Why not give me a chance to respond to your questions? The only reason I added it at all was because the FAR comments mention the lack of an historiography as a reason to revoke FA-status. I'm sure there is some compromise we, and the other editors, can arrive at. Coemgenus 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fine, take it off; but I do have qualms about the whole section. I am not sure we need, or that Zantastic wanted, a historiography section; what we need are acknowledgements where (and by whom) there are significant disputes, per WP:NPOV. Is Belloc receiving more weight than his due?
                  • On the other hand, I miss what Zantastic expressly wanted; the observation that James' subjects distrusted his sincerity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Quite right, I agree that they doubted James's sincerity, and that many historians still do. I'll try to work that in, and to examine whether Belloc's role is over-emphasised. Coemgenus 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've added part of the above quotation from ODNB, and tried to separate Belloc's analysis from that of neutral historians. Do you think this is closer to what it should be? Coemgenus 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I've tweaked Belloc; I'm still not convinced his position was new within Catholic apologetic. I would like to see some of the end of the DNB passage: James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. James was an autocrat on principle, as well as a bien-pensant Catholic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Those edits look ok to me. I just moved the citation. Coemgenus 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of which, we should say something about the Dominion of New England; a sentence or so should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good idea. I'll see what i can find in the sources. Coemgenus 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be also be nice to make the point (which goes back to Macaulay) that the function of the doctrine of non-resistance before James, whatever its rhetoric, was to tell the Dissenters that they should not have resisted Charles I and should not currently resist the Restoration settlement. I'm not sure how to phrase this neutrally and briefly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be kind of lengthy just to explain all that, but I'll see what I can find in the sources that might help to illustrate it. Coemgenus 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone else should have a close read before this gets promoted; but these weaknesses have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning towards support This is a very good article and a pleasure to read. I just have a few minor comments.

    • My largest overall comment is: I suppose details about James the person had to be sacrificed? I felt as if the page didn't really explain who he was a man very clearly, although it explained his place in the large historical sweep very well.
      • You're right, but that stuff is a lot harder to write. I added a sentence about how he raised his children, and another about his love of women. Coemgenus 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you've taken it from one of my favorite writers of the period, I can't really anything else, can I? :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it shouldn't be "King of the Scots" or "King of Scotland" in the first sentence? Somehow "King of Scots" sounded odd to me.
      • "King of Scots" is actually correct, although James was the last to use that title. Mary I of Scotland, for example, is known most commonly as Mary, Queen of Scots. Coemgenus 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, yes. I should have thought of that analogy. Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Parliament a singular or plural noun? In other words, should it be "their opposition" or "its opposition" in the lead (and elsewhere)?
      • I think this is part of the AE/BE problem. I'll try to standardize it. Coemgenus 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only two daughters survived: Mary (born 30 April 1662) and Anne (born 6 February 1665).[21] Anne Hyde was devoted to James, and influenced many of his decisions.[22] Even so, James kept a variety of mistresses, including Arabella Churchill and Catherine Sedley, and was reputed to be "the most unguarded ogler of his time. - I felt some slight confusion here initially over who was advising - the daughter or the wife.
      •  Done The repetition of names in this family hinders normal writing. I think it's clearer now, but if not I'd welcome any suggestions you may have. Coemgenus 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot in the article about James' appointments to various posts; I think this can be cut down, unless it is explained what he did in those posts, if anything.
      • I took out the list. Most of the info is duplicate in complete sentences in the text, and the rest was tangential at best. Coemgenus 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a little strange to announce Anne's death in a parenthetical.
      •  Done You're right, I moved it up to the "Marriage" section. Coemgenus 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hysteria of the plot eventually faded as Oates's accusations became more fantastic - This sentence comes as a bit of a surprise, as the "Popish Plot" bit seemed to be over. Perhaps a slight rewording or reordering?
      •  Done I removed that bit. It wasn't necessary and didn't make much sense where it was. Coemgenus 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps one more sentence describing what the Rye House Plot was all about?
      •  Done I added a bit. Coemgenus 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps just a bit more about what the plotters wanted to achieve. Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I elaborated a bit, but their aims are not completely clear to historians, since it was a secret. All I can tell is the wanted to kill the King and James and somehow establish a republic. Coemgenus 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Couldn't they leave posterity a letter? :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps one sentence explaining why expanding the standing army was such a controversial move? A reference to the Civil War, maybe?
      •  Done Added a sentence and a citation. Coemgenus 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the University of Oxford, James offended Anglicans by allowing Catholics to hold important positions in Christ Church and University College, two of Oxford's largest colleges, and attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a man of generally ill repute who was believed to be secretly Catholic,[73] as their president when the Protestant incumbent died, a violation of the Fellows' right to elect a candidate of their own choosing. - feels like a run-on sentence
    • Perhaps explain the significance of throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames?
      •  Done I added a bit. Do you think that's sufficient, or should I elaborate? Coemgenus 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to be so picky, but perhaps a different word than "abandonment"? He deliberately threw it into the river - to me that doesn't sound like "abandonment". Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Jacobites would have agreed. ;) The Parliament kind of fudged the definitions of "abandon" and "abdicate" to fit the situation and make everything look legit. I tried to explain that a bit more, but the whole situation is confusing. Coemgenus 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page does not seem to have consistent AE or BE spellings. Pick one system and stick with it.
    • I would choose one of the two big quotes at the end - both seemed excessive.
      • This is the result of our previous discussion; I would summarize both, and put the quotes into footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is someone going to fix this quote bit so I can support? Awadewit | talk 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been busy at work, but I'd hoped to get to it today. You're welcome to try it yourself, if you feel like it. Coemgenus 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've truncated the Speck quotation, moving the full quotation to the footnote. I removed the majority of the Harris passage, leaving only the first sentence. Coemgenus 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just got home myself and was going to do it - you beat me to it. Looks much better, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is a courtesy to the reader to offer the publication location in the reference list, although I know it is not technically required by wikipedia. If someone wants to find one of these books in a library or request one of them from interlibrary loan, that information is often required.
      •  Done I didn't know anyone needed that info. I added it from the books I have. Coemgenus 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table at the bottom of the page is huge! Anyway to hide it?
      •  Done I feel like I was pushing my luck by putting the ancestors and issue in collapsable boxes, but I've done the same with the many, many titles, at your suggestion. I think it looks better, but let's see if anyone freaks out. Coemgenus 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well-written - I made a few copy edits as I was reading. Feel free to revert any that don't meet with your approval. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just two things remaining from above: standing armies and the big quote. I'm looking forward to supporting soon. Awadewit | talk 18:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very happy to be able to support this article - it is so nice to see one brought back! Awadewit | talk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a tweak.
    • I see we have his mistresses; but there are two famous quotes on them, which should be here, at least in the notes; they're not in Catherine Sedley, either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually trying to find one of them last night, the one about how his priests must give him his mistresses for penance. I'll keep looking. Coemgenus 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other is: He doesn't love my beauty, for I have none; or my wit, for he hath not enough to see it. I'm sure that's not literal, and I may be wrong that it's famous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've heardit before, and I swear I read it in one of these sources, but I couldn't find it last night when I looked. If I come across it I'll add it, either to James II or to Catherine Sedley. Coemgenus 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ODNB life of Sedley doesn't have it; but they do suggest that her ugliness was exaggerated to hit at James. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very good piece. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support, and for fixing the BE/AE spelling problems. Coemgenus 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, a good article. Kyriakos 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's far better than other FACs. Learnedo 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support was just about to nominate it and thought what a great piece, so I lend my full support --Hadseys 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks very much -- and that goes for the other supporters, too. Coemgenus 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very interesting article. I made a small change in the beginning of the article about the dates. This article is so much better than another FAC (near the top, initials are S.B.) but I didn't have the heart to mention it there. If Sh.B. is a FAC, then this one deserves 5 FA stars. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I fixed a few typos and inconsistencies, and found a handful of issues that need more finesse:
    • Inconsistent capitalization of the King, the Throne, the Crown, Dissenters.
    • "He and his wife, Anne, became to doubt their allegiance to the Church of England and became drawn to Catholicism." : I imagine this was meant to be 'began to doubt' or 'came to doubt', but how does one doubt their own allegiance?
    • "his engagement to Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, Charles's adviser." : minister and adviser?
    • "Exclusion Crisis" : the word 'crisis' is not capitalized in the Exclusion Bill article itself, so perhaps it should not be here.
    • "The hysteria of the plot eventually faded": 'of the plot' rather implies there was a plot.
    • "James's relations with many in Parliament, including the Earl of Danby, a former ally, were forever strained and a solid segment of Parliament had turned against him." : verb tense switch in mid sentence (were strained and had turned).
    • "During the French Revolution, James's tomb was raided and his relics scattered." : 'relics' seems inappropriate, as he was not canonized.
    Congrats on a great article! Maralia 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've fixed all of these except for the capitalization of "king." I'm not sure which is correct -- any ideas? I thought maybe when we're talking of a specific King is should be capitalized, but lower-case when talking about the idea of a king in general. Also, I think "Crisis" should be capitalized, so I changed the other article to match. Coemgenus 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right in your summary of the King/king distinction (see WP:MOS#Titles), but in application within the article, there are a couple mistakes:
    • "the king's illegitimate son"
    • "The king's judges"
    One further question: the explanatory text appended to the "See also" link to Robert Bellarmine reads as a bit of a non-sequitur, in that the link is clearly to a bio, but the explanatory text seems to refer to a written work. Maralia 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think the "king" thing should be okay, but if you think one is wrong, feel free of course to change it. I removed the Bellarmine link from the See also field. I don't know why it was there. Coemgenus 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a fabulous article, and all my concerns have been addressed. Maralia 17:40, 4 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Kingdom of Mysore[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it covers an important period in the history of Southern India. The article describes South India in the wake of the decline of its last great Hindu Empire in 1565, the struggle for independence from British rule by an offshoot Kingdom, the influence of English language and British governance on local customs and administration, the development of classical Carnatic music, Kannada literature, Kannada drama and stage, Mysore paintings and Indo-European architecture before and during the British Raj. The article is well referenced and has been through several rounds of copy edits. The automated peer review requirements have been addressed. Please provide constructive feedback on the content, its style and presentation. Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I haven't reviewed the entire article yet, but this looks like another excellent article, Mr. Kannambadi. Great work, man! I'll offer my full evaluation later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I am looking forward to your comments. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a few people would know who Menuhin is if he isn't explained. And in the context of the article, Menuhin isn't important. Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - Great work again. I don't think the Menuhin thing in the caption should be there though. Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Done. Removed the image caption about Menuhin. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by John Broughton
    • JB There are seven or so main sections, none of which have subsections. They should - that helps the reader skim the article, looking for interesting parts.
    DK Reply Actually there are 4 main sections - History, Administration, Economy and Culture. Under Culture, I have 5 subsections called Religion, Society, Literature, Music, Architecture. This is consistent with the other eight Karnataka history related FA's. The only newly introduced subsection is on Music, in place of "Language".Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JB Also, there is no introductory paragraph to the main "Culture" section; a brief overview would be nice (a paragraph or so). Interestingly, such a paragraph appears at the end of the lead section; perhaps you could shorten that slightly, and add a longer version at the beginning of the "Culture" section?

    DK Reply This format is consistent with other FA's as I mentioned. But I will look into this suggestion and figure out how best to create an introduction.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JB Third, I question the value of the daughter articles Society of the Kingdom of Mysore; it's not much longer than the "Society" section of the main article, so I suggest that you fold it back in (with subsections).

    DK Reply I accept that the subsection on Society may be almost as long as the daughter article for the same topic. By rolling back the daughter articles for Society, Administration, Economy into the main article, I would blow up the main article size to over 65K which is where I started from and am trying to avoid. Then there are daughter articles for Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore and Musicians of the Kingdom of Mysore that are truly big and greater than 25 Kbytes. So the best thing perhaps is to further shorten the sections/subsections Society, Administration, Economy as you suggest in the next point to about 3 paragraphs each. This way I maintain justification for creating sub-articles for the sections/subsections and dont blow up the overall article size.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JB Finally, the convention when you have daughter articles (per WP:SS) is that you use the {{main}} template rather than the {{see also}} template, and that the parent article have only a summary (say, three paragrahs at most), rather than massive duplication between the two articles (a horror to keep both current, and synchronized).

    DK Reply I agree and will change the "See also" to "Main". I can reduce the existing sections, subsections to justify the need for sub-articles for the same topics.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JB (Great work, by the way; I just think that a FA article has to aim at getting everything right.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DK Reply Thanks for your suggestions. However, Before I start working on your suggestions, I would like to wait for comments from a few more reviewers just to see if they concur. I would not want to start a major rehaul of the sections/subsections and hold up reviews from other users. Thank you again.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I will look into your recommendations tonight carefully. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    JB I looked again at the long sections/subsections. I think the issue is what's good for the reader, not what prior FAs did or didn't do. Having said that, I note that the current main page article, England national rugby union team, has one lengthy section. And looking through various guidelines, I can't find anything that says (for example) that when a section has eight or long paragraphs, or more than X words, or whatever, then it's recommended to add subsections. (I also looked through the long sections to see if I could split one myself, as a demonstration, and admit that I didn't see any that would easily split; sections that are chronological are usually the easiest.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Thanks for your effort. I can try to reduce to some extent those sections/subsections that already have sub-articles. I am just concerned another reviewer may find it too skimpy and object to that. What is good for one reviewer may not be for another. But I appreciate your effort to promote this article for the better.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support—A great read. Some minor issues:

    • "South India", "southern India", and "south India": pick one.
    • Same thing with "Kingdom"/"kingdom" (by itself).
    • Some dash/hyphen inconsistencies (see WP:DASH). I took care of some.
    Thanks. Saravask 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply Thanks. I will look into this inconsistency.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I think this is one of the best history related article and i think it must be given the FA status. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment History section is a little too long. Can it be broken into sub sections for ease of reading? Administration section too could be broken up into sub sections or summarised. Architecture section could be a top-level section instead of being under culture given its length and coverage. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DK Reply The history covers about 550 years of the Mysore Kingdom. Hence it may appear a bit bulky. Making it any shorter would mean removing pertinent details which would hurt continuity. I have explained only about four important kings and just barely mentioned the others. The "Administration" section can be further shortened as it already has a sub-article. I will look into this. The "Architecture" subsection has been under Culture section in all the Karnataka FA's so far, so I have maintained the same format. thanksDineshkannambadi 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundar I agree with you on why the history section is long. It's comprehensive. I didn't want it to be shortened, just split up into subsections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Please clarify how you want it broken into subsections. I have not done this for the FA's and this may break the format. Do you want seperate subsections for native rule vs foreign rule? Or do you prefer pre-1760 (pre Haider-Tipu-British) and post 1760 (Haider-Tipu-British) history subsections.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundar reply I'm not an expert in the history of Mysore. But, if there are well-known or at least discrete eras as in Chola dynasty, we can split the section based on them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I have reduced the "Administration section" somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundar reply Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I have made "architecture" into a new section. The only reasonable split I can imagine in the "History" section is "pre-British" and "anglo-mysore conflict". There are no seperate dynasties here unlike in Chola case.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Done. Split History into two subsections.Dineshkannambadi 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundar reply Thanks for the fixes. It has improved readability. Will read the article fully and comment later. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by qp10qp

    Comment. A very interesting article. Many congratulations to the editor for such a thorough piece of work. Most of the information is new to me, and so I cannot judge its accuracy. I am slightly familiar with the wars against the British, and this part did raise a few questions.

    • Battle of Pollilur: it struck me that if this is worth illustrating with a picture, it is worth mentioning in the article.
    DK Reply Actually it is meantioned in the "Architecture" section.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply I have now indicated Pollilur is near Kanchipuram.Dineshkannambadi 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this: "The west wall of the palace is covered with murals depicting Tipu Sultan's victory over Colonel Baillie's army at Kanchipuram in 1780" ? If so, I feel it is confusing to have the same battle called two different names in one article. Without prior knowledge, one does not associate this with the picture caption: "Mural of Battle of Pollilur in Tipu's summer palace"!qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The war was a victory for Haider Ali, who drove the British up to modern Chennai and dictated peace terms to the most powerful European state of the time. I am not sure that he was dictating peace terms to the British state. At the time, the East India Company, though it was supervised by the government, had its own board of control, negotiated alliances and treaties on its own behalf, and ran its own armies. I don't suppose that makes much difference from an Indian point of view, but it was not coterminous with the British state.
    DK Reply What the historians (who made that statement) meant was that the British presidency at Chennai sued for peace and Haider dictated the terms. They use the term "European power", so I will change "state" to "power".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most powerful European power" is rather ungainly, though. I don't think the sentence needs the added value at the end; it is better to simply state the facts, I think. I would end the sentence at "peace terms".qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    DK Reply Done. Removed European power.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alliance against Mysore had been formed by the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad and the British Raj, culminating in the first Anglo-Mysore war in 1767. By the same token, I don't think we can talk about the British Raj at this time. Perhaps it is seen differently in India, but British history books date the Raj much later, from the mid-nineteenth century, as far as I know.
    DK Reply Copy edit issue. I have changed British Raj to British.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tipu's attack on the Kingdom of Travancore, a British feudatory, resulted in the third Anglo-Mysore war. What is meant by "a British feudatory" here? I note that you use the term "feudatory" to describe the relations between Indian states as well, but I am not sure it is a correct term for relations, largely driven by commerce, between the company and Indian states. "Protectorate" might be a better word, since the aim was to protect company trade. Feudalism, at least by that name, was a thing of the past in Europe by this time.
    Dk Reply The term in the book is "ally", so I have changed "feudatory" to "ally".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a good solution, I think.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nizam of Golconda/Nizam of Hyderabad: You use both names, but in my opinion, if you were to use one only, it would be clearer to the reader that they are the same person.
    DK Reply Ok. I will make it consistent.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the modern history of India, Tipu Sultan stands out as an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a patriot to the core. "A patriot to the core" does not strike me as the most sober phrase. Patriot is an awkward word here because it is not clear (to me, anyway) what it means. Patriot of what? Of Mysore? Not of India, surely, because while Tipu was fighting the British, he was also fighting the Nizam. Was the Nizam less a patriot for allying with the British (especially when Tipu was allied with the French)? And Tipu happily attacked other Indian states when it suited him. Perhaps it is true that he is now regarded as an Indian patriot in retrospect, so to speak; but if that is what is meant, perhaps the terms of reference could be tightened up.

    qp10qp 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dk Reply I think you are correct in saying that he is regarded a patriot in the present context while the Nizam is described as fickle. I will play down the sentence

    as Some modern Indian historians consider Tipu Sultan an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a nationalist to the core. Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The best historians know that it is anachronistic to refer to nationalism in eighteenth-century India, long before India became a nation and when states were forever changing shape and allies; it is a more modern phenomenon. However, many historians aren't the best, I admit.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I have removed "nationalist" based on your arguement. However, the term nationalist could also apply to the "Nation of Mysore" as Tipu may have seen it.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    comments by user:Sarvagnya

    Strong support and comment - First class work. One of the most important princely states under the British Raj certainly deserved an FA. Thanks DK. The only issues I see at this point are - 1) the prose needs some tweaking in some places.

    DK Reply Will work on the prose.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2) the images need to be arranged better if possible. Also this image of Tipu ought to make it to the article somewhere. Tipu and Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar were the greatest kings of Mysore in my estimate, for, under Tipu the kingdom reached its height of military power while under NKrW, the kingdom reached its zenith of all round development. I somehow squeezed in NKrW's image there, but Tipu should also find a place.

    DK Reply From my reading, when historians focus on political history, they write extensively about Tipu Sultan. When they write about cultural history, its a not clear who was greater, Krishnaraja Wodeyar III or IV. Both made valuable contributions.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply Will add that image in place of the Mysore flag. The flag will go in the box for which provision exists.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I though there was a place to put it in the box, but dont see any.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3) The map in the infobox should be cropped to show the kingdom more prominently.

    Dk Reply I am using the same format as maps in some other FA's. user:Planemad who drew the map is busy with exams right now. So once he is free, I can ask him to just draw the map showing south India.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    4) The flag (and the emblem) should be fitted in the infobox somehow, so we can fit Tipu's image in the history section easily. Sarvagnya 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DK Reply Will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Brilliant article, though seems trivial in between, but digestable. Indianescence 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support and Comment: Excellent content. Have done some cp-edit myself to make minor prose and style corrections. I have other minor comments:
    1. These two sentences are confusing: The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes. The Propaganda sent out Capuchins, the Discalced Carmelites, the Theatines and the missionaries of the Society of Paris. They may need to be reworded to indicate the correct meaning
    DK reply Ok. The Propaganda is what the patronage by other European colonists to missionaries was called. Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The public began to enjoy Carnatic music through its broadcast via public address systems set up on the palace grounds. Not sure if this is needed or it needs to be reworded. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk reply This statement was meant to bring out the fact that carnatic music was no longer for the listening pleasure of the elite only, but the common also.Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - Excellent article. Comprehensive coverage, ample citations and pictures, subarticles for virtually every section and subsection making it a very strong summary style article. Deserves FA star. - KNM Talk 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - Extremely well written and comprehensive. -- Naveen (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No & Oppose Pass & support

    • On the basis that it does not fulfill #1d NPOV. The lead sounds too much like a celebration of subject matter. Learnedo 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply If you can tell me where exactly it fails NPOV in the lead, I can try to modify it.Dineshkannambadi 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply I have reduced the usage of adjectives in the Lead section.Dineshkannambadi 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Learnedo

    Reducing the usage of adjectives would definitely help maintain NPOV, though at times they are appropriate. I will edit what I can later on today and change my vote accordingly. Learnedo 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Few things :

    "Later, during a period of political uncertainty in southern India," Can it be a bit more precise?
    DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Under the leadership of kings Narasaraja" Since the article used 'rule' already, change leadership to rule. Leadership gives positive connotations and is not neutral.
    DK done, changed ti "rule".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "reached the zenith of its military" Why zenith and not simply peak. Sounds like we're in awe and amazement.
    DK Done.changed to "peak".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "time, it challenged the might of the Maratha Empire and even the" Again, NOT NPOV. Far too much suggestions for praising of this kingdom.
    DK Done. downplayed it.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much downplay as it is not selling the kingdom. Learnedo 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Many battles were waged against the Marathas, the Nizam of Golconda and the rulers of Travancore and Malabar, often resulting in victory and territorial gains."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

    DK done. downplayed it. Just fought wars with them.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "However, their most famous conflicts were the four Anglo-Mysore wars." Source it by attribution.
    DK citations exits in history section.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Success in the first two Anglo-Mysore wars was followed by defeat in the third and fourth" Either have it success & failure or victory & defeat, as the opposing terms.
    DK Done. changed to "failure".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "ending in Tipu's death on the battlefield." Is on the battlefield necessary. Makes it sound like the person is a hero or something.
    Dk Removed "Tipu's death of Battlefield".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Kingdom of Mysore was responsible for development of the fine arts" to The kingdom. We already know what the article is on by now.
    DK modified.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Its court, which had famous artists and musicians, became a centre of Carnatic music." Reference some famous folks over here.
    Dk mentioned famous musicians.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Many Mysore kings were acclaimed writers and composers, and both the kings themselves and the classical artists they patronised have left an indelible mark on the culture of southern India."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#State_the_facts

    Dk removed adjective and modified as suggested.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely get rid of an "indelible mark." How about "had a lasting effect on" or "made a significant impact on," or just get rid of it. It's not needed. State the facts. Learnedo 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Done. changed as adviced.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support The article looks great, but I have two requests. Could you replace refs 125 and 131? They seem to be self-published sources, which according to policy, are not reliable sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply ok. I will replace those citations at the earliest. I will find book citations from reliable writers for those citations.thanksDineshkannambadi 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well written article with ample of sources. But the template of Mysore kings in the second section seems to have problems with some browsers. Or is it just my computer? Gnanapiti 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Well written and organised article definitely worthy of FA status. Hedgehog Kanna 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please ensure use of endash in appropriate places (year ranges). I changed to endash in two instances in the article. Please see if more changes are needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk reply Ok, will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now taken care. Thanks, - KNM Talk 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. it was not taken care of. I changed quite a lot to endashes (in the infoboxes). apparently, no problem any more.
    Well, it was indeed taken care of completely, after your initial comment, and before your this latest edit. You changed endashes before making the comment. I hope this clarifies. :) Cheers, - KNM Talk 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, wikilinking of dates, and first time an unit appears. Especially, dates need to be wikilinked.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply This is a topic that has come up on every FAC. Some reviewers want it, others dont want it. Not sure which way to go.Dineshkannambadi 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. some likes it. and some dislikes. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommends auto-formating (linking of dates). It's always been a problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall I link it outside the "Mysore Kings infobox"?Dineshkannambadi 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DK Reply Done. I have linked dates and years per your request.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Page needs work, mostly connected to language issues. I take up only the “religion” section here, since it raises issues beyond just language.
      The formal sectarian affiliation of the ruling family is an important point and definitely requires a reputable citation. Particularly since the belief (IMO accurate) is common that the Wodeyars belong to the Shaivite Lingayat sect.
      • The numerous Vishnu temples built by them are testimony to their adherence to the Vaishnava faith.
      WP:OR. Personally, I would not have this sentence even if I did find one or the other published work saying something to this effect. It makes me wonder whether “predominantly” in the preceding sentence indicates similar wishful extrapolations, based, say, on first names or gifts to temples. We should not infer from SM Krishna’s name that he is or his family is Vaishnava.
      So what? Numerous other temples did, and these are relatively minor ones. WP:UNDUE.
      • The rise of Mysore as a centre of south Indian culture has been traced to this period.
      Erase, meaningless sentence. What period, anyway? 1399-1947?
      • Raja Wodeyar I initiated the celebration of the Dasara festival in Mysore, a proud tradition of the erstwhile Vijayanagara royal family. However, the kings were tolerant to other sects and religious faiths. This is evidenced by the high ranking non-Vaishnavites in their courts...
      For one, the sequence of sentences suggests (unintendedly, I’m sure) that the Vaishnavite Dasara (Sri Rama Jayam) is what was celebrated by the rulers of Mysore. Not so. Also, a small detail: Dasara is a timeless tradition in Mysore, and it used to be presided over by the Vijayanagara viceroy of Srirangapatna before the Wodeyars took charge in the mid 1600s.
      • ...and also the fact that many of the Mysore queens were Jains.
      Is a publication entitled “Bahubali of Jainbadri (Shravanabelagola) and other Jain Shrines of Deccan” (Jain and Jain, 1953) really a reliable source for this? They may have been respectful of the Jain faith, made gifts, been liberal, all of which you say in many places, but did they ever convert to Jainism? And how many is “many”?
      • The contact between South India and Islam goes back to the 7th century when trade between Hindu kingdoms and Islamic caliphates thrived. These Muslim traders settled on the Malabar Coast and married local Hindu women, and their descendants came to be known as Mappillas. By the 14th century, Muslims had become a significant minority in the south, though the advent of Portuguese missionaries checked their growth.
      Erase, since none of these sentences is relevant to Mysore state. However, having some related relevant content, if properly annotated, may not be a bad idea.
      • The spread of Christianity in South India has been traced back to the arrival of the Portuguese on the west coast. It was through the patronage of these devout Roman Catholics that chaplains and missionaries went to various regions to encourage people to join the Christian faith. Some evidence, however, suggests that not all of these conversions were peaceful and that the Portuguese soldiers may also have undertaken coercive methods to achieve their ends. Saint Francis Xavier, perhaps the most respected Christian saint in India, gave a new boost to the growth of Christianity. He traveled from village to village, healing the sick, burying the dead and doing what he could to reduce the miseries of the poor and underprivileged. The institutions established in his name are a testimony to his popularity and achievements.
      Ditto as above. Really, the rambling is getting out of hand. See WP:Summary. Besides, this is factually inaccurate, as the Mar Thoma christians claim a an origin predating the Portuguese presence in India.
      • Lo Cinnami, a Jesuit from Goa, was the founder of the Mysore mission.
      At last, something relevant! Can we have more detail (when, what place exactly, appointed by whom, to what effect...) and maybe a citation? This is the kind of stuff that you should replace the paragraphs mentioned above with.
      • The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes....Tranquebar....Lutheran church....absorbed by the Anglican church....
      What does the first sentence mean?? What were the specific effects on Mysore? And the rest (or the whole) can be entirely omitted. Is the micro-mini nitty-gritty of Christian missions really of importance to a summary article on Mysore, given that the Christian population of Mysore has always been miniscule?
      • Other points:
      1. King Chamaraja Wodeyar IV made a contribution of four villages (Change to “endowment” or “grant”)
      2. They opine that Tipu administered mass conversions of Christians and Hindus...(change wording, drop "administered")
      3. Correct the spelling of “Palyagars” to “Paleygars” or “Polegars”
      4. Create stubs and link to the first instances of all the rulers' names,
      5. Remove the folktale of Naraaraja Wodeyar’s wrestling match in Trichy, per WP:UNDUE and WP:Summary.
      6. Change “Jain royal families” to “Jain noble families.” They were arasus and polegars under the Wodeyar rulers, right?
      7. The map in the lead shows the extent of the kingdom at its peak, c.1784. In historical terms, this lasted for an eye-blink of time. At its rendition in 1881, the state was considerably larger than it had ever been before the time of Tipu. This, after a large portion of the state had been annexed during the Anglo-Mysore wars! IMO the map in the lead should be of the Raj-era princely state, because that was the longest period of stable borders. The present lead map could be moved to the history section.
    • There is a great deal of work that could be done on the rest of the article also. Problems of relevance and due weight exist also in the “society” section and elsewhere. Why is it imperative for us to be informed, in the literature section, that "...the Mysore court (was) adorned by famous writers and composers, many of who were Vaishnava by faith..." Please have the page thoroughly copyedited and vetted for perspective. I would suggest Fowler, for both diligence and perspective. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:06, 4 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Xenon[edit]

    For your consideration, I'm nominating this article for FA status. It has undergone expansion and review during the past month, and I believe it is now well-referenced and reasonably comprehensive. The number of illustrations may be considered low, but this is partly a result of an article on a transparent gas: I didn't want to overburden the article with images that may be only indirectly related (such as a nuclear reactor rod, for example). Please let me know your concerns and I'll try to address them. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Great improvement on my original de-stub from several years ago. I just wish I beat you to bringing this to FA quality. ;) --mav 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is probably the most comprehensive article on xenon I have seen anywhere. Most chemical encyclopedias and textbooks lump it with the other noble gases, where helium and argon steal much of the attention. The nominated article is certainly much more comprehensive than the one at britannica.com. --Itub 08:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object for now, here's why:
    1. Are there any reactions described for other noble gasses or is Xe unique in that regard? (How much fun. The inaccuracies they teach you in school.)

    the result may indicate that Mars lost most of its primordial atmosphere, possibly within the first 100 million years." First 100 million years of what? Its existence?

    1.  DoneAddressed. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "As a liquid, xenon has a density of 3.52 g/mL, about 3.5 times the density of water." At what pressure is that?
       DoneThe "Handbook of Inorganic Chemicals" doen't give a pressure for the liquid phase of xenon. — RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, I've added a reference for the liquid density. --Itub 09:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "Using gigapascals of pressure, xenon has been forced into a metallic phase." What does this metallic phase look like?
       Not doneIf a diamond anvil cell is used to produce the pressure, how would we be able to see it? I have no idea. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      There's nothing that can be said about how it "looks". I don't see why this can be an objection to featuring the article, if the original sources don't say anything about how it looks (probably because no one knows!). May I point out that the articles on hydrogen and metallic hydrogen don't say how metallic hydrogen looks either, for the same reason? And that hydrogen is featured? --Itub 09:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. It's probably a good idea to briefly explain what clathrates.
       Done I believe it does: "As well as compounds where xenon forms a chemical bond, xenon can form clathrates—substances where xenon atoms are trapped by the crystalline lattice of another compound." Does this need further clarification? — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I swear that explanation wasn't there when I read it... - Mgm|(talk) 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That might be. I think I had an explanation in there at one point but a few editors have been changing some of the details because of the Scientific PR. It's one of the 'joys' of working on a collaborative wiki. =) — RJH (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "Because of the high cost of xenon, however, economic application will require a closed system so that the gas can be recycled.[17]" Is that smart? What about the danger of airborne viral infections?
       Done I added a note. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Since Xe is so expensive, what are the advantages of using Xenon when other cheaper methods are available?
       Done In what particular context? Many of the applications already explain this. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Forget it. Apparently another explanation appeared out of nowhere. - Mgm|(talk) 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    7. And finally, perhaps it's just my personal preference, but I would like people who read just the introduction to be able to find the sources without scouring the entire article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       DoneI re-used some refs. for the lead. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some replies (I've turned your bullet points into numbered items for ease of reference; I hope you don't mind):
    1. There are reactions for some of the other noble gases, which are described in the relevant articles. But perhaps a brief comparison could be made here.
    2. The infobox references are linked at the bottom of the table; see Chemical elements data references. This is the standard practice for element infoboxes, and is the same as in other featured articles such as hydrogen, uranium, titanium, helium, and francium.
    That links to a bunch of general references, not any specific to Xe. I want to know exactly what page was used. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, you can find the exact reference for xenon in each of the data tables. For example, if you go to Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page), you'll find three references and values for Xenon (and all of the other elements), as well as the recommended value that was chosen by WikiProject Elements. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. First 100 million years since the formation of the planet (if not, since when? I can't think of any other meaning.).
    4. Density doesn't change that much with pressure, so the pressure is often omitted in casual conversation. Standard conditions are 1 atmosphere or 1 bar. However, this should be checked.
    5. What do you mean by "look like". I really doubt that anyone has literally "looked" at this substance, given that it must be inside a contraption that stands enormous pressures.
    Then how do they know they've got it? Perhaps things like color of the solid phase can be predicted? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they detected the phase change thermodynamically, and they probably identified the metallic phase by its electrical conductivity. I don't think such details belong in an article about Xenon. Interested readers can look up the references, although eventually we could create an article about metallic xenon (as we have one already on metallic hydrogen) where all those details could be elaborated. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6. I'm not sure what you are asking about the clathrates. Could you clarify the question?
    I think a brief definition should be given for people who don't have Lupin's popups enabled. It's one of those sci-speak words. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a brief definition in the article: "[compounds] where xenon atoms occupy vacancies in a lattice of water molecules". But perhaps the definition could be clarified further. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I'm sure they've worked out ways of filtering the xenon properly, but that might be worth looking into.
    8. Good question.
    9. No comments.--Itub 10:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another question: Since Xenon is described as colorless, do we really need an image in the appearance field of the infobox? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people like those images, which is why they are found in all element infoboxes, even for invisible substances... I personally don't care much for this image. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble in seeing the added value. The image at Invisible pink unicorn has a comedical element, any other atom article has an image with an informative element. I see neither in this image. - Mgm|(talk) 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not true that "any other atom article has an image with an informative element". The featured article on hydrogen and helium have pictures that look exactly like the one for xenon (because the elements look the same). I would rather keep the photo for consistency, and because it helps illustrate the "invisibility" of the element in a visual way, for readers that haven't read the part of the text that describes it as a "colorless gas". But as I said, I don't care that much for the image. I see it just as a minor matter of preference, and don't see how it can be an objection to featuring the article. --Itub 09:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An identical image is used on the hydrogen article. I suppose it's there for consistency, and it conveys the information that it's a transparent gas visually. Personally I would have preferred a transparent container that showed the seal, but this seems minimally sufficient for its purpose. — RJH (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent, well-written article. I confess, I was not aware xenon could even form compounds. Would it be possible, for the liberal arts majors like me, to explain a little more how this is possible? If not, I;d still support, but it might make it more understandable to laymen. Coemgenus 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a couple of sentences near the end of the History section that I hope will explain how the first compound was produced; at least according to my admittedly very modest understanding of chemistry. — RJH (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's much better. Coemgenus 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well-written article. FA quality.--Tamás Kádár 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My objections have mostly been addressed. A few explanations like how metallic xenon can be detected and for the question Coemgenus (talk · contribs) posed would help strengthen my support, but this is pretty much close to perfection. (If the photo of the colorless gas is kept I'd also like to see a more detailed description on the image page telling us exactly in what state the gas was photographed and more importantly, what was on the background. - Mgm|(talk) 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a suitable replacement image of some transparent laboratory glassware used to hold a gas. Perhaps this is something that one of the Chemistry WikiProjects would like to address? Or I could just whip up a rendered image of such with my Bryce software package. — RJH (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comprehensive, well-written, maybe a little technical in the end sections, but, hey, that's fine. I'd consider explaining the terms "Spin 1/2" and "Colour temprature" a little more explicitly, the others seem fine. Adam Cuerden talk 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I included explanations for the terms "Spin ½" and "color temperature". Thank you for pointing them out. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments. I have a few comments:
    1) Infobox lists fusion and boiling temperatures, but does not specify relevant pressures. While they are probably 1 atm, it is necessary to write them, because fusion and boiling (especially) points depend on pressure.
    Yes that would be good. The problem for me is when the references don't list the pressures. I didn't see one listed in the CRC I googled. This may be an issue that the Chemistry WikiProject needs to tackle for all of the elements. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Notes in the Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page). Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :2) The density is expressed either in g/cm3 (or kg/m3) or in g/mL or kg/L. I think the article should use a uniform set of units. I suggest using g/cm3 and kg/m3. The same can be said about the units of volume: L and mL should be substituted with cm3 and m3.

    I left a question about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :3) The article says that Xenon is produced in SN explosions (r-process). It is only partly true. Some Xenon isotops are exclusevly made by p-process (124, 126) and s-procees (128, 130)—see [70], [71], [72]. The first process takes place in AGB stars and the second only partialy in SNII with a contribution from classical novae.[73]

    Thank you. I wasn't sure how much detail was needed for the purposes of this article, so for now I just inserted a summary sentence. But it could easily be expanded by somebody with access to all of those references. (I usually can't access very recent ApJ articles.) — RJH (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :4) There are a few duplications in the article: the fourth paragraph in 'History' section largely overlaps with the last paragraph in 'Isotopes'; and the last paragraph in 'History' duplicates the first paragraph in 'Compounds'.

    They are only slightly overlapping; by no means complete duplications. I think the mild overlap is needed for flow. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but I continue to think that duplication can be slightly reduced. Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :5) The first sentence in the last paragraph of 'Illumination and optics' subsection should be moved to the second paragraph.

    Huh? That action doesn't make sense from a context perspective. Perhaps this was fixed already? — RJH (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "The first solid-state laser, invented in 1960, was pumped by a xenon flashlamp.", which have been already removed.Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :6) In 'Occurrence' section of the article prices of Xe are specified in euros as of 1999, while 'Anesthesia' subsection lists them in USD as of 2005. Can more uniform set of prices be used?

    I removed the later from the article so that there is only one price listed. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :7) In 'Other' subsection psi are used as units for pressure. They should be converted into Pa or bar.

    Fixed. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope my suggestions will be helpful. Ruslik 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks and their removal is not required for FA status, unless the link is to a topic that is unlikely to attain notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. The first footnote in compounds section points to 38 which seems a odd publication for the first synthesis of a xenon compound. The Xenon hexafluoroplatinate article provides the original anouncement in 1962.--Stone 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first mentioning in the history section is also noted with a strange article mostly concerning other things than Xenon hexafluoroplatinate.--Stone 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Another elements is ready for FA!--Stone 08:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's well-done.

    Remark: I especially admire the extensive Applications section. Leranedo 09:30, 29 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Chinua Achebe[edit]

    Peer reviews

    Mr. Achebe is probably the most important African writer of the 20th century. I have spent the past month taking this article from Start-class to what several folks have indicated is FA quality.

    For biographical info I have relied heavily on one text, written by Ezenwa-Ohaeto – it is the only book-length biography available. The numerous other books called Chinua Achebe are devoted to analysis. – Scartol · Talk 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I poked around behind the scenes as this article developed. Reviewed it as well. It's in tip-top shape. We ought to try to get Achebe to read it. --JayHenry 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remarkable coincidence – I was just thinking about how incredible it would be to hear from him about it. Thanks for the votes of confidence. – Scartol · Talk 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's still at Bard. Achebe... think he checks that e-mail? --JayHenry 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be wary of that. I belong to a children's literature listserv to which Philip Pullman subscribes. He is not shy when it comes to expressing his opinion of scholars' interpretations of his books. It has made me glad to some extent that my writers are dead. :) Awadewit | talk 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know someone at Bard, but I don't think they've had any contact with Achebe. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd much prefer to send an actual letter, once the FA star is added. Thanks everyone for the ideas. Insofar as the article here doesn't interpret his work much (I've just cited other sources that do), I doubt we'd hear the kind of comments Pullman sends to the listserv. – Scartol · Talk 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh! And you should include the URL to Jimbo's fundraising video. Maybe that scene about ten seconds in where Jimbo does his T.J. Eckleburg impression will convince Achebe to donate to Wikipedia and maybe even create an account! --JayHenry 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I peer reviewed this excellent article and I whole-heartedly support its promotion to featured article. It is well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, and adheres to all of the rules of the MOS of which I am aware. (Perhaps new ones have just been added at this very moment, however.) I am delighted that Scartol has taken the time to research this much needed biography and chastened that I am not doing more to assist in such valuable endeavors. Instead, I am posting articles that no one reads besides myself and ten other people in the world. Ah well. Here I sit and research for the dissertation; I can do other. :) Awadewit | talk 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Small comment Could you add somewhere in the lead when he moved to the US? Right now the narrative is a bit nebulous - it is only at the end of the lead that the reader realizes he lives in the US. Awadewit | talk 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Added. – Scartol · Talk 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Just wonderful. Comprehensive, clear, and Achebe is an endlessly fascinating subject. DBaba 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, well written and comprehensive article.--Grahamec 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think the images of the Laos skyline and the University by night really add to the article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree they're not the best images in the world, but given the lack of anything else related to the article (the only free image relating to Conrad I could find is this image of a boat he sailed on.) Do you think the article would be better without these images? (I really dislike big blocks of text.) Or do you have suggestions for alternatives? Thanks for your input. – Scartol · Talk 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the article would be better without them, but I'd be happy to consider alternatives, or wait out other opinions on the matter. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe these images are preferable to large blocks of text - both aesthetically and for ease of reading. Awadewit | talk 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Really good article.--Tamás Kádár 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Still not agree on the images, but it's not serious enough to make me oppose. - Mgm|(talk) 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Kudos to all who worked on this article! It's really close to FA IMO. There are still some issues I'd like to see being addressed before this is article is promoted nonetheless:
      • "He is best known for his first novel, Things Fall Apart (1958), which is perhaps the most widely-read book in modern African literature." Aren't there statistics about what the best-selling book in modern African literature is? That would be a much stronger claim that "perhaps the most widely-read".
    •  Done I removed the word "perhaps". The original quote in Ogbaa states: "Things Fall Apart is unquestionably the most widely read, best-selling, and influential book in modern African literature." Do you think I should include the whole thing? – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "His parents stood at a crossroads of culture". I'm assuming this is referring to the crossing of traditional African and Western Christian culture. Is that correct? Could you just add a few words explaining this a bit further?
    •  Done I added a phrase to clarify. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Chinua's mother and sister Zinobia Uzoma continually told him stories as a child, which he repeatedly requested." "continually" is an exaggeration, generally not a good idea for Wikipedia in my opinion.
      • "At the age of twelve, Achebe moved to the village of Nekede, four kilometers from Owerri." Did his family move with him? Might be worth mentioning...
    • Nope, it was just him. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Although he was also accepted to the equally-prestigious Dennis Memorial Grammar School in Onitsha, Achebe attended Government College in Umuahia from 1944 to 1948." I'm no expert in grammar, but isn't "equally-prestigious" just an adverb followed by the adjective it modifies? Why the hyphen then? Please excuse me, if this is accepted by British English or some other non-American dialect.
      • "These earned him a "Major" classification and a scholarship to study medicine." Why the quotation marks around "Major"?
    •  Done Often they are used to indicate that the term is used in a particular instance, but I don't think they're necessary here. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand why Achebe got a scholarship to study medicine, but then had a "year of grueling work in physics". Were the physics classes part of his studies in medicine?
    •  Done I suppose so. To avoid confusion, I changed it to the more general "science". – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ". It produced a plethora of remarkable writers in the years before and after Achebe's presence there, including Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, novelist Elechi Amadi, poet and playwright John Pepper Clark, and poet Christopher Okigbo." It could be argued that "remarkable" is POV. Why not well-known, famous, or notable?
    •  Done In my opinion, "remarkable" and "notable" are nearly identical synonyms, but "famous" works for me. Changed. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Although the group was well-received by students and faculty, Achebe was "shocked" by the harsh realpolitik he met in the US." The realpolitik towards the conflict in Nigeria/Biafra? Its unclear because the preceding sentence deals with slavery in the US.
      • "In 1980 he met James Baldwin at a conference held by the African Literature Association in Gainesville, Florida USA. Baldwin was likewise eager to meet Achebe, and said "It's very important that we should meet each other, finally, if I must say so, after something like 400 years."[124]" Could you expand this paragraph? It doesn't really say what the two talked about and why this meeting is of any importance.
    •  Done I had more on Baldwin earlier, and removed it for non-notability. I suppose this is less clear by itself as a result. I've added a sentence of perspective. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Achebe has been called "Africa's greatest novelist of the 20th century",[178] and many books and essays have been written about his work over the past fifty years." Who called him that?
    • I agree that the passive voice is generally yucky, and I avoid it as a rule. However, given that this sentence appears at the beginning of the legacy section, is clearly sourced, and would require an awkward rephrasing to place it in the active voice, I'd argue for leaving it as is. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this quote is just by someone who reviewed Achebe's book, who is not relevant from a wider historical or literature point of view, then it might not be that important. Most writers are considered the greatest writer by someone.
            •  Done Changed to a different quote, this one from the Man Booker Prize press release. (Surely they're relevant from a wider historical POV.) – Scartol · Talk 10:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Legacy" section is riddled with weasel words.--Carabinieri 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done – sort of. I've gone over and over this section, trying to guess what you mean. Can you be more specific? There are many superlatives in this section (in quotations), but I believe that's simply a function of the man's incredible importance and influence. Everything is carefully cited, and the descriptions have been chosen to reflect the tone of the works being cited.
    • The penultimate paragraph, perhaps, is part of your concern – but as the two articles referenced in it serve to demonstrate, it's not a fringe belief, and I feel I've fairly presented the claims. Maybe you can explain where these weasel words are?
    • I was, in fact, mostly referring to that paragraph. It might be worth adding one or two notable examples of such scholars to the first sentence. The second sentence seems to present the view that Achebe was "a literary champion of his people..." as fact. Please see this FAC discussion on why, in my view and in that of two other FAC reviewers, it is not appropriate to present a quote like this sentence does. The first sentence of the second paragraph is also weasel-ish (I love that "word"). Could you add one or two notable examples of such writers? Ok, I see that's done in the rest of the paragraph, sorry :)--Carabinieri 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I removed the quote and rephrased the sentence to read: "Despite his scholarly achievements and the global importance of his work…". – Scartol · Talk 10:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you kindly for your detailed comments. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A fine article, as I said during the peer review. Lovely to see another literature article at FAC. All power to Scartol's elbow.qp10qp 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

    talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but that's not the way it works, is it? It's not my personal opinion that counts, or yours, but what reflects Wikipedian concensus developed over six years. The national variety rule is used daily without complaint by tens of thousands of editors on Wikipedia. I really don't see what the fuss is about. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm willing to discuss this, but I'd rather do it on the article's talk page (or on mine, or someone else's). I respectfully disagree with your opposition, and I think we should leave it at that in this space. – Scartol · Talk 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I perfectly understand though WP:ENGVAR is not my opinion, it's consensus.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I'm itching to support this well-written and well-researched article but the discussion with Scartol simply hasn't taken place. I would still like to know why this article went from Commonwealth English to American English and, if the {{MoSElement}} template on the talkpage is to be believed, ring-fenced off that way. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Following discussions with Scartol, this is now resolved. If anyone is interested, the discussion is here and mostly here. It seems we each inadvertently irritated the other and communication suffered. Lesson learned there I think. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support An excellent article, full of interesting detail and richly satisfying. For me, this article seems to strike a nearly perfect balance between scholarship and reading pleasure for the lay-person; it's smooth, easily understood, has strong flow, engages the reader and yet works in a wealth of information about its subject. Well done! :) Willow 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is an exhaustively inclusive and brilliantly intelligent article that has been both well written and put together. Furthermore, it was a joy to read. María (críticame) 13:59, 25 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Cillian Murphy[edit]

    previous FAC

    A followup nomination for this A-class/GA article. In the last round, many issues were identified and addressed, particularly sourcing issues and copyediting, and we left off with 8 supports and 3 opposes.

    I'll start things off here by pasting in my response to the previous round's last reviewer -- I got cut off at the pass by the bot and didn't get to respond to the commenter officially. Thanks, Melty girl 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • "...and a heroic turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary" - I understand that you've already addressed this, and that it refers to his turn as a heroic character; however, at first glance it seems to read as comment on the brilliance of his performance. Addition: actually, having read a summary of that film's plot, it is unclear what is meant here. Does it refer to the quality of his performance? Because if it doesn't, that may violate WP:NPOV for some.
     Done I thought that the previous discussion of "hero" was in regard to 28 Days Later. Yes, the instance of "heroic" was meant to refer to his turn as the hero character in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. (If you are referring to the current WP synopsis, I can understand your confusion. It has POV problems right now.) I see what you mean though -- I removed the word. (Melty girl)
    • In the lead, instead of "London stage", I suggest delinking London (placing elsewhere), and wikilinking the entire phrase to West End theatre (the play was at the Ambassadors in the West End).
    Question: is your issue with the use of the wikilinks on "London" or with the term "London stage" itself? If it's the latter, here's my two things about your suggestion. 1) The sentence reads, "2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." The new sentence would be a little awkward (note emphasis): "2007 saw Murphy in the West End theatre in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine. (I don't think you can say "on the West End theatre.") With this change, you lose the nice contrast between "on ... stage" and "onscreen" as two locations. A whole rewrite would be needed to use "West End Theatre," and it would be longer than this purposely concise sentence. 2) Sorry if my Americanness comes through here, but the theater world is much less familiar to the average reader than the film world is, and I think there's really only one theater district that is identifiable to a broad cross section of English speakers without its city being mentioned, and that's Broadway. I'm afraid that "West End theatre" as a phrase divorced from city or country just doesn't give enough information for enough of our audience. It hasn't been memorialized in the larger pop culture memory the way Broadway has. So for both of these reasons, I think "the London stage" is a better way to put it. And it's a nice phrase, -- "the New York stage" is often used too, despite Broadway's fame, because the phrase is visual/locating. The West End is mentioned later, in the body of the article. (Melty girl)
    • Section title, New roles and the future - suggest rename to Recent roles and the future as it discusses projects which are perhaps not quite recent enough to be classified as "new" and adds slight future-proofing to the content.
     Done Good way of putting it. Erik will appreciate that. (Melty girl)
    • "In April 2007 (mid-summer in North America), he starred as a physicist-astronaut charged with reigniting the sun in the 2007 sci-fi movie Sunshine." - suggest rewording; at first glance, it's not clear that it's meant that the film was released in April elsewhere, then the US in June. Also suggest removing duplicate "2007" from the end of that sentence.
     Done Nice catch. (Melty girl)
    • Jane - suggest full link to Jane magazine to combat potential confusion. I'm in two minds whether the quoted comment from Murphy (saying he'd most like to "make out with" Maggie Gyllenhaal) is too much of a triviality for inclusion, but hey, who wants every article to be dry and lifeless?!
     Done Yes, I thought the fun outweighed the triviality, especially from an actor with zero celeb-type life details to relate. I don't think it hurts. (Melty girl)
    Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much! Thanks, Melty girl 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for taking notice of my suggestions; I'm happy with your explanations and changes. I'll just clarify one thing; when I referred to wikilinking "London stage" to the West End theatre, I meant you should perhaps consider keeping the same wording, so the sentence would read: ""2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." However, having had a glance at the guidelines, I now see that such use of the pipe trick is frowned upon, so I was wrong, wrong, wrong! Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support after the nominator addressed my suggestions (as seen in the previous archive). The article is comprehensive, well-written, and thoroughly referenced. I am happy to support the article, and I hope that it will continue to evolve with the same standards as the actor progresses with his career! —Erik (talk • contrib)
    • Support as before. I helped a bit with sourcing and made some edits for tone. I think this one is across the line now. --JayHenry 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, of the previous 8 Supports, 3 Opposes, I was one of the Opposes. All of my objections (most importantly, reliability of sources) have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - and now happy to do so; it's a well-written, well-cited, distinctive article deserving of FA status. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well written and structured, treads the very fine line between being comprehensive and being succinct with great success, is informative, remains focussed on its subject, and is amply supported by sources and quotations. Rossrs 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as before. Ceoil 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - great article! Way to go, Melty girl, you've done a brilliant work. I also think that it would be nice if you added tables for his films and list of works. Shahid • Talk2me 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much. About the tables for works, I know that many people favor tables, but I'm in a persistent minority who often favor list formats. I actually started a table for this article a while back, but it took up so much more space on the page that I decided the list format was superior. Please see the discussion in the previous FAC for a fuller discussion of the filmography table issue. Thanks for your support! --Melty girl 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not forced to do that, just entitled to that. And if you feel this version is better, it's your right. Nevertheless, the most important aspect here is the content, and it's very well written. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's fine.

    Remark: We don't need four citations for one point: [4][5][6][7] on blue eyes. Select the most reliable one if possible and cite that one. Leranedo 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! There are four citations because the fact has been challenged in the past, so backup is needed. Please refer to the previous FAC and the article's talk page for the full history, and see what you think. I think we need at least two citations to support the fact that many critics make special note of his eyes in his work. A previous reviewer felt that more were needed and added two more; some editors didn't believe the assertion when only two citations were present. (BTW, that reviewer's Nexis search turned up 128 good sources.) --Melty girl 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I would be fine with the sources being cut back down to two. I personally don't believe it needs four and just added them to try to help satisfy other reviewers. If we cut back down to two I think we should use The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker as they're the best sources of the four. --JayHenry 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done... except that now I'm thinking that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article might be a better reference than the LA Times one, since it spends more time on his eyes, talks about both their general fame and role in his work, and has a comment from him about his eyes. Was there a reason you didn't like this article? -Melty girl 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just glanced over the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and I think you're right. I read them awhile ago but they weren't fresh in my mind when I made the comment. I had suggested the LA Times because it's very authoritative on the entertainment industry, but since the MJS talks more about the eyes let's do what you suggest. --JayHenry 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Melty girl 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I passed the GA for this and was very please with the article then, and it's only gone from strength to strength since. I do have to comment on the broadness of the references relating to the eyes. I'm sure you're all aware of this, but you can actually put more than one source within an individual footnote tag like this:
    <ref>
Smith, Jones, [http://www.smith.com The Smith Report], published by Smith Enterprises on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br>
Brown, Thomas, [http://www.jones.com The Jones Report], published by Jones Family Corp on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br>
Banks, Steve, [http://www.banks.com The Banks Report], published by Banks and Company on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.
</ref>
    To me, it's not an issue with the eyes as the two cited make enough of a fuss and are reputable enough to be valid, but in future, you can umti-cite, if every instance of the reference being needed in the article needs all of the references in question. Well done guys. You've done a great job of improving an article from being a Good Article to a very comfortable example of a Featured Article. --lincalinca 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I didn't know you could do that. The only thing I don't like about it is that it would repeat certain citations -- it wouldn't know about the other instances of them within the article. But it is a neat strategy... might have to use it in the future. Thanks for your support and previous help with this article! --Melty girl 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I supported it before, and it sure as hell doesn't look worse. -- Mike (Kicking222) 07:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sorry for the delay, I just saw the renomination, I have many things going on these days and rarely get a chance to check here. I supported before as the article already met all the WP:FACR and with the incorporation of feedback items from reviewers it looks much better. Definitely one of the finest articles on Wikipedia, well done Melty girl. --Kudret abiTalk 16:46, 4 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    December to Dismember (2006)[edit]

    previous FAC

    Article was failed mainly based on whether WrestleView sources were reliable or not, see here. I, along with the help of Nikki311 for finding the sources, have replaced virtually all of the WrestleView sources. Please note there are still two in the article. One is just a report source, and the other is about the Sabu issue, but have clarified that it was a "major rumor". Please also note that Raul654 has allowed me to nominate this so soon after it was not promted. Thanks, and I look forward to the comments, Davnel03 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support The article is well-written and comprehensive. It makes use of appropriate terms (with internal links) to make it clear that professional wrestling is not real. The references look good, as the editors have done a great job at addressing concerns from the past Featured Article review. Overall, the article is a great example of what every wrestling pay per view article could (and hopefully will) become. GaryColemanFan 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The article covers the event in the appropriate depth and length. It is easy to read with the information delivered in a structured and consistent manner. --Aaru Bui DII 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Not because I'm also part of WP:PW, but it is very well written, good sources, good structure overall. This would very well be a standard structure for all PPV expansions. The Chronic 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The previous issues have been intended, and I believe the article is ready for Fac now. Cheers, Lex94 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment- The only users that have supported this nomination are members of WP:PW Lex94 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs)
      • That doesn't really affect this, though does it? If anyone else had a problem with it (like last time) they would comment. Davnel03 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your right. But it would be better if other users outside WP:PW could review the article, but we can't hope for it, because not much people outside of WP:PW have an interesnt in EVER reading these articles...Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lex is definately right. Most other Wikiprojects tend to look down on this one, and wrestling is hardly mainstream anymore. But we can hope. Gavyn Sykes 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support An insane amount of time and effort by Davnel and others took this article from a match listing within another article to a legimately sourced good article. I believe it is ready for FA. Gavyn Sykes 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass & support - On the basis that it's fine until one day standards are improved. Leranedo 03:59, 29 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Lambeosaurus[edit]

    Submitted for your approval, Lambeosaurus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is well-cited throughout, presents useful images (a personal favorite being the diagram used to illustrate the postulated growth stages and sexes, based on scaled skull restorations), and covers its topics in detail using the standard dinosaur article format. External links are germane, the length is comparable to present dinosaur FAs, and it has been stable. Additionally, it has had a prose review by a non WP:DINO editor. J. Spencer 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - as minor contributor and WP dino collaboration co-coordinator. I feel this has been thoroughly massaged and is the equal of other dino FAs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm a member of WP:DINO and did contribute small bits to this article. This was a tiny stub until expanded by J in April. It's come a long way since April, and it seems comparable in size to featured articles Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Styracosaurus and Psittacosaurus. J clearly knows his ornithopods. The text has been massaged for grammar and spelling several times, and the lead seems to cover most of the points in the text. I've broken down a few really long sentences (70+ words). The prose seems clear enough, though this should be judged by someone less familiar with the material. I'm hoping to get more feedback on this article than that of the last Featured dinosaur candidate, and look forward to making further improvements whenever possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've read this article a few times now and can't find anything to nitpick. It is certainly comprehensive, well referenced and well illustrated. Another great production by J. Spencer in the lines of the FAs Thescelosaurus, Iguanodon, Parasaurolophus, and other GAs. Well done! ArthurWeasley 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as minor contributor and and illustrator of the article. I feel this has been thoroughly massaged and is the equal of other dino FAs. (Sorry Cas for ripping off your comment!) de Bivort 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You...you...plagiarist!! (hahaha) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • Great article and I'm happy to vote support, but I do have a few small issues. --Aranae 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I'm not familiar with the phrase meant by "idealized tetrapod hand", and find it misleading. Unless that type of terminology is used in formal sources, I think it should be "primitive tetrapod hand".
    2. I don't see how Corythosaurini isn't a junior synonym of Lambeosaurini Parks, 1923. Since Lambeosaurus is the type of Lambeosaurinae, the intermediate rank should also have Lambeosaurus as the type, right? Do any publications apply both Corythosaurini also use Lambeosaurinae or is the tribe coming from one source and the subfamily from another?
    3. In the classification section, "Standard-bearer" should be changed to "type genus".
    4. There's a discrepency between use of parentheses in the "Species" section and in the taxobox. My guess is that the taxobox is correct and parentheses need to be removed from several species names in the text.
    5. In my experience, the "stapes" is usually called columella in "reptiles" (cranial crest section.
    I'm pretty sure the parentheses around the author and date in the article body are not actually intended to be "taxonomic" parentheses marking a later change in status, but actual "punctuation" parentheses giving the information as an aside. Circeus 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Many, many thanks for your comments, Aranae. Clearly, you read through the article, and your comments are greatly appreciated. Regarding "idealized tetrapod hand", may I suggest something along the lines of "typical tetrapod hand", or "generalized tetrapod hand"...? I know many paleontologists prefer terms like "basal" over "primitive" and "derived" over "advanced" because the latter terms have an inherent bias attached to them. And when I think of a primitive tetrapod hand, I think of the flipper-feet of Tiktaalik. At the same time, "basal"/"derived" are too jargonistic in an encyclopedia meant for mainstream readers. As far as "Lambeosaurini" goes, I'm not sure that tribe has been formally defined, while the name Corythosaurini is in actual use in modern scientific literature (Evans and Reisz, 2007). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a couple of points:
    1. Yeah, I was struggling to come up with a phrase that meant "the idealized/traditional five-fingered tetrapod hand". An earlier version mentioned that the animal only had four fingers per hand and then said that the fifth was mobile, which is confusing to someone who doesn't know about the biological numbering of fingers, and that the first finger is missing and the animal had two-three-four-five. Curse those early tetrapods and their many fingers; this was much easier years ago!
    2. Corythosaurini should be the junior synonym (just as Lambeosaurus should technically be Procheneosaurus), but it's the one that's in use, and Lambeosaurini has not been used in the literature (that I've ever seen). I'd have to check, but I think that the first attempt to make tribes (M.K. Brett-Surman's dissertation) used Corythosaurini or a similar formulation, and the name seeped in.
    4. The parentheses were a stylistic choice, so it's not a big deal if they are changed.
    5. That's odd; I've only ever seen "stapes" in articles dealing with dinosaurs. J. Spencer 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a bash at 1 (not quite what you had, but the additional qualifier might help), 3, and 4, although I think the species section might be harder to read without the parentheses. Thanks for the comments! J. Spencer 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I agree that "primitive" is less than perfect and also that "typical" or "generalized" might be better.
    2. It's not our place to fix the problems in the literature and it sounds like Corythosaurini should stay until it gets fixed in the literature.
    5. If they're using stapes, that's great. I have limited reptile experience, and no dinosaurs, and in that I've seen columella. Stapes is simpler for the reader anyway. --Aranae 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've definitely seen columella with crocodiles, though; I'm not sure why there should be a disconnect. J. Spencer 01:56, 31 October 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Wiglaf of Mercia[edit]

    Another King of Mercia. Comparison FAs: Egbert of Wessex, who was his contemporary; Æthelbald of Mercia, who reigned about seventy years before Wiglaf. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments In addition to the points below, I've tweaked the article a bit and left some hidden comments.

    • Is there anything that characterizes Wiglaf's notability that you could put into the lead? (Yes, I know the source material is patchy.)
    • An explanation of the population make up of Mercia would be helpful.
    • Wessex is variously called Anglo-Saxon, and Saxon and Celtic.
    • Talking about England and Wales is a bit confusing because of the intrusion of the modern boundaries (which as you know don't correspond). Perhaps South(ern) Britain and West(ern) Britain?
    • Might Romano-British be better than Celtic for the "Welsh"? (The Welsh principalities were direct successors of the three Roman administrative areas. And many of the inhabitants of "Wales" were "Britons" from "England" displaced west by the Saxons.)
    • What does "a tradition preserved at Evesham" mean?
    • Although Mercia was often at war with Powys, I don't think Powys was actually conquered (though they lost some territory west of Offa's Dyke in the C9th). Also, in 823, Powys was allied (by marriage) with Gwynedd, paving the way for Rhodri Mawr's succession as prince of Powys and Gwynedd.
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. Some responses:
    • On the hidden comment about 853 and the Welsh: I've put a note on the talk page about that.
    • Notability for the lead: I saw your hidden note about Charlemagne, but I eventually decided to put in something about the impending Viking troubles as a way of expanding the scope of the lead. Let me know if you feel more is needed.
    • "A tradition preserved at Evesham": the source I used, Kirby's Earliest English Kings, footnotes this to Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, in an 1863 edition. Kirby's text is "Wigstan . . . was remembered at Evesham as a descendant of Coenred", with some additional genealogical comments. The Chronicon is available on Google Books, but it's in Latin; my Latin is too rusty for me to be able to verify this directly. I have extended that footnote to refer to the Chronicon; is that enough?
    • With regard to the "conquest" of Powys, I admit I hesitated when I put that in, but Kirby was quite unambiguous: he says "a Mercian offensive in either 822 or 823 resulted in the destruction of the fortress of Degannwy in Gwynedd and a Mercian conquest of the kingdom of Powys"; later he refers to "the conquest of Powys and the invasion of Gwynedd" (pp. 188-189). His references are to the ASC, s.a. 822, and to the Brut y Tywysogion, s.a. 823. The latter can be found on Google Books in an edition by Caradog Llancarvan, and the entry for 823 says ". . . the castle of Dyganwy was destroyed by the Saxons. And then the Saxons took the kingdom of Powys into their possession." I agree it seems a rather strong statement. It does seem supported, but it's not critical to this article, so I've done some rewording -- see what you think now.
    • The population and terminology questions are thorny. I'll go off and have a think about these and see what I can come up with that would be both consistent and clear. I agree it's confusing, partly because of the different meaning of the same terms in modern and medieval times, and partly because of inconsistent usage both back then and in current sources. I'll post here when I have some ideas about it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the terminology, I've put some notes together at a subpage of mine. Take a look and see what you think (and edit directly or post on the talk page there, if you like); when that looks right, I'll apply those rules to the article. I may also solicit some input from other editors interested in this area. Mike Christie (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left rather unhelpful notes at Talk:Wiglaf of Mercia. Nothing Welsh and very relevant to Wiglaf's floruit turned up. Whether a vague comment regarding the takeover of Powys by Rhodri Mawr is suitable for context is open to question; I feel that it is not. I would stick with Welsh and Anglo-Saxon for this period of history. Romano-British seems relevant to a much earlier period, and the use of Britons rather than Welsh for "people living in what is now Wales" to the 7th century or earlier. Many of the comments seem tangential to the subject. Not that it's relevant to an article on Wiglaf, but Maund is unimpressed by the idea that Merfyn Frych was connected to the kings of Powys by marriage, or through his mother: "tradition, and may be simple fiction" (Welsh Kings, p.48) Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are tangential though of relevance in terms of establishing who was conquering whom or what. Thank you very much for looking into this.--ROGER DAVIES TALK
    As an historicist, I prefer using the terminology of the time, so as to not introduce confusion of meaning and associations that did not exist yet. To help readers understand, maps and parenthetical explanations could be offered, but I would refrain from calling places by names that did not exist yet when at all possible. But perhaps that is the scholar in the me and not the encyclopedist. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would give us Cymry for the Welsh/Britons and Angelcynn for the Anglo-Saxons. The corresponding Latin forms are Cambri/Cambriae and Angli/Angliae (if I remember correctly).--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think you would be all in favor of this level of precision, Roger! :) Seriously, though, what is wrong with using the correct names? We don't say: "The Pilgrims landed in the United States" or "The Harappan cities were located in Pakistan". Awadewit | talk 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's needed is a balance of accessibility and precision, rather than strict "correctness" (which gives us multiple choices anyway and isn't necessarily that "correct"). I favour everyday words over unusual or eccentric ones: the problem is achieving distance from current connotations. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed the problem. I'm eager to see the solution the editors arrive at. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through and made a couple of changes to eliminate "Celtic", which I think is unnecessary and non-standard -- "British" and "Briton" are the usual terms in secondary sources. I can see some uses of "England", but they look purely geographical to me. Is there anything else that looks wrong to you? Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'd much rather England was written around if possible not least because so many people (both inside and outside of the UK) think of England as meaning Britain as a whole. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. For "England", there are four uses left:
    • "A map of England during Wiglaf's reigns"
    • "a period in which the political map of England was dramatically redrawn"
    • "Egbert's . . . domination of southern England"
    • "the increasing Viking presence in England"
    I take your point about inaccurate perceptions of England vs. Britain; I'm an ex-patriate Brit, and I have certainly run into that error a few times. However, it's difficult to fix that problem concisely. The first two uses, above, do specifically mean "England": the map shows England, not modern Wales; and it was the map of Anglo-Saxon power relations in what is now England that was being redrawn at that time. The third use could perhaps be changed to "Britain", though that seems less precise to me. The fourth use again could be Britain, since the Vikings didn't restrict their raids to England, but the Anglo-Saxons were only in England and it seems sensible to refer to the impact of their raids more specifically than "Britain", since the context is Anglo-Saxon awareness and preparedness.
    If you have suggestions to improve any of these uses, please let me know; I think I'd like to hear other opinions on these, too. As I said, I agree that many people confuse Britain and England, but I'm not sure how to improve these references without blurring the intended meaning. Mike Christie (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the easiest way is to modify the map, adding lines (or shaded areas if contested) to mark the boundaries; across from the Humber for Northumbria, showing the line of Offa's Dyke, and wherever it ran between Cornwall and Wessex. This way (1) (2) and (3) need no text change, it's visually obvious; (4) could be changed to Britain. Is this better? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added Offa's Dyke to the map, and used the caption to indicate England and Wales; I'm hopeful that that's enough to allow me to retain the second and third uses. I changed the fourth to being "throughout Britain" -- the "throughout" is motivated by the difference between "England" and "Britain" and so I think is legitimate. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, Mike; I'm impressed by the scholarly nature of the new caption :) What I've enjoyed about this discussion is that you've helped me clarify my own perceptions of the period considerably. It's been interesting. Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning towards support This is a well-written and well-researched article. I know little about this time period, so I can't speak to its comprehensiveness, unfortunately. I just have a few clarifications and nit-picks before I support.

    • Egbert drove Wiglaf from the throne in 829, and ruled Mercia directly for a year. Wiglaf recovered the kingdom in 830, probably by force although it may be that Wiglaf was a client of Egbert's. - "client"? This word sounds very modern, although it may have a distinct medieval meaning, I'm not sure I know what it is.
    • When I read "client" I suddenly started wondering if there was another meaning I didn't know; I paused there. Just another perspective. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead doesn't say much about Wiglaf himself. Anything that could be added would be good, I think.
    • Rephrasing: The lead does not reflect the article's comments about Wiglaf. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would move the map up for those readers who forget where different places are in the isle(s).
    • It was probably Beornwulf whose defeat of the kingdom of Powys and destruction of the fortress of Deganwy are recorded in a Welsh chronicle, the Brut y Tywysogion, in 823, and it is clear that Mercia was still a formidable military power at that time. - are chronicles italicized?
    • Wiglaf's ancestry is not known for certain, but one source of competing dynasties in Mercia may have been the descendants of collateral royal lines. - confusing
    • Could you translate the Latin words? Not that many people know Latin anymore - it being dead and all.
    • Explanations are one thing, translations are another. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you make sure that all documents and people are identified as clearly as possible? I am envisioning some poor undergraduate reading this page and confusing ninth-century sources with modern scholarship in some places.
    • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Wiglaf's accession in the entry for 825; this is an error for 827. - slightly confusing - what was the error exactly?
    • I would move this explanation to the main body of the text. It is jarring to have only this sentence in the text, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the images are on the right-hand side of the page. Staggering is more aesthetically pleasing. See WP:MOS#Images for advice on this.
    • The dates for the "Primary sources" look silly - 1996 for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? Could something be done about that? Double dates perhaps? I don't know what date you would use for the "first publication" of the chronicle, but this looks odd, especially since it is listed under "Primary sources".

    A pleasant read and these are just small things. I am feeling the competitive heat. :) Awadewit | talk 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ref: Dates for "Primary Sources": Early medieval sources like chronicles were never published in the modern sense. Published primary sources are always referenced with the year of modern publishing. When using primary medieval sources, one quotes from the edition one is using, stating amongst other things the editor and the year of publishing, i.e., the year of publishing of the modern edition. The referencing in the article is therefore absolutely correct and how it should be.Ekki01 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Client is the word used by Williams. What with "client state" being common enough, it seemed like it would do. "W. remained subject to E." conveys roughly the same idea, no idea if it is any clearer or not. Nothing is known about Wiglaf's personality, appearance, etc. Every Latin and OE term except the vague minister seems to be explained or wikilinked. The error in dating is described in a footnote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies to Awadewit:

    • Client: I've used a variant of the rephrasing that Angus suggested; I think he's right that the term is in general use, but if it distracts an educated reader I think the alternative is as good.
    • The lead does not reflect the articles comments about Wiglaf: could you give me an example? I'm not quite sure what you feel is missing.
    • There is an entire section explaining the speculation regarding Wiglaf's ancestry, etc., but only one sentence/phrase on this in the lead. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- I added to the lead what I thought was the most interesting note on his possible ancestry. I kept this out of the lead because that section is more about historians' theories of royal houses in Wessex than about Wiglaf in particular, but I think the bit about Penda is worth mentioning. If you see anything else that would be good to put in the lead, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think about this as an opening paragraph for the lead:
    "Wiglaf (died 839) was King of Mercia from 827 to 829 and again from 830 until his death. Because the 820s were a period of dynastic conflict within Mercia and several families were contending for the throne, his ancestry is uncertain. [Is that what you meant? Some sort of connection was missing there.] Wigstan, his grandson was later recorded as a descendant of Penda of Mercia, so it is possible that Wiglaf was descended from Penda, one of the most powerful seventh-century kings of Mercia." Awadewit | talk 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a version of this: I didn't like "because", since the connection there is not really straightforward deduction. You're right I do need to indicate a connection, though. I tweaked it and I think it's better now. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are using the colon as a crutch - you rely on it to communicate too much meaning. Can you use words instead? The colon is connecting Wiglaf's uncertain genealogy and the time of dynastic conflict, but it is not entirely clear what that connection is from the sentence. Why would dynastic conflict cause uncertain genealogy? Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maps and images: I've moved up the map and staggered the images. I was a little sorry to move the map, I have to say: it is really quite useful to the reader down in the "reigns" sections. It isn't a general map: the places identified are not the important towns of the day, but are just those places mentioned in the article. However, I also agree a map is useful early.
    • If you feel it is detrimental, move it back. It is just that I think a reader might want to know where these places are in relation to each other (if they don't already know). Most of the places listed in the "Historical context" section seem to be on the map, but if you feel it doesn't work out for the best, move it back, like I said. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The moving of the map has created an unfortunate swath of text in the "Second reign". Any other photos we could use? :) Awadewit | talk 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think the map can stay up there -- your original point was quite valid. As you say it would be good to put another image in the second reign para, but I don't think I have anything -- it's a job getting images for these kings. I could grab another image from the Chronicle page, showing the text that says he recovered the kingdom again, but that wouldn't break up the text much -- it would be the same shape as the other text chunk. I'd like to use an image of a coin, but it's not fair use and coin images are copyrighted unless the picture itself is old. So I don't think there's much to be done about this, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So there is no nineteenth-century image of him? No painter imagined what he looked like during the big medieval revival? :) Awadewit | talk 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of! Such things do exist, as you say: see Caedwalla of Wessex and Aelle of Sussex (I love John Speed's pictures). However, I know of nothing like that for Wiglaf. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are chronicles italicized? Actually I don't know the answer to this; I italicize titles of books, but generally I haven't italicized chronicle titles. Angus went ahead and italicized it and I think it looks fine that way.
    • I don't know either. I was asking because I thought since they were major works, perhaps they were. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiglaf's ancestry: I guess the statement was rather compressed. I've attempted to expand and clarify it; let me know if that's an improvement.
    • I suppose; so, "source of competing dynasties" means what exactly? (Sorry if I am being dense, I don't read about this period often.) Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if it's not clear, that's my fault. Let me restate here what I'm trying to say, and you can tell me if I need to rephrase it in the article. There are two theories that I'm describing: the theories answer the question "where do the kings of Mercia come from?" The first theory is that the kings are all essentially related to the same royal line. A king whose ancestry is unknown, such as Wiglaf, might actually be the third or fourth-generation descendant of a younger son of a previous king. That's what I intended to convey by "collateral lines". The second theory makes reference to the multiple known tribal groupings within Mercia: there were lots of groups such as the Hwicce which were absorbed into Mercia over time. Not much is known about these, but it is known they existed. This second theory is the idea that these groups might have all been equally likely to provide a king -- there was no specific kin group that always provided a king, but instead just a set of competing kin groups, any one of which might come out on top in a particular dynastic squabble. Neither of these theories can be shown to apply to Wiglaf, but they seem worth mentioning just as scholarly background to the issue of otherwise unknown kings popping up in Mercia. Does that make it clearer? Please do feel free to try a rewrite in the article if you feel like it; or if you can locate the obscure section, point that out and I'll have a go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent explanation! It just needs to be in the article! See, you just told me "there are these two broad historical theories about the kings of Mercia" and "here is how they do (or do not) apply to Wiglaf". I think you should do the exact same thing in the article. Now that you have told me the theories, I can see them in the article, but it was hard to do so before - I kind of got lost in the details (as I said, these details are not familiar to me). For a reader like myself, I think you have to give the big picture first and then dive into the nitty gritty. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the rewrite on the talk page - I still think you should go with the model of introduce theory first and then show how Wiglaf does or does not fit into it, but the talk page version is easier to understand than the one I read originally. Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Latin: I substituted in one place and glossed in another; is more needed?
    • Document and people: can you give me some examples? I'm not sure what your concern is here. With regard to confusing readers, I'm actually not that worried about it: there are so darn few primary sources surviving that even a casual reader very rapidly learns what they are. When I started reading Anglo-Saxon history, what I found most confusing was references to specific editions that every scholar was familiar with, such as the Rolls editions. Anyway, give me some examples, and I'll see what I can do.
    • I know that the texts, theories, and people are familiar to you, but they will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers. They will be guessing. While it is possible to infer from the prose, it is best to be explicit, I think. Here are some examples:
    • Although one source claims that Coenwulf's son, Cynehelm, briefly succeeded to the throne, it is more likely that Ceolwulf, Coenwulf's brother, was the next king. - Medieval or modern source? Best to be absolutely clear in the article prose, I think.
    I've qualified this as an "eleventh-century source", per the information in the secondary source I'm using. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The next king, Beornwulf, was of no known royal line, though it has been conjectured on the basis of the common initial letter B that he was connected to the later kings Beorhtwulf and Burgred. - Conjectured by modern scholars or medieval scribes and such?
    Barbara Yorke is the one I'm quoting. I don't really want to refer to her in the text, because I can't be sure she's the first person to have made this suggestion -- in fact it's unlikely that she is, since the alliteration of dynastic names is a basic fact of Anglo-Saxon royalty. So I put a little more into the footnote -- I know you wanted something in the main text, but I don't quite see how to do that without giving Yorke more prominence than I can be sure she deserves for this argument.Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "scholars"? Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiglaf's ancestry is not known for certain, but some general theories about the source of competing dynasties in Mercia have been advanced. One suggestion is that the descendants of collateral branches of the royal family competed for the throne. - Who suggested?
    Here I have the same reservations as above, about Yorke, but I did change the introductory sentence to mention "historians", to make it clear these are modern theories. I've also expanded the first footnote to refer to Yorke as an example; the footnote on the second theory already had similar text (I think that was Angus's work). Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes - "historians" is akin to my "scholars" recommendation above. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wigstan's grandfathers were Wiglaf and Ceolwulf I; the tradition might be interpreted to mean that Wiglaf descended from Penda, but it might also be Wiglaf's wife, Cynethryth, who was descended from Penda. - A medieval tradition?
    Yes, and now so noted. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A different connection is mentioned in the Life of St. Wigstan, which asserts that the "B" and "W" families were related. - A medieval text?
    Yes; again, noted in the text. I have to say this one is a bit mysterious to me: Yorke refers explicitly to a "Life of Saint Wigstan", but I'm having trouble finding much out about it. There's a book I located on Google Books: Sayers & Watkiss, "History of the Abbey of Evesham", which appears to be a modern translation of the Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, which is listed as a reference. In that it appears that Thomas of Marlborough did not compose the Life of St Wigstan (p. xvi), but an earlier prior of the abbey had done so; but then (p. xxii) it appears he authored it. In either case that text doesn't seem to appear in that book, so I'm at a loss to locate a copy of it. However, it's clear it's a separate text, it is medieval, and it's the source of the information cited, so I hope that squeaks through. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least we know it is not available at your local Barnes & Noble. :) Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 825 error: fixed.

    I think that's everything. Thanks for the comments; let me know what you think of the fixes so far. Mike Christie (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry if I'm being too picky! I don't mean to be! Awadewit | talk 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. It's always a pleasure to work with someone who has clearly read the article with care and attention. I hope I've addressed everything; I know I didn't implement every fix you asked for, so let me know what else you think is still necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. So, what are we doing right and how can other people copy this? :) I am supporting the article. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's acceptable.

    Remark: Just take one instance in the lead that shows it can be better. He succeeded Ludec.. His reign coincided wi... His ancestry is unknown: the 820s were a peri..." Reads not like a well-written article but rather in a point by point style. Leranedo 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made some minor mods to the lead to try to improve the flow of those sentences. Let me know of other areas of prose that you think could be cleaned up and I'll be happy to have a go at those too. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very good, as usual. DrKiernan 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well-written. Good use of primary and secondary sources. Ekki01 21:33, 2 November 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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

    Turkey Vulture[edit]

    Self-nomination: I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is comprehensive, well-referenced, and meets FA criteria. heyjude. 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comments - lookin' good. A couple of things:
    Left a cite tag, sorry but should be dead easy to ref and is a pretty important note. I gotta sleep in a minute.

    ::horaltic? - needs some sort of explanation on wiktionary link or something.

    ::Oh yeah, and the other cite tags, needless to say. More later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I gave the article a copyedit, but other than a bit of now-fixed grammer I couldn't find anything to really pick at. If you want something to do, you may want to look at inserting some new images into the article from the Commons and reformatting them. Also, does the picture in the taxobox really need a description? Other than that, great job Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pass & support

    • On the basis that it's better than most articles here. Leranedo 09:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great article. I'd like to see it on the main page. I would like to see syrinx briefly explained in the lead, though. It's not term used everyday speech. It would be a shame if it scared away a reader. --Elliskev 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added an explanation for the term syrinx. Thanks for your support! Cheers, heyjude. 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You might try reworking the lead a little to make it sound less like a school report. Right now, too many sentences start "it is..." "it has..." "it does..." Try varying the sentence structure a bit; it will make for a more inviting lead! :) This could be as simple as moving a phrase (e.g. "In flight, it flaps its wings very infrequently" rather than "It flaps its wings very infrequently in flight). MeegsC | Talk 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the structure of several sentences in the intro, and I agree that it makes it much more interesting. Cheers, heyjude. 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good start! Would I step on your toes if I tweaked it a little more? MeegsC | Talk 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, feel free!heyjude. 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment. Though the species ranges across two hemispheres, it appears that some of the breeding information is correct only for the northern hemisphere; I have a hard time believing the birds in southern South America would be breeding April-June, in the middle of the winter! :) Do you have any references you can check for that? MeegsC | Talk 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Single subsections are unsightly. The logic is this: If you don't have more than one subsection, it doesn't make sense to make a section for it. So either make a section with two subsections, or one or two sections, without subsections. Thanks. 82.71.48.158 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
    • Support Great job. I'd like to see some of the subspecies broken out in future articles!--Mike Searson 00:20, 2 November 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2007&oldid=205001975"