Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2017

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017 [1].

Bengal famine of 1943

[edit]
Nominator(s):   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is no understatement to say that this famine is paradigmatic in the academic literature – it is hugely important in all academic discussions of the causes of famine. No one is really certain how many innocent Indian peasants died, but the most recent and authoritative estimate (2.1 million deaths) is more than double the total combined military and civilians WWII deaths of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. No one agrees on what caused it – some blame a cyclone and floods, fungal infestation, the fall of Burma, wartime inflation and British wartime priorities, or Winston Churchill personally. The article is large; it merits the size because it has been perhaps the most discussed famine of all time in relevant literature. Thank you for your time and trouble.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator note: This article gathered two Opposes at MILHIST A-review. I consider both Opposes non-actionable, so requested the review be closed. I do appreciate everyone's time & trouble. Please do let this article have its run at FAC.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments at the A-class review. As this article on a high profile and contentious topic was recently re-written in user space without this being advertised on its talk page, and concerns have since been raised about it there, I don't think that FA criterion 1e is met at present. As I noted in the A-class review, I'd suggest a peer review as an initial step. A GA review may also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. If you look in the talk page history, the article rewrite was advertised repeatedly. I can find diffs if you like...As I noted above, I consider your Oppose non-actionable. As for stability, we have had IP editors stepping on it (but that has been dealt with), and we have a single editor who has very strong opinions about images.. opinions I often disagree with. However, these imaging issues can be worked out step by step during FAC. We are already in the process of doing so.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's my error: I should have checked the talk page history myself. Nevertheless, the article cannot be considered stable given the talk page concerns. I note also that you didn't exactly invite collaboration on the new version (eg, [2] [3] in which editors are told that they can only view and comment on the new version) Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that was the standard operating procedure. As for inviting collaboration, I seriously invited at least six or seven editors (including Fowler&fowler and Worldbruce among several others) via either their talk page or via email. NO ONE absolutely NO ONE agreed, and among all those that I asked, MOST never even responded. You have accidentally brought up the one problem I admit: this issue is deep. It's deep, deep, deep. And in addition to being deep, it's a honeytrap for several kinds of POV editors. There are academic POVs, as scholars argue between FAD and FEE as primary cause (explained in article). There are HUGE political POVs, as hardcore Indian nationalists (or other folks who just hate Winston Churchill) would shout "It's Britain! It's Churchill! Churchill was evil! Britain was uncaring!", while hardcore British apologists would be adamant that it was not caused by or even greatly augmented by wartime events or considerations. (The FAD POV strongly overlaps/ties with British apology; the FEE position overlaps with Imperial blame, but it is possible to be FAD without pro-British and/or FEE without anti-British). The question is: Are we at Wikipedia capable of handling an article this deep and this controversial?  Lingzhi  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment::*@Lingzhi: By your own accounting it took you a year and a half working off Wiki, including one month of round the clock immersion, to complete this article. The article has nearly 15,000 words, nearly 400 citations, and nearly 150 works cited. The latter two are more numerous than those in my PhD thesis of many summers ago. It took my professors, who were all experts in the field, three months to read through, and I'm still not sure they did read through. You have thus far had no such encumbrances. In one dramatic edit of less than three weeks ago, you were able to paste, review, accept and publish your article. No one is tampering with your version, even if they suspect it is has a tad more than 0.0 POV. Don't you think it is unfair that after allowing yourself 18 months of undisturbed editing, you are unwilling to grant reviewers a few months for checking the details of your edits, mulling over their implications, and ensuring their consonance with the prevalent thinking in the field, all unharassed by exhortations to be actionable? I know that it probably doesn't feel good to have your article fail the A-rating. But upping the ante by bringing it to FAC doesn't help anyone or anything, the least of all your own article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS As for collaboration, you did send me email a year ago, saying only that it would be many months before the article would be ready, and that you will then take it to PR first and then FAC, and that you would be honored if I commented. I was traveling. I replied several months later saying I'd be happy to when it is ready. And that was that. I have the emails. Apparently, you are now balking at taking it to PR first. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comment. I feel precisely the opposite: FAc is the only, really the only, place where POV editors must hold themselves in check, and where many many very experienced and non-POV editors are guaranteed to have eyes on the article. I'm perfectly OK with a three-month-long FAC. I invite it. I am not OK with non-FAC options. Forex, Nick-D's MILHIST Oppose essentially opined that MILHIST was not equipped to handle the article, which needs a review from broader focus: "...these issues are all highly contested, and there's a risk that military history-focused reviewers will in effect endorse this version of the article despite not having the background knowledge to assess how well it balances the competing arguments." I took his implied advice and stepped away from MILHIST. Both Peer review and GA are (or were) scantily manned and by design not as deep as FAC. This is the place. Thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No one was breathing down your neck when you were writing the article. You relished the peace and quiet. It is the same with other Wikipedia editors. They like to check the details, and do their bits of research, and form their opinion of an article, without having objections thrown in their faces. The PR was what you had mentioned in the email. I am suggesting that the article sit by itself outside of any review process for several months, allowing potential editors to add their reliably sourced edits or remove yours if they are unreliably sourced, in the same way that you replaced theirs (outside of a formal review process). Any article that is thrust upon the Wikipedia readership in one edit, all 15,000 words of it, needs to be in editorially stable, before it can be reviewed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Aside from your edits, the article is stable. I think you have expressed yourself clearly and at length. I would hope you'll take a breather and let many other people have the freedom to express themselves.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any doubt that you think it is stable. Indeed you have thought it stable from the very moment of its birth announcement at 11:54 on 8 April 2017, for it was barely three minutes later that you promoted it from C-class to B-class, across six Wikiprojects in a remarkable piece of Wiki multi-tasking, and another three minutes later that you submitted it for a Milhist A-class review. You then nominated it at FAC even before the failed Milhist review had closed. In it entire life on this planet, your article has experienced only six minutes outside of a review setting. It seems to me that you are attempting to protect the POV that you have so painstakingly introduced and that you will aggressively battle anyone who dares question it. In light of this, I have no choice but to Oppose this article per violation of FA crterion 1 (e). I am suggesting, though, as our pleasant interaction at the article's talk page demonstrates, that you allow the article to be edited in the normal way, unfettered by a review process, and in a few months all the kinks will be ironed out. It is your call. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to coordinators These are the same two editors from MILHIST A-review who followed me over here. As for 1e, I propose that we let this FAC run and see what happens. Since IP raiders are prohibited, all that could be left are deliberate POV warriors, and they have not as yet made an appearance. The article is stable.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in the world has a POV, my friend, even the great Caesar did when he fell, even I and you and all of us who fell down then ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (sorry) I agree that this fails 1(e). It was inevitable that a radical re-write would attract the attention of earlier editors and I don't like the way their comments have been responded to. Having submitted the article for the A-review, that should have been followed through to a successful conclusion. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, allow time for the new content to bed in and let the editors who are currently locked out make their suggestions. This has turned into a right mess. If I were still a coordinator, I would feel most uncomfortable promoting this. A clean renomination in a few months, is my advice. Graham Beards (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I made my first edit in the article on 21 April 2017. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the nom points out, this is an important topic with a great deal written about it in the academic literature and, simultaneously, it is a contentious topic with many different points of view on causes, mortalities, economic effects and what have you. I understand and appreciate that the nominator has put a lot of effort into rewriting the article but, given that the article has been written essentially by one editor, it is impossible for it to have been evaluated for the quality of research put into it, the quality of the citations, and, most importantly, its balance in less than a month. What we need is far slower approach. Give other editors the time and space to evaluate and edit the article. Then, after a few months, put it up for peer review or even take it straight to FA if there is general agreement that the article is ready. With the three editors who are working on it (Ceoil, Lingzhi and Fowler), the odds are we're going to see a quality article that Wikipedia will be proud to feature. But, right now, this is way too early. (Fails 1(e) and it is unclear whether it passes 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Lingzhi: Why not take it through the GA process first? It is slow I know, but perhaps approaching some GA reviewers for an early review might help? Then with GA ribbons, do a DYK which may attract 1000s or possibly 10,000s of views (hopefully a few editors too). After DYK, do an FA nom? That will give F&f, RP and others some time to collaborate with you on anything they or you discover. If you don't wish to do GA+DYK, still a wait may be prudent. Leave alone FA noms, I prefer to see GA noms to be stable for a few weeks, both on the talk page and the live article. For an FA nom, even more. My guess is that you would likely earn the FA ribbon for this article in due course. But, for now, any reasons to avoid the waiting period and fast track this to FA? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm going to close the review per this request. As to next steps, FTR, I felt that MilHist ACR was a reasonable venue for a community review because it was a wartime event, and MilHist is pretty liberal about what is acceptable at ACR and never discourages non-MilHist members from reviewing there, but we're clearly beyond that now. I think a "bedding-down" period followed by PR, as indicted by a couple of reviewers above, would be the way to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2017 [4].

Indigenous Environmental Network

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes recent media developments of an activist group that has seen increasing focus from the media recently, and thus will likely be searched often in the future. The page aims to explain the goals and actions of the group while maintaining neutrality, so the general public can learn more about this lesser-known but highly public group.

Gmhardesty (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal. A three sentence lead? Thirteen references of which seven are to the subject itself? Entire paragraphs without a single source? Please withdraw this. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above and because some sentences, such as "Certain practices of coal mining, oil drilling, and fishing and hunting in the United States directly infringe upon native land and values," read like an ad. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose @Kennedy.aok: @Gmhardesty: @Jmgregory13: although your article is currently not near meeting the standards of the Featured Article criteria, I think that with improvement it could meet the lower "Good article" criteria. I appreciate that you have worked on this article for a class, particularly on a topic that is under-developed on Wikipedia; environmental and social justice issues are also interests of mine. That said, I don't think that FA is the best venue for this article to be reviewed. If you nominate this article for GA instead, I promise to review it there and suggest improvements that would guide it to an achievable (and still very worthwhile!) level of recognition. —BLZ · talk 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 [5].

William Pūnohu White

[edit]
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second go around as recommended by the closing admin of the last nomination after drumming up some interest. Thanks.

Text from my last nomination: "This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure."KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Image review

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • I don't understand note 5. What organisation was founded?
  • In May 1893 he organized the native community of Lahaina in removing the pro-annexationist Reverend Adam Pali of Waineʻe Church, who was asked to vacate the pastor's residence owned by church by July 8 I take it you mean he organised the native community, and they petitioned the Church to remove him? What happened here?
  • supporters of Rev. Pali Delete "Rev."; same with "Judge": use the title only on the first use
  • written with the use English language sources I don't understand this at all.
  • President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. Insert "and" before "prompted"
  • I don't think that addition make sense. Breaking down the sentence. - The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, [list of things, i. e. plural noun] prompted [verb] the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. - Would it be better to break into two sentences: "The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii. This government would continue to rule until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington."
  • the morning of the 12th Reformat the date

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading now..

White inherited the oratory skills of his Hawaiian ancestor Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I - you've said in the para above he has oratory skills, so no need to mention them again here...and comes over as a bit effusive/puffy.
  • How about: "Born in Lahaina, Maui, of mixed Native Hawaiian and English descent, White was descended from Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I."? There is this important cultural concept call kuleana in Hawaii that attributes ancestral traits and duties to their descendants. Or maybe a synonym instead, maybe?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he was an Englishman originally from Plymouth or Devon. - umm, Plymouth is in Devon, so needs to be reworded
Change to Plymouth, Devon. One obit said Plymouth and another said Devonshire so I was not sure and included each.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In 1891 White changed party alliance and joined the National Liberal Party. - I don't know much about Hawaiian politics, but this sentence is just there without any immediate explanation.
How so? It is explained in the following sentences. He became a traveling stump orator/advocate for the new party and the paragraph also explained some key stances of the new party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably he became an advocate after he had switched - from reading it it doesn't give me an idea of why he switched. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Still a little confuse here. What do you want me to do here? The sources just indicates he switched political party during the months before this election; it does not state why but generally many of the Hawaiian politicians felt the National Reform Party was too conservative and not Hawaiian enough, so they broke off and form the Liberal Party. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
White reportedly said, "He had always abhorred the idea of a republic," during a meeting of Hui Kālaiʻāina, on December 4, 1892 - it would be quotes and "I had always abhorred.." or he said that he had aways abhorred (without quotes).
I'm quoting the newspaper here. Added that part in there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd dequote and reword, as as it is written it makes no sense. All you need is a synonym for abhor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IUser:Dank made an editor to it that I feel fixes the problem without changing any word.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Hawaii Herald mentioned the same one as the predecessor to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald?
No it is not. His paper lasted only a few months. There is no connection.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After the overthrow, this Hawaiian political group switched its political agenda toward opposing annexation to the United States and restoring Liliʻuokalani - I'd put a "from" x and "to" x WRT agenda
Can you explain this suggestion a bit more? The effort was a local initiative by the local Euro-American community to annex themselves to the US rather than the US being the more active party in which case it would be annexation (efforts) from the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All you need to do is add a "from (old agenda)" after the "agenda" and before the "toward" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ending is a nice flourish. Nothing else is jumping out at me at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • In infobox, "The Honorable". Is this usual for Hawaii legislators? I know there is a consensus not to use the term (though it is proper) for US legislators, but Kingdom of Hawaii differs?
Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of infobox practice is that the children should not be listed if they are not notable (and blue-linked) but the number of children should be listed instead. Also, you mention two here, but four are mentioned in the article.
Removed. No exact number are known. His obit listed two surviving children at the time of his death while census records indicate there were at least four..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The various occupations should not be capped except the first one. Sheriff? Really? Based on a 12-day term? Also, politician may be redundant with an officeholder ...
Changed. He was a sheriff during his early life as well before going into politics.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout both legislatures" possibly "throughout the terms of both legislatures"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Serving as a legislator in the legislative assemblies" I might say "Representing Lahaina in the legislative assemblies" which better sets up the "Returning to Lahaina" later in the lede and avoids a near-repetition.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alongside Joseph Nāwahī, he was a principal author of the proposed 1893 Constitution with Queen Liliʻuokalani. " I imagine both were co-authors with White, but that's not totally clear the way it's phrased.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White's opponents tried to slander him in the English-language press and to diminish his support among Native Hawaiians by claiming he had tried to incite the people to storm the palace and harm the queen and her ministers." This seems a little long considering we are talking about a period of three days. Can't we just say "White's opponents falsely alleged he had tried to incite the people ..." I imagine the Iolani Palace is meant btw.
These three days are quite significant though. Shorten a bit and add link to Iolani Palace--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on his home island of Maui" given that you've already said where Lahaina is, I might just say "on Maui"
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " for running out " slang or cricket?
Synonym for expel.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his many attempts to win re-elections" should be re-election if, a return to office after an absence would count as such.
This is summarizing his string of electoral defeats between 1902 and 1914..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sort of link for the Hawaiian Territorial Legislature should be inserted.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the oldest foreign residents in Hawaii" age or length of residence? And I might say foreign-born
Length of resident. Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jr" missing a dot, to be consistent with "Sr."
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph, you should re-establish that you're talking about the subject of the article.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did William White have a mother? Is her family worthy of note? Can anything be said about White Jr.? The lack of detail on the parents seems a bit striking considering the depth of coverage of selected male ancestors.
Nothing is known about his mother and only the name of his father is mentioned. I couldn't find anything about either of them..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long account of the (male) ancestors seems, well, long. Can some of it be omitted? For example the final sentence of the paragraph on White Sr. seems to have no great relevance to Wm. White. except by establishing his paternal grandfather likely wasn't a big influence because he didn't live in the same place as his grandson ...
How? They both lived in Lahaina. And the genealogy is important in Hawaiian culture especially for the half-caste individuals in regards to their Hawaiian ancestors and the ancestors who settled in Hawaii from foreign lands. It also establish the basic information of his family background which is otherwise unknown. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaiakea" given his service under the king, it seems likely to me that he was Wm. White's great grandfather. Can this be stated?
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Anglican mission boarding institution ran by Archdeacon George Mason in Lahaina. " ran should be run.
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was educated with" Since you've mentioned someone else since last mention, I would say "White was educated with"
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He initially worked in law enforcement on the island of Hawaii and later became a lawyer and skilled orator." As you later go into all of this, why is this sentence needed?
Removed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deputy Sheriff Kāmauʻoha was removed from his position for malfeasance and White was appointed his successor as deputy sheriff of North Kohala." deputy sheriff ... deputy sheriff. One should go.
Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strict attention to his duties, as well as his thorough integrity". This needs a cite, as does every quotation. I wonder if you need all that in-lifetime puffery in this and the next quotation.
Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It does not seem like he held this position for long because J. W. Moanauli was listed in 1886 in that post.[18] By 1885, he was living in Hilo where he had begun practicing law." The second sentence seems to obviate the need for the first.
Anyway to retain both? The first sentence explains the list of sheriffs changed to listing another individual in 1886 while he had moved elsewhere sometime before then in 1885. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of his other early official posts of note was as an agent to take acknowledgements to instruments on September 12, 1884.[21]" So he was basically a notary public. Is this greatly notable?
I mean one has to start somewhere and this come from his public service office card in the archives which only list this and the times he served as a legislator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later became a member of the Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association), a Hawaiian political group founded in 1888 to oppose the Bayonet Constitution and promote Native Hawaiian leadership in the government." I would strike "Hawaiian" from the text as redundant, considering.
  • "King Kalākaua's coerced signing of the unpopular Bayonet Constitution of 1887." The year would probably be better off on first mention. Said constitution is referred to as "unpopular" four times. There seems to be a bit of POV.
I removed the extra ones from two of them but retained it for the intro and the paragraph following the "Legislature of 1892–93" section. It was not supported but many in the populace (because of restriction on suffrage) or the two monarchs (because it limited their powers) and the modern-day consensus in secondary sources is that it was an unpopular constitution. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up:
  • I believe the guideline that you don't list non-notable children in the infobox also applies to parents, so I would delete that.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it failed to pass and was defeated by vote of 24 to 16." I would delete "failed to pass and". An "a" needed before "vote".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to travel around the other islands and canvas for the new party" Shouldn't that be "canvass"?
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Liberal Party advocated for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and increased Native Hawaiian participation in the government. " to avoid the repetition, I might say "to draft a replacement for the unpopular Bayonet Constitution ..." I would add a "for" before "increased".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the party soon became was divided between radicals and more conciliatory groups. " some cleanup needed here.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White and his wife march alongside other legislators and their spouses" marched.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was referred to a selected committee." likely the last two words should be select committee.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "economic depression on the islands' sugar industry" likely "in", not "on"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, restore voting rights to economically disenfranchised Native Hawaiians and Asians, and remove the property qualification for suffrage imposed by the Bayonet Constitution" because "economically disenfranchised" is a bit ambiguous, I might say "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, and would remove the property requirement to vote imposed by the Bayonet Constitution, thus restoring voting rights to Native Hawaiians and Asians" or some such.
There was a racial clause to the suffrage in the 1887 constitution which outlawed Asians from the vote outright though, so it was not solely based on property qualification. The sentence is only serving to introduce certain aspects of the proposed constitution and not meant to be exhaustive. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the crowds were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina " they are not crowds individually, so I would say "Among them were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina "
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sympathetic to the Reformer," I'm not sure what the Reformer is.
The Reform Party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White remained a royalist and agent to the deposed monarch on Maui" I would add a "the" before "agent" and change "to" to "of"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asked him to vacate residence owned by church" "the" before "residence" and also before "church", I think.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who held control of church, " I might say "in physical control of the church"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the president of the group" "its president" is likely ample.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stopped the annexationist scheme prompted the Provisional Government" some issue here, I imagine.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foreigners and natives alike in Maui (with the exception of Hana)" Hana is not a person. Possibly "residents of Hana" or some such.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " although the genial 'Sam' could change the euphony by adding another terminal vowel to his name." Not sure what this means. If it's a pun on Pua's name, it may be lost on most.
I feel like it should stay.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for unpaid printing cost of the short-lived paper. " cost should probably be plural
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to paid" to pay
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they sent a memorial requesting for the restoration of the monarchy" "for" should likely be deleted.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established after the Hawaiian Organic Act," likely "under" rather than "after".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references at the end of the first paragraph of 1901 legislature are out of order.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The legislative assembly was later mockingly dubbed the "Lady Dog Legislature" because of extensive legislative debate" I would cut "legislative" before "debate" as repetition and not really needed anyway.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of the quote at the end of the section may be excessive, especially since it deals with the legislature as a whole, not specifically White.
I feel like it is quite important, though since it provides a modern evaluation about the legislature.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite expecting an easy victory, he was defeated by Republican candidate Charles H. Dickey. " I might cut "despite".
It sounds odd without "despite".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw significant loss in the polls" I would change to "lost" and add a comma.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it was soon placed on file by the Hawaii Supreme Court," I would change "file" to "hold"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by an act of the following legislative session in 1905." acts are not passed by legislative sessions, but by legislatures.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a second look once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done. Thank you so much for the thorough review. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Well done. I would still mention that nothing is known of his mother and only a few details on father btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the thorough the review. Your help is greatly appreciated. As for the last concern, it just what is available in the published sources. I'm sure that that information may only be known in unpublished oral knowledge by his descendants in Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I did some editing on this, but the going is rough, and I'm neither supporting nor opposing. I might or might not oppose future nominations, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Call this an oppose for now on prose. That doesn't have to be permanent, but the article needs work to bring it up to 1a quality. The prose is very choppy and quite difficult to follow in places. You have a combination of run-on sentences with lots of subclauses and very short sentences, often several in a row presenting seemingly unrelated facts.

  • Just the first sentence of "Early life and family", for example, reads White was born on August 6, 1851,[1][3][4] at Lahaina, on the island of Maui, to John White, Jr.,[5] the son of John White, Sr. and Keawe. You're trying to cram too much information into one sentence so you end up with three subclauses in very quick succession. You have exactly the same problem a few sentences later: During the French Revolutionary Wars, he served on the frigate HMS Amelia, which was part of the North Sea fleet under the command of British Vice Admiral Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan, during his engagement with the Dutch (by the way, that looks like way too much detail on grandad; I'd trim everything after "HMS Amelia" and kill two birds with one stone).
  • at the age of either eighty-four or ninety use numerals (MOS:NUMERAL), and you need to explain the discrepancy.
    • Removed for simplicity's sake. Why would I go into the trouble of explaining that? It is just a discrepancy in the two obituaries which is common in the 19th century. Seem out of place to mention in a note or a separate sentence.
  • This school, which was founded by is redundant; "The school was founded by" would work, or better still "founded in 1863 by...."
  • White lived and worked as a police officer He lived as a police officer?
  • In April 1884, Kāmauʻoha was removed from starts a series of short sentences with little variety.
    • How? There are no repetition of sentences here. I would understand if it was somewhere where I go "He was" into infinity which I don't see here. Also I am trying to stick to an encyclopedic tone in general not writing a novel here. Can you find me an FA article on a similar subject in which the prose is to your standards? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it happens, I recall finding much less to criticise in another article of yours, Curtis P. Iaukea, when it came through MilHist A-class. But you could pick almost any FA biography to look for different techniques for phrasing things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm surprise. That was a throwaway nom on my part to be honest; I barely worked on it while I've dugged up everything and work so much longer on this article. I will wait to see if any other reviewers have further comments along this line that could be more specific on what I can do to improve the prose --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's possibly the difference: it's a common flaw of Wikipedia articles that as editors uncover more information, we add it in but don't fully incorporate it into the surrounding text, which means it doesn't flow well from one sentence to the next. That's not the only cause, but it's a common one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few examples picked out from skimming the first few sections. It needs going through with a fine comb to really make the prose engaging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over six weeks now and seems to have stalled a little with two supports and an oppose. Therefore, I am archiving the nomination. It can be renominated after the usual 2 week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2017 [6].

Mary Kom (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an inspiring film based on the legendary eponymous boxer, who was largely unknown in her own country despite achieving plethora of accolades. Additionally, the film features a remarkable performance by Priyanka Chopra. I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 91 is dead and either needs to be replaced with a new source or recovered through a website archive. Same comment applies to reference 6.
  • I would imagine that the ALT description for the image of the actual Mary Kom would need to be more descriptive than "Mary Kom". Please expand this. You are very good with the other ALT descriptions so just modify this one to match the quality of the others.
  • I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. What do you mean by "first appearance"? Could you please clarify what this sentence means?
  • I would move the "despite her numerous achievements" to the end of the sentence to avoid awkwardly cutting that part of the sentence in two.
  • The phrase "much before" in the lead is awkward and too informal. You can just use "before" or an exact time/time estimate if known.
  • The use of the parenthesis in the last paragraph of the lead is a little awkward. The placement of (Chopra) directly before the word categories is a little odd and I would suggest revising this to avoid this.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who is singing the Indian national anthem at the end of the movie and is it worth identifying?
  • The phrase "woman-oriented biographical subject" sounds a little odd and ambiguous to me as it can read either as looking for a good female subject to make a movie out of and look for a good biographical subject that appeals to a female audience. This might just be me, but it just sounds a little strange to me and I would recommend revising it to make the meaning clearer.
  • In the phrase "he felt disgusted", do you need to clarify that he felt disgusted at himself for not knowing about her? Who was he disgusted towards? Himself? The media for not bringing her more into attention?
  • I would say "first choice" instead of "original choice" as the term "original choice" implies that it didn't work out and someone else had to play the character.
  • I would revise the wording for "choice of actor" since it is so close to the quote "perfect choice" that it is a little bit too repetitive in such a close proximity.
  • In the sentence about Danny Denzongpa, do you know who was doing the reports about him being a part of the film? If you specified who was doing the reporting, it would not only avoid the passive sentence construction from "It was reported", but also give a clearer idea to the reader on what is occurring.
  • The last sentence in the "Pre-production" subsection needs a citation.
  • Any information on the commercial performance of the soundtrack?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the reference titles (i.e. reference 98).

@Krish!: This is a very strong article. Great work with it. Once my comments are resolved, then I will support this nomination. I am not familiar with anything about this film or Indian films in general and I have never actually ever seen anything with Priyanka Chopra so I apologize if I miss anything. Good luck with this and hopefully, this review gets more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for your kind words and I have worked really hard on this. It was supposed to be my first solo FAC but I ended up nominating another one which was successful. I really liked this film and saw over 10 times in theatre alone particularly because of Chopra and the inspiring story. It might not be a great film, thanks to its weak and manipulative direction, but is certainly entertaining and inspiring thanks to Chopra's spectacular performance.Krish | Talk 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krish!: Awesome! I am glad that you enjoyed it. An actor's performance can definitely elevate a film. I can definitely support this nomination and good luck with getting this passed. I was wondering if you could possibly provide some comments for my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Great with work with article and hopefully it will receive more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • In a 2012 meeting with Sanjay Leela Bhansali, on being asked by Bhansali about his plans, Kumar told him about the film, explaining that this was not "his kind of cinema", given Bhansali's signature work. -- Bhansali repeats thrice in the sentence which needs to be rewritten for a simpler read. Also, why introduce the person again when the very first sentence does that job with a wikilink too?
  • Priyanka Chopra was Omung Kumar's and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's first choice for the title role -- Again, why introduce the makers again?
  • Later in that month, it was confirmed that she had been cast for the part. -- Who confirmed this? the makers or the actress' spokesperson? Please mention it.
  • In an interview with Daily News and Analysis, Mary Kom said "I don't think anybody could have done it as well as Priyanka. She is the best actress to play me. Acting anybody can do, but boxing will be different as one needs a certain type of body structure. She suits that. Her body is very structured, like that of a boxer." -- Please paraphrase this quote. It is a WP:QUOTEFARM issue that needs to be addressed.

More later in the day. Pavanjandhyala 04:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any actual reason for existence of the infobox in the soundtrack section. Can't we mention the label and release date directly in the paragraphs with reliable sources?
  • The film made profits of ₹50 million (US$740,000) before the release. -- No other figure in the entire paragraph was given a conversion. Why this?
  • Subhash K. Jha's review is another issue of WP:QUOTEFARM. Please look into it.
  • Ensure that every link here is white.

I don't have any other concerns beyond this. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. And, I don't know about the infobox but most of the FAs happens to have this. Coming to your quotefarm complain, its the only two line quote in the whole article and nobody even said a word about it during the PR review. I think its fine considering its the only line in that review that gives a proper summary of what the reviewer wanted to say. And, yes, I would be archiving all the sources on Thursday as I have a test tomorrow.Krish | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about that. Let me know once the job is done. Pavanjandhyala 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash

I'll try and make prose improvements wherever possible. As for my comments, lets begin with the lede section...

  • The film title in the intro section needs to be boldened and italicised.
  • I don't think you have to say "biographical sports drama film". It will cause genre overload. Just the first two genres are enough.
  • Try reducing usage of the word "film" as much as possible.
  • This section complies with WP:LEADCITE, and that's not a concern.

Plot

  • I say the actor names are best removed from this section if you want to keep them linked in "Production" to avoid violating WP:OVERLINK. Also, please try to stay in-universe as much as possible.

Cast

  • Please see that it complies with WP:FILMCAST. All characters must be sourced. But if they are sourced elsewhere apart from this section, you don't have to add sources here.

Production

  • Please see that unnecessary rumours are avoided to comply with WP:RUMOUR.
  • However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. However, she was enthusiastic about the idea - "However" has come twice, and I'm not sure it satisfies WP:NPOV.

Final comments

  • Life's too short for someone like me to go through each source to see that all content is written as per. I'm sure the admins will do a better job. You may want to combat link rotting (Archive.is is best advised for sites like The Times of India and CNN-News18, formerly CNN-IBN). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fine with the prose, I see quite a few links have issues. Once they are fixed, this will have my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good work Krish. Hope this passes FAC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vedant

Will put up comments after taking a good look at this, can be a couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Early observations :[reply]

Lede
  • "The film Priyanka Chopra in the lead role of the eponymous boxer, with Darshan Kumar and Sunil Thapa in supporting roles" - notice anything?
  • I don't think that the last sentence of the first paragraph belongs there.
  • "where only the boxing sequences were filmed continuously for twenty days" - reads awkwardly to me, how about : "where the boxing sequences were filmed in a single schedule."
  • "distinct boxing styles" - style
  • Why don't we take a step back and actually try and read what's written? I meant that you need to replace "styles" with "style". Rest assured, everyone here in pretty darn serious, so let's just drop the silly questions and make better use of our words. NumerounovedantTalk 17:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was released on 5 September 2014 to generally positive reviews" - "It" can be used to avoid repetition of the weird "film".
Plot
  • "After realising Narjit Singh (Sunil Thapa), coach of the gym, and of the Asian champion Dingko Singh, Kom tells him about her boxing aspirations." - what is this supposed to mean?
  • "Due to Kom's dedication and stubbornness, Singh starts training her, suggesting she change her name to Mary Kom." - These should be two separate sentences.
  • "state level championship" - hyphenate
  • "After winning the state level championship, her father confronts her for keeping about her involvement in the sport from him." - you will need to rephrase here as well.
  • "boxing:" - not sure if this should be a colon.
  • "Kom has to fight a wrestler to arrange money to get her household cow back, which is where she meets the footballer Onler Kom." - Doesn't this happen way before the events mentioned prior to the same.
  • "Onler encourages her to revive her boxing training." - revive?
  • "She later writes an apology letter, and the official accepts it, not without insulting her." - you might want to rephrase using "though".
  • "Kom then asks Coach Singh to train her" - Be sure that you are consistent in your manner of referring to the character, earlier the section refers to his as Singh.
  • "gruelling activities" - vague and ambiguous, not the best choice of words.
  • "On the podium while accepting the medal, she learns that her son's surgery was successful and she is given the nickname "Magnificent Mary"." - Again, separate sentences. Two distinct facts should always be two different sentences, to avoid making them sound related somehow.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production
  • "Kumar went to Manipur to meet Kom and to seek her permission to make the film. However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. Nevertheless, she was enthusiastic about the idea." - not sure if "However" and "Nevertheless" are the best choice of words here.
  • "Research for the film was done through sources," - that is really vague, unless you mention what sources or substitute the comma.
  • "In her interactions with Quadras and Kumar, Kom was honest and forthcoming" - this really isn't very encyclopedia-like phrasing, it sounds mostly approving of her, which is totally unnecessary.
  • "However, Quadras's main challenge was to make the film authentic and cinematic," - I am not sure of what the statement means, even with the long lengthy explanation that follows. You'll have to rephrase and be more precise about he "challenges".
  • The explanation too is colloquial in itself. Rephrase.
  • "The fifth World Boxing Championship" - what about the 4th?
There is no mention of her 2005 win in the article, at least up untill where I have read, which tends to lead the reader to believe in just three WC wins. Let me know if I am missing something here. NumerounovedantTalk 07:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a contract that permitted to depict Kom's life up to 2008" - "a contract"? Were there more than one? If not rephrase using "the".
  • "The contract for the film was signed at that time when Kom was not even qualified for the London Olympics." - was not even qualifies is wrong grammatically.
  • "Still, he wanted to hear the story and was also enthusiastic towards the project." Replace he with Bhansali.
  • "Her win also brought the recognition of her previous achievements." - "Her win also highlighted her previous achievements."
  • Split the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • "which the actress denied initially." - the actress sounds really informal and tabloid-like.
  • "Samir Jaura, who previously trained Farhan Akhtar for Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was brought to train Chopra." - "brought in".
  • "Chopra, at that time, was busy with her other works" - really weak wording.
  • "She started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." - "Chopra started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." The last female reference is of Kom. Consequently the next "Chopra" becomes "She".
  • "Chopra got a fifteen days break" - "fifteen day break".
  • No need for "continuously" here.
  • "She was particularly trained by Kom's" - particularly trained by? I am not sure of the phrasing.
  • "channeled the grief.
  • The paragraph overuses "Chopra" in parts.
  • "Unlike Chopra, Kumar did not met Onler Kom before the film, working mainly from videos provided by Kom to the makers, and helping the actor to understand the nuances of his character." - Rephrase.

This is turning into a really taxing review. It was much harder than I though it would be, and honestly I am surprised to see the quick supports for it. Will go section-wise from here on. NumerounovedantTalk 20:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, on a closer look I am inclined to giving a Strong Opposeconsidering the number of errors I have found from just a single section. I went to read on and things are pretty much the same. I feel that thus discussion should be closed as the article needs a lot work. NumerounovedantTalk 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: You know what, I am not even surprised that you said this. FYI, the article was copy-edited by GOCE, went through a Peer review by some of the notable editors including Giansts2008. No one said a word but suddenly you came and challenged my article. You have always been critical to my work, finding flaws when there aren't. What you have listed above is your POV of how you want the sentences to be in the article. Still, I will try to resolve everything but I guess some people have this habit to be over-critical, which is a good thing. Nevermind, I also did the same when I was new here.Krish | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, in that case we should wait for an a third-person intervention which can decide if my concerns are legitimate or not. I am not going to proceed further (but will uphold my Oppose here, as i still find the prose to be really weak throughout the article), to avoid creating drama where there is none. I don't want rain for either of us. As far as the being critical of your work claim goes, I have done nothing to deserve that, I have offered source reviews, comments, and suggestions on your request every single time. I been nothing but nice to you, and haven't really been asking for the favour to be returned. That aside, you might want to look for a third party opinion on my comments here. I might review the Reception section in a short while, till then you may ask for another reviewer's opinion. NumerounovedantTalk 07:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the intrusion, but I have to agree with Numerounovedant's comments as I find that are pointing out areas that require improvement. I would advise you to not take these comments personally, but view them as ways in which you can grow and improve on here. Numerounovedant took a lot of time and effort to put all of these comments up so I would imagine that they are just trying to help to make this article the best it could possibly be in order to reach the FAC standards. I know it can be hard to react to criticism (I also receive some very helpful criticism on my FAC that made me feel a little awkward as well), but it is important to learn to take it and grow from it rather than reacting negatively. That's just my two cents for this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47 for being the buffer here. So, I feel that I instead of offering comments on every single issue I would​ rather perform a minor copy-edit and we can proceed from there. Alright Krish? NumerounovedantTalk 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, feel free to work around them. I have not been through the Soundtrack and Reception sections, but most of my early concerns have been addressed. I believe it's nearing the FA standard, but still could use some copy-editing and proofreading. That's it for me. Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: I would really appreciate your comments on Waiting's FAC. NumerounovedantTalk 07:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As stated above, I left comments at the article's peer review. I finally had an opportunity to return to the article today and found some prose issues that I don't remember from the last time I looked at it. Perhaps subsequent edits added the glitches, or I could have missed a few things earlier. Either way, I made copy-edits where I deemed them necessary (please go ahead and change back any you don't like). The articles appears comprehensive for the subject matter, and I'm satisfied that it meets FA standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
  • "a female sportsperson who had to confront opposition from her father, politics and making a comeback after a long career break." — You can just say "career break" as 2006 to 2008 doesn't seem too long.
@Krish!: Fair enough.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fifth World Boxing Championship and the London Olympics were left out because of the contract that permitted a depiction of Kom's life up to 2008." — The world boxing championship is included in the film isn't it? This sentence contradicts the plot. Do clarify about this.
  • "For Kom's wedding sequence in the film, the designer created an exact replica of the wedding gown that she wore for her wedding." — Repetition of "wedding". This can be rephrased as "For Kom's wedding sequence in the film, the designer (if it is Tangri, just say his last name here) created an exact replica of the gown that she wore."
  • "Later, Uday Shirali, Chopra's makeup artist since Agneepath (2012), was hired." — What happened to Garbarino?
@Krish!: In that case, you can say he was replaced with another guy.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ssven2: "Hollywood-based makeup artist Mark Garbarino was selected to work on Chopra's makeup. At first, they wanted her to look exactly like Kom by using prosthetic makeup.[34] Chopra did a prosthetic test in the United States which included heavier eyelids for a more East-Asian look. However, the final result did not appeal to the makers. Also, the prosthetic would not hold during filming of the heavy-action boxing scenes.[34] It was later reported that Chopra's look would be created post production by using Visual effects.[34] However, the results were unsatisfactory and hence, this idea was also dropped." I don't think anything needs to be changed. It says the final results did not appeal to the makers.Krish | Talk 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to find a better source for BO other than Koimoi. Haven't you found the one for BOI or from IBTimes?
  • Jha's review borders on WP:QUOTEFARM. Try to describe it more or at least trim the review.

@Krish!: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ssven2: Well Box Office India's gross reports are contradicting. In one source, it said it grossed 94 crores but the film's BIO data says 86 crores. So, I chose the Koimoi source. Plus, The another Box Office India, the magazine, which is more reputed reported the gross to be over 100 crores. Coming to that quote, I think I had answered someone above that why its neccessary. It have used it because that is the only quote in the review which describes the film, rest praises Chopra. And, its only two small sentence quote in the article. I hope you are okay with itKrish | Talk 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: Ok, maybe you can use this instead of Koimoi.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krish!: You have my support. Good luck with the FAC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- quite a lot to wade through here, if we haven't had a formal source review for reliability/formatting then pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Syek88

[edit]

I am sorry to drop in late but I am convinced that Numerounovedant is correct in saying that this article is not ready for Featured Article status. There are simply too many prose deficiencies. This is a selection from just one section of the article: "Plot".

  • "The film opens with a pregnant Mangte Chungeijang Kom (Priyanka Chopra), heading towards the hospital with her husband Onler Kom (Darshan Kumaar)." What is the significance of her being pregnant? Or is she in labour? Also, by what means are they "heading towards the hospital". The reader assumes that it is by motor vehicle, but the next sentence suggests otherwise.
  • "Onler is mistaken for an insurgent and beaten when he tries to find a vehicle despite a curfew." - Some context is needed for the "insurgent" and "curfew". Why is there a curfew and why would Onler be mistaken for an insurgent? This sentence suggests that the film has a political backdrop, perhaps concerning events in Manipur, which the article does not explain.
  • "Kom has to fight a wrestler to arrange money to get her household cow back, which is where she meets the footballer Onler Kom." This sentence makes very little sense in any respect.
  • "After watching her victorious 2002 Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships match on television, Kom reconciles with her father, who apologises to her for not understanding her passion for the sport." - The subject of this sentence is the father, not Kom, so it should be "her father reconciles..."
  • "Kom then asks Narjit Singh to train her, as she thinks that he is the one who can get the best out of her, which the coach accepts." - "and the coach agrees" would be more grammatical.
  • "Meanwhile, Onler Kom informs her about one of her children having ventricular septal defect." - Previously he has just been "Onler", which has worked fine.
  • "She regains her strength and fights back, winning the 2008 Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships." - we've already been told what the name of the Championships is, so "winning the tournament" would suffice.

Scanning through later parts of the article there are grammatical errors ("neither of the films were [was] made."), PR language ("generating a positive buzz") and misplaced commas that often change the meaning of a sentence unintentionally ("Filming for the boxing scenes was difficult for Chopra as she got hurt several times saying,..." - suggests she got hurt while saying something).

  • Fixed (were not that many you claimed). By "generating a positive buzz", I meant to show that the the film was marketed on the basis of the trailers. Indian films don't employ viral marketings and other stuffs. So its iimportant to show that the film opened well becoz of the buzz.Krish | Talk 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear that I am using a selection from the article as the basis for my comments. I take the view that if there is a certain rate of error in one section of the article, that rate will be extrapolated to the remainder, making it unnecessary for me to review the whole thing.

All I think it needs, probably in advance of a future Featured Article nomination, is an experienced and independent editor to spend a few hours going through the article sentence by sentence. Syek88 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Syek88: I wish I had answers to your questions. LOL. If the film opens that way then tell me if its my problem? Do you want me explain a political backdrop which is not even present in the film? So should I add the 9/11 bombing or 26/11 attacks? Still I will try to resolve your comments.Krish | Talk 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed most of the problems. Thank you for your review. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the intrusion, but I couldn't help but sense the hostility from Krish here. It's really disappointing to see your reaction to legitimate criticism, I mean I get sarcasm and trying to be funny, but this is a little over the line and should not be entertained. Syek88 has offered comments that I believe would concern a reader who's unfamiliar with the film. Having seen it multiple times, I (and probably some other reviewers) might have overlooked it because we know the "context" to most of the things. That said, I agree that the lack of context on the insurgency is the director's fault (not your own). Other than that I think you should address Syek88's comments with less sarcasm hostility. Let's remember that we're all here for the same reasons, Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been drawn back here by a pushy note on my User Talk page. Whatever copy-editing has taken place on the article it is clearly not enough. Setting myself a time limit of 10 minutes, I scanned the article and noticed the following further examples of sentences with grammatical errors or poor syntax:
  • The first teaser was released on Chopra's birthday, 18 July, which showed the actor as Kom, getting ready for her boxing match with the tagline "Most Champions Make Their Name. She Made History".
  • However, neither of the films were made. - I even highlighted this one above
  • For the role, Kumar lost 12 kilogram, and followed a strict, grilled chicken and oil-free fish protein diet for three months.
  • Before filming, Chopra had to re-train herself all over again to build muscles.
  • Cinematographer Keiko Nakahara used a hand-held camera during the shooting of the film, which was shot in 57 days over the course of two years.
  • Inconsistent spelling of Dharamsala/Dharamshala.

I am even more firmly of the view that the article needs substantial work away from the FAC process. Syek88 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Syek88: Fixed all of these. I am sorry but I had informed you about resolving your comments like a week ago and you didn't even care to come back and look at them. And, now you are questioning everything? This is funny considering a lot of these reviewers didn't found these mistakes. Yours is a problem of Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT. Plus these changes you had listed here yesterday, were done by FrB.TG (on your demand). Saying to close the FAC, just because YOU DON'T LIKE IT is ridiculous. I am sorry but It takes a lot of work (taking out hours from your college life) to write these articles, Indian films, and that is why not many editors are willing to take these up because of editors like you, who discourage them. Why don't you give the article a copy edit if you think certain things are wrong with it? I want Ian Rose to look at this case. I am tired.Krish | Talk 05:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • The budget ref says 150-180 million, the BO collection ref says 180. You'll​need to change accordingly.
  • What makes WonderWoman.ib, Business of Cinema reliable?
  • You can wiki-link Notch Magazine, Indo-Asian News Service, Yahoo, India-West, The Financial Express, Firstpost, The Telegraph, Sify (only) at the first instance in the section.
  • Ref. 42 is missing publisher
  • Ref. 46 - formatting issue
  • Koimoi should not be used as it's reliability is in question.
  • Should International Business Times be International Business Times India?
  • Dolby should be Dolby Laboratories and wiki-linked.

Rest looks fine, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this would better substantiate the opening line of the Critical reception section. NumerounovedantTalk 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly about it. Anyone more familiar with referencing can always cross-check the comments though. NumerounovedantTalk 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been through everything else. NumerounovedantTalk 12:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a reviewer opposed the nomination, the nominator asked me to take a look at the prose for grammar. I have given it some copy-edits, but please review my changes and let me know if I have actually improved the prose or messed anything up. These are my edits. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over two months now, and I'm afraid I don't quite see a consensus to promote. There is support from Aoba47, Pavanjandhyala, Yashthepunisher, Kailash and Giants2008, and there is substantial commentary there. However, Syek88 has made a reasoned oppose and indicated that the article needs more work. Additionally, Numerounovedant, although not opposing, found several issues and expressed reservations. This is a difficult one, to be honest and it could have gone either way. What might have helped a little is if the earlier reviews had addressed the FA criteria in a little more depth. I took a quick glance myself at the prose and found one or two other little glitches. Therefore, I am going to archive this nomination. I recommend that the nominator asks someone to look at the prose, possibly one of the FAC regulars, before renominating. However, given that I am archiving after quite a lot of support, I would be prepared to allow an earlier renomination if the nominator can work with Syek88 and the latter is happy that the prose meets FA standards. If this is not possible, or neither editor wishes to do so, the article can be freely renominated after the usual 2 week wait. Sorry that this has not been successful after such a long wait and hopefully the second nomination will be more successful. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2017 [7].

Philippine Competition Commission

[edit]
Nominator(s): Martintepongko (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC). It aims to discuss what the Commission is, what it can and cannot do, and other information pertinent to the operations of the Commission. This article should be featured because it is well-researched and it meets all FA criteria. Martintepongko (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. Large portions of the article are copied directly from the sources - while most are PD, the article lacks proper attribution for those, and at least one of the sources appears to be copyrighted. Further, most of the sources are not independent, and others are not reliable (eg. UKEssays). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also suggest withdrawal. While Nikki's concerns are a show stopper in their own right, this article appears greatly incomplete as it doesn't discuss how effective this body actually is or why it was established. Given the well-known governance, crony capitalism and corruption issues in the Philippines these are essential issues for any articles on this topic (the same would also apply to articles on similar bodies in less troubled countries). Statements such as the law this organisation administers "protects the well-being of consumers and preserves the efficiency of competition in the marketplace" appear to be PR given the actual situation in this country - and indeed in most countries. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 [8].

Fightstar

[edit]
Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- With no commentary after almost four weeks, this nom appears to be a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it. Given the situation, you are at liberty to re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks; perhaps getting it back to the top of the queue will generate more attention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 [9].

Terri Schiavo case

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the right-to-die legal case centering around Terri Schiavo that took place in the United States from 1990-2005. This was a major legal and political conflict. The article has been nominated several times before, but was rejected due to controversial nature of subject. Article has been listed as a good article for almost 5 years now, without and major revisions or edit wars. Time to reconsider. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments from RL0919

  • Will try to read through for a full review, but I have some initial comments from a quick scan: There is a "citation needed" tag in the lead that dates back to September. Also, the references have some inconsistent date formats, and a number of references have "CS1" errors for external links in places they aren't expected or multiple authors listed in one 'author' field. --RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anythingyouwant

  • I got less than ten words into this article before running into problems. Here's how it currently starts: "The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case....." This is a very problematic way to start the article. ‪According to Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care, p. 150,‬ by Banaszak-Holl et al. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), "Whereas Cruzan was framed as a right to die case, Schiavo was framed as a right to life case, or a contest between the right to live and the right to die...." What entitles us to re-frame it? Perhaps the most accurate way to look at the Schiavo case is as a case about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, and in favor of a spouse versus parents. Just starting out by labeling it as a "right to die" case implies from the outset that it was about whether Schiavo should be able to exercise her right to die, which is, uh, not quite neutral IMHO, and an oversimplification also.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • There are several spots missing citations, and some of what is cited does not match up with the cited source. For example, "in early 2003 the Schindlers demanded that he share the malpractice money" is cited to a source that states this occurred in 1993
  • Overall there is considerable use of primary sources - see WP:PSTS
  • There are considerable inconsistencies in reference formatting
  • MOS editing needed throughout - linking, ellipses, etc
  • File:SchiavoGrave.jpg is incorrectly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you list the missing and incorrect citations you found?
    • What is the proper licensing for the grave picture?
    • Considering the substantial issues in formatting and citation, I guess this article should be withdrawn from consideration until issues are corrected. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having read on this further since my initial comment above, I agree that it needs more work. The source formatting is mostly a cosmetic issue that could be fixed during review, but the POV question raised by Anythingyouwant above also needs to be addressed, and frankly I'm concerned that the citation list is filled with news articles and primary source documents, while books (including a couple from academic publishers) are relegated to "further reading". Withdrawing the nomination would give you time to address these issues under less pressure. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now)

  • After a quick read through, my concerns are similar to those above. In addition to the issues raised above by RL0919, I see some PoV questions similar to those by Anythingyouwant, and these are significant.
  • Overall, the article is unevenly written--parts of it are quite smooth and clear, others very spotty. The one sentence section on the relationship between husband and parents is particularly jarring. Without having mentioned TS's health problems in the lead, jumping into her health concerns immediately is also jarring, especially since there doesn't seem to be consensus on the relationship between her possible bulimia and her cardiac arrest. Consequently, the background section seems to provide background that doesn't flow together. Later, the introduction of the character "obstetrician" is unexpected, for example, when we should have known about him from background.
  • I'm finding some strange wiki links: for example, intubation|intubated, instead of Tracheal intubation|intubation auntieruth (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is problematic, I agree. For example, The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case in the United States from 1990 to 2005, involving Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo, a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and elected to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo's parents argued in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.
  • Howabout:

The Terri Schiavo case was a highly controversial legal case in the United States from 1990 to 2005 centered on a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state and her husband and legal guardian, and her parents. The contestants—the woman's husband and legal guardian and her parents—challenged ideas about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, or in favor of a spouse versus parents.

In 1990, Theresa Marie Schiavo suffered a medical event that was later determined to have deprived her brain of oxygen. Doctors diagnosed her a vegetative state and she was placed on artificial life support. After exploring remedial options, and with the prospect of no recovery, her husband/legal guardian elected to remove her feeding tube and allow her to die. Schiavo's parents challenged the medical diagnosis and filed a counter argument in favor of artificial nutrition and hydration.

Subsequently, a highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges involved 14 appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; extensive government intervention at the levels of the Florida state legislature, governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, and President George W. Bush; and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. The case also spurred highly visible activism from the pro-life movement, the right-to-die movement, and disability rights groups.

Just a thought. But this indicates also the extent to which this article needs revision. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2017 [10].

Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Nevé–selbert 16:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the death of the most controversial and consequential public figure in recent British history. I would like to think that the article's quality has improved in recent months, reference formatting is first-rate and the thumbnails neatly fit in with much of the text. The article contains a fair amount of both praise and criticism of its subject, thus comfortably conforming to WP:NPOV standards. Currently WP:CCLASS, it has indeed undergone various c/e improvements since that assessment. --Nevé–selbert 16:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dead link in the references (no 50)
Several of the references are missing accessdates.
Keith D (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton

[edit]

I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the development of this article. However, my immediate impression is that the lead is inadequate. It does not properly summarise the article, inter alia making almost no reference to the "reactions" which comprise around two-thirds of the full text. Also there is some clumsy writing, for example:

  • "Her funeral was held on 17 April 2013, and held the status of a ceremonial funeral, the first since the funeral of the Queen Mother." The word "funeral" appears three times in this short sentence.
  • "Due to the polarised view of her achievements and legacy, the reception to her death was mixed, and included street parties." This is clumsy, and as indicated above is a wholly inadequate summary of the Reactions sections of the article.
  • "Notable attendees included all four of the living Prime Ministers (and future prime minister Theresa May) and their wives, the Queen, Brian Mulroney, F. W. de Klerk, other foreign dignitaries, and all government ministers."
  • Inconsistency in capitalisation ("Prime Ministers" and "prime minister").
  • I'm not a royalist, but it is surely general practice for HM to head a list of "dignitaries", rather than being chucked in with also-rans such as Mulroney.
  • Why, incidentally, is Mulroney's presence thought worthy of specific mention in the lead, or that of De Klerk? As far as I can see, neither is mentioned in the main text.
  • The parenthetical reference to Theresa May is trivia rather than a key fact.
  • "all government ministers" is very vague. You should at least specify British government ministers, and also whether you mean cabinet ministers or the whole shooting match of junior office-holders in the Cameron administration, most of whom were anonymous figures who certainly don't warrant the description of "notable attendees".
  • We don't normally refer to ashes as being "buried".

Rather than tinkering, the whole lead needs a substantial rewrite and expansion to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD. I have not read in detail beyond this point, but will attempt to do so soon and add further comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator: Please ping me when you are ready to respond. I am not always online but I check in fairly regularly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianboulton: I understand what you're saying, thanks for commenting. I agree that the lede is inadequate, and I've tagged the article accordingly. Thinking about it, it was wrong of me to come here and nominate this article to be featured; it would have been wiser of me to have nominated this article for WP:BCLASS status. Had I considered all the options at the time, I wouldn't have decided to rashly resort here. My bad. Your points are entirely within reason and thanks again for taking the time. Red X I withdraw my nomination .--Nevé–selbert 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the wisest step at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2017 [11].

The Rolling Stones

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British Rock band The Rolling Stones. It was previously nominated back in 2006 for featured article status (by another user here), however, it was declined. I am renominating it as the article has substantially improved in the 10-11 years since 2006 and might potentially be of the right calibre. Notability is certainly not an issue with this article. TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) *Support as nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: TheSandDoctor, you have no edits to this article. Please see the instructions at the top of the FAC page ... have you talked with anyone who's worked on the article to see if they're ready to respond to questions at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I have made contributions to Rolling Stones related articles/pages, but not the main one apparently (I honestly thought I had for some reason...). Did not see the bit regarding talking to any regular editors of Rolling Stones however did make a post on its talk page regarding this. My apologies --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I figured out why I thought I had edited Rolling Stones from, I updated the Rolling Stones template to reflect their most recent concert film (which was not on it). I plan to create the page for the concert film shortly (just won't have the time today most likely) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless we see, fairly quickly, that the main editors of this article are a) happy that this article has been nominated, and b) believe it meets the FA criteria and are able to assist in making sure of this, then this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Roger, I have tagged some frequent editors of the page in the post and amended my post on the talk page Talk:The_Rolling_Stones. My apologies for accidentally missing some of the steps. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, note that it's not normal practice here to support your own nomination, and it's pointless since the coordinators will disregard it, I'd strike it if I were you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: How do I do that? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, put <s> before the text and </s> after Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Struck my supporting comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only one of the 5 editors with over 100 edits has edited it in the last 5 years, and that was over 2 years ago. It seems to be on autopilot & I can't see this working. I don't blame them (if they are still active at all) as the volume of edits is pretty high. That said, the article looks in good shape, perhaps for GA. But I think a much closer familiarity with it would be needed for an FA nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "1962–1964: Building a following" has too much close paraphrasing and unsourced quotations, "1965–1967: Height of fame" has choppy paragraphs and no source for "it was one of the first pop songs to address the issue of prescription drug abuse". 1968–1972: "Golden Age" - Golden Age in whose opinion? Also has an unsourced paragraph and unsourced end of paragraphs. "1989–1999: Comeback, return to popularity, and record-breaking tours" last paragraph unsourced. "The Rolling Stones are notable in modern popular music" - see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED. Citations to the Daily Mail, not enough use of the best book sources, no citation to Philip Norman's Jagger biography (is it relevant?), recent bickering over genres on the talk page .... could be worked into GA with some effort, but FA needs a thorough re-examination of all the source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this may be some way from FA status, unfortunately. This may stem from the nominator not being a major contributor to the article. There is one oppose with some major concerns, and Johnbod implies that it is some way from meeting the FA criteria. I hope that someone does work on this away from FAC, maybe beginning with GA, as I'd really like to see this back here at FAC some time. In any case, there should be the usual two week minimum wait before renominating. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2017 [12].

Mahavira

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, who is of great importance in Indian history. It must be featured because he is leader of one of the primary religious movements in Ancient India. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pankaj, I completely agree that this is a very important article, and should be brought to a high standard. But the article is quite far from FA standards at the moment. Even after a brief look I see the following problems. The entire article is less than 2000 words of prose, slightly more than 10kb of text. Most important articles are four or five times as long, because there is rarely a dearth of material. The lede is far from adequate. Despite substantial effort on your part and that of others, the article still makes heavy use of Jain terminology, and is sometimes unable to step away from the POV of a believer. And though I am not an expert, I think the sources are light on solid academic sourcing. I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, but be prepared for some harsh critique. If I did a full review, I'd likely oppose, for all of these reasons. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to improve it and have it pass FA. This article might not be as long as some other articles, but it seems long enough for the subject and meeting the FA criteria as given. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very far from being FA status at present. The article uncritically repeats Jain beliefs and mythology as fact: "Mahavira is often called the founder of Jainism, but this was not the case because the Jain tradition recognizes his predecessors and he is considered the 24th Tirthankara" etc. For this reason I have concerns about its current rating as a GA, let alone its nomination as FA. Much work is needed, I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Given an early oppose and another reviewer with major concerns, I think this was something of a premature nomination. I would recommend getting someone to take a look at this, and work on some of the issues away from FAC and then renominating after at least the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2017 [13].

Briarcliff Manor Public Library

[edit]
Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration: the Briarcliff Manor Public Library. This is part of a good topic about Briarcliff Manor I've been helping write as part of a volunteer position at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or edit the article. I'd hope you can help make the article even better – I believe there's always room for improvement. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fencer2013

[edit]

I thought that this article was excellent. It was a good summary of the Library's history, and made great use of relevant pictures. The references were also cited correctly, and the dates used for this article were very accurate.Fencer2013 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

[edit]

Support: I read this article thoroughly and support that it should be a featured article. The article is thorough in its presentation of the facts and the organization of the material is excellent. The images are also of excellent quality and I especially like the map of the Historical Library Locations that has the images of each location hyperlinked to the respective pin on the map.Ajfeist (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by bluerasberry

[edit]

I have some comments but am not doing a full featured article review.

First, it surprises me that there is so much coverage of this library. This is a library in a town of 8000 people. I know that this library serves some other nearby communities outside of its city limits, but most libraries in major cities fail to even meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This library has been the particular subject of attentive journalism by major media sources. I know this place is near New York City, but articles like these

  • Buckvar, Felice (December 16, 1990). "Libraries Say Call For Videos Is Growing". The New York Times. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  • Brenner, Elsa (June 5, 2005). "Communities; Library Gets a Choice: Grow or Shut Down". The New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2014.
  • Brenner, Elsa (September 5, 2008). "Library's Size Will More Than Triple". The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2016.

are rare for any library. The staff at this library must have excellent public relations skills. There are lots of organizations with much larger budgets doing much more unusual work than a community library and which seek to get media coverage but fail to do so. I bring this up because whereas no amount of research will get many topics to Wikipedia's feature article status just for lack of coverage, I think that this unusual library actually has enough coverage to make it eligible to pass.

I question the "operations" section. While some people might expect that an encyclopedia article about an organization would be sure to cover that organization's basic functions, Wikipedia has upheld a long-standing tension and conflict to avoid summarizing primary sources about organizations' products and services. There have been tens of thousands of requests by companies and organizations in every country and every sector, and the status quo has been to tell organizations that the Wikipedia article covering them would reflect only what third party sources saw fit to describe in journalism and research. Some of the information in this section is of the sort that does sometimes go into Wikidata and infoboxes, and some might be excessive coverage as compared to what Wikipedia allows. I like libraries but if there is a concession here that favoritism weakens Wikipedia's integrity when we forbid commercial organizations from making the same demand. Anyone wanting to help Wikipedia establish better policy could jump into the 20,000 page 10 year conversation and epic drama centered at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Some images like the one at File:Briarcliff library expansion 21.jpg seem to be in conflict with Commons' requirements for copyright clearance. I do not feel that the rationales given in the copyright section would pass Commons review, like for example, if "BMSHS owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control" then still without a copyright release the Commons community would delete the file. "If The BMSHS makes its content available for personal and non-commercial educational uses consistent with the principles of fair use." then a low resolution version of the file can be hosted on English Wikipedia, but going forward, I recommending asking Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for tough advice. I expect they would perform deletion within hours of raising the question.

In the "Librarians (1921–1955)" table I am unable to understand the sourcing system. Many different sources are cited and I do not see whether they all back this information. It seems more likely that this information is coming from different sources. Somehow, I wish the sources could be connected in an obvious way to the information which they back.

Other things could be said. These are my starting comments. I might comment again after someone else has done more review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry, I am glad for your critique. Your analysis of notability is good, however it doesn't mention the notable art exhibits or historical and architectural significance, both of the library and of the former train station, which I feel adds to the importance of this topic over that of numerous local libraries. Nevertheless I believe articles can be created for most libraries, perhaps even FAs if enough research is done.
As for the operations section - while I believe articles in general are meant to summarize independent sources, FAs (based on their criteria) are also meant to summarize all relevant aspects of the topic. Also I noted in the last review that specifics such as opening hours and days are common and accepted in articles and there should otherwise be a guideline against it. I noted that the article Supreme Court of the United States has had operating hours information since at least 2010. It's hard to rely on precedents as there are only six FAs in WikiProject Organizations and no FAs for public libraries (and WMFLabs hasn't seemed to work recently), so I can only rely on the fact that this is neutral information that is important to readers. Anyway, most of this section is backed by independent sources and all is verifiable by independent sources, however self-published sources are not being used improperly here, according to the linked policy.
As for the image licensing, I initially used an improper license for archives files and was notified by a Commons administrator. Later and with permission, I duplicated the license adopted by the Smithsonian Institution; this license and the Smithsonian's (and images under these licenses) have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by various Commons administrators. I don't believe this is worth creating another issue over, and regardless of specific terminology, institutions that can verify that to the best of their knowledge the images have no known copyright restrictions have been able to upload files to Commons for years. Please see Commons:Category:No known restrictions license tags and understand that your objections are against likely tens or hundreds of thousands of files and many uploaders. I can remove and simplify some language to make it more in line with most of those tags however.
As for the table, I didn't see it as essential to link up each citation with each fact; many if not most articles' tables just include a list of sources at the end to prevent clutter. I'll try it in-line. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding.
I am still unsure about operations, but I can agree that the situation is uncertain and there are limited precedents. Besides FAs, there are precedents in all sorts of articles. You made an editorial decision to present some things. For libraries, many people wish to list special collections, because besides location that is what typically makes a particular library different from others. Other primary source information which is sometimes presented are the fields in the user box, lawsuits, budget and pay of director, and major donors. There is no consensus to consistently put all of these things in based on primary sources, but I confirm that sometimes information like the kind you presented is included, so I can go with that.
I continue to have doubts about that image. I fail to recognize how the "no known restrictions" tag applies because there is a known restriction - the image is copyrighted and the copyright holder has not applied a free license to it. The "no known restrictions" tag is typically used for images which seem published before 1923 and in the public domain, but which may implausibly have been published later or in a government which has a copyright term of more than 95 years. That library picture is fewer than 10 years old and you identify a copyright holder who has not applied a free license to it. Can you show me any comparable case where a picture after 1989 (a year significant in the Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart) uses the "no known restrictions" tag?
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no known restrictions; the images had been the property of the library, taken by the former library director as part of an information page about the library's extension and hosted on the library's website. The current director knows of this and passed on those files as well as a whole binder full of historical library images and print publications to the village historical society. These are just a few of the other documents included:
  • "Tiny Rail Station Losing Loneliness". The New York Times. November 17, 1957. p. 123 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society.
  • "Todd School Library Site Urged". The Reporter Dispatch. April 14, 1955 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society.
  • Reibel, Jane D. (May 10, 1965). Briarcliff Manor's Community Library: A Fifty Year History. American Libraries – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society.
  • After 44 years - A spacious, economical, convenient new home for the Briarcliff Free Library. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Briarcliff Free Library, Inc. 1958 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society.
Though I believe this discussion is more appropriate elsewhere, sure here are a plenty of post-1989 no known copyright images, and I can link plenty more:
ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Bluerasberry, I changed the references on the table as you recommended. I also added a reference to the operations section, so now the only self-published information about the library is in the first two sentences. I have outdated sources that cite similar information to those sentences, however that content changes too frequently (combined with the obscurity of the topic) to likely find any sources except the library itself. However as stated, self-published sources are by policy okay so long as the content isn't controversial or extreme. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Good job with in-line references. Associating people with organizations can get contentious since lots of organizations try to do this with dubious sourcing. This seems resolved.
I can leave the operations section content aside. Stepping away from this FA, if you would like to talk more somewhere else about proposing a policy for what sort of primary source information should be in articles, especially for biographies and organizations, then I would be interested in drafting and signing off on some proposal. Data in the infobox is one common proposal, and you listed the director and budget there which is common and less controversial. In the body of the article you choose operating hours, administration system, institutional affiliations, and a service listing. No one should dispute that this is factual, but there is limited real estate in the Wikipedia article. Practically every commercial organization seeks to have a product and service listing in Wikipedia. Whereas those are dismissed routinely, when it comes to nonprofit organizations sometimes there is more sympathy for citing nonprofit sources. I get uneasy about this being allowed for nonprofits and prohibited to for-profits without a policy confirming that Wikipedia permits one thing and prohibits the other. Other public sources present a range of other information, like the fact of any lawsuits and sources of income, which practically all organizations would seek to obscure. In the case of libraries, museums, and archives some critical information desired by the Wikipedia community is a listing of special collections, which along with location is a major distinguishing factor of one institution to the next. What you did with operations might not be wrong but I also will not say that it is without controversy.
You are correct that there seems to be a history of using the "no known copyright restrictions" alone on Commons. I was not aware of this. I thought that the intended use of that tag was to be paired with another copyright tag. I am ready to confirm that your use of this tag is no different from what professionals at prestigious organizations have done. If the Brooklyn Museum and Smithsonian are doing this with images, then no burden to further rationalize this should be on you or these images, so I can withdraw my objection and give approval.
At this point all of my objections have been answered and I would defend this article on all these grounds if the issues were raised again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by PointsofNoReturn

[edit]

I have reviewed the images that are in the article. The images are either done by Ɱ or have no known copyright restrictions from the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. They are 100% allowed on Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons). For the content of the images, all the images are relevant to the article and illustrate the topic at hand well. The captions are perfectly adequate for the images they describe. Thus, I believe that this article passes the media portion of the featured article criteria. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Ah. I see that this has been around since the end of January, but has only just been transcluded. With only one support, it has suffocated, and has little chance of promotion as it stands. However, as this was a "filing" mistake, I'd be prepared to archive this and allow the nominator to immediately renominate without the usual two week wait. If it is transcluded this time, it might have a fighting chance. The alternative is to leave it here, where it has little chance of success, and with the best will in the world, I can't justify leaving this open much more than one more week. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: One support? I count four people... FACs should be better-arranged to attract more commentators. I've had this problem for years - few people even leave any comment on any of my FACs, and FACs are arranged to fail if few people do. It's quite honestly silly. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one person who has stated that they support. Also, you will not attract reviews if the page is not visible on FAC. And to be honest, I don't think we can promote this without wider scrutiny than the few who been here so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Fencer2013, Ajfeist, Bluerasberry, and PointsofNoReturn all only said supporting comments, with Bluerasberry's only concerns having been resolved. If you really need clarification, ping them to ask them, but this seems really silly. You can't expect newer editors to understand that FACs often use (but don't require) bolding the word "support" at the beginning of a comment. @Ian Rose: do you agree with this? Sarastro - yes I know it won't have views if it's not visible. As I said, it was a mistake. However none of my FACs really get more than one or two people I have never heard of/interacted with, and because of that, most of them have failed. This process needs to do away with failing articles that don't receive enough attention, because the FAC process never receives enough attention. Especially not for less-networked editors like me. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the FAC instructions, they do explain this quite clearly. And I'm afraid any failures of the FAC process, although you may have a point or two, cannot really be blamed in this case when you have only today transcluded this. The instructions are clear. And if you wish this article to be a FA, you will need to follow procedure. Sorry. And I am not promoting this without wider scrutiny than it has had. I maintain that your best option is to renominate. If you wish to leave it open, I cannot guarantee that it will be given much leeway as it has been open so long. Things would need to move quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian has stated that as a bare minimum, FAs need three supporting reviewers and an image and source review. If you give me another week or two, I could manage to find someone to give a source review, and that would meet his requirements. Yes I forgot one step this time, transcluding, but that really should be automated; transcluding is automated in many other areas of WP. The process is too complicated and you shouldn't fault my review for my mistakenly forgetting one small technical step. Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your willingness to extend this review's time given the circumstances. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Werónika

[edit]

Thanks to @Ɱ: for your hard work on this article. It's very well-written, interesting, and comprehensive. Good use of images in particular. Most of my comments are pretty minor—just grammar and stylistic fixes.

  • "and is located the edge of the village's Walter W. Law Memorial Park". Yikes, should probably be "and is located on the edge", no?
  • "sites including public school buildings". Should be "sites, including..."
  • "adding the section in which the library is housed today". So this implies that the actual library is only housed in a portion of the current building? Maybe clarify what the rest of the building houses in the lead.
It is in the next sentence. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an eight-member board of trustees was appointed". I don't usually mind passive voice, but this grates on me. Who appointed the board of trustees?
Not exactly sure, sources don't specify. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which became 3,000 by 1926, approximately 6,000 by 1939, and by 1952, 8,000 volumes". This would sound better if written in parallel structure ("which became approximately 3,000 by 1926, 6,000 by 1939, and 8,000...").
  • "In 1988, the library's collections". Should be "by 1988."
  • "a present branch of the International Union of Operating Engineers". Do you mean that it was then used as the headquarters for that branch of the IUOE? Because when you write "a present branch," that could also mean that is the current function of the Briarcliff Farms office building.
  • "Desiring a larger and more centrally-located space... the library was relocated again". This prepositional phrase seems tonally off because it doesn't say who desired that space. I would consider rewriting, especially since it sounds awkward to pile all the prepositions in the front before the clause.
  • "on the second floor of its recreation building on Old Route 100 (then part of NY Route 100) near the village downtown." Fix the modifiers. You shouldn't say that Old Route 100 is near the village downtown unless it's true for the entire road.
  • "From the beginning, the..." Redundant, unless the recreation center rooms somehow became bigger later on. If it's true for the entire situation, you don't need to say that it happened from the beginning.
The collection grows, so I'm specifying that the space was too small for their collection even when they first moved in. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(at the intersection of two highways[20])". Move the citation to the outside of the parenthesis. Also, this modifier seems awkwardly placed. Are you describing the area, or the traffic?
The parenthetical statement describes why it was a heavily trafficked area. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was thus hazardous to children". There's no need to include this specifically, because traffic can be hazardous to adults as well.[citation needed]
Sources included iy; young children's safety is always a larger concern, especially for high-traffic areas with no sidewalks and places they often visit. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was busy with traffic... had no sidewalks nearby, and was far from the village's public school buildings." This sentence uses two "was's" and one "had", so you should combine the two verb objects together that use the same verb. e.g. "the area was busy with traffic and far from the village's public school buildings, and had no sidewalks nearby". It just makes the prose tighter.
  • "to be voted by referendum". Referendums are inherently decided by popular vote.
  • "and was not centrally located in the village". The wording is confusing. Would the library not be located in the center of the village, or would the library center (the main library) not be focused in the village?
Given that I never mention branch libraries (there never have been any), it should be okay.
  • "also in 1952, the village semicentennial history book notes the need for a permanent home for the library." Trivial fact not related to the library's history. I would take it out or put it somewhere else, especially since the sudden shift to present tense in the middle of the sentence was very distracting.
  • "The station had been built... In its later operation as a station." This is confusing: was it not initially meant to be a train station?
Not sure how better to say this, but I'm saying that around it's later existence as a station (likely around the 50s), the building was rarely used and... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "named the street that led to the library, Library Road". Take out the comma since it's an essential phrase.
  • "In 1963, Briarcliff resident and artist Myril Adler proposed a series of exhibits of graphic art; the first showing was in October of that year." When was the proposal?
In 1963, is that not clear? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adler would display". Change to "Adler displayed."
  • "In the 1980s and 90s,..." I don't see the need to clarify this statement by saying it was reported by the Times. I also don't see the need for a general statement about the popularity of videocassettes during this time period. I would suggest rewriting this sentence to focus just on the library, something along the lines of "The library experienced a significant increase in popularity of videocassettes during the 1980s and 1990s...."
  • "The library, which had 3,200 square feet (300 m2)". Should be "was 3,200 square feet" in order with previous descriptions of the library's area.
  • "led a fundraising effort raising". Put a comma between "effort" and "raising."
  • "today)[19].[31]" Fix the citation order.
  • "it failed by 13 votes, from the 871 cast". I don't know why you would include the total number of votes, but not specify exactly how many people voted for or against it? If I did my algebra right, x + x + 13 = 871, so it failed by a 429-442 vote.
It puts into context the amount it failed by. Several sources did it that way; it's a concise way of still displaying all of the data while writing it to be meaningful, e.g. failing by only 13 votes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 2000s, plans began for expansion of the library building." I would like some clarification for who decided to expand the building. The board of trustees? The village board?
Sources also don't specify, but projects like these always would involve the institution's and municipality's board, as well as the director, village manager, and village departments like the planning board and public works. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the renovation and also". "Also" is redundant, because if you're doing something in addition to another thing (implied by the conjunction "and"), then you're also doing it.
  • "The original station building was renovated... in 2016. The plans were in development since as early as 2013..." Keep it in chronological order. Discuss the plans to renovate the centre in 2013 before talking about the completion of the renovation in 2016.
I don't think this is a big deal. It gives a better introduction through some context; I can't think of a better way of putting it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the center's opening and the dedication to Vescio on May 30, 2016." The prepositional phrase "on May 30, 2016" could refer just to the dedication to Vesio or to both the dedication and the opening of the center. Since it's unclear, rephrase the sentence to move that up to the beginning so it refers to the entire sentence. ("On May 30,... presided over the center's opening and dedication to Vesio.") There's also no need to repeat the article "the" since it applies to both.
  • "and has a large parking lot accessible from Library Road". Is a description of the parking lot really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? Readers would already assume it has a parking lot that is sized large enough to accommodate its audience.
Many municipalities don't have parking lots due to space, and it was included in sources, plus similar to days of operation, I find it relevant. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is nearby the". Using "nearby" as a proposition is grammatically incorrect. Change to "near."
  • "borders the pool constructed". Insert a comma between "pool" and "constructed" since it's not an essential phrase.
  • "as an emergency broadcast and warming and cooling center". Can't use conjunction reduction when the conjunctions in question are different ("an emergency broadcast" vs "a warming and cooling center").
  • "and has movable furniture". This phrase confuses me. Assuming your couch isn't nailed to your floor, wouldn't all furniture be movable? What's the relevance of noting that the centre has furniture you can move around?
If you looked at photos it might help explain: they're lightweight, stackable, and wheeled furniture, to allow for rearranging of the room for different events or programs. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was named in memory of Juliette Wasserman". Add some context for who Wasserman is/was (otherwise there's really no point in saying the children's room was named after some random figure).
It's more detail about why the rooms are named the way they are, people usually wonder this and it's good to explain. She's not notable outside the community, however. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and eight part-time employees, including reference and youth librarians." Are the reference and youth librarians part-time employees?
  • "Services include... a children's room, and a local history collection". Is a children's room really a service being provided? A service (versus a good, or something that is a feature of the library) would be something that does not include a physical transaction (like discussion).
It's not just a collection of books for children, there are services provided almost like a daycare. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Friends of the Briarcliff Manor Public Library is an organization through which community..." No need for passive tense; rewording to active tense ("Community members support the library through..."). Also, take out "help." They're not "helping" to support, they are supporting.
  • "books, and provided... and participated..." Reword to take out the second "and" (fix parallel structure). The verb order should be "have helped, provided, sponsored, and participated".
  • "The publication, The Changing Landscape". Take out the comma since it's an essential phrase; not all the publications were written by Mary Cheever.
I disagree, in this apposition it appears correct. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occupying that space for eight years". Did it move back to the school building in 1974?
I was never able to find dates, but given that I follow that statement with another saying it moved again in 1982, it's clear they occupied the space for eight years until that move. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one year". Hyphenate.
  • "The department had its origins in a recreation committee formed in 1943." Move the history section to the beginning, since it should be in chronological order.
Like a lede, summarizing a subject often involves describing the notable aspects and operation, and then delving into its history. I even do this with the two lede paragraphs of this article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Werónika (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. All are done, unless I comment here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks for your edits. Werónika (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging prior reviewers

[edit]

Hi Axl, Sainsf, 23 editor, Ceoil, and Victoriaearle: the FAC coordinators requested that the previous contributors to this article's FAC now weigh in, and a lot has changed since that last review. Please let me know what you think! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ, thank you for pinging me. I see that you have removed the text from "Operations" that I was previously unhappy with. Thank you for that. I am reading through the whole article again. It will probably take me a few days to finish a review. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", paragraph 1: " The library was registered with the New York state library system on September 22 of that year and an eight-member board of trustees was appointed, with a paid part-time librarian and volunteers operating the circulation desk and creating the library's card catalog (until 1955, there was only one paid librarian among a staff of volunteers)." I suggest that the latter part of the statement in parentheses should be moved out into a separate sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn that one's long, and I usually catch these. Maybe we should break it earlier, after "of that year", or after "appointed"? Or break at one of those and in the place you advised? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have adjusted the text and split the sentence into three. Could you check that the referencing is still correct please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", paragraph 4: "The village board then provided the library with two rooms on the second floor of its recreation building near the village downtown on Old Route 100 (then part of NY Route 100)." I am unsure what "the village downtown" means. Perhaps this is an American turn of phrase? (I am British.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Current location", paragraph 4: subsection "The library, which was 3,200 square feet (300 m2), was too small for readers and events." How could it be too small for readers? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]
  • Much better, though have only scanned yet; will revisit. I'd cut the bit about videocassettes. I would also crop out the banner from the lead image (too loud for an article about a very nice library). Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few others disliked the videocassette bit too, so I guess I'll cut it. I just wanted to speak as much as I could about changing technologies, a big hurdle for libraries as you know. I'll remove it now, but if I found other content on changing technologies (probably with cds, dvds, or computer usage) related to the library, would you later welcome its inclusion? As for the banner file - it's actually their official logo, and I'm following things like the NYPL, BPL, and British Library in including the logo on top. It's not the prettiest logo, but it's what they use :/ Their older ones were nicer in my opinion (cf Commons cat). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be judicious in what you include from the sources; interesting cultural indicators vs throwaway factoids. The usual article cycle on its way to FAC is expansion and contraction. My usual yardstick for keeping content is trying to charm and interest first time visitors with possibly useful stuff. Re the banner; I know and love libraries of the region, and they are not about cheap graphics; I think crop and make a claim. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's just difficult to cut some things sometimes, without outside input as you all are being great at giving. As for other libraries, by collection size, Briarcliff is the smallest or second-smallest in the county (I'd add it but it's OR unfortunately). So it doesn't do much in terms of graphic designs, updating its media, or marketing as a whole. Take a look at their website, which hasn't been changed at all in style in the last 7 years (eons for the internet). I talked with the library director, who told me that File:Briarcliff Manor Public Library logo.jpg is not just a banner but their official logo, what they use on print publications and elsewhere. I know, I was surprised too. But the director's clarification should be justification enough, no? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe work around the edges. I have cut some material I felt was slightly current and from promotional material. My impression is that there is deep knowledge of a worthy topic here, but you need to step back somewhat and let others opinions and view on priorities seep in. A longer article is not a better article. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re "later welcome its (tech, internet, ect) inclusion", yes, but as you say as part of a broader trend; far less details are required here. Ceoil (talk)
Sadly oppose - I think the right direction has been taken here since the last nom, but there is still too much specifics for me to be comfortable. M, think an outline for a general reader, more than a day by day historical record by somebody with a deep interest. I think this nom is salvageable if my advice is taken to heed and about 25% of the article is snipped. I'm more or less fine otherwise on prose etc, and the sourcing is fine, from spot checks. I continue my interest in New England libraries and would be glad to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input, but again I find your philosophy far different from mine, which makes this difficult. I do not believe articles should be as outline-oriented as you do, especially seeing as Wikipedia is not constrained to the limits of print publications. Many FAs and similar articles have as much detail. Nevertheless I appreciate your edits. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly urge you to reconsider as the level of detail is not by definition part of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Under those criteria, I believe this article should pass. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The O was a holding position, M, rather than anything definitive. I am refering to 4. Length - "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" Take this modest edit as an example of trimming needed yet. Ceoil (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]
  • Opening sentence: "The Briarcliff Manor Public Library is the public library serving the village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, is located on the edge of the village's Walter W. Law Memorial Park."
  • Third sentence: "It governed by a seven-member board with a liaison to the village board of trustees."
  • This is a weird proposition to hit the readers with, a few lines from the opening: "From its destruction in 1929 and over the next thirty years, the library was without a permanent location, and was moved between sites." Earthquake? "In 1959, it purchased the former Briarcliff Manor station ...". What is "it"?
  • "centrally-located", my eyes spotted as I closed the page—See MOSHYPHEN.

I don't think this is ready. Tony (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a while, what you don't realize is Ceiol more or less tore this article apart, creating the errors you see above and a lot more. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out camping this weekend, I'll be back Mondayish. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that Tony doesn't want you to just fix these specific examples, but is highlighting more general issues with random sampled text. If you dont want the text torn apart, listen to articulate concerns re triviality in the last FAC. I am deleting out mention of week day opening times, specific dates of minor events in eg 1962, recent promotional drives, and so forth. If that's what you want to preserve, and go down the blame game with, then...grand. I stand by my last statement; the article should be cut by at least 25%, and maybe then some. All of this indicates COI, which is fine if the article is neutrally written. Here its simply not. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't unique to this article. Every article I write has a lot of detail. Your writing style is simply very different, and thus I wouldn't have had you in this conversation if it wasn't required, though it shouldn't be. I understood from the past review that we simply will not agree on most points. If the FAC coordinators fail this because of your complaints, even though almost every other editor thinks it's near-perfect, then that's one more thing that's wrong with the FAC process, along with a great many I already know of. I don't think I'm going to create another FAC for a long, long while, until this process finally reforms itself away from perfectionism, prescriptivism, and in failing reviews without sufficient reviews even given the severe lack of existing reviewers, in addition to requiring past reviewers to re-review. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I tried to help and advise. I directly edited the article, and was nice to you, all along the way. And you have thrown it back in my face, in a very guilt trippy personal way, basically I m taking my toys and screw you guys. Fine. BUT, standards at FAC have been built up over years, and what is being presented here is not good enough. I have not detailded all the issues because my style is more to roll up my sleeves and dig in, rather than whine. But they are endemic, and you are too close to the topic to realise. Who cares what days its opened, how many admin staff there are, and when they bought their computers. I *guarantee* you, far less people give a damn than you think, as highlighted in the last FAC. Also your last running sentence makes no logical sense. Wot? Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of the following sources should be questioned by subsequent reviewers; Ossining Daily Voice, The Journal New, River Journal, The Gazette (?), Briarcliff Daily Voice, Friends of Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Inc., Village of Briarcliff Manor, Libraries.org. Some very local, some of questionable worth. Mentioning wrt due diligence; I have a feeling that the nominator may have written some, and we are being asked to promote a circular echo chamber. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might have thought you were being all nice and dandy, but I'll never appreciate someone 'copyediting' my article by directly going in and ripping half of it out, and creating grammatical and sourcing problems along the way. I don't understand how you write or comment at FAs with this tactic, attitude, or methods, like pulling the organization's logo just because you don't like it, or wrecking a lot of the 'understandability' of an article with your edits, as Tony experienced. I'm not going to defend local newspapers; I've never seen a policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that local papers can't be reliable sources. It stands to reason that it's the editorial process and related factors, and not the distribution of a paper that makes it become a reliable source. You really should understand this by now. And for the record, I have never written for any of the sources used here, although if you truly knew Wikipedia's rules, you'd know IT'S ALLOWED. I'm really just about done here, I'm sick of arguing with you here. I've half a mind to have a coordinator close this, I'm so sick of the massive holes in the FAC process. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm afraid that attacking reviewers is not the way to get articles promoted. Ceoil is a very experienced reviewer, and it makes much more sense to work with him. There is still quite a bit to do before we have a consensus for promotion: of the reviewers that have come this way since the FAC was transcluded, two have had reservations. And just to remind you what I said earlier, I do not consider the review that this had before transclusion to be enough for promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been quite unfriendly to me, and highlighted major problems I have with the FAC process, such that I no longer care about this review very much. Ceoil may have 'experience', but he clearly doesn't know many WP policies and guidelines, and instead worries about removing an organization's logo and trivial things like whether or not I briefly mention new technologies. Also don't you mean "reviews", not "review"? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment, on the source review, claiming WP:SELFCITE as a first and only defence; new one to me, but we are done as far as I am concerned. I will take you immediately to FAR if this is promoted. Read the criteria, and don't try and twist in exceptional circumstances to overcome. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)\[reply]
If it's new to you, you should internalize it. Yes self-published sources are allowed, or published sources written by a Wikipedian, however as I said I don't use that in this article. You'd take the FA to be reviewed just because I mention that your complaints based on speculation have no basis whatsoever? You really don't know how this works, do you? Also, please stop revising your text moments after posting. Decide what you're going to say, and say it. Two or three edit conflicts for one post is ridiculous. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you completely misunderstand, completely. Anyway its moot as this is not just about you being tetchy and bullying through an FAC; there are other eyes, and unresolved requests that you address the challenge on the quality the source, one by one, a week later, is substantial grounds for oppose. This how any peer review works at even a most basic level. Personalising doesn't distract. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I have to be so frank with you, but I'm tired of clashing over these small issues, and it's very clear we'll never agree on anything. Further comments to each other won't prove beneficial. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, those sources have passed many FAs, including my own FACs. I have read and analyzed all of those sources and found their content to be of the best reliability. And unlike you thought with "first and only defence", I said that "I'm not going to defend local newspapers; I've never seen a policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that local papers can't be reliable sources. It stands to reason that it's the editorial process and related factors, and not the distribution of a paper that makes it become a reliable source. You really should understand this by now." This is so silly, as it's related to core fundamentals of Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have "read and analysised" the sources is now your latest stance, when the challange is SELFCITE? There is an obligation on you now, in the spirit of self disclosure to go through each and every one I challenged from the current nom to (a) identify you involvement, and notwithstanding (b) defend why it might be considered a reliable source in the first place. To wit; Ossining Daily Voice, The Journal New, River Journal, The Gazette (?), Briarcliff Daily Voice, Friends of Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Inc., Village of Briarcliff Manor, Libraries.org.

Any of your past successful FAC noms are now under a cloud, unless you respond in a meaningful way. Please stop personalising, and deal with weeks old actionable requests. This is precisely why supporting here carries a burden; weaker articles that slip through get thrown back as the new bar. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. These news sources were deemed reliable by the reviewers of many FACs. Consensus is most often determined by precedent, and there's no better precedent than a recent FA. I don't see why I have to continue answering your absurd demands. Why question these sources and not the others? Just because you don't know of them? What do you want me to say? You keep pushing this ridiculously so again: I told you a whole too many times that I haven't written anything used as a source, even though it's allowed. As Bluerasberry found above, "self-published sources are not being used improperly here, according to the linked policy." So the FBMPL and VBM sources are fine here via that. The local news sources, as I said, why distinguish them and not others? As I said a million times, they're fine. There's no rule against local news, and they have fair and honest reporting and editing. Get off my back. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So no pretense to adherence to FAc standards, IOW. You wasted a bunch of other people's time buddy. Next time you go for peer review, read the minimum standard, rather than wade in guns blazing in, shooting all the messengers.

As clean up for this mess, I'll be seeing you at FAR. Note this this isn't because I am upset by your gross representations of me, but because, as I said earlier "weaker articles that slip through get thrown back as the new bar", and I actually give a damn. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had many FAC nominations so I know how this works, I'm just tired of you pretending to follow standards but instead really just griefing me with ridiculous accusation after accusation, over and over here. Peer Review is even more of a ghost town than FAC, I've never received solid input there. Seems the only person's time I'm wasting is yours, as you're the only real oppose vote here, and you're adamant about letting it fail or nominating it to be demoted if it passes, i.e. making it fail either way. Just leave this alone already, WP:DROPTHESTICK, gosh. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you didn't even try to reply to my comments about the sources, instead just insulting me more and telling me you'll never get off my case because I'm not being super courteous to you and agreeing with your suggestions. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations to you are minimum standards to me. I stand by my original oppose on grounds of an article buffed up by triviality. The recent argument about COI is just reinforcement of earlier doubts. Ceoil (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The recent argument" being the one I completely rebuked and that you have to take AGF without stalking or doxxing me, or forcing me to reveal my identity? Keep your oppose, it's one irrational one among many decent reviews. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
doxxing? forcing me to reveal my identity? Wot, why even bring fantastical associations into here? Cheap attempts at poisoning the well. That's actually pathetic. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well how else could you answer "The recent argument about COI is just reinforcement of earlier doubts."? Based on that, you clearly weren't satisfied by my repeated statements that I haven't written anything, I have no COI... Without you AGF, how else could I prove it besides a forced proof of identity? Anyway, this conversation has digressed way too far. Are you at all ready to drop it? This is still going nowhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: "This is going nowhere" pretty much sums this up for me. We have an oppose and a comment from Tony1 that this isn't ready. Despite the support that the review got before it was transcluded onto the FAC page, I don't think we have a consensus to promote, and I don't think we are likely to get one. In future, I would be more inclined to archive a case like this, which was transcluded late, as I don't think it has really helped the article. Leaving this open looks like it would only descend into argument, which won't help anyone. This can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period, and I would recommend getting a few fresh eyes on it. I am fully expecting some complaints about archiving this one, but I think we have already given this FAC more leeway than normal. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll complain. Tony's oppose was literally only due to Ceoil's edits which made the whole article very confusing, and Ceoil's oppose was irrational and part of his griefing efforts against me, as it spread to the Briarcliff Manor article and talk pages. Neither of those opposes should be counted under any fair circumstance, so I am denouncing the FAC process for this as well as all of my other thousand issues with the process, none of which you all recognized or tried to fix when I raised the issues.ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 [14].

America's 60 Families

[edit]
Nominator(s): DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a controversial and pseudo-conspiratorial book by Ferdinand Lundberg which was briefly influential in the late 1930s and has since been cited as an influence by Robert Caro and Ralph Nader. It recently passed GA and has, since, undergone copyediting. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RL0919

[edit]

I have not read the book and have only general knowledge of its topic, so these are "lay reader" comments.

  • General:
    • The {{cquote}} template is discouraged for block quotes in articles; the {{quote}} template is preferred.
    • Some sentences are long and express multiple ideas; those could be split up to improve readability. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts "Though praised by" joins a mix of critical opinion with later use in a speech, plus a libel suit, all in one sentence.
    • Are there RS to supply a more complete publishing history? Only the initial publication in 1937 is mentioned, but I see the infobox image is from a 1946 publication.
  • Lead section:
    • "the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company" -- the definite article seems odd there.
    • Since the image in the infobox is not from the first edition, it would be helpful to have a caption saying what publication it is from.
    • Didn't do a full image review, but I did look at the book cover image, and the non-free use rationale for it could be beefed up. You should consider the {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} template as it is pre-written for this use case.
  • Background section:
    • "the latest in a series" -- I assume there was not a literal series of which this is a member, so probably some other wording should be used to indicate that previous books had expressed similar ideas. Also, some information about specifics of those predecessors, such as prominent works/authors and dates, would give more context.
    • Speaking of specifics on the background, the mentions of Myers and Gerard deserve more explanation: who were they (briefly), what are the relevant works that advanced a similar thesis to Lundberg's? Also, the wording of the paragraph seems to imply that that Myers and Gerard were among the "American journalists" who wrote books on this subject, but as far as I can tell from looking at the articles about them, Gerard was never a journalist.
    • More about Lundberg would also be helpful here. What did he do before writing this book? What motivated him to write it?
  • Content section:
    • The first sentence in the section is an example where splitting into two or even three sentences would be an improvement.
    • The block quote from Villard seems longer than it ought to be. The idea of the first two sentences, that the specifics were not new, could be paraphrased. The "quotable" part seems to be the middle portion about how Lundberg brings the material together. The idea at the end, about the risk of others using the book to criticize the US, could also be paraphrased as part of the follow-up discussing the Nazi pamphlet.
    • The first sentence of the Ickes-Jackson subsection is another one that really should be split.
    • Are there really just two individuals to discuss under modern views?
    • Ralph Nader seems a bit tangential to the subject to use a photo of him.
  • Dedication section: Why is this a section? If the dedication is significant, then presumably the article should say who "Franklin M. Watts" was and why Lundberg dedicated the book to him. If it isn't significant, it needn't be mentioned at all, much less as a one-sentence section.

That's all for now; generally this looks like a pretty good article that just needs a bit of polishing. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919 -thank you for this very thorough review. I believe I've made all the updates you recommended, but let me know if I've missed something. The one outstanding question of which I'm aware is additional persons to cite in the "modern views" section. I am unaware of anyone in semi-recent times who have referenced this book other than Caro and Nader. It's been out of print more than 50 years so this may not be entirely surprising. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the subject is not en vogue then so be it. Ideally, if there is an RS that says the book is somewhat forgotten or is only discussed in fringe circles (if that's the case), then a statement to that effect would help reassure readers that the article is not incomplete. Regarding the rest, there are quite a few changes/additions in your edits, so I will do a full re-read later today or tomorrow, and get back to you then. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took a bit longer coming back around than I expected, but I've taken another pass. Made some edits, which as always you can change again if I've done anything problematic. I'm not doing full image or source reviews, but a couple of additional suggestions that may help when someone does: You should add alt text for the book cover and the picture of Villard, and you should consider adding locations for the book sources. I'm also still a little concerned about whether there are other sources for more recent reception/legacy. However, since I'm no expert on the topic, I'll stick to what I know and support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RL0919! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Syek88

[edit]

I am inclined to doubt that this article, as presently crafted, makes the jump from the Good Article criteria to the Featured Article criteria. That jump could potentially be made as part of this review, although my very first point below would, if actioned, involve a fairly substantial amount of new writing.

The first point is 1b – comprehensiveness. There are three areas in which I am concerned that this is not met:

(1) The book is 500 pages long but summarised in three paragraphs and a quote. I don’t think that is capable of being a comprehensive summary of Lundberg’s thesis. The thesis is conveniently divided into 12 chapters which, if summarised in about a paragraph each, would give us a comprehensive overview of the book without being too long. At the moment, the article does not mention significant portions of the book, including chapters on the press and philanthropy (VII-IX), which in my opinion falls short of what 1b requires.
(2) As mentioned in the earlier review,, there is very little mention of how the book has been perceived in the long-term, other than by two of its avowed fans. Having said that, as you have noted in response to that review, it also appears that post-1940s commentary is very limited. This 2016 book (at 249) refers in passing to the book as “muckracking”, and I doubt that reference is sufficient for inclusion. This 1940 article in Time Magazine might provide for a good perspective, although I cannot work out how to get to the full version through any of my usual databases. It may turn out that this comment (2) is not actionable: we are stuck with the situation of a book that caused a stir at the time and drifted quickly into obscurity, but where we don’t have sources to say explicitly that it drifted into obscurity. Perhaps we have to leave the reader to infer it.
(3) I think the two-paragraph lead is also too short.

My second point is 1a – prose. I concur with the comment above that there are single sentences that are trying to achieve too much. Some examples are:

  • ’An unflattering look at the life and business of the publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst, it ascribed to Hearst what the New York Times would later describe as "fascist political ambitions ... abetted by an unholy alliance of big bankers".’ The length of this sentence produces a syntax problem whereby it reads like the New York Times is using the quoted words itself to describe big bankers.
  • ’...part of what has been described as "a generational moral reaction against the perceived depredations of the monied class".’ This appendage to a long sentence could easily be separated into a separate sentence, thus giving you more freedom to attribute the quote to its author rather than using the loose “has been described as”.

I will re-visit prose later in this review. The prose certainly isn't a long way off Featured Article standard.

Those are the only two criteria that I think raise issues. The article is neutral and well-researched. I am able to vouch for the latter because I looked fairly deeply for post-1940 sources and, as above, could not find many. Syek88 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Some possible sources:

  • This, which I have only glanced at. It seems to be a meta-analysis of the kind of stratification study that the book engages in, and might be useful for placing the book in context.
  • This, which twice refers to Lundberg as a muckraker -- I don't know if Marcus is sufficiently important a scholar for this opinion to be included. It seems to be the George Marcus we have an article on. Of course you already have the epithet in the article, but it might be useful for support.

Searching Google Books for '"Ferdinand Lundberg" -inauthor:lundberg', to get rid of Lundberg's own works, I found more possibles, the first few of which are:

  • Gibson, Donald. Communication, Power, and Media. Discussion starts on p. 11.
  • Byrkit, James. Forging the Copper Collar. Not much content but like Marcus he refers to Lundberg as a muckraker (p. 278).
  • Barlow, Aaron. Depression Era. Appears to be a collection of Depression Era documents, including a passage from the book; I can't see enough to know if there's any actual commentary.
  • Phillips, Kevin. Wealth and Democracy. A couple of minor mentions; Phillips does actually use Lundberg's numbers, so he trusts them, it appears. He also calls him a muckraker.
  • Here's an interesting one. The October 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has an advertisement on page 49 that mentions an article or review that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times which, according to the advertisement, describes "the tremendous counterattack" that met America's Sixty Families. From the ad I'm guessing this would be a review by Gerald W. Johnson of "The Rich and the Super-Rich". It's possible that there are no specifics in this review, but it would be good to check it out.
  • Janowitz, Morris. The Last Half-Century. I think this is usable: it describes Lundberg's book as having been "discarded as dated, crude, and lacking in sound scholarship", which is a helpfully summative statement. Morris Janowitz seems to be prominent.

Do you have access to newspapers.com? I found some coverage there that might be useful if you haven't already looked at them.

I'm not ready to oppose on comprehensiveness, as these all seem pretty minor, but I'd like to get your take on these sources and whether they can be useful in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for six weeks; there is no consensus to promote, and while there have been no opposes, concerns have been raised. These issues should be addressed and the article can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2017 [15].

William J. Donovan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William J. Donovan, an American soldier, lawyer, intelligence officer, diplomat and the only veteran to receive all four of the United States' highest awards: The Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, and the National Security Medal. Donovan is known for heading the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) during World War II, helping in the formation of the CIA, serving as Coordinator of Information, and as Ambassador of Thailand. This well decorated war veteran has a statue in the CIA headquarters, was portrayed in the 1940s film The Fighting, and is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. During World War I, Major Donovan suffered a shrapnel wound in one leg and was almost blinded by gas. Throughout his expansive career, he also served as: co-founder of Goodyear & O'Brien (a law firm in Buffalo), U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, assistant to Attorney General Harlan Stone, director of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, candidate for Governor of New York, colonel in the U.S. Army, chairman of the American Committee on United Europe, chairman of the People to People Foundation, and co-founder of American Friends of Vietnam.

I've spent the past two weeks expanding and improving the page to its current state, to what I think is a well-researched and informative page for an individual with an incredible history. Happy to make any suggested changes and as always, I appreciate all feedback! Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • File:William_Donovan.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author
  • File:Donovan_wwi_285.jpg: is a more specific source available?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg is too simple for copyright protection
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Commandeur_ribbon.svg: tag should reflect the status of the design. Same with File:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_with_palm.jpg, File:Order_of_the_British_Empire_(Military)_Ribbon.png, File:Nastro_Croce_Lateranense.png, File:Order_of_Pope_Sylvester_BAR.svg, File:Cavaliere_OCI_BAR.svg, File:Croce_di_guerra_al_merito_BAR.svg, File:Grand_Officer_Ordre_de_Leopold.png, File:Czechoslovak_War_Cross_1939-1945_Bar.png, File:NLD_Order_of_Orange-Nassau_-_Grand_Officer_BAR.png, File:St_Olavs_Orden_storkors_stripe.svg, File:Order_of_the_White_Elephant_-_1st_Class_(Thailand)_ribbon.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These elements should be referenced:
    • "Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers."
Added reference to [16].
I just went ahead and just removed this.
    • "At the Justice Department, Donovan hired women and eschewed yes-men. He and his wife became a popular Washington couple, although Donovan's relationship with FBI Acting Director J. Edgar Hoover, who was briefly one of his underlings, was fraught with friction."
Added reference to [17]
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "Roosevelt came to place great value on Donovan's insight..."
Done [18]
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "While British authorities and the US military and State Department..."
Done
    • the list of Awards and decorations
I've added a handful of references but am having a tough time locating additional sources for the remaining medals. If we are unable to find sources, would you suggest removing the ones unsourced?
Yes, that is the best course of action, IMO, for a Featured Article candidate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if no one else can dig and find references for the remaining awards either, I'll go ahead and remove. Meatsgains (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced awards. [19]
  • the Further reading section should be below the References per WP:LAYOUT
done
  • in the Further reading section, the entries for Troy, Duffy, McKay, Reilly and Stevenson are inconsistent in their layout compared to the others
Done.
  • in the Notes, there are also a few inconsistencies, e.g. Brown 1982 uses sfn citations when the others do not. Also compare Rumer, ,Lovell, Clifford, Anthony Cave Brown etc to "Waller 2011"
Which format would you suggest I change the references to? "Waller 2011, p. 11." or "James Montague, Versifier, Is Dead," New York Times, December 17, 1941"?
I'd suggest {{Sfn}} but the choice is yours so long as it is consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically
done
  • in the References, the date format is inconsistent, for instance I see "February 27, 2016", but also "2010-07-09" and "20 February 2017". Please make these consistent
I didn't notice all these consistencies. They have been corrected.
There are still some issues here, for instance compare "2010-07-09" with "March 14, 2011" and "22 March 2017". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for an FA, I think you will need to try to broaden the referencing base. Currently there are a lot of refs to Waller, which makes sense to an extent as that work no doubt focuses on the subject specifically, but I would suggest also trying to add some refs to some of the works in the Further reading section as well to ensure that the body of literature has been adequately canvassed
  • there appears to be a missing word here: "...would attempt to engage in a political career, but with little success" (before "would")
Done.
  • the dab link "acquisition" should be re-aimed
Link removed by another user [20].
  • "1st battalion of the 165th" --> "1st Battalion, 165th" as a proper noun
Done.
  • "chief of staff of the 165th regiment" --> "chief of staff of the 165th Regiment"
Done.
  • suggest adding some attribution in text here: "Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals."" (i.e. who recounts this?)
done
  • "president gave the job to the "lackluster" Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter..." who describes Hillenkoetter as "lackluster"?
"Donovan's biographer - Doug Waller. done.
Comments
Done.
  • he "explore[d] ideas beyond Catholic dogma" Any idea what? (I'm thinking democracy and freedom of religion, but that's just my guess.)
To provide greater context, the book says, "He continued to be an average student at Columbia, but the college gave him the opportunity to widen his intellectual horizon and explore ideas beyond Catholic dogma (though like Donovan, a large majority of his classmates professed to be conservative Republicans). At one point Donovan even questioned whether he even wanted to remain int eh Catholic Church and started attending services for other denominations and religions, including Jewish faith, to check them out. He decided to stick with Catholicism." So yes, I would imagine freedom of religion and/or "beyond" conservative Republican ideology. Should this clarification be added?
Done.
  • which became part of the 42nd Division under Douglas MacArthur No, it didn't. MacArthur was the division's chief of staff. (He later commanded the 84th Brigade, of which the 165th Infantry was not part.)
Fixed [21]
  • Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals." "They can't hit me and they won't hit you!" he told his men. Direct quotes require a reference.
Done - Vanity Fair article.
Done by another user [22].
  • Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers. Is this supposed to be a reference? It reads weird. We don't normally allow such a vague source. And I'm not sure how reliable what soldiers tell their wives/girlfriends is.
I went ahead and just removed this.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt is linked multiple times.
Removed second link in infobox and one from the body.
  • Footnote 5: I really require a page number in a reference to a book.
Done - I replaced the references to the book with footnotes including page numbers for consistency.
  • Third paragraph of "World War II" is unreferenced.
Done
Done.
Done.
Source review
  • The first thing I noticed were the citations in the lead, which are not normally necessary, nor encouraged, since the lead is a wrap-up of what is in the article. However what is sourced in the lead appears nowhere else in the article; it needs to be in body of the article and sourced, recapped in the lead without citations: He is also known as the "Father of American Intelligence" and the "Father of Central Intelligence". "The Central Intelligence Agency regards Donovan as its founding father," wrote Evan Thomas in a 2011 Vanity Fair profile. The lobby of CIA headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, now features a statue of Donovan. Thomas observed that Donovan's "exploits are utterly improbable but by now well documented in declassified wartime records that portray a brave, noble, headlong, gleeful, sometimes outrageous pursuit of action and skulduggery."
Done.
  • Further reading section needs to have the "harv-ref" removed from each item, because it's showing an error message on each one except Brown and Donovan. Please see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, a handy tool that shows big red error messages if Harvard referencing is inconsistent or in error.
I believe this has been corrected, no?
No. What makes you believe this has been corrected? You need to open the Further Reading section in the edit window. Everywhere you see "ref = harv", remove it. But only in that section. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Banners, No Bands, by Robert Alcorn, D. McKay, 1965. - has no publisher, no ISBN number, info incomplete on this one.
Can't seem to find the ISBN for this one... any suggestions?
Meatsgains, World Cat Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) is an excellent tool. WorldCat home page. A number of search results for any given title or author. But once you come up with the title and edition you are looking for, if there is no ISBN, it should list "OCLC Number:" at the bottom. Wikipedia accepts that. Instead of coding the reference template "isbn=", substitute "oclc=" and type in the number. That should work for you. — Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 12 - Thomas A. Rumer, The American Legion: A Official History. Needs ISBN, cite book formatting, put under References and an line citation consistent with the rest of the article.
  • Anthony Cave Brown book needs to be removed from the Further reading section and moved down to the References, as you have one sfn inline citation that points to it. It's the only sfn formatting used. Need consistency in style of which referencing you use. Either use all sfn, or all the bracketed type. The Anthony Cave Brown book is also listed inline in its entirety in Citation 24. That one needs to be standardized with its inline ciation.
  • Lovell, Stanley P. Of Spies and Stratagems - move it from "Further reading" into References, and format citation 66 accordingly.
  • Citation 73 - Clifford, Clark, Counsel To The President, A Memoir, New York: Random House, move into References, needs ISBN number, and format citation 73 accordingly.
  • Citation 80 - from the New York Times is formatted a little differently than other news cites. Be consistent.
  • All linked sources need "Retrieved" date.
  • Arlington National Cemetery is used in two different places as individual citations. The first place it's used is to list Donovan's medals. Tombstones are not reliable information for service records, and you need to replace that with non-Arlington individual citations for his medals. Since he died in 1959, the military has gone through its records correcting missing, or otherwise erroneous awards and decorations. Families have also petitioned for updates on individual military records. The second place Arlington appears as a citation is for his son's burial, which seems to be OK but would be better if you could come up with another source.
  • The first paragraph of Nuremberg Trials needs citation(s).
Done.
  • Medal of Honor citation URL just goes to the MOH site, but does not link directly to his page.
Fixed.

This was just a quick glance at what's in the sourcing. Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Meatsgains, if you are not going to respond to reviewers comments, I think this FAC needs to be archived. I'd really like to see some responses by the end of the week (i.e. Friday) at the absolute latest. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delayed response! I will begin making the recommended improvements asap. Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate all the feed back and suggestions here! I've got a lot to work to do. This is my first WP:FAC so I'm not sure what the timeframe is but when should the improvements be completed/is there a deadline before the FAC is archived? The next couple days are going to be busy for me but I plan to finish by next week. Thanks again. Meatsgains (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at FAC should be interpreted as "do this or else". The worst that can happen is that the FAC nomination gets archived (i.e. it fails), which only means that you can put it back up in two weeks, after you've had a chance to try to do something about all the comments. Best of luck. I can help with copyediting, but it's too soon for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no time limit, as long as something is happening. As you are now responding, there is no great rush as long as we are making some progress. However, I would advise against leaving an open FAC unattended for too long as it both discourages reviews and makes archiving more likely. Anyway, the ball is rolling now, so no problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • There are a lot of commas just before quote marks. Per our style guide (WP:LQ, in this case), that's fine if the comma actually appeared there in the quote, and quote is substantial (let's say, contains at least a verb). Otherwise, the comma goes outside the quote marks.
  • "led those [soldiers] to give him the nickname "Wild Bill", which would stick with him for the rest of his life"; "On the football field, he earned the nickname "Wild Bill", which would remain with him for the rest of his life.": A contradiction here.
  • "oversea": overseas?
Corrected typo.
Done
  • "Other OSS recruits included ... In 1942, the COI ceased being a White House operation and was placed under the aegis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Roosevelt also changed its name to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).": It sounds like it would be more accurate to say they were recruited into the COI, since it wasn't the OSS yet. The sentence about "Oh so social" also comes too early.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It's an excellent biographical article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Oppose. It's been a while, and there's been little progress on many of the points raised in this review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Syek88

[edit]

I'll leave one comment at this point because it supersedes all others that I might have had. I want to pick up on the point made by AustralianRupert above about "broaden[ing] the referencing base". The fact that the article relies so heavily on one biography (Waller's) is, in my view, at least potentially problematic. The risk is that the article could inadvertently shackle itself to how Waller sees Donovan: the omissions he makes, the details he emphasises, etcetera. If there were a second or third detailed source upon which the article relied to an equivalent extent, any such perspective problems could be largely eliminated.

This issue is accentuated by the fact that Waller is not an academic source. If it were, we could be a little more confident that it is balanced and in appropriate perspective. Instead it is a bookstore biography. This is what a Professor of Government and Public Administration has said about it:

The book is written in the annoying style of newspaper journalism. Each chapter, and many sections within chapters opens with a hook sentence, e.g., ‘The telephone rang at midnight and the caller said..’ Then it back fills to get to the phone call, usually. I say ‘usually’ because a few of these hooks seem to be forgotten and go unexplained. It means each time the narrative is interrupted and resumed, like stop-start traffic. It jumps around so much I wondered if some of the dates were wrong. No doubt, this method of exposition is what makes it, per the cover, fast paced. It also made it, at times, unintelligible to this reader. It lapses into clichés far too often. Opponents are gunmen who gun down innocents. One-eyed and simple-minded more than once. No doubt these clichés are what make it exciting, per the front cover. I turned a lot of the later pages quickly, having long lost interest in Donovan’s travels, dinners, and handshakes, and his sometimes naive efforts to exert influence in China and elsewhere. These details tell the reader nothing about the man.

Having said that, these comments might be misdirected and betray their own bias. All other reviews of the book, including in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and Global War Studies, appear to be positive. The latter says that Waller's book is "balanced".

This is only a comment at this stage. I'm not going to dive in and oppose on this ground without discussion and careful consideration first.

Also, is there any reason why footnote 5, used on multiple occasions, is to the book generally rather than to specific pages of it? Syek88 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. Were you able to find additional critical reviews on Waller or the book because IMHO, one opinion from a single college professor isn't quite significant enough to discredit the book's neutrality or accuracy. Meatsgains (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I do agree, the page needs to not rely on Waller's book so much. Meatsgains (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've fixed the issue with footnote 5 and included page numbers. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Jackson review is the only critical one that I could find. Reviews in the legacy newspapers and journal articles (although there are only two of the latter and they don't seem to be high-level journals) are positive. I'm also a little mindful, as alluded to above, that Jackson himself might have his own angles. I certainly don't mean to discredit Waller as an unsuitable reference. I meant only to illustrate why a broader range of references would ensure we're on safe ground, and that probably wasn't the best way of illustrating it. So I don't think we disagree on anything of significance. Syek88 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cas Liber

[edit]

I'll take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lobby of CIA headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, now features a statue of Donovan. - seems an odd fact to put in the lead...?
"link "Rosemary Hall"?
You've mentioned two origins for "Wild Bill" nickname. At least use the word "again" in the second mention or something as it reads oddly and sort of contradictorily....
In the World War I section, is the wound in para 1 the same as the one in para 3, or different?
In the first para of the Years between the wars section, has there ever been any speculation Donovan was recruited to go on this mission as a spy by the government? If so has it been refuted?
His foreign experience and realism.. - "realism" strikes me as somewhat POV here. I'd be inclined to remove it.
he sent out "teams of French, Danish, Norwegian, and Polish nationals" - reword to dequote.
I'd move the note on his daughter's death in 1940 to the family section at teh bottom. Do we know how she died? That'd be good to include.

NB: I made these changes, if they are ok by you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be other books on google books that cover Donovan, but their tone seems similar to Wallers, so I don't see any evidence of an opposing negative view, FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nick-D

[edit]

I also agree that the sourcing is much too narrow for FA status at present, especially as Donovan is a major figure who's been covered in depth in a wide range of histories - for instance, pretty much anything on the history of the CIA or intelligence activities in World War II (both huge genres) should cover him. Coverage should also be available through works on US government foreign and military policies during the war and its aftermath. From quickly checking the books I own, Max Hasting's The Secret War appears to have lots of coverage of Donovan, and Tim Weiner's critical history of the CIA Legacy of Ashes also has limited coverage of him. There seems to be no reason to not conduct wider research, and the article does suffer from its narrow sourcing.

I have the following comments on the World War II section, which is probably the area I'm best qualified to comment on:

  • "He met with such foreign leaders as Benito Mussolini,[36] with whom he discussed World War I, Italy's expansionism under Il Duce" - confusing as 'Il Duce' was Mussolini.
  • "He strongly urged Roosevelt to give Churchill the aid he requested. Roosevelt wanted to provide such aid, and asked Donovan to use his knowledge of the law to figure out how to skirt the congressional ban on selling armaments to the United Kingdom" - this exaggerates Donovan's role as lots of other people were telling Roosevelt the same, and helping him to arrange it. More generally, this part of the article over-states Donovan's influence on FDR by not noting that he was one of several such representatives, of whom Harry Hopkins was by far the most important.
  • What exactly was Donovan's role in the OSS? As head of the organisation, how did he balance his administrative responsibilities with his operational ones? (it seems that he focused largely on the latter, but even then how hands on was he, and how do historians regard this?)
  • Why did Donovan personally take part in the major Allied amphibious landings in Europe, or personally conduct negotiations in frontline areas?
  • Who managed the OSS when he was doing this? How well did this work?
  • "He met in Europe with highly placed anti-Nazi Germans to broker an early peace that would allow for occupation by the Western Allies, establish a democratic Germany, and leave the Soviets out in the cold" - who were these people? As far as I'm aware, there were no "highly placed anti-Nazi Germans" who were interested in democracy: the Army-based resistance (the only viable opposition to the Nazis) wanted to run the country for itself with the goal of continuing the war against the USSR.
  • Also, how did this align with FDR and Churchill's policy of requiring the unconditional surrender of Germany? - was Donovan freewheeling here?
  • "On D-Day, Donovan was on one of the ships that took part in the Normandy landing ... eventually, they found their way to General Omar Bradley's newly set-up tent headquarters on the beach" - Bradley didn't come ashore until several days after the invasion (his article says 10 June)
  • "where the Wehrmacht was in such chaos that he "knew their positions on the battlefield better than German generals did." - there's no way that this could have been known through the OSS' human intelligence network: the experiance of all the combatants was that such intelligence wasn't very useful for order of battle information. This intelligence came from signals intelligence, which was produced by MI6 (which had control of Government Code and Cypher School, and the famous Bletchley Park).
  • " Dulles oversaw the surrender of the remaining Nazi forces in Italy several days in advance of the final German capitulation" - Dulles negotiated the surrender, but the German forces surrendered to the Allied armies in Italy, not OSS
  • "The latter wanted to indict the entire German High Command, not just men who had personally ordered or committed war crimes" - this is inaccurate, as the German high command had in fact ordered and participated in war crimes (not, least the crime of planning and executing wars of aggression), with many of its members also doing so while serving as field commanders. This wording implies that the high command was somehow unjustly prosecuted.
  • "Donovan, a former prosecutor, also criticized Jackson's lack of skill and experience at putting together a strong case and at courtroom examination and cross-examination" - this also seems odd given that history has judged Jackson very favourably. These kinds of squabbles shouldn't be written from Donovan's perspective.
  • As an overall comment on this section, it doesn't provide any significant analysis of Donovan's approaches and effectiveness. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: A few issues and a couple of opposes have arisen now. I think this article may best be worked on away from FAC. The nominator should work with the reviewers on the issues and then renominate after the usual 2-week minimum waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Sorry for the delayed response. If I were to nominate the page again (after making the suggested improvements noted above), I can do so correct? Meatsgains (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 [23].

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the former residence of the prince-bishops of Strasbourg and current seat of three museums. It is the most famous and most ornate 18th-century palace of Strasbourg and one of the main tourist attractions of the city. It also is a place with a most colourful history. I expanded the article quite a bit since it was made a GA and I think it has now reached the right dimensions and covers every aspect in enough detail without being overloaded with details. I have of course provided as many different valuable sources as possible. Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works will need explicit tags for the work itself as well as the photo
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_tapisserie_dans_la_bibliothèque_(4).JPG: what is the copyright status of this tapestry?
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_nature_morte_n°1_de_la_salle_du_Synode.JPG: what is the copyright status of this painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tapestry is from the first half of the 17th-century (author died more than 300 years ago) and the painting is by Jean-Baptiste Oudry (died 1755), so these works are in the public domain under every aspect. --Edelseider (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that by adding the appropriate tag, though, and I hope there will be some more reviewing done soon. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: FoP only applies to objects not inside buildings. Since the two images you have listed are clearly inside a building, FoP rules does not apply anyhow no matter if there is FoP in France or not. You comment is not irrelevant but has nothing to do with FoP. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amada44: Actually, FoP in some countries applies to works inside buildings so long as those are "premises open to the public" - this is true in the UK, for example. That being said, the two works I specifically mentioned above are separate points from that dealing with FoP or lack thereof, and are 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: -and are 2D works- that is correct so there was no point in mentioning it? Amada44  talk to me 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? The 3D works needed tags; those two 2D works also needed tags. That's the point of the list above. The point of this conversation originally was to clarify a misunderstanding, but now we can move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have been tagged. Can we move on? What about reviewing the text? --Edelseider (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that the 3D works have been tagged yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: But they have been, e. g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrasbourg%2C_Palais_Rohan%2C_grand_cabinet_17%C3%A8me_si%C3%A8cle_%282%29.JPG&type=revision&diff=233630033&oldid=224812939. What sort of tag are you expecting? --Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, that needs to happen for all 3D works, including architectural. Second, some of the works have been restored - was the restoration work sufficient to garner a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. The architectural elements are integral parts of the building and the building is from 1742, it could hardly be more public domain. Did you even read the article? I'm going to tag every single file but allow me to say that I find that insistence on marking centuries-old objects with tags and more tags and even more tags a bit fussy. Are you going to review the text as well, yes or no? --Edelseider (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. This is just an image review, as the header says. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He could follow up with a text review, though (ideally). --Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note: Edelseider, last things first -- Nikki is female. She is also one of our most experienced image and source reviewers, and I suggest you adopt a more collegial approach to dealing with her comments or those of any other reviewer. Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us and under no obligation to review more of the article than she chooses to. Her image reviews alone are vital to the FAC process, because if a nomination does not satisfy WP image licensing standards then it won't be promoted to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: - I am trying to be collegial, which is not always easy, as you will admit. So I am - quite collegially - asked about the public domain status of a building that is in the public domain and about the copyright status of works whose authors are dead for centuries. I thought it wouldn't take long to deal collegially with these simple questions but I was proven wrong. I collegially suggest that @Nikkimaria: removes all the pictures from the article that she still has doubts about. That would settle the matter at long last. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: As for "Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us", you couldn't have said it more rightly. Thus I am a volunteer like the rest of you to provide Wikipedia with quality content, which should be judged on its qualities and on its content.--Edelseider (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright status and the correct signaling of this status is an important aspect of article quality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Linking is an issue. In general, we should not have adjacent words or phrases linked to different targets, and we should only link to the most specific target. For example, from the first sentence, "Strasbourg, Bas-Rhin, France" has three separate links. If a reader needed further information on the location, he or she should be directed to the city article. If that's not informative enough, he or she can navigate from the city to the department or country articles as appropriate. Another example is "Cardinal Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, Bishop of Strasbourg", linking to each of the two titles as well as the biography. In this case, I'd suggest that we only need the link to the biography article, because if a reader needed further information from there, well, he or she can navigate to those other articles. In short: provide the most value to the reader to avoid making them guess what link will give them the most information. Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Very good,  Done. --Edelseider (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

[edit]
  • Comment. Hi Edelseider, I'm enjoying reading this. I was wondering about the layout. It looks good on the mobile app, but very few readers are accessing it that way. More are using the mobile web, and most are viewing it on desktop. On desktop, with the window width I normally use, your "interior views" section has three images on the top line, six on the second, and one on the third. And the "y" in "18th-century tiled stove" is on the next line: "18th-centur ...y tiled". On the mobile view, the article looks better (larger font size, for one thing), and the images in that section are on two lines (four on top, six on the second), but the text is still split: "18th-centu ...ry pedal"
    Placing the images in a gallery also means you have a bit of a "wall of text" situation, which is hard to read with the smaller desktop font size. If you want to keep them in the gallery, perhaps introduce some extra paragraph breaks. The paragraph beginning "The year 1871" is 21 lines long on my screen. SarahSV (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)    [reply]
Got it,  Done and thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, thank you (the gallery and the paragraph break). You might want to do the same with the "external views" gallery. And there may be other paragraphs that could use a break. "Among the works of art on view" is another long one. SarahSV (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I hope it looks even better now! :) Edelseider (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That gallery now has three on top and two on the second line, at every width I've tried except very narrow, so lots of white space. Perhaps try five like the other one? SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried five and that doesn't work either. Your way looked better. SarahSV (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added some pictures (there are hundreds of them on Commons) so it is now 4+4. --Edelseider (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good at most of the widths I tried. There's white space at very wide, but it can't be helped. I wish Wikimedia would introduce a fixed width (and columns). Anyway, thank you for those changes. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about capitals in this sentence:
"The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop, the "Bishop's demesne" (German: Bischöflicher Fronhof, shortened to Bischofshof, "Bishop's court"),[7] also known as "Bishop's palace" (German: Bischöfliche Pfalz),[8] which is recorded since at least 1262.[9]"
Are "Bishop's demesne" and "Bishop's court" proper nouns (names)? SarahSV (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean – it could be read as "the court of Mr. Bishop" instead of "the court of the bishop". That is the kind of thing I do not spontaneously see, because I am not a native speaker of English. So yes, capitalizing is wrong (although the Germans do it all the time). --Edelseider (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of Mr. Bishop, but whether the phrase "Bishop's demesne" is a name. I'll take it that it isn't. By the way, if I make copy-edits you don't like, please revert; no explanation needed. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation format: I see you've repeated the full citation several times, e.g. Martin, Étienne (2012). Le Palais Rohan. p. 94. ISBN 978-2-35125-098-3 There's no rule against doing this (you can choose whichever citation format you prefer within reason), but it isn't standard practice.
    You might consider instead using a long cite on first mention, and short thereafter, e.g. Martin (2012), p. 94. You can do this with and without citation templates; if you use templates, you can link between the long and the short, but I never do that myself, so I can't offer advice on that score. Or you can use all short cites as inline references (whatever you want to call it, e.g. Notes), followed by a list of the full citations in a separate section (e.g. References). Those can be linked too using templates, although it isn't necessary. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)    [reply]
 Done, see here. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edelseider, that's fine if you want to do it that way. But it isn't standard to keep repeating the first name. The usual thing is variations of Smith 2017, p. 1; Smith (2017), 1; Smith, Name of Book, p. 1; and so on. But it's your decision. SarahSV (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent. For example, you've written Kunstmuseum der Stadt Strassburg (italics), Musée des Beaux-Arts (no italics, caps), Musée des beaux-arts (no italics, no caps), and Musée des arts décoratifs (no italics, no caps). I can't remember what the MoS recommends, but you should look that up, and either follow it or choose another style guide to follow, but definitely make it consistent. Most FAC reviewers will want you to follow the MoS, so it's best to do that unless there's a good reason not to. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and WP:MOSCAPS. SarahSV (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, [24], thank you @SlimVirgin:! Edelseider (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. The citations still need work. Quite a few have publisher and location missing. This one is written in full: Schnitzler, Bernadette; Schneider, Malou (1985). Le Musée archéologique de Strasbourg. Strasbourg: Musées de Strasbourg. Some have ISBNs, others not. ISBNs aren't required, but we need consistency. Also, I wouldn't give nytimes.com as the publisher. Better to say The New York Times. Ditto with the other newspapers and magazines. And Council of Europe, rather than coe.int. SarahSV (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Schnitzler/Schneider book has no ISBN. What can I do? Specify that it has no ISBN? You may not believe me but it really hasn't - the book is right in front of me as I write.--Edelseider (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
f it has no ISBN, that's okay. The problem is that you're using an unusual system, which is hard to scan. On first mention: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre (1988). Connaître Strasbourg. p. 72. ISBN 2-7032-0185-0. Thereinafter: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre. Connaître Strasbourg. p. 66. Not much difference, and the full cite is missing location and publisher. Please add the missing information, and consider fixing the short cites to something more standard. Or you can use the {{rp}} template if you don't want to use short citations. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is allright now Sarah.--Edelseider (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information needed for books is: John Smith, Title of Book, London: Routledge, 2017, p. 1. And ISBN if wanted. You can vary that: Smith, John; full stops rather than commas, or a combination; year in brackets after the name; leave out "p" and just write the page number; write them manually or use templates. Another example: Smith, John (2017). Title of Book, London: Routledge, 1.

For short cites: Smith 2017, p. 1. or Smith (2017), 1. Or you can use the template {{rp}} to repeat the long citations using ref name and {{rp}} to add the page number. I'll explain more how to do that if you want to use it.

For newspapers: John Smith, "Title of article", The New York Times, 28 February 2017. You can add an access date if the source is a website that hosts undated articles.

See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information. SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, an example of a well-referenced FA without templates is Ernest Hemingway, and with templates Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar. SarahSV (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it is not fine as it is now. I am sorry but I'm afraid that you will want me to change everything again once I have changed everything (again). I have used templates from the start to the finish. Do I really have to keep on with this? --Edelseider (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to add a consistent citation style that includes author name, date/year of publication, title, and publisher. And location for books. The current version has information missing and is inconsistent, e.g. footnote 4, no publisher; ditto footnote 7; what is crdp-strasbourg.fr? Those are just examples. SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is financially supported by the city of Strasbourg and the region Grand Est, among other institutions, so it is more official than Wikipedia. Just see the bottom of the page: http://www.archi-wiki.org/. Edelseider (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: − I have  Done it all now, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=767957980&oldid=767880925. I admit that it looks much better! --Edelseider (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does look better. It needs more work. Several need publication dates (e.g. refs 2 and 3). The New York Times needs italics and so do other titles. Please add the titles to the "work" parameter of the templates; that will add italics. No need to include the website too (e.g. "britannica.com. Encyclopaedia Britannica" looks odd, and Encyclopaedia Britannica needs italics). Again, these are just examples. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a long sentence, and I'm not sure what it means: "The symmetry impression of the riverside façade, arranged around an avant-corps of four columns with Corinthian capitals supporting a voluminous pediment again adorned with the coat of arms of the House of Rohan, is enlivened by the library wing on the west side, which offers a contrast in structure." SarahSV (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: – TAA-DAAA! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good, thank you. I've added full stops after the short refs, because the long refs have them. I've also fixed a few inconsistencies, and I left you two demos (different ways of doing it), [25][26] in case you want the short refs to link to the long ones. But that's not required.
A few points: Ref 35: It's not clear what this source is. [27] Ref 37: Best to use the original source here, not this summary of it. [28] Refs 66 and 68: Both say "History". Musées de la ville de Strasbourg, but lead to different URLs. Perhaps change one title?
Ref35: It's an article from a now defunct website dedicated to Napoleon. The author (Christophe Bourachot) has published a few books on the subject. I shall add his name for more clarity. Refs 66 and 68, indeed, and that's why I didn't capitalize the first "History" (I wrote "history" instead), but since it is confusing, I'll just expand the titles. Ref37 : you are right.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to avoid self-published sources such as the Napoleon one and the wiki. As Christophe Bourachot is a published author on Napoleon, could you use one of his books instead? SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but I think I can remove this reference anyway - he doesn't provide anything new, just a photographic proof that there is indeed a bedroom of Napoleon in the Palace.
As for archi-wiki, don't let the name and the design fool you, it is a reliable source; as I told you they are funded by the municipality of Strasbourg and other institutions like the Ministère de la culture et de la communication so I wouldn't say they are self-published the way websites run by individuals for their own pleasure are. --Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear what your bibliography is. The first three entries aren't used as references, and the first two are almost identical, except for the year but with the same ISBN. The latter two are used as references.SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call the other books "further reading", then.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher and location? And do both volumes really have the same ISBN? Les grands appartements du Palais Rohan de Strasbourg also needs location and publisher. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Both volumes do have the same ISBN, I've checked, so I've removed the mention of a volume altogether.--Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks for making all those fixes. It's looking good. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience! --Edelseider (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to you too! I know it seems niggly, but these things really affect whether it looks professional. There's still inconsistent capitalization, e.g. Musée des Beaux-Arts/Musée des beaux-arts. Whichever you choose, just make sure it's consistent. Perhaps check the Wikipedia article to see what it does, and the museum website. And only proper nouns/names are capitalized, so state is lower case. SarahSV (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually strike that. I think they're all fixed. SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only the portrait of Armand Gaston, the builder of the palace, was later restored to its original place with a 1982 copy after Hyacinthe Rigaud." By "after", do you mean "in the style of"? SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think I could formulate that sentence even better. Will do. --Edelseider (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a replica after one of the contemporary copies of the painting, like this one: [29], because of course nobody could make a copy in 1982 of the destroyed original. --Edelseider (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's clearer. Re: this edit, is it one bishop or plural? SarahSV (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is several bishops. I followed your edit here. If you were wrong, I replicated the mistake, but it's easy to correct. --Edelseider (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's plural, it's bishops' hall. Re: caps, we also have Bishop's Hall, Bedchamber of the King, Cabinet of the King, Assembly room. It's up to you to decide whether they are names, and whether you are translating them as names or as descriptions, and if names whether both words are capitalized. I can't decide that because I'm not familiar with the sources, but I think I would write them all lower case in English. SarahSV (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done − I think we are through now! Phew! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this sentence: "Besides the apartments of the prince-bishops and cardinals, the main focus of the museum is the local production of porcelain (Strasbourg faience), silver-gilt and clockmaking, with original parts of the medieval Strasbourg astronomical clock including the automaton rooster from 1354."

And this one should be broken up: "It was established in its current form in the years 1920–1924, when the collections of the Kunstgewerbe-Museum Hohenlohe (originally established in 1887 and located until then in the Renaissance former municipal slaughterhouse – the Grandes Boucheries or Große Metzig – which now hosts the Musée historique de Strasbourg[66]) were relocated in the stables wing adjacent to the Palace apartments." SarahSV (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768347645&oldid=768324529. Are we through now? --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's coming along. Thank you for the fixes. A few more points:
  • This sentence should be broken up, and any other like it: "In 1939 already, the carpet covering the table in the middle of the library, woven in Portuguese India around 1730[N 3], which was given to the Cathedral chapter after 1806 and sold to the Musée de Cluny in 1865, was returned to the city of Strasbourg on permanent loan."
  • "copies after" should be unpacked, because most readers won't know what it means: "copies after Antonio da Correggio", "copies after greater masters", and any other examples.
  • Contemporaneous is better than contemporary in "replacing 18th-century copies after contemporary French masters", and any similar usage.
  • Could you explain this? "Napoleon's green bed is an original work by Jacob-Desmalter."
  • typo: "through it single, very large window"
  • It isn't clear in the lead who owns it now ("the Palais was owned in turn by the nobility, the municipality, the monarchy, the state and the university"). You could also say who has lived there and who the illustrious guests were.
  • Is there any information about who actually built it, i.e. a social history? There often isn't, but if it exists, it would be interesting. SarahSV (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: – Sarah, you are a bit a sadist, aren't you? This is not perfectionism, this is torture. You are coming now with a lot of questions you could have asked a week ago. What else do you have in store? How many points? Can't you just name them all at once? Damn it, I'm getting really upset now! What do you mean by "readers wouldn't know what copies are?" What kind of readers do you mean? Illiterate people who would never read an article? --Edelseider (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand your question about "who built it". Did you read the article? In 1727, Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, bishop of Strasbourg since 1704 and Cardinal since 1712, commissioned the architect Robert de Cotte to design the palace; De Cotte provided initial plans the same year. Building work on the Palais Rohan, mostly in yellow sandstone from Wasselonne, with pink sandstone for the less visible parts, took place from 1732 until 1742 under the supervision of the municipal architect Joseph Massol, who also worked on the Hôtel de Hanau and the Hôtel de Klinglin during the early years of the project. Massol was assisted by the architects Laurent Gourlade and Étienne Le Chevalier. The sculptures – statues as well as reliefs – were provided by Robert Le Lorrain, assisted by Johann August Nahl, Gaspard Pollet and Laurent Leprince; the paintings by Pierre Ignace Parrocel and Robert de Séry. The ébéniste Bernard Kocke and the ironworkers and locksmiths Jean-François Agon and his son Antoine Agon worked on the furnishings of the apartments, while the stucco was the work of the Italians Castelli and Morsegno. --Edelseider (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I have done these edits now and I really wish you could put an end to this charade now, it isn't pleasant any more and I'd rather quit editing than be pushed around like that! --Edelseider (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: Edelseider, these last comments really step over the line. I'm afraid if you continue like this, nobody will review this article. It needs to be a collaboration. Sarah is a very experienced reviewer and knows her way around FAC, and knows what a FA needs. It would make much more sense to work with her rather than resort to insults. I would advise striking some of those comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: – Father of Pamina, I have been a very obedient and diligent collaborator and so far I have worked with Sarah tirelessly. But instead of giving me a long and consistent list of tasks, or at least several longish lists, she is giving me the drop-by-drop treatment that is also known as Chinese torture. Now she is telling me things (rewriting the intro) we could have started with! I will endure this until the very end, not for me because I am and will remain anonymous, but for the Palais Rohan itself, but honestly, I feel treated in a way that I do not really deserve. What would Wikipedia be without the people who write articles? --Edelseider (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, here are the new edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768563311&oldid=768347645. --Edelseider (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edelseider, the problem has been that you've fixed only the examples I've pointed out, rather than fixing all instances of the same issue. When I wrote on 28 February: "Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent", that meant "please fix all the style inconsistencies". Having to point out every single example has felt like water torture to me too.
When I asked who built it, I was referring to the labour force; the architects didn't build it. I wondered whether anything is known about the work force: how many involved, how they were paid, where they lived, and so on. It was just a suggestion.
Re: the lead. I could only make suggestions for the lead after having read the article. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Best of luck with it. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: – to be fair, you should strike the points that have been addressed in the last four days, there are many. Wherever this goes. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

I'll take a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Edelseider (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...from the architect Robert de Cotte - I don't understand how it can be commissioned from an architect...?
That's a language problem (mine). How would you say? I sincerely don't know (I am a level 3.5 English speaker, not a level 5). --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(We-ell, I can confirm your English is better than my Francais or Deutsch..I fumbled around in German when I was in Strasbourg 25 years ago..lovely place) Okay, well trying to establish what it means - does it mean the Cardinal got de Cotte to do the design? or something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. In German, you would say er beauftragte ihn mit einem Bau or er gab einen Bau bei ihm in Auftrag, in French you would say il lui a commandé un édifice - meaning that he formally asked him to design a building for him.--Edelseider (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture is by no means a strong point of mine - my feeling is the cardinal commissions the architect to build the palace (i.e. the object of "commission" is the architect not the palace...need to check on this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I've completely rewritten that sentence: [30]. Edelseider (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop... - the "in Strasbourg" is a bit repetitive as the words have just been used in the previous sentence...and we've established it is in Strasbourg anyway...?

:Fair point, I'll remove that. --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 2 in the Up to 1871 subsection is a bit listy. Any extra information (on artworks or artists) might help breaking up a long list of names.
@Casliber: – it's  Done now, see here. --Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a link to facebook at the bottom?
Why not? It's the official page of the Palace, maintained by the Musées de Strasbourg. Shall I remove it? --Edelseider (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would. It doesn't add anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To compensate for the declivity, - err, wy not just say "slope" or "incline"
indeed, why not. --Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't see anything on its dimensions (unless I am missing something...) how tall/long/wide is it?
I have no idea. I have looked for that kind of information but found nothing. I would like to know as well! --Edelseider (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, you tried. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I was nicely invited on my talk and will look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "such as Louis XV of France, Marie Antoinette, Napoleon and Joséphine, and Charles X of France", - for someone not knowing that looks like Napoleon not of France ;) - How about "French royalty"?
  • If you want to pipe university, get the "the" in the link, or people would expect University and not click. I'd just un-pipe it.

Up to 1871

  • Why bishop but Cardinal?
  • Do we need all the different names of the former desmene? If yes, can it go to a footnote?
  • "antique" - how about "ancient" or "Roman"?
  • "Building work ..." - a long sentence. I'd like to read the time first, then the material (if at all in "History").
  • "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805", - how about introducing the French term when town hall is mentioned.

Since 1871

  • "German rule over Alsace (Alsace had previously ..." - how about avoiding repetition: "German rule over Alsace which had previously ..."?
  • "On August 11" - I'd use European dates consistently, even for American bombs.

Notable guests

  • Why the days in brackets after the years?
  • Why the presidents out of chronology?

Structure

  • How about river Ill?
  • "Christian virtues, such as "Religion", "Clemency", "Penitence", "Eucharist"" - I don't know religion and eucharist as virtues ;)

Exterior views

  • I'd like the first one from 1744 in the text body because it's too small.

Apartments

  • "garderobe are" or "garderobe is"?

More to come, interesting (hi)story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back, but found nothing more. I could images of what the museums contain.

General wish: not many references at the end of a paragraph, but more specifically to single facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear Gerda, I am going to take care of all that over the next three days (maximum).--Edelseider (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: – it's  Done, thank you for your input. I did not add images from the content of the museums because it is impossible to choose only eight items among all of them. I made a valuable selection a while ago here: Commons:Palais_Rohan_(Strasbourg)#Collections_municipales but that's as narrow as it can get! Heartily, Edelseider (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Support. As said before, I personally prefer references not within the text, but that's up to you.

Ceoil

[edit]

I would like to eventually support this article, as the nominator has a lot of knowledge and the topic has worth. However, the prose as stands is very labored. Oppose for now, in lieu of a copy edit, which is sorely needed.

The main issue I see here is run on-sentences, eg (at random) "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805, when it was offered to Napoleon who, in return, gave the city the hitherto state-owned Hôtel de Hanau, an arrangement which proved favourable for everybody: for the municipality, the maintenance of the Hôtel de Hanau was less costly than that of the larger Palais Rohan; for Napoleon, the palace was the more conspicuous display of grandeur; for the palace, imperial ownership meant renewed splendour. The gift to Napoleon was officially accepted by decree on 21 January 1806."

The run ons here are " for the municipality, the maintenance..." and "for the palace". Unfortunately, the article has a lot of this. Nor do I like like 'hitherto'. Ceoil (talk)

"The stucco of the library however, lost in 1817 because of the leaking flat roof above that room (the only free standing part of the building), was never restored" - I understand the points, but sentences such as this lack focus and coherence for the average reader. There is too much crammed in, and the punctuation seems random. Once again, this is an eg of an issue I find through out the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will take care of that. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. You want shorter sentences. More precise statements. I understand. Edelseider (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I have  Done as best as I could, please see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=772937976&oldid=772559913. Thanks for the compliment on my knowledge, by the way. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other reviewers: if Ceoil doesn't return, please acknowledge that the points he raised have been addressed. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will revisit shortly. I see you are a not a native speaker, so can help out. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Help is not needed (but thank you, anyway), what is needed is the acknowledgment of the work that has been done, i. e. that you lift your "oppose" at long last. Comme on, you started this! Now close the circle! --Edelseider (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ɱ

[edit]

I'm not doing a full review unless you want me to, but I saw some curious things here.

  • Wikilink "prelate", never heard this term
  • I'm surprised you wikilink common terms like art gallery, exhibition, statues, taxes, vases, paintings, library, columns, copper, staircase, balconies, arches, busts, stables, trophies, tapestries, and porcelain. (MOS:OVERLINK)
  • I've never seen File:Strassburg 5917.jpg described as Empire style. Two houses I've seen with this style of room are the Vanderbilt Mansion and Woodlea, neither of which use that terminology in their sources. Do you have sources? Some say it's in the style of a house of mirrors (implying like Versailles'), but I'm making a separate commonscat just for "gold rooms".
  • I would remove the archi-wiki link per WP:ELNO

Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ɱ, of course I have sources for the Empire style. Remember, this is the style that was created under Napoleon, in France. I think that the Vanderbilt mansion is not an example of French design or of design from the 1800s. You should travel to Europe to see authentic Empire style, like in the Palais Rohan, or just read the article Empire style. --Edelseider (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad if you provided some. And I was saying Frederick and Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt's McKim, Mead & White mansions both have rooms designed in that style, not that the entire houses are. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that very well. And I will provide sources. But you should acknowledge, first, that any design made in the late 1890s is not Empire Style, but "neo-"Empire style at best. Because it wasn't made in the first decade and a half of the 19th-century, the time of the actual French Empire. If you don't get your history of art right, I can't take our discussion seriously. --Edelseider (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, here is a source among many. I feel a bit ridiculous because you are asking me to source something as obvious as a sunrise, but there you are: «Le mobilier de style Empire dont la chambre de l'empereur au palais Rohan à Strasbourg». Edelseider (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I couldn't tell; the article "Empire style" has very few details on the defining elements of the style, as opposed to articles on the most common architectural styles. The article certainly doesn't mention key elements of gold rooms as I have seen them, with the use of white with gold trim, mirrors and/or murals, and typically marble columns or mantelpieces. I haven't found sources linking this (as is used in your palace and my two New York estates) to Empire style. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how are you writing FAs? This isn't a reliable source for my request in the least. An image caption (presumably quoting some unknown person) on a French newspaper section listing conferences? Describing not the whole interior design but merely the furniture? And somewhat insulting me saying it's blatantly obvious, when it's not written on the wiki article (also containing no photos of the style I described), and I found no sources to link that style to your terminology? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article already references (n°22 and 23) that the Napoleonic features of the palace were designed by Pierre-François-Léonard Fontaine and François-Honoré-Georges Jacob-Desmalter. And you shouldn't dismiss a conference just because it is advertised in Les Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace and not the NYT. Just saying. --Edelseider (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first things you mention are not direct sources. I don't care if a furniture designer or architect/interior designer predominantly or always designs in one style. The burden is to provide a RS that describes the Empire style resembling the image I linked above, or otherwise remove it from the article. And a newspaper is only reliable when its writers produce articles that are fact-checked and proofread. Even if the NYT has a list of conferences somewhere, I still wouldn't call that an RS for architectural styles. And don't get me started on the fact that it's an image caption. Captions are notoriously incorrect, usually copied from wherever previously used the photo, and almost always glossed over even when editors are involved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, regardless of this relatively minor issue, what do you think of my other initial comments? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - An excellent read, but not quite FA standard yet. The prose is not idiomatic. Examples: "De Cotte had also previously designed", (word order),"the territory also known as Alsace-Lorraine, or Elsass-Lothringen in German" (comma needed) and "The architect, Robert de Cotte, was thus able to distribute the interior spaces of the residential bulk on an even grander and also more practical plan" (unintelligible). I suspect this has written by a non-native English speaker. It needs copyediting, preferably by someone who can bring a fresh pair of eyes. Graham Beards (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open a long time now, and I'm afraid there is no consensus to promote. There are two considered opposes, both on grounds of prose, and the lack of consensus in 8 weeks despite extended commentary means that I am going to archive shortly. This article can be renominated in two weeks, but I would recommend working with the reviewers on the prose away from FAC and bringing it back once their concerns have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2017 [31].

Nantes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Oie blanche (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the second time I nominate the article. It is about a city in France. I believe flaws highlighted during the last proposal have been adressed. Oie blanche (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Starting in a random section, Economy:
  • "The city was the largest harbour": A city isn't a harbour. It's not uncommon to say for instance "Nantes was the largest harbour", because that's short for "Nantes harbour was the largest harbour".
  • "Nantes and its area is": Plural, so "are" (and "area" is ambiguous here)
  • "the city has developed itself": wrong word
  • "After the moving of much of the port activities in Saint-Nazaire": I hardly know where to start.
  • "the city invented itself a new image": wrong word
  • "a large cultural offer": wrong word
  • "to give itself": wrong word
  • And so on. The article isn't B-class yet; it need rewriting by someone familiar with Standard English. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add translated titles for citations in French, as WP:HOWCITE recommends. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this needs to be worked on, and reviewed, away from FAC before it is brought back. I would strongly advise getting some outside review and even a co-nominator before renominating. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2017&oldid=779249158"