Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2015

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2015 [1].

Kinky Boots (musical)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 Tony Award for Best Musical winner. I think it is getting close to what is expected.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to catch the touring production of this in St. Louis earlier this year, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm happy to see the article brought to this forum for that reason.

Image review:

  • Images look fine from a licensing standpoint. The poster in the infobox has a FUR in place. I would personally prefer a different/better photo of Cyndi Lauper as the one chosen obscures her face too much.
  • File:KinkyBootsBroadway.JPG shouldn't be forced to 200px in size. That's smaller than our default thumbnail, and that forces the photo to appear smaller than other photos for those of us who set our preferences to use larger size photos.
  • Captions are appropriate and within expectations of a FA.

Imzadi 1979 → 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Taking the footnotes one at a time,

One final note that applies to all of the footnotes. It looks like we have a faithful reproduction the the formatting of each source's capitalization scheme. So some are in Title Case, some are in Sentence case, and there's even some ALL CAPS in use. The last one, as noted above is not allowed under our MOS. By reproducing each title as the sources formatted them, our article looks unpolished. Our MOS does allow minor typographic changes that do not alter meaning when reproducing quotations, a standard practice in publishing. Consulting the APA style guide, one would find explicit advice that says to change the capitalization of source titles to comply with their style guide. CMOS will tell you the same. Help:Citation Style 1, last time that I checked, says that titles should be in Title Case, and MOS:CT would agree with that regarding composition titles. The rest of the MOS is fairly quiet at expressing a preference. The key take away here though is that our work should be consistent in how we format things. We should apply a level of detail to polish things before the FA star is applied to an article.

Overall though, I don't see any issue with the reliability of the sources used, just their presentation in the article. To summarize, I'd personally prefer a better photo of Ms. Lauper, especially one that faces leftward into the text if it's going to be display on the right side of this article. The images check out, as so the sources once their formatting is polished. Imzadi 1979 → 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imzadi1979, Thank you for the extensive source review. I have attempted to move this to Title case throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer a couple of questions above:
      • I have always been told to only link a publication name on the first usage in a footnote based on the same principles at WP:OVERLINK. You'd generally only link The New York Times the first time it was presented in the body of an article, re-linking in a new section much farther down the page if appropriate. Linking in every footnote is overkill, and as Tony1 used to say, we should be judicious in driving our readers to links that deliver the most value, which in footnotes is the external link to the cited source. Adding wikilinks to the names of newspapers does add some value by allowing readers unfamiliar with those papers the option to read the article on the paper for information about it to judge the quality of the source.
        • Basically, the thinking behind redundant links throughout the footnotes is that the purpose of delinking redundant links is that we assume that the reader reads the link on first use. However, we are not suppose to assume that the reader reads all footnotes and thus, link each as if it is the first use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, our MOS, to the best of my knowledge, is totally silent on the subject of how to format titles within titles. So I just double checked what CMOS16 says. It handles the concept twice (§14.102 and §14.177). The first is for italicized titles that contain other titles, such as the name of a book that mentions another book. In that case, they give the rule I know, render the other title is quotation marks (§14.102). For quoted titles that contain other titles, then the rule depends on whether or not the included title would be italicized or not. If it is, such as a book title contained within a newspaper article title, then the book's title is left italics, but if it's an article title within an other article title, it's quoted using single quotes, which is also the rule I know (§14.177). (You must nest single quotes within double quotes, a rule our MOS enforces as well.) So it appears that as a long-form work rendered in italics, Kinky Boots would be quoted in a book title and italics in an article title.

        In short though, if following CMOS16's rule, you still have cases where the title within the title is quoted and should be italicized. MLA7 appears to use the same rule, but never explicitly states it.

      • Let me answer your question about domain names with some examples. Take http://www.michiganhighways.org. Let's say I were going to cite that. The masthead (large title) at the top of the home page gives "Michigan Highways" as the name of the site. (The HTML title attribute gives "Michigan Highways: The Great Routes of the Great Lakes State".) Then when citing the website, I'd use either form, preferably the former, as the italicized title, Michigan Highways. For http://www.broadway.com, the masthead gives "BROADWAY.COM". So to cite that website, that's what I'd use as its name because that's what it calls itself. Because we're not allowed to use all caps, that would be rendered as Broadway.com. http://www.sfgate.com lists "SFGATE" at the top, and uses "About SFGate" for the non-all caps form so it would be cited as SFGate. (Hearst Communications is the publisher, btw, and I wouldn't mention the San Francisco Chronicle unless using sfgate.com as a courtesy link for an online version of an article published in the Chronicle where I was also citing the page and date information for the print version.)
    • Hopefully these answers are helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs a wee bit more balance. The West End production is just three lines. I appreciate it has only just begun previews, however there is definitely more to say. For instance the changes that were made to remove some Americanisms from the text.Blethering Scot 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to attract any support for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2015 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 [2].

Todd Manning

[edit]
User:Flyer22, User:Figureskatingfan Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the groundbreaking character from One Life to Live and General Hospital, played by the incomparable Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John. Flyer22 and I have worked on this article, on and off, for almost 1 1/2 years, as you can see by our long and often contentious (but collaborative and always positive) discussions on the talk page. Todd's article, like the character himself, is controversial and causes lots of arguments, but Flyer22 and I feel like it's finally ready to go a round or two here at FAC. We welcome your feedback and anticipate much discussion here. We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish, despite the article's complexity and history and look forward to this process. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to attract any support for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2015 [3].

University of Virginia Greek life

[edit]
Nominator(s): Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the University of Virginia's fraternity and sorority system, which has existed since the mid 1800s and whose history includes the founding of two national fraternities as well as other events of significance. The article details the history of the system and lists the Greek organizations on grounds including foundation date, a picture of the residence (if there is one), and other notes. Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

I have performed only a cursory prose review, primarily examining structural and referencing requirements. There is arguably a case to be made that the long tables constitute a list article (and thus a candidate for FLC rather than FAC), but I'll not address that consideration, and treat this as an article that merely includes a large subsidiary list.

  • The lead is problematic. I am not convinced it represents an adequate summary of the article body. In particular, the lead's discussion of reserved rooms does not seem to appear in the body (and is likely too specific for lead inclusion to boot).
  • I'm not sure I understand your comment here; could I ask you to be more specific? The lead seems to me to be a comprehensive yet brief summary. You're right that the Lawn room assignments hadn't appeared in the body, so I have added them to the Notes section in the tables. I feel they should be included in the lead because they give an example of the Greek system's importance to the school--being selected to live in a Lawn room is very meaningful (I could mention that in the article if needed), and out of the very few organizations that hold reserved rooms, three of them are Greek. But I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit up front. I'm pretty much terrible at writing standards-compliant leads for articles here. But, sadly, I still have to point out problems with WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the rest of the article. Typically, about one sentence per section or important topic is an appropriate summary weight, although that varies somewhat. The lead should not introduce information that is not covered in the body, but should also not fail to mention important topics that are discussed later. Whether it is necessary (or even permitted) to include references in the lead is debated here; my stance is that (except for direct quotes or BLP-compliance issues) the lead should be unreferenced because it is merely an "abstract" for the article. As currently written, I think the lead has problems with all these aspects of lead construction policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've shortened and rewritten the lead to try to make it more of a summary instead of going into too much detail. WP:LEAD actually requires that lead sections are sourced, so I've retained the citations where necessary. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction paragraph in History is problematic, claiming that Greek life began "relatively soon after" 1819, but noting that fraternities were not introduced until the 1850s. It's not immediately clear what is being cited for support here, and some of the confusion may be the result of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society's operation as Greek-lettered Phi Pi Theta. It is mentioned (in the lead) as being lettered, but never named as Phi Pi Theta, and I'm not sure the distinction between it and actual fraternities is made clear; I'm certainly unable to define the difference.
  • Done. You're right; the Jefferson Society is not a fraternity, and I have added that in explicitly. I also reworded the History lead to remove the timeline ambiguity. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Late 1900s section discusses Easters without any context. I have no idea who or what the Easters was.
  • The "Controversies" section has but one controversy, and is basically just a place to hang discussion of the Rolling Stone article; perhaps issues like the failure to maintain house condition (until remedied by the HRC) belongs here, which would also prevent discussion of the HRC from appearing in anachronistic order? Also, I'm of a mind that this section should appear before the tables; it's reasonable to believe our readers would think the article's prose complete before scrolling to the bottom of these lengthy tables.
  • I moved the controversies section in front of the tables, but I didn't add the HRC information--I think the HRC info is better suited to the history section, since it wasn't a recent or well-known controversy. I don't think the controversies section should be removed, since the Rolling Stone article was recent and gained national attention, but I don't have much else to add to that section. Not sure what the best decision is here. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to have the column and table widths consistent between the various tables.
  • Done, to the best of my ability (unfortunately entering the same width for the identical columns in each table doesn't result in exactly the same width in reality). Although you may want to check it on your computer--I don't know if tables display differently on different screens. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it standard practice when discussing fraternal organizations that have disbanded and reformed (sometimes decades later) to treat them as a contiguous organization with the original founding date intact? Do third-party treatments of fraternal organization history do so?
  • I don't think there's a standard practice, so I chose to use the original dates because it was objective. Using the most recent "re-founding" could lead to a lot of subjective decisions--what would count as a "re-founding," as opposed to a temporary suspension? Some organizations have had charters revoked by their nationals temporarily, some have been suspended by the university. Others have disappeared for a time because membership lapsed. In any case, whenever I found that some sort of blip in the organization's timeline existed, I mentioned it in the Notes column, so I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay. I spoke with an editor from Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororities, and he agreed that using the original founding date would be best. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defunct fraternites are mentioned, some by name. Is it possible to include a table for them as well?
  • I thought about this, but I figured it would make the already lengthy article unnecessarily long. It would undoubtedly miss some organizations, as I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list of defunct fraternities at the university. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd rather keep it as a single article. Splitting it into two would result in one article that's basically just the history of the Greek system at UVA, with a history section and a controversies section, and a second article that's purely the lists. I feel like the history article would seem incomplete standing on its own, and furthermore, I don't think the "List of fraternal organizations..." article would pass notability requirements. I suppose I could add a short list at the end of the article in a new section titled "Defunct fraternal organizations" or something like that. Maybe I'll work on it in my sandbox and see what I come up with. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting, and possibly reference selection, needs work:
  • Several references are not formatted at all, and lack sufficient bibliographic information. See especially #24 and #107, but also print sources incorrectly formatted as bare links, as in #16, #86, and #99.
  • I'm not sure what's up with the edition/pub date for the Baird source. The 9th edition (which should probably be "9th" rather than "9") was published in 1920, not 2015. If that is the edition you consulted, the OCLC number is correct. If you used a more recent edition, then the edition number and identifier are wrong. Books don't need exact publication dates (especially since you do not do that for any other print source); a year will suffice.
  • Web sources need some attention. You're not consistent about the use of |publisher versus |work, which results in different italicization. A quick glance suggests you're okay for the many fraternity and university web pages cited, but third-party stuff gives you some trouble, such as the Rolling Stone article, where you've used |publisher incorrectly. Also, in general, |work names should be what the website presents itself as, rather than the URL. Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com; Business Insider, not businessinsider.com (there are exception, where the TLD is part of the actual site name, but I don't think you're referencing any here).
  • Wilson and Mohr should probably be "17th" edition rather than "17".
  • Worldcat really dropped the ball on their entry for the source cited here as Semicentennial Biographical Catalogue of the Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America. You have the publisher correct, as per the source itself, but the book has an author as well: Israel Coriell Pierson (Worldcat gets both wrong, but such is life). Worldcat and the title page both agree that this should be properly titled as Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America, Founded June 1 Anno Domini 1847: Semicentennial Biographical Catalogue With Data to December 31, 1899 however.
  • Reference 106 (the Undergraduate Record) does not present bibliographic information correctly. This should be presented as a periodical (The University of Virginia Record), with |series=New Series |volume=7 |issue=1 |date=December 1, 1920. I'm not sure where in this work the content you are citing is, so I can't be more specific than that.
  • Web sources need some attention. You're not consistent about the use of |publisher versus |work, which results in different italicization. A quick glance suggests you're okay for the many fraternity and university web pages cited, but third-party stuff gives you some trouble, such as the Rolling Stone article, where you've used |publisher incorrectly. Also, in general, |work names should be what the website presents itself as, rather than the URL. Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com; Business Insider, not businessinsider.com (there are exception, where the TLD is part of the actual site name, but I don't think you're referencing any here). The Erdely source (the Rolling Stone article) also needs to have an archive date specified since you're citing an archival copy.
  • Book sources need ISBNs, when assigned, or OCLCs otherwise.
  • Ideally, ISBNs should all be properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • Patterson needs an OCLC number.
  • The OCLC provided for the Garnet & Gold Pledge Guide is for a 1965 edition. Worldcat doesn't appear to index a 1970 edition. I'm not sure if the problem is the publication year or the Worldcat number. It's possible there are editions not indexed by Worldcat.
  • Bruce has a formatting issues ("p. Vol. IV 94–101"). Also, the ISBN given is for the 2011 Nabu Press reprint, not the 1920–1922 Centennial Edition. Cite what you used. Replace this ISBN with the OCLC for the original if appropriate.
  • The ISBN given for the 1897 Catalogue of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity is for the 2010 Nabu Press reprint. Cite what you used. Replace this ISBN with the OCLC for the original if appropriate.
  • Corks & Curls probably doesn't have an OCLC number. But the citation provided here is insufficient. Unfortunately, without copies in hand, I'm not able to construct the missing information (this yearbook series has numbered editions, for example).
  • Some web-only sources lack retrieval dates. Some print sources archived online have retrieval dates (which are not strictly required, and often disfavored).
  • Reference #88: [A]lpha
  • In general, very little of this is referenced by sources I would consider independent. While I'm not concerned about using fraternity publications to cite charter dates or the names o their houses (in general, the table information), even the historical context of the topic is largely sourced by University of Virginia documents (note that, broadly speaking, I'm less concerned about sources merely published by the University of Virgnia Press), and the websites and publications of the sundry organizations that are the topic of the article istself. Many aspects of this topic are of considerable historical importance; has nothing more been written by third parties?
  • Actually, I strongly disagree with this. There are a lot of primary sources, but most of them are used in the table for the Notes section. I made sure that any significant claims were cross-referenced with reliable sources, or else I didn't include those claims in the article (the article's edit history demonstrates that). As for the History section, most of the material comes from the histories by Dabney, Bruce, and Patton, with other third-party sources scattered (like Wilson and Mohr's Encyclopedia of Southern Culture). From my understanding, all of those should pass for reliable sources, especially if you aren't concerned with sources published by the UVa Press. There are occasionally primary sources in the History section, but they generally serve to source founding dates or other insignificant information. However, if you feel differently I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain unconvinced that this represents a comprehensive review of the literature. Even prior to the table, a substantial amount of the references are not to third-party sources, and of those that are, the article leans exceedingly heavily on the Baird, Bruce, and Dabney sources. I do not have immediate access to all of these works, so I'm in no position to evaluate how substantive their coverage would be, but I would want to survey some or all of the following as part of a more comprehensive sourcing effort:
  • Barefoot, Coy (2001). The Corner: A History of Student Life at the University of Virginia. Howell Press. ISBN 978-1-57427-113-3.
  • Culbreth, David M. R. (1908). The University of Virginia: Memories of Her Student-Life and Professors. Neale. OCLC 2350046.
  • Hitchcock, Susan Tyler (2012). The University of Virginia: A pictorial History. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0-8139-3124-1.
  • Patton, John S.; Doswell, Sallie J. (1900). The University of Virginia: Glimpses of Its Past and Present. J.P. Bell. OCLC 7332119.
  • These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but I believe that it still has quite a bit to go before meeting the FA criteria. Regrettable, I lean oppose on prose and structure, and oppose outright on the current state of referencing and reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for the review. This is my first FAC so I'm not surprised that there's some work to do. I'll make note under your above comments as I address each issue, and if the consensus is still oppose after I've made the improvements, then I can do some more work and renominate in a few weeks. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, I believe I've addressed all of your comments, although some merit further discussion. I'm in no rush, I just wanted to let you know I had finished. Let me know what you think! Thanks, Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back from a business trip that, naturally, had no reliable wifi access. Let me see what I can provide in terms of responses. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responded further; still a lot of reference formatting issues. I also tried to address my overall sourcing concerns. Not strictly related, but someone will ping you on it eventually regardless: When a statement is cited to multiple sources, those references should appear in numerical order (so [35][41] is okay, but [41][40] is not). This one gets me every time, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for sticking with this review. I've addressed your comments above. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a couple OCLC numbers, which I've asked about above. I'd be interested in looking at the sources you listed, but I don't think I'll have access to them at my local library. I'll keep an eye out for them. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Society_Old_Boys.jpg: what is the source of this image? When/where was it first published? Who was the creator?
  • Hi Nikkimaria, UVA's library got back to me and said that they have the photo in their collection, but have no information on its authorship/publication date. Does this mean it needs to be removed from the article/Wikipedia? I think it's a nice addition to the article, so I'd like to keep it if possible. Puppysnot (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Old_Kappa_Sigma_house.jpg: where was this first published?
  • The UVA library got back to me on this one as well. They confirmed the photo was from 1917, but don't have information on its initial publication. The librarian theorized it could be from Corks & Curls (the school's yearbook), but I don't have access to old copies, so I wouldn't be able to tell. Puppysnot (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to attract any support for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2015 (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) 16:40, 27 August 2015 [4].

First interracial kiss on television

[edit]
Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first interracial kiss on television. This short but comprehensive and exhaustively sourced article deals with an interesting pop culture topic and is illustrated with multiple appropriate images. It is stable and has previously appeared as a DYK. It also dispels a popularly repeated myth so will help enlighten the masses. LavaBaron (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is a good start but it's only that; little more than a stub in fact. Where is the historical and social context? It fails most of the FA criteria, particularly comprehensiveness. There are many book sources that cover this taboo. Such as: Race and News: Critical Perspectives by Christopher P. Campbell, Kim M. LeDuff, Cheryl; Black Men in Interracial Relationships: What's Love Got to Do With It? by Kellina M. Craig-Henderson; Biracial in America: Forming and Performing Racial Identity by Nikki Khanna, University of Vermont, author of Biracial in America; and many more. There is a lot more work needed before this can become a FA. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- yes, I saw this at DYK and thought it worthwhile there but as far as FAC goes the nomination is very premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2015 (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) 15:25, 25 August 2015 [5].

Perovskia atriplicifolia

[edit]
Nominator(s): RO(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Perovskia atriplicifolia, (pronounced: per-OFF-skee-uh at-rih-pliss-ih-FOE-lee-uh; commonly called Russian sage). RO(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

Could we possibly have the pronunciation in IPA? --John (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew how to do that, but I don't. Can you recommend someone who does? RO(talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
/pəˈrɒvskiə ætrɪplɪsɪˈfoʊliə/ works. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

[edit]
Added: ([6]). I also removed the PD art tag, since it seemed incomplete. RO(talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind though that since this is hosted on Commons you still need a tag to indicate its copyright status in its country of origin, as well as in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, is that a PD-UK tag? RO(talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or the life+70 tag that is included by default as part of PD-Art - it also exists independently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do it correctly: ([7])? RO(talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Including the date is a great idea, but a) the template can only understand one date - use 1927, and b) it will only update automatically where 1=PD-old-auto. (I'm also not sure whether it understands "England" as a country input - maybe try "UK"?). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this right: ([8])? RO(talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the IR, and thanks for taking the time to teach me about tags! RO(talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

First pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...atriplicifolia, refers to the plant's resemblance to Atriplex, also known as saltbush.— doesn't it mean that the leaves resemble those of saltbush?.
  • Conversions are the wrong way around. Metric first since this is a scientific subject and the plant is not native to the US, rest of the world is metric.
Fixed
  • needs more links e.g. dysentery, vodka, panicle, steppe, Tibet, mulching, taproot
Added all but Tibet, as I thought we don't link countries.
Tibet's not a country Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet anyway ...lol. Linked. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • sagebrush friendly—needs hyphen I think.
Added
  • This allows it to grow in the western, southwestern, and northwestern United States—what about Canada?
Probably not, since the US Northwest is a lower latitude than most of Canada, but I didn't see any indication in the sources that it grows in Canada.
I'd prefer a more proactive search, Washington State borders British Columbia, and that's pretty mild Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point. I'll try to find a RS that states this, as I'm sure you're right that it grows in BC and other parts of Canada. But I didn't see anything in the 50+ sources I consulted. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think is hardy in certain regions of Canada. it comes from a cold county, no? And here it say hardy in zones 5-9. Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • White Flower Farm catalog describes P. atriplicifolia as "one of the great garden plants of all time".—a plant catalogue is hyping one one its products, so what? Unless I've missed something I can't see why we are repeating spam?
Well, it was repeated in a reliable secondary source, but I removed it nonetheless.
  • woody-based—not quite sure what this means.
Removed
  • hardiness zones five through nine. If you are using USDA, say so and give us some help eg not cold tolerant or whatever.
Added USDA, but it's not that it's not cold tolerant, as 5 is pretty cold.
The point I was making its that your reader has to follow the link to get an idea of waht you mean, so reasonably cold-tolerant, very cold tolerant or whatever best describes it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added "reasonably cold-tolerant".
  • Second and third paragraphs of propagation are a bit WP:HOWTO, needs more encyclopaedic phrasing
I'll work on it, but propagation explains how to propagate, so it's a little how-to by nature, not? RO(talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the "should be" needs to be rephrased to reflect what is done, rather than as an opinion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you meant now, and I think I've made it less how-to and more encyclopedic, but I'll see if there is more to be done. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notcutt's—???
There's no Wiki article for it, but it's quite notable: ([9]).
That's as may be, but your article gives no clue as to what it is, notable or not. Not all your readers are Americans. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's a fair point. I clarified that it's a nursery. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • lots of bees and butterflies—both too informal and too vague. Numbers or variety?
I didn't come across anything that indicated a number or variety.
  • You shouldn't repeat article title in image captions
Okay, but what caption should I use then? RO(talk) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that, with the possible exception of the old image, just removing the name and fixing grammar if required would do
Like this: ([10])? RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, thanks for taking a look. I've gone through this first batch now. Do you think these issues have been fixed? RO(talk) 16:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. Also why have you left α and β outside the redlinks when the are in the blue links? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: ([11]). RO(talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, I think I fixed all these issues now, except that I still don't have a source for it growing in parts of Canada, but I'll keep looking. Thanks for all these great suggestions! RO(talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll leave the Canada issue with you, if you can't find an RS, so be it. I've looked at Burklemore1's comments which follow, and although I agree with the comments there isn't anything unfixable there, so I'm happy to support. Incidentally, I share his doubts about the gallery (I never put galleries in my FAs), but I can't quote chapter and verse on policy. Good luck Jimfbleak
Best I've found so far is a 2012 conference proceeding: Vinson, Katherine; Zheng, Youbin (2012), "Selection of Plant Species and Species Combinations for Northern Climates", CitiesAlive!: 10th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference (PDF) I'm not thrilled with a conference paper as a FAC-level source, but showing merely that this species grows (well, even) in Ontario isn't a particularly contentious claim, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that it grows in a park near my house, but since it hasn't become naturalized in Canada, my sources are helpless. A gardening book would be needed, or I would suggest a source that gives hardiness zones rather than political geography. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Burklemore1

[edit]

Give me a bit to go over the article. However, I have a few comments.

  • I'm not sure what the stance is for galleries in GA and FA articles, but aren't they discouraged? I'm not entirely sure on this, so someone will need to clarify this for me.
The gallery was recently added by Hafspajen; see here Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia#Gallery. I really don't know either way, but it is tough to get pulled in different directions. I guess I'd like to see a guideline-based argument against it before removal. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I am not against galleries myself, but I always thought they were discouraged because of some weird manual of style policy. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article that is 28kb, the lead is very long and four paragraphs is way too much. I think you should trim it down a bit.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'll think about what details could be removed. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer here. Even the article Myrmecia (ant), which is 129kb in size, it has been suggested the lead should be trimmed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Native habitat and taxonomy section is a bit disoragnised. First, I don't think the IPA is needed for the section, and why does it discuss its common name (in relation to the taxonomy), then the habitat, and returns to taxonomy? I think you should discuss its taxonomy first and move anything about its habitat afterwards. Or, give the habitat its own section.
I split the section up. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perovskia atriplicifolia‍‍ '​‍s taxonomy is as follows: Kingdom is Plantae – plants; Subkingdom is Tracheobionta – vascular plants; Superdivision is Spermatophyta – seed plants; Division is Angiosperms – flowering plants;[1] clade is Eudicots;[7] Class is Magnoliopsida – dicotyledons; Subclass is asteridae; Order is lamiales.[1] P. atriplicifolia is part of the Lamiaceae family." This is a bit messy, and I don't think half of this information is necessary. However, feel free to add "P. atriplicifolia is a member of the family Lamiceae of the order Lamiales". A long with that, is there anything about its taxonomic history? Was it placed in other genera and subsequently moved to its current placement? Any synonyms?
I'm not too comfortable removing the info that would otherwise be left uncited in the infobox, unless I can also remove it from there, but I'm not sure I understand why you prefer an incomplete taxonomy. Can you please explain? RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm actually curious if there is anymore information. I checked all the sources and they can all be kept because they will still have the info that you have stated in the section anyway (I would just change the link for NCBI). And plus, is it necessary to list its ENTIRE classification? I think it would be fine to just state that it is also placed in the family ..... in the order ..... I don't think any comprehensiveness would be lost if you were to remove some of it. Besides, I think there is more information that could be very helpful to add. You could first mention who and when it was described (I have been seeing around that it was described in 1848), and as I mentioned above, was it originally placed in another plant genus or has it always been placed here? If I am correct that it was described more than 160 years ago, there is a possible taxonomic history about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent if you're referring to Perovskia atriplicifolia or P. atriplicifolia in the article. For example, you say "In its native habitat, P. atriplicifolia‍‍​‍s flowers are eaten, and the leaves are smoked for their euphoric properties", but then you say "Perovskia atriplicifolia averages .61 to 1.22 meters (2 ft 0 in to 4 ft 0 in) tall, but sometimes grows to 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in) Its silvery-green leaves are finely-dissected and intensely aromatic when crushed." There are many more instances which you will need to address.
What I was doing is using the full name at the first mention in each paragraph, then using the short form thereafter until a new paragraph or section. Should they all be full names? RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mostly correct here. Proper usage is full name the first time in each section, or whenever it appears at the start of a sentence, and short forms otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. Disregard this issue then. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources in your bibliography does not italicise the binomial name.
Fixed
  • Remove the accessdate for ""Indigenous Knowledge of Folk Medicine by the Women of Kalat and Kuzhdar

Regions of Balochistan, Pakistan". Journals do not need access dates. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for these comments, Burklemore1. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a suggestion to find anymore information that you may not have, but Biodiversity library comes up with 56 results for this plant.
  • "They become especially silvery during autumn." Why does it become silvery during autumn? This is something I'm not clear on.
  • With the concerns of comprehensiveness, I'm going to remain neutral rather than supporting or opposing. It's a very nice article and you have put a lot of effort into it, but I think a bit more is needed. Once my issues are addressed and some expansion has been done, I'll be happy to support. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Started this as a review of reference formatting, then skimmed prose to evaluate 1b/1c comprehensiveness. Ironically, I may have missed some reference formatting quibbles, as this is a citation-formatted article, and I'm a cite family cultist!

  • You have quite a few web sources where you format what I would consider the |work as if it were the author. You don't do this everywhere (the RHS sources are not done this way, for example). But cosnider reformatting: Better Homes and Gardens, Missouri Botanical Gardens, National Center for Biotechnology Information reference (but see below about what you're doing with this one), OSU Department of Horticulture, ... and others, as I've stopped tracking this specifically here.
Fixed
  • For Gledhill, I'd have "4th" edition rather than "4".
Fixed
  • You've got a (partial) publisher location on the Harrison source. As you're not generally providing publisher locations, I assume this is in error.
Removed
  • I am not entirely convinced that Plants for a Future constitutes a reliable source, although you're welcome to convince me otherwise.
I think you're right, so I've removed it as a source. RO(talk) 16:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drifitng into a review of prose, in large part to determine if the sourcing represents a comprehensive review of sources:
  • The approach taken to the taxonomy section isn't particularly compelling prose. It's also not the standard way of dealing with full taxonomy in species article (basically, let the taxobox handle it; you don't need to address the higher taxonomic levels directly, because those aren't speficic to, well, the species, but topics for each level up the tree).
  • On the other hand, the taxonomy section should say something about who initially described the species, along with holotype information if that's available. I'd suggest including the discussion of the common names in that section, too.
  • Especially if the common name material is moved to the taxonomy section, there's very little content here regarding native ecology; this is almost exclusively an article about its use in cultivation. Is there anything more that can be said about its behavior in its native range? Among other things, I'd expect a "Similar species" subsection somewhere (either in a discussion of phylogeny or whatever the native ecology section is ultimately titled). There are nearly a dozen Asian species of Perovskia. Do any of the sources that discuss them indicate the distinguishing characteristics of P. atriplicifolia?
  • There are three sections - Propagation, Cultivation, Landscaping - that are all fundamentally about its use in cultivation. Is this the best structure for this article, as opposed to a single section with appropriate subsections? You'll need to decide at some point whether information about the primary cultivars is best handled in the context of cultivation or in the taxonomy section (personally, I'd prefer the latter, but others may have differences of opinion on that issue).
  • Traditional medicine probably doesn't require WP:MEDRS standards, but I'd like to see weightier attribution for its use as an antipyretic than Plants for a Future; there does seem to be some acknowledgement of this in scholarly articles. Likewise, I think you can do better regarding its use as a euphoriant. See this article, which also discusses its potential use for bioremediation.
I removed all content sourced to that website, which was just this and one other point. RO(talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the assertion that "research and data is limited", there's been considerable examination of its phytochemistry since 1999. A more thorough review of this aspect of the literature is probably warranted.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to lean oppose at this time. I think there's some work to do in the prose, but my biggest concerns are comprehensiveness. There's just a lot more out there about its native ecology and phytochemistry that isn't reflected in the article as it stands. Its use in cultivation has been thoroughly examined, but the article is about the species in its entirety. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this looks like peer review stuff now, so do you think these are things I can fix during the nom, or do you think I should ask for the nom to be archived? RO(talk) 16:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. Some of it will depend on whether you have the time and resources available to fill out the missing material within the FAC timeframe (and the tolerance of other FAC reviewers for large-scale changes to the article during the nomination process). In any case, to help get this started, check out this article from the American Journal of Botany, which is an extensive discussion of the phylogenetics of the Mentheae (with this species explicitly included in the resulting cladograms and age-of-divergence estimates). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one hit for Perovskia atriplicifolia in that article, and it's not in the context of discussing the species in any detail. This is all it has, "Perovskia atriplicifolia Benth., cultivated, J. Walker 2524 (WIS);". So, what exactly are you suggesting that I add from it? RO(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not discussed in the text, but it is included as one of the species in the article's cladograms. Being able to expand the taxonomy section into a "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section that includes discussion of cladistics would be valuable. Likewise, figure 2 gives estimated divergence dates (the mid-Miocene divergence of the P. atriplicifolia line from Rosmarinus officinalis is the sort of thing that's nice to have in a phylogeny discussion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Figure 2 is here, but I don't see any mention of P. atriplicifolia or Rosmarinus officinalis. Anyway, I only took this on because I assumed it would be significantly less intensive than my previous articles, which all but burnt me out on this place. If that's not the case, then maybe I made a mistake by noming it here too soon, but I saw that Ursa Minor recently passed FAC with about 2,500 words (I know, OSE), but I find it difficult to believe that an article on P. atriplicifolia would call for a similar amount of material as one on the Little Dipper, one of the most well-known constellations in the sky. I do appreciate your comments and suggestions, but I think it's probably better to just withdraw this nom and move on to something less frustrating, whatever that may be ...lol. RO(talk) 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that you don't become frustrated by the FA process. I'm admittedly a "tough judge" here, because I believe very strongly in the idea of the bronze star representing professional-grade presentations of the topics. Sometimes those are easier than others (I can't speak to the constellation articles, as I've never reviewed one). If this one fails FAC, or you decide to withdraw it, I'd be happy to work with you on source selection to get the content that you're missing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really great to have some help, as I've done pretty much everything here that I can. I guess I'll leave it open until someone else opposes, but I doubt I can get anymore supports with this oppose hanging over my head, so I don't know what to do to be honest. I'm doing my very best, but I stand by my assertion that something is wrong when this article needs as much or more material than Ursa Minor to be comprehensive. RO(talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Since Squeamish Ossifrage has raised concerns about missing details I think it would be best if this nom were archived. I don't want to waste anyone's time on an article that won't pass this time around, and it's not fair to others who have had their FACs closed for similar reasons if this one is kept open while the concerns are addressed. RO(talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Central Commission for Discipline Inspection

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]


Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) · contribs), Colipon (talk)[reply]

My first FAC! ... The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is the Communist Party of China's main anti-corruption agency. Its been in the news lately, most notably in the form of apprehending Zhou Yongkang. --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R

[edit]

Support. At this point, I'm happy to conclude my concerns have been addressed. (Note I haven't checked the article against prose quality.)--R8R (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On my first look, this is an interesting article. However, there are some issues to be solved:

  • Done As a general note, I suggest this article should written in either American English or British English. Spelling differences are covered by this online tool (it is not unwise to check other issues this online tool highlights), plus add (for AmE)/don't add (for BrE) serial commas, and if you decide to move to AmE, use the "MMMMMMM DD, YYYY" date formatting. Plus check the comma usage in "In 2009 the CCDI..." (no comma, BrE) vs. "In late 2013, Zhou Yongkang" (comma, more like AmE). There are other differences between the two, these are just the basic ones; in general, as a non-native speaker, I won't focus on prose quality much
  • communist vanguard party -- two separate wikilinks should not immediately follow each other (see WP:SEAOFBLUE); remove either link or add a non-linked word/phrase between them
  • CPC party -- At best, spell it out on the first occurrence of this acronym within the body of the article (article text minus the lead section) just like you did with "CCDI"; from that moment on, "CPC" will, however, be enough
    • It says "Communist Party of China" (CPC) in the lead.
      • Yes, it does. However, in my personal experience, it is favorable to treat the body separately from the lead section. Lead is just a short summary of what will be described in the body, and the lead is independent from the rest of the article, unlike regular sections, which may depend on each other to some extent. So if you know you want to read the whole thing, you may skip the lead because it doesn't have any info you can't learn by reading the rest of the article. (Also, note you did just that with a few other acronyms, re-introducing them to the reader after the lead, such as "CCDI" or "MOS")
  • Despite this -- "however"?
    • What do you mean?
      • The text had that "despite this" in it, but I think, "however" is better in the context of English language. I'll change that. (somehow, this did get me so I commented, in general, as I said, I don't plan to focus on this)
  •  The 1927 control system -- it's clear what control system is being discussed, no need for that "1927"
  • they expanded on the theoretical reasons for its existence -- I suggest this should be rephrased, I don't understand it (what/who are "they"?)
    • Chanted to "the party leadership expanded [...]"
      • Aha. Now I see what you were saying with that sentence.
  • Done The 1949 Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) -- I'm confused. up to this point, I was explained where new institutions came from
  •  Central Control Commission (CCC) -- this term has already been spelled out, the acronym would suffice
  • until the Cultural Revolution -- for a person unfamiliar with the history of Communist China, a brief mentioning of when the said revolution took place would be really helpful
    • wrote, in the body, "Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement which lasted from 1966 until 1976".. Enough?
      • Just enough.
  • Guangzhou Red Guards -- who is that?
    • wrote " Red Guards, a revolutionary youth movement", good enough?
      • I'd specify the movement is related to the CPC. (It would help those who aren't familiar with China, so they won't deter from reading for a single second to think whether the movement is related to the state, or is in some opposition to it)
  • 11th National Congress -- which took place in... when?
  • (in its journal) -- what journal are we talking about? Also, do we need to mention the journal at all ("Although the institution declared it was doing a good thing, someone else disagreed" -- it makes little sense to mention a committee-controlled journal supported the committee, doesn't it?)
  • bourgeois democracy -- this is not a neutral term; use quotation marks?
    • Why? Its just a term Marxists use.. No different from people referring to democracy as liberal democracy.. By using quotation marks we are in fact saying that the Marxist premise is nontrue, and that is non-neutral. In addition its the term they use to describe supporters of liberal democracy. I don't see the problem. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean. My initial opposition came from the fact I've never heard the term "bourgeois" outside of communist propaganda, especially the propaganda related to Lenin and the period of late 1910s and early 1920s. However, I'm not exactly sure this is still the right way. I will stay away from discussing the term "liberal democracy" (I've heard it a couple of times, but I'm not all that familiar with it). But, still, if only Marxists use this term, I'd rather stay away from it because Wikipedia is supposed to be universal, and if the term "liberal democracy" means more than just regular "democracy", the two shouldn't be used interchangeably either.
          • The term bourgeoisie democracy stems from the writings of Marx, but you're correct that the term "bourgeoise democracy" was invented Soviet ideologists. Being Russian, you will probably also know that propaganda in the Soviet Union were synonymous for the most part with ideological campaigns (but also blatant lies). Liberal democracy pretty much means democracy as practiced in the Western countries.. Russia for instance, is sometimes characterized as a Illiberal democracy. --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aha. Let's put it this way, I'd put quotation marks there, but I can see your reasoning and won't object not including them. (For a second, I misread the part on Russian democracy and thought someone classified it as a liberal democracy... "Illiberal democracy" feels more like what we have around now, what a great term)
  • Ministry of Supervision (MOS) -- introduced three times
  •  11th National Congress in 1977 -- so now I'm told when that congress took place (also, no double linking needed here)

I'm stopping here. More to follow--R8R (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R Gtrs: Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see below) -- this is not a strict requirement, but I suggest you give a specific link to the section where it is discussed (I think the section is "Petition system, investigative procedures and Shuanggui", so the link would look like "see [[#Petition system, investigative procedures and Shuanggui|below]]")
  • Hu Jintao -- I'd specify he was elected during the 16th National Congress (for the first time)
    • He was elected by the 1st Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee... Wrote "The Hu Jintao-led leadership, which lasted from the 16th–18th National Congress," ...
  • general secretary Xi Jinping -- timing is a thing, don't ignore it
    • Wrote "Xi Jinping, elected in the immediate aftermath of the 18th National Congress"
  • for the first time in its history -- a huge portion of events described in this article happened for the first time in the history of CCDI, do we need to specify that?
    • Removed
  • Office for the Supervision of Disciplinary System Officials (纪检监察干部监督室) -- the name in Chinese? a striking difference from the rest of the article, which is doing fine without original names
  • "1977–1978" or "1978–87"?
  • "Zhao Ziyang [...] Zhao's reforms" "Hu Jintao [...] Hu Jintao's term" -- so if we say a name of a person, do we refer to them using just their family names or complete names?
  • DoneEven those who shared the Soviet fascination with [...] did not share its fascination with -- rewording is needed here (besides, "its"?)
    • Wrote "Even those who shared the Soviet fascination with organisational self-correction, like Liu Shaoqi and Dong Biwu, did not share their obsession with "scientific administration"."
      • Done I would go with a softer word for the second case, such as "attitude," but, as I said, I won't be too harsh on prose quality
        • OK, but attitude doesn't work here grammar wise. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're talking about "attitude with"... I take the fact the preposition would need to be changed for granted (but, again, I consider this solved)
  • Doneish commissions for discipline inspection (CDI) -- this term has already been introduced. However, it can be justified we're talking about the CDIs in detail here, so it can be re-introduced, but in that case, the same would apply to the MOS, and you would need to re-introduce it as well.
    • Reintroduced Ministry of Supervision in the MOS section.
  • Done a level above it -- "next superior"?
    • wrote "superior to it"
      • Will do, I guess
  • Done "It is difficult for CDIs to carry out their responsibilities", "it is nearly as difficult to obtain authorisation from the investigative committees" -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that attempts to describe things without judging or giving opinions (quoting opinions of some other people is possible, given we're clear on who those quotes belong to). You could say, "obtaining authorisation from the investigative committees is, however, a re-occurring problem" or smth. like that. Another question is, why is it so difficult? Corruption within the anti-corruption system? Bureaucracy?
    • wrote "Before the 2014 reforms it was difficult for the CDIs to carry out their responsibilities;[56] although they no longer needed approval from the secretary of the corresponding-level party committee, CDI officials were often appointed to positions of power within the institutions they were tasked to supervise (see "Institution-building (2002–present)" section)."
  • Donethere are weaknesses -- affecting what exactly? still not clear to me
    • Wrote " Despite this, there are several weaknesses to its institutional design in the sense that certain informal aspects of CPC rule compete with formal procedures (that the CCDI and its lower-level organs are tasked with supervising) for hegemony; examples are, as outlined Xuezhi Guo, "vague institutional positions, incrementally declining effects as time goes by, vulnerability to patron-clientelism or guanxi network at the grassroots level, and the dilemma of 'open' or 'undercover’ investigation"." ... Good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Military Commission (军委纪委; Junwei Jiwei; CMCCDI) -- first of all, do we need the name in Chinese, second, the English name suggests the acronym should be "CDICMC", or is there a particular reason to use the current one?
    • Great. Nonetheless, could you explain why the current acronym is used? (There may be some reason behind it, like, say everyone refers to the commission by that acronym, but in that case, I'd like to know it)
  • Fixed, but work in progress (but I'm not sure if you're correct about "led" and "lled"...) modeled -- in BrE, this is spelled "modelled"; note there are other verbs throughout the article that would require a re-spelling from "-led" to "-lled"
    • I checked this issue, there was also the verb "signaled" (which I changed to "signalled")
  • Done PLA's General Political Department -- what's a "PLA"? it's clear, but you never introduced the acronym before
  • Done information on what was supervised (and why) was -- this is grammatically correct, yet it confused me for a second. could we rephrase this?
    • Expanded to "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and explanations for why things were under supervision) was.".. Alternately "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and the explanation for why certain areas were supervised and others not) was."
  • Done "Inner Supervision Regulation" -- be consistent with quotation marks usage
  • Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI)[note 1] -- again, is there a reason for the Chinese abbreviation?
    • It would argue for its inclusion since its in a note it doesn't disrupt the reading flow (its in a note)... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably I wouldn't even care if the latter was included because it makes sense to give the original name in the lead. But I was surprised by the fact you mention the short Chinese name for the commission, but you don't include the full Chinese one.
        What I'm getting to is, I would expect to see the Chinese name listed, but I'm surprised how you list only the short name and not the full name, listing both names would be great. Or just the full Chinese name. Or no Chinese name at all.
        @Trust Is All You Need: I am sorry to see this review fall so short from support, so pinging you in case you forgot about it. I could accept either improvement per my advise, or some reasonable explanation why the current version is better instead, but I want either thing. This little issue is the only reason why I'm not supporting this article's promotion (yet), and I'll be happy to support it once this issue has been dealt with
    • I never got the ping :P ... In any case, done.. I removed the first sentence. --TIAYN (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done It was disbanded during the Cultural Revolution. -- add that "in 1969"
  • Done beginning with Hu Jintao's term as party leader -- + "in 2002"
  • Done CPC should be consistently referred to as either "a party" or "the Party"
  • Done The Secretary of the CCDI has, since 2009, also served as the leader of the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work and, since 1997, has been a member of the Politburo Standing Committee. -- logic dictates the mentioning of the "since 1997" responsibility should precede the "since 2009" one

Overall, an interesting article. Final comments to follow.--R8R (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reviewing the article. I had some final thoughts, but I can see they've been covered in one way or another. I don't think there are serious problems with this article (leaving prose quality, which I'm not all that good to judge, aside); after the raised issues are fixed (which seems doable to me), I'll gladly support the article.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Is anything left? --TIAYN (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for almost two months—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2015 (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) 03:40, 23 August 2015 [13].

Palmyra

[edit]
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ancient city of Palmyra. It was an important metropolis during the first three centuries of the Roman Empire and became famous in ancient sources for its warrior queen Zenobia, while in modern times, it is famous for the many well preserved ancient ruins combining both Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern traditions. The city is designated as World Heritage Site and is endangered due to the Syrian Civil War. The article was copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and it received a peer review.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • since Syria does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, all such images need to be explicitly identified as PD due to age
Im sorry but I didnt understand, they are rightly licensed by the people who took the photographs. Do you mean that they need to be declared PD by a Syrian official or that I should add a tag declaring that they are DP because they are 1700 years old ? If its the latter case then can you be so nice and refer to the right template to use ? How can I tag a pic as public domain due to it representing an old sculpture even though the pic was taken by someone who published it under a different license.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no freedom of panorama, we need to have two licenses - one representing the original work and one representing the photo of it. Right now we have the licenses representing the photos, so we need to add a tag like {{PD-old-100}} to represent the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks for explaining, I dont do a lot of work on Wikimedia and dont really understand much about the licensing. I have added the requested tags for sculptures inside Syria while the ones currently in Britain such as "File:PalmyraWoman.JPG" or Istanbul such as "File:Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Colombario funebre da Palmira - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg" dont need the tags since both Turkey and UK have freedom of panorama.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, shouldn't it be obvious that they are PD since the structures are thousands of years old? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's an easy fix, but we should still say so explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palmyra_imposed.png: What is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyra's_landmarks.png
The sources for Palmyra_imposed are in the section Palmyrene Empire. Zenobia annexed the Roman provinces in the east : Egypt, Syria, Arabia and the Anatolian regions up to Ankara and including Galatia. The map highlight the borders of those provinces. Do you need me to put the sources in the image as well?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for both File:Palmyra_imposed.png and Palmyra's_landmarks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for Palmyra's_landmarks: this book in page 26 (figure 1.14) [14]. The university of southern California site also present the city layout [15].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as for File:Babylonlion.JPG, there isn't such a file in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, it's in the portal box. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I didnt expect that. I added the required tag.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but with only the image review after a month this nom has been a bit of a non-starter. Given the lack of commentary, I'd have no objection to you renominating in less that the two-week waiting period generally prescribed by the FAC instructions when a nom has been archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2015 (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) 03:34, 23 August 2015 [16].

Man Down (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Rihanna's single "Man Down" from her fifth studio album, Loud. The song was a massive hit in France, and the song's accompanying music garnered much controversy due to its rape and murder theme. The article has been edited by the GOCE.  — Calvin999 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will not have access to the internet between 21 July and 28 July, and will be unable to respond to any comments in this nomination for that duration of time.  — Calvin999 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
General
  • Both instances of ref 7 list out the full citation as opposed to one simply giving the ref name.
    • Not sure what you mean?
      • Both occurrences of the Entertainment Weekly ref list fully, like <ref name="EW">{{cite web|last=Greenblatt|first=Leah|url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20440920,00.html|title=Review: ''Loud''|work=[[Entertainment Weekly]]||date=November 11, 2010|accessdate=April 30, 2015}}</ref> when only one should, while the other should read as <ref name="EW"/>.
        • Ah I get what you mean now. I misinterpreted it.
  • Cover image needs an alt.
  • What's with the big shouty hidden note at the start of the infobox? Purely curious.
    • It's to stop IPs and editors removing the release date, as some believe radio release is not a form of single release
Lead / top
  • "from her fifth album, Loud (2010)" → "from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010)"
    • I agree. The GOCE removed it.
  • "The song was a hit in Europe" somewhat weasel-y perhaps? It did only peak in the top 10 in five main European country charts.
    • GOCE edit. I've re-worded it.
Live performances and covers
  • Section looks somewhat scarce, further reinforced by the large image size, I'd suggest removing the image all together, or at least cutting down the caption.
    • I've removed the image.
Credits and personnel
  • Move "Credits adapted from the liner notes of Loud, Def Jam Recordings, SRP Records.[1]" to the top of the section.
  • Do none of the locations/people in the section have articles to link?
    • If they do then they are linked in the Recording and composition section first and foremost.
Charts
  • "Yearly charts" → "Weekly charts" yearly would indicate the charts are published once a year.
    • If there was just one table for 2011, I'd agree. But I've written yearly because it has tables for 2011, 2012 and 2013
      • Yearly is defined as "happening or produced once a year or every year." which would fit the year-end charts perfectly, these are weekly produced charts, it just so happens that the song appeared in three years. I don't think people would be confused to see "weekly" and have three years listed.
        • It's yearly peaks though, so yearly is more appropriate?
  • What's the deal with two listings for Switzerland?
    • Two different language speaking regions, like Belgium.
  • Luxembourg and Portugal both link Billboard but US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop doesn't.
  • "Wallonia" and "Flanders" should be linked.
  • "Canadian Hot 100" needs to be followed with (Billboard)
  • (SNEP), (Billboard) etc should be added to the year end charts, especially considering Switzerland seemingly has two chart providers.
Certifications
  • "Certifications" → "Certifications and sales". More than one piece of info covered in section.
    • The sales are just an indication of the minium Man Down sold to in order to get the certification. The sales aren't the true sales.
  • When you sort the "Certification" column, 2× Platinum is listed first, then Gold, Gold and lastly Platinum. Either needs fixing or unsorting (preferably fixing).
    • Yeah because numerals sort first. G is before P, too. The templates are pre-coded so there's nothing wrong with how it sorts.
Radio and release history
  • Radio and release history → Release history, radio release is covered in "release history".
  • Flatlist the "format" column for the US listing.
  • Consider making a "Ref." column at the end of the table to avoid having refs all over the place.
    • Change "Ref," header to {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}}
See also
  • Both uses of "hits" → "singles", hits seems somewhat informal and possibly inaccurate considering a "hit" is considered a hugely successful song but as we know in this day and age, songs can hit number one without even pushing five figure sales numbers. Plus article uses "singles".
    • The Swiss article doesn't, but I've piped it.
References
  • {{Reflist|3}} → {{Reflist|30em}} per it being more browser-friendly.
  • Some inconsistencies with citation styles, a large majority of dates use MDY format, but some (Ref 1, 65, possibly more) don't, having all of them using the same layout would be nice.
    • Well they shouldn't do. My dates are always 100% consistent. GOCE must have added them in like that.

Oppose at the moment, although I imagine you'll be able to turn around my comments in no time. Azealia911 talk 23:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Impressive, but a few comments
  • Alt text: "A black and white image of wearing wearing" – error.
  • "The song was a hit in France, topping the chart for five consecutive weeks" – not sure "hit" is encyclopedic. You can rephrase it to "The song topped the charts in France for five consecutive weeks".
  • ""Man Down" is a four-minute, 26-second electo-regga" – see WP:NUMNOTES.
  • In the image caption of Chris Brown, omit the "the" before Los Angeles Times.
  • Section 7.1 – aren't those charts "weekly"?
  • If possible, replace sources by Digital Spy. I know it's a nice one, but there might be stronger ones available. -- Frankie talk 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wikipedian Penguin
====Comments from Wikipedian Penguin====

Conditional oppose—the prose needs a little bit more work, but by the end of this review, I look forward to supporting this.

Lead

  • "The fifth single from the album, it was released on May 3, 2011."—label?
  • "Barbadian singer Shontelle and the Virgin Islander production duo Rock City wrote the song with its producer, Sham."—perhaps "with its main producer", since there were vocal producers involved.
    • There's no mention of Harrell in the lead, so I think it was okay as it was, but I added 'main' anyway.  — Calvin999
  • "Inspired by Bob Marley's 1973 song, 'I Shot the Sheriff', it is an electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track. The lyrics involve Rihanna on the run after she shoots a man."—would flow better as one sentence, connected by a "the lyrics of which".
  • "Playing up" sounds like an idiom. Perhaps "emphasizing" or "showcasing"?
  • "Anthony Mandler directed its music video, with Rihanna justifiably shooting a man after he rapes her."—overall an awkward transition from discussing charts to discussing the video. Maybe something like "The music video, directed by Rihanna, involves her...". And the use of "justifiably" has what I feel are controversial implications that could be debated on, so I would recommend its removal.
    • Rihanna didn't direct it, just a note. But I don't really see how just reversing the structure of the start of the sentence changes anything, because it's still saying the same thing. I've removed 'justifiably' though.  — Calvin999
      That was my mistake, sorry; I meant to say, "...directed by Anthony Madler, involves Rihanna...". Beginning the sentence with "The music video..." introduces the next topic more smoothly I think, since the current structure puts more emphasis on the director than the fact that there was a music video. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and composition

  • "Kuk Harrell produced Rihanna's vocal with Josh Gudwin and Marcos Tovar at Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles. "—some context as to who Harrel is (eg. American songwriter) would be helpful here. Also, the use of "with" has always sounded a bit strange to me when talking about collaborators. I feel as though "alongside" sounds better, but since this is a more subjective concern, feel free to disagree.
    • I don't really see the need to add Harrell's nationality and profession, but I've added it anyway. But now it reads "American vocal producer and engineer Kuk Harrell produced Rihanna's vocals". It was self-explanatory before.  — Calvin999
      It's inferable, but rather abrupt as you talk about a person whom we as the readers do not know. You can remove the "vocal producer" part and just have "sound engineer" if that's better. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section should first discuss the inspiration, then writing and then finally recording. This would create a more coherent and chronological flow in the prose.
    • I understand that the inspiration to them comes first and then songwriting, but to us, we always get the processes involved after the song is written and released. So I think it makes sense how I have structured it, because it creates the atmosphere that the people involved are looking back on it and explaining where it come from once it was written.  — Calvin999
      It's certainly not how I would have approached arranging this section, but it doesn't seem to concern other reviewers, so I'll let it pass.
  • "According to the producers, they wanted to create something which would provoke listeners to choose sides..."—I know that Rock City is a production duo, but I think some readers would be confused by this, thinking that they also produced the song. Maybe "According to the duo...".
  • The average nonaficionado will not know what is meant by a "moderate reggae feel". It's true that some technicality in a music article is to be expected, but this may be a bit too blurry.
  • "In its lyrics" -> "According to its lyrics"
More to come. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  — Calvin999 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed everything above?  — Calvin999 08:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your reply regarding the "moderate reggae feel". Nevertheless, here are more comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

  • "Rihanna asked fans to help her pick the next single from Loud using Twitter"—"pick" is a tad too informal. I'd recommend "choose".
  • "...the singer said she had narrowed it down to four songs..."—vague use of the word "it". Try "she had narrowed her options down to four songs".
  • "(before the May 13 release of 'California King Bed')"—this is a necessary detail to understanding the subsequent clause of the sentence, so dashes would work better than parentheses as they better integrate relevant information into a sentence.
  • "Some noted Rihanna's Barbadian accent; Jon Pareles of The New York Times said that the singer 'plays up her West Indian accent', and August Brown of the Los Angeles Times described the vocals as '[reasserting] her Caribbean lilt'."—two adjacent clauses terminating with the word "accent" is a concern.
  • "ballad-about-murder" is not a theme. If anything it is a subgenre and one with its own article.
  • ...co-written by fellow Barbadian-born singer Shontelle..."—I think both you and the reviewer are trying to emphasize Shontelle's nationality. In that case, how about "...co-written by a fellow Barbadian-born singer, Shontelle, ..."? This structure puts less emphasis on who co-wrote the song than on where she comes from.
  • "steeped in" is too inaccessible. A simple "with" works perfectly fine.

Chart performance

  • According to MOS:NUM, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures." Chart positions should either be written as figures or as words, regardless of whether they are less than or greater than 10.
  • "'Man Down' debuted at number 65 on the French Singles Chart on June 6, 2011, a month before its official release."—Would write "The song" here to reduce repetition, since the last sentence also had "Man Down". This means "The song" becomes "It" in the following sentence and "weeks; it was" becomes "weeks, and was".
    Not done second half of this point. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for sales of" -> "for selling"
  • Some more variation in the prose would be nicer when referring to "Man Down". You can also use "the single", "the track" and the simple "it". The Wikipedian Penguin 15:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a total of 73 weeks..."—73 weeks of the song being on the chart or 73 weeks as in time passed since the song's chart debut? The Wikipedian Penguin 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended all.  — Calvin999 18:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

  • "On May 1, 2011 three camera phone teaser photos..."—comma after MDY date.
  • "In an interview with MTV News..."—interview for MTV News
  • "Mandler said that "Man Down" is a song which required"—cut "is a song" and "which" should be "that".
  • Avoid fused participles such as "with Rihanna shooting" and "with the singer running home".
    Not done. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I don't really know what you want me to do because you haven't explained what it is that you think needs changing.  — Calvin999
      My apologies; try to avoid the noun + "-ing" structure, which is considered controversial in the world of grammar. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really care about if people in the world of grammar think fused participles and noun +ing is controversial to be honest. It still makes sense when you read and it's how everyone talks in everyday life. It's not a rule set in stone that one must adhere by. It's just something someone come up with a while ago just so it has a name.  — Calvin999
          It's understandable, but not quite "brilliant", "professional" prose. You didn't object to fixing a fused participle here. At the end of the day, if all my concerns are addressed except this, I'm not going to oppose solely based on this, as it is a nitpick, but if it is possible to avoid fused participles, I would. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group disagreed with Rihanna's rationale for the storyline: that the video has 'a very strong underlying message [for] girls like me'."—who is "me"?
    • Rihanna, it's the same quote as in the first para of the back and synopsis section.  — Calvin999
      "Me" should be removed from the quote, and the word "her" should follow after quotation marks because this quotation is integrated into the sentence rather than being introduced as something she said (eg. "Rihanna said, ...". The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the PTC, if Chris Brown murdered a woman in a video which premiered on BET 'the world would stop' and Rihanna should not be allowed to release the video without repercussions."—again, incorrect use of "which". Also, the two ideas need a connector, something like "...and thus Rihanna should not". Finally, "without repercussions" is not supported in the source.
  • The council's criticism of the "S&M" performance is not related to the music video controversy.
    • I think it is. It was the second time in less than two weeks that the PTC had criticized Rihanna for her choice of visuals. The media noted this too.  — Calvin999
  • "According to Mandler, when he was growing up Madonna released music videos which generated controversy and he felt that the music video was wasted as a medium."—(1) incorrect employment of "which"; (2) repetitive use of "music video(s)", the latter being ambiguous. You can substitute for it "the video for 'Man Down'".
    The current version is more ambiguous. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a bit more back but to be honest there's only so much I can do with comments such as "it's ambiguous".  — Calvin999
        My comment regarding ambiguity was of the revision that Graham points out above; perhaps you interpreted it to be of the rewrite you did. Nonetheless, I've attempted to improve the sentence prosewise, so if you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, but on what medium did Rihanna and Union share their opinions on the video's controversy (eg. blog, press release, interview, Twitter)?

Live performances and covers

  • "with Katherine Hollisey-McLean of the Brighton Herald complimenting"—fused participle.

Credits and personnel

  • "All recording studios are located in Los Angeles, California"—need a full stop and italics not necessary.

References

Address all.  — Calvin999 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My replies have not yet been responded to, although I do understand you will be away in a few days and are probably busy in real life at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see you'd made any replies.  — Calvin999
Please see my comment above RE "moderate reggae tempo", for which I've offered a suggestion. Cheers, The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to respond to any comments or feedback until Monday 27 now (one week from today). I've addressed everyone's comments above.  — Calvin999 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators and nominator—I have struck my oppose and hope to read through the article once more before giving my support. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second read—additional commentes before concluding this review.

  • "...it is an electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track, and the lyrics involve Rihanna on the run after she shoots a man."—awkward connection "and the lyrics...".
  • "It was more successful on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, peaking at number 9."—you don't need to tell us it was more successful on the R%B/Hip-Hop chart if you're simply giving us the chart position. We can infer that.
  • "The song topped the charts in France for five consecutive weeks..."—just "chart", not "charts".
  • Keep in mind that in the music video, Rihanna is in character. It is not her who shoots the man, it is a character played by her.
  • The first two sentences in "Recording and composition" both end with "in Los Angeles", which is problematic.
  • "In an MTV News interview, Rock City said they intended to write a song embodying Bob Marley's 1973 song "I Shot the Sheriff" from a female perspective."—read aloud to spot the repetition.
  • "...they later said that although some people interpreted the song literally, others saw it as a metaphor."—"people" -> "listeners" as it is less vague.
  • "...from a low of F3 to a high of E♭5."—"a low of" and "a high of" are redundant.
  • "The song had a limited release in Europe, including France and Switzerland on July 7 and the Netherlands on July 15."—"including" implies there were other parts of Europe in which the single was released. My advice is just to drop the commentary "The song had a limited release in Europe" and get to the point: "The song was released in France and Switzerland on July 7 and the Netherlands eight days later."
  • "...and August Brown of the Los Angeles Times described the vocals as '[reasserting] her Caribbean lilt'."—words in brackets in the beginning or end of quotations can just go outside them (i.e. "...described the vocals as reasserting 'her Carribbean lilt'."
  • A brief explanation about what the song "Deuces" is about (or was interpreted by critics to be about) would be helpful. The article must stand alone after all.
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). The fifth single from the album..."—repetitive prose. Likewise: "The song topped the chart in France for five consecutive weeks and reached the top five in Belgium and the Netherlands."
    • It can't be helped that it's the fifth single from the fifth album, and spent five weeks at number one France and the top five in Belgium and the Netherlands. Readers would understand this, there's no other way to get around basic simple facts.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      How about moving "The fifth single from the album" to the end of the sentence with a comma after the date and "as". You can also replace "the top five" with "number 3". Sure it was number 2 in Wallonia, but the sentence wouldn't exactly be false. If you're still picky about this, "top three" works for me. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...provoke listeners to choose sides."—"choose sides" is too vague and colloquial.
    • I've changed because that's not actually in the interview.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The current version has introduced a typo and is still vague. An opinion on what? I checked the source, and to be honest, I have no idea what Theron is trying to say. An opinion as in an interpretation of the lyrics, or an opinion as in a stance on a debatable topic? The Wikipedian Penguin 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just an opinion. An opinion is an opinion.  — Calvin999
  • "However, the releases were switched..."—not sure what you're trying to say here. Can we do without this tidbit?
    • She switched the releases around, it's quite simple. It explains why Man Down was released first when CKB was supposed to be released first.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This sentence is problematic. "International single" is US-centric, and Rihanna isn't even American. And the way I'm interpreting this is that the releases weren't "switched"; "Man Down" just happened to have been released in the US before "CKB". The sources are making poor use of the word "switch". The Wikipedian Penguin 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding words—before beginning my review, I had every intention of supporting this FAC once my concerns were addressed. It saddens me that I still feel this article is not ready to be promoted. I have read it four times now and each time find more issues. As you can see here, I have greatly involved myself trying to improve the prose by removing redundancy and awkward wording, in addition to the concerns raised here. Furthermore, I understand this article has been proofread by a very experienced copy-editor, but it's difficult for me to support a FAC that still suffers from repetitive, clunky writing in certain places. As an example, I would like to bring to attention the Chart performance section. It reads like a list: the song peaked at this position, remained here for this many weeks and spent that many weeks in total. More creativity needs to be put into the type of content and sentence structures in that particular section. And if need be, trim it, because it makes for dry, tiresome reading. The article's not far off, and has greatly improved, but needs the brilliant, professional presentation required by the FAC criteria. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being too overly picky now, especially by some of your edit summaries. The source I've used even uses "switched", so I didn't really see how it was problematic. I can't help that your interpretation doesn't make sense to you. I appreciate your input here but I think some things are being proposed and changed for the sake of proposing and changing. Three people had supported prior to your comments, and one struck his support because of errors introduced as a result of some of your comments suggested. This article isn't particularly long compared to most FAC nominations, yet you've produced a particularly long list of changes, several of which I didn't agree with/didn't see the point of, but I've adhered to them anyway. I can't see how "work is still needed", virtually everything has been tweaked or changed already.  — Calvin999 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my oppose so I don't see what's left here for me to do. I felt I was generous by giving a top-to-bottom review of the article, because in other FACs I have opposed on the bases of samples of an article. You can collapse my review because I'm done, unless you want me to revisit. My review is my assessment of the prose, with which I felt there were quite a few issues. Others may have different assessments and feel mine is too nitpicky, but alas. As for my advice leading to issues, I am open to discussing this matter with anyone who feels so, perhaps in the talk page of this FAC. As for "According to Mandler, when he was growing up Madonna released music videos that generated controversy and he felt that it being wasted as a medium," surely you picked up on the error there. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that I don't see how there can still be issues following a GOCE run through and comments by you above. If you can't even give me multiple examples (I don't mean changing or removing one word in a sentence) then I don't see what else I can do either. Aside from a comma after Madonna perhaps, then no, I don't. I think a lot of things suggested above come down to personal preference to be honest.  — Calvin999 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...he felt that it was being wasted as a medium." (either way, it's not an issue anymore.) Calvin, I'm just, like any other reviewer, giving my input. It would be unfair if I still kept my oppose after you addressed my bulleted points above, but it no longer stands. It's just that I don't feel confident enough about the prose yet to support, with the Chart performance section as an example. With that said, I am very open to revisiting once that particular section has improved. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "personal preference", I try my best to ensure my reviews are objective, but bear in mind that prose reviewing is inherently a subjective process. Nevertheless, every point I raised was either because of incorrect grammar, awkward wording, redundant wording, repetitive wording, unclear wording or colloquial wording. It's true that some of the time I was just on the wrong track trying to interpret sentences, and that's where I was satisfied with your explanations. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point though. You still haven't given me any other reasoning apart from "I don't feel confident supporting yet". Like you said about some of the sentences in the articles, it's too vague. If you still can't produce a list of major issues (not minor ones) then I don't see what is preventing you from supporting. Saying " the Chart performance section as an example" doesn't help me one iota. I don't understand why you would go into such detail, then at the last minute abstain from commenting on one section.  — Calvin999 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because here it isn't a matter of moving around a few words but rather rethinking the arrangement and structure of sentences in general. You reuse the same sentence structure and words a lot, so try to vary it more. My concern is very actionable. If you want to work in a sandbox, I may be able to give you assistance, with two caveats: I'll be on vacation from August 10–26 and if I support, it may carry less weight as I will have been quite involved. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to voice my opinion on your second caveat. I don't see how being "quite involved" means you can't support. Of the Chart performance section, I have tried to vary it, but it's still a variation of the same words. There's only say many says I can say it, the track, the song or "Man Down". I don't think there is anything else particularly wrong in this section, and it has after all been looked at by an outside copy-editor. No one else has so far had a problem with this section, so unless other contributors can come up with more specific examples, then I don't think any more action needs to take place. As a result of your abstaining to support despite me actioning 99% of your list of changes, and Graham Beards striking of his support due to changes made and not leaving an update on the current version despite my contacting him, I believe this nomination to have now entered a fragile state. Without at least a third support, although everything in this nomination has been addressed, I fear for it's outcome, mainly because I know that it is worthy of being promoted.  — Calvin999 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Schrocat
Comments from Schrocat

Comments from SchroCat

A quick spin-though shows a solid article close to FA standard: I've made a couple of tweaks to improve flow, but a few other points need looking into.

Lead
  • "the Virgin Islander production duo Rock City": Virgin Islander is too detailed for the lead, and is unsourced, as it's not a claim that is repeated in the body. I'd move it out of the lead not bother with it elsewhere (the nationality of these two makes no difference to this song)
Recording and composition
  • "American sound engineer": again, the nationality is unimportant – scratch it

First two sections done: more to follow a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rather than ask for some fiddly bits to be done, I've made a few prose tweaks, particularly in the ‎release and reception section, which makes it flow a little more freely in a couple of places. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)  — Calvin999 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews needed please.  — Calvin999 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—Gabrielle Union's picture size should be unforced. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—per my exhaustive review and commentators above, I believe this fine article meets the FA criteria. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  — Calvin999 15:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/spotchecks needs to be done please. This nom has been open 5 weeks and has 5 supports, spotchecks is the only thing holding it back from being promoted.  — Calvin999 08:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • There aren't dead links, but there are a few that change path/domain. The url probably needs to be updated, nothing serious. Check "external links" in the toolbox on this page for details.
  • ref 3 & 4–some listeners interpreted the song literally, others saw it as a metaphor–metaphor for what?
    • I don't know, Rock City weren't very clear in that interview. I guess a metaphor for Chris Brown but that's my own speculation.  — Calvin999 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was a metaphore to Bob Marley's song. Can you do additional research or tweak it somehow that it could not be divergently interpreted?
        • I really don't know what he is saying. I assumed it was about Chris Brown, not Bob Marley. There's no explanation of it what he means by it anywhere.  — Calvin999 10:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you can't leave it like that. Either do a google research on whether it is Brown to whom Rihanna is referring to, or omit that clause.
  • It would be useful to mention that Rock City is a production duo, someone might think it's a website, magazine, or something third.
  • ref 11–the description is accurate, but I can not find the 77 bpm information featured in the link.
  • "Man Down" is electo-reggae, ragga and reggae song with "Caribbean-rhythms". This may violate WP:SYNTHESIS. For example, if source 1 says "it's red" and source 2 says "it's white", you can't write "it's red and white".
    • Generally most music articles list the genres which critics have called it. These three genres come under the same umbrella anyway.  — Calvin999 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I known that most pop-related articles feature this plain genre summarizing and I believe it's wrong. Two different critics can classify a certain song as "hip hop" (because it has spoken verses, samples, etc.) and electronica (because of its instrumentation), but this should be explained, not squeezed together. My point is, you can't combine two different stances to form a third one.
        • Yeah, but each critic they are different critics highlighting the song as different genres, and this song is each of those listed.  — Calvin999 11:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's an idea: why don't you separate the genres in different sentences by explaining each critic's view on the genre? There has to be explanation in the review on why the author considers the song in that particular genre?
  • spotcheck on the music video synopsis (ref 56)–written according to the source, and without WP:PARAPHRASE. Well done.
  • Images are fine, just some minor issues on the sourcing to deal with.--Retrohead (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not impressed by the quality of writing or the narrative presented, and problems are easily located. Examples:

  • "it is an electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track" What does this mean? These are ill-defined terms and/or genres with poor articles (or no article) that leave the curious reader without much insight into their meaning for the song. Why is the song described in this way, and what elements of the song attract these labels? It's not enough to dig through sources looking for names of genres. You have to understand what they mean and why they apply to the song.
  • "with Rihanna's confident performance – emphasizing her West Indian accent" I don't know what this means. What does her accent have to do with her "confident performance"? You have written it as a dependent clause, implying some connection.
    • Because she is from the West Indies and has a West Indian accent, which she exaggerates due to it being a West Indian themed song. Haven't you read the article?  — Calvin999 08:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "August Brown of the Los Angeles Times called the song a direct warning to her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown." This is important enough for the lead? Why is Brown's observation that important? I also read the source and he flippantly writes, "one can’t help but hear as a warning shot across the radio dial to Chris Brown" I think you are misinterpreting August Brown's flippant remark and promoting it way too heavily.
  • "'Man Down' was written by production duo Rock City (Theron Thomas and Timothy Thomas), singer Shontelle and its producer, Sham" What does "its" refer to? As written, it seems to refer to Shontelle.
  • "According to Shontelle, Rihanna was present when "Man Down" was written in the recording studio" It seemed very odd to me that a song would be written in a recording studio (implying they writing and recording at the same time) so I checked the source. It just reads, "studio" - how do you know they meant a proper recording studio and not just someone's soundproof room or home studio?
  • Where do you get "common time" and 77bpm? The cited source shows cut time and I don't see where the tempo is enumerated. I really dislike this practice in song articles of trying to look at and interpret sheet music for facts about the song, because more often than not the editor gets it wrong. This is why we don't use primary sources.
  • "With its strong Barbadian 'patois', Slant Magazine critic Sal Cinquemani described 'Man Down' as one of Rihanna's 'most confident vocal performances'. I don't care for how you combined two independent statements to create the appearance that the "patois" is connected to the "confident performance". This is WP:SYNTH.

I'm very sorry but I think it's a long way off. --Laser brain (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry but I don't accept your comments as problems. I think you're being obstreperous in both your comments and your tone. This article has had a GOCE review, a thorough copyedit by Wikipedian Penguin, and has had 5 supports. I disagree wholeheartedly that this article is "a long way off". I can't help that you're not impressed by the quality presented here, and you are clearly in the minority. I knew some kind of conspiracy like this would rear it's ugly head eventually after having waited ages for a source spot check review so long after getting 5 supports in a nomination open nearly 6 weeks. Meanwhile, others somehow manage to get three nominations promoted in less than a month. There's such a bias present in so many areas of Wikipedia, it's unreal.  — Calvin999 08:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly free to dismiss my concerns as invalid or baseless as you please. However, I don't appreciate the allegations of conspiracy and bias. I'm not going to bother with responses to your responses, because you didn't actually address my concerns. A Featured Article represents our best work—written and researched at a very high standard. In my opinion, this is a middling GA-quality article at best. --Laser brain (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after reflecting on your "conspiracy" remark, I realized that this is an undeclared WikiCup entry and you're actually suggesting that there's some effort underway to prevent you from getting points. That's ridiculous to the point of comedy. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well my experience of the FAC process, and I've had a lot of it, has made me feel like that. I see how other nominators and nominations get treated, and I feel like I'm treated differently. I can't see any other nominations that have gone six weeks without image or source spot checks after receiving 5 supports. I had to ask for people to do checks, and they kindly did them. If I hadn't, I doubt they would have been done yet. I'm free to voice my opinion of how I feel. I haven't addressed your concerns because I don't think they are concerning. I think you're being picky, and clearly others don't agree with you. That's what I find so incredibly conflicting about FAC. Even in this nomination, I've had editors tell me to remove, add or change something only to be told by another to add it back, change it or remove it. So much of this process comes down to personal preference. For you to say that this is perhaps GA worthy at best, I find insulting, degrading and wholly unnecessary. There's never, ever any form of positivity or praise to come out of these nominations. It's so negative all the time. This is wrong, that is wrong... No one ever says 'This is good, well written' etc. All you've done is say what you feel is wrong, not how to improve it, so I don't see what I'm supposed to with your comments. I'm trying improve Wikipedia, and so much goes completely unnoticed all the time. I try my best to praise someone every time they do something good, such as having a GA passed, even if I didn't do the review myself. I've told editors that I found articles that I've read written by them interesting before, but it seldom happens the other way around.  — Calvin999 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the nature of putting your work up for examination. You're not going to be treated with kid gloves—you're going to get criticism and you're going to be told what's deficient. You are correct that much of what's stated by reviewers is subjective. You are free to act on or ignore people's comments as you see fit. At the end of the day, the delegates (Ian, to be precise, since Graham and I have recused) will determine whether there is consensus to promote or archive your nomination. I advise you to try to separate criticism of your work from criticism of yourself. Debating comments and suggestions is perfectly valid—lashing out at reviewers and casting aspersions about conspiracies and bias is very poor behavior. Pop culture subjects have always struggled to attract reviews at FAC. But you also must consider that if you respond aggressively and make accusations of bad faith when people take the time to review your work, no one is going to want to review your articles. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is criticism of the article and not of me, but for the most part, I wrote this article, so I think every editor is in some way attached to the article they've worked on because we've all spent hours and hours at our computers improving it for the readers of Wikipedia and because we care. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's necessary for criticism to be phrased so harshly. I don't think I have responded aggressively, but I've always thought that text on a screen can be interpreted how one wishes to read it and is very different from dialogue in person. But I've found that if I don't agree with a comment or suggestion and don't do it, I'm called aggressive or non-cooperative, and that's not fair. FAC is not about complying with everything everyone says, because we all have different ideas of what might work and what might not. I do feel that every experience I've had at FAC has been a real struggle, and not with regard to attracting reviewers, but more of what is said. I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but that is how I feel about the processes I've been involved in. And for me, having had a GOCE review, a thorough c/e by Wikipedian Penguin, as well as edits by other reviewers (involved and not involved), with 5 supports, means that this article is worthy of being promoted, and it's unfortunate that you don't agree. I've seen articles promoted that I don't feel are worthy, but like I said, it largely comes down to personal opinion.  — Calvin999 17:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • The article is not well researched or not well represented.
  • The incident that culminated to Brown pleading guilty is not mentioned. I am not saying it is about the incident but at least provide context / background to the suggestion of the critic that "Man Down" is a response to "Deuce", it being a reference to the "Rihanna incident" according to another critic. --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same issue, the article lacks examination of the song's meaning / undertone. Somehow, it could balance out what the producers and writers intended and what the public perceived. The songwriters themselves said that the lyrics is open to interpretation, and that "the song, like so much Caribbean music, is about telling tales". --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead's composition is rather weak. It is supposed to summarize everything one finds in the main body of the article.
    • It does. This isn't the longest of article, and a lead of this size and info is perfectly adequate. "S&M" is a much longer article with a lot more info, and that has three paragraphs. "Man Down" doesn't need three paragraphs for a lead.  — Calvin999 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is August Brown being mentioned in the lead? Is he the only person ever known to have suggested that "Man Down" is a reference to the incident? --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction of the second half of the first paragraph in the lead runs like this: music - lyrics - music - lyrics. It's suggestive of a poor organization. --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is rather "picky". For instance, it mentioned the US, France, Belgium and Netherlands (being a chart performer in those areas). What about the other places? What was the reception? --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this is just a summary. There's no point referring to every country or chart the song charted in or on. It didn't even chart in that wider spectrum of territories anyway. All leads for all articles are "picky" to some extent.  — Calvin999 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many cannot appreciate "electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track". They're all pointing to reggae. Why not just state that the song heavily leans on reggae influences? --Efe (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about the song's background / writing has to be completely overhauled. As has been mentioned, the organization of facts throughout the article is not cohesive. --Efe (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence mentions Shontelle and proceeds by mentioning the technical people, until finally the track is mixed. Then suddenly the writing period crops up by narrating how Shontelle got involved. --Efe (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "technical" information, which serves as filler, can actually be found in the "Credits and personnel" section. Why go into including them when there's not much more information that can be obtained from it? --Efe (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I have more time so I could help in doing research. We're not even halfway down the article. I suggest a thorough research. And in doing so results to the addition of more information which could result to more fact organization and copy editing. I concur with @Laser brain: that this is not an FA-ready article. Best wishes, Efe (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thoroughly researched article. It has 90 references. Are you seriously telling me that all articles have all sources in them? I don't think so. Sometimes some are miss or don't show up according to the relevancy of your search.  — Calvin999 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no direct correlation between having 100 citations and a well-researched article. It can have many citations but important facts might have been neglected, OR have sources providing less information than those not yet cited. I have already given you the examples. At present, it fails under WP:FACR 1.b and 1.c. Hence, my strong oppose earlier. But yes, there's no need of that. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently re-constructing the first section based on the sources you have given me. Thanks.  — Calvin999 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Efe I have just completely overhauled everything and included all that you suggested.  — Calvin999 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999 Thanks for the effort. Nevertheless, FAC is not the place where you should be "indirectly" asking for help to get the article improved to FA standard. More points as I am lazy now to do a thorough review:
  • "'very much native to where she came from'." I think I read it somewhere in WP:MOS, but where there is a quoted material, there should be a direct citation. Please run through the article. --13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The final cut of 'Man Down' included on the official track list of Loud was written by Shontelle, Rock City and it's producer, Sham." I cannot find any information in the article that "Man Down" involved other writers and producers that our Wikipedia page should state that the final cut... then the citation is only that of the album liner notes. Has there been other people involved in the writing process? --Efe (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm just summarising the four writers in one sentence, as an accumulation of the past few paragraphs talking about them separately.  — Calvin999
  • And we should probably introduce who Sham is because we don't have an article about the person. Probably provide his full name, anything that would further give clue to this identity. The article itself should be self sufficient. --Efe (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's there to give an idea as to final cost of the song, and how much another vocal producer charges and what a vocal producer is responsible for. I can remove it if you like, but it corresponds with the total fee given at the end of the paragraph.  — Calvin999 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 supports and 2 opposes, although I have done all of Efe's suggestions and done Laser Brain's in the process, too. Image/source checks checked out okay. This nomination has gone on a long time now (41 days), it's had a lot of input from GOCE and Wikipedian Penguin helped out too. I can't see why this wouldn't be promoted now, especially with five supports and all outstanding issues resolved.  — Calvin999 20:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it isn't a numbers thing, it's supposed to be about achieving consensus, and even one actionable or unresolved oppose can prevent a promotion no matter how many people support. I'm conscious of the fact that few if any of the supports are drive-bys, but certainly the opposes aren't either. The fact that there are still issues being resolved at the six-week mark in a review is not a good sign. OTOH I realise you and Efe are still actively working on this. If you have truly resolved Laser brain's concerns, and Efe can see light at the end of the tunnel soon, then I would be prepared to keep this open a bit longer. If not then I think it'll have to be archived and the remaining issues dealt with outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999, I can still locate many problems notwithstanding the amount of superfluous (and probably misleading) information that needs to be removed from the article.
  • "which eventually became the music for the final cut of 'Man Down'." - was there another version or music? --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but music has to start somewhere and always evolves from the original piece. I don't see what's wrong with this?  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final cut of 'Man Down' included on the official track list of Loud was written by Shontelle, Rock City and it's producer, Sham." - This I had already mentioned above. Was there another version that included other songwriters? --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't see what the problem is with this but I've removed it. I was just summarising in one sentence who the four writes are, as previously it talks about them separately regarding their involvement, as I said before above.  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He noted that Rihanna had not explored Caribbean themed music since her debut album, Music of the Sun (2005)." - the first two albums had reggae influences. You need to handle this statement of Sham carefully. --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's what he says. "I worked on creating something that I felt Rihanna hadn’t done since her first album". I can't twist what he says, Efe, you know that.  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniels revealed that it is where songwriters have written a song but have no music and where producers have music but no lyrics." --misleading. actually, per source, it is where they (songwriters with song but no music and producers with music but no lyrics) converge. --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His inspiration was to envision Rihanna performing songs at a concert that were 'very much native to where she came from'." isn't native referring to "where she came from"? redundant, i believe. --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniels said that once the writing camp concludes, Rihanna listens to all of the songs which have been composed for her and picks her favorites, comparing the process to a reality show whereby Rihanna is the judge." - it was for the album as a whole, but never did the source state that it was for "Man Down". what if it was the people around her that caused its inclusion? i don't know. I'm probably just OC about this now, but who knows, this probably is a misplaced causality. --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I say it's specifically about Man Down? I've included this as background for the writing camp as a whole as to how the process works from start (setting up a camp) to finish (Rihanna listening to everything submitted).  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7 I've moved it about.  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I thank you for heeding some of my suggestions. As I have mentioned, this isn't supposed to be happening in FAC especially when involving major changes. I still oppose, Ian Rose. I don't know if Laserbrain retains his oppose. I've pretty much involved myself in content gathering. I desire to know what the others feel about the article. Many thanks, --Efe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but I don't see what you're trying to say for pretty much every point above? Several have no meaning or incur a need for me to change anything. I know it's not all about votes, but clearly more people in this nomination think that it's worthy of promotion, nearly triple, in fact. A lot of the recent comments made, I feel, are subjective and not necessary. Too much personal preference is creeping in here, and it's making it drag on unnecessarily. I think that this article is worthy of being promoted (I know that's obvious). I worked on it myself from April through mid July, and it's had a lot of input during the nomination. This nomination is a culmination of just under four months consistent hard work. No FA is perfect, and I'm sure people will always find something "wrong" with an article, but again, that's largely because of personal preference. LaserBrain hasn't come back to see if issues have been dealt with, neither did Graham (who did actually become the second supporter, but withdrew his support as a result of another editors suggestions, so clearly he thought it was good to be promoted prior to Laserbrain and Efe's arrival). And as far as I'm concerned, I've done yours Efe. So I can't see what's stopping promotion? Apart from the new sources (which I had no idea even existed and have now been added), everything is suggested is either minor or superfluous IMO. Let's not forget that a week went by when this article had 5 supports and 0 opposes but nothing happened. Ian Rose  — Calvin999 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999 I have indeed been monitoring this nomination since I left my comments, and I maintain my opposition. You have posted counter-arguments against many of my comments (and many of Efe's), but I do not accept most of your counter-arguments or believe that you understand why the article is not particularly well-written. I'll also note that when a reviewer points out that something needs clarification, they mean in the article. Your providing an answer here does not actually answer the concern. A good example of your failure to address concerns is your insistence that the "With its strong Barbadian 'patois'" sentence is "flow" and "linking". It absolutely is not—it is creating a connection where non exists. I will also reiterate that I was pointing out examples of poor writing, not creating an exhaustive list of problems in the article (which is not the purpose of FAC). The article has quite a lot of awkward writing, false connections, misplaced details, and source misinterpretations. I believe that what Efe and I are both saying is that problems should not be so readily found at this point in the game, regardless of who has edited it or supported it in the past. --Laser brain (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't accept a lot of the comments as being worthy of opposition. I guess it's something that we just disagree on. The problem is LaserBrain, is that by saying that there are problems with the prose, you are indirectly saying that Miniapolis (the GOCE copyeditor), Wikipedian Penguin who is very particular and has FA's on his own promoted, and SchroCat (who is an FLC delegate) have written poorly, as they have all copyedited the prose at some point in one way or another. Most of what I wrote has actually been changed since the GOCE. Furthermore, Graham supported this within a few days of nominated and said that Miniapolis has done a good job. See what I mean being subjectivity and personal preference? It should mean something that nearly triple the amount of people who have opposed his promotion actually want to see it promoted. I can give you examples from other FAs which have bad phrasing and prose issues which I'm surprised got promoted, but I'll probably get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reply. I don't see what else I can do here. It's already been through GOCE, Wikipedian Penguin did an extremely thorough copyedit and review, and an FLC delegate who is used to these kind of high-quality nominations has given his support. That should account for something. Furthermore, no one opposed until you did, Laser brain. It went four weeks going from strength to strength. Why did six other editors, (including an FAC delegate) not find any of these'major, oppose-worthy issues'? Laser brain  — Calvin999 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this ground has been well-covered, and this is getting pretty far off topic, but I'll briefly state:
  • Other people finding or not finding issues, the identity/affiliation of those people, and the timeline of support/opposition, has no bearing on my opinion. You can say 20 more times that so-and-so edited the article and that no one opposed until I showed up, and it will continue to have no bearing on my opinion. I have many times opposed nominations when people I respect have supported them, and vice versa. This is why we have multiple reviewers at this level—different people see different things and have different opinions.
  • You continue to take criticism of the prose as a personal attack. Saying the writing is poor is not the same as calling people poor writers or editors. --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But more reviewers think this article is good enough to be promoted! But that doesn't seem to account for anything! As far as I'm concerned, I've done what you've asked of me. Saying the writing is poor is saying that the people involved haven't done a good job. I've laid out my case, I think I have multiple very valid points as to why this should be promoted. You nor Efe will ever support this article, so I doubt I ever stand a chance in seeing it promoted if it is archived, of which I see no reason for why it should be.  — Calvin999 14:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but, again, it is not about numbers, and please AGF of those opposing. I can assure you that all the coordinators would much prefer to promote than archive, but the simple fact is that we do not have the consensus here that is required for promotion, and I don't see us achieving that any time soon. PR might be the next logical step in the minimum two-week waiting period before any new nomination at FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 [17].

Bentworth

[edit]
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (taking a back seat on this as I intended taking a break from FAC)[reply]

This article is the sole reason why I began editing Wikipedia. It began with my first ever edit in April 2008 and then the first edit I made with my account in June 2009. Me and Dr. Blofeld finally promoted it to GA in February 2012 after a complete overhaul of the article and ransacking google books and other sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Now seven years later and after over 600 edits to this article, I'm finally nominating it for FA as I believe the article is reaching the FA criteria.

The article has received extensive comments at its peer review, in which all are now addressed. I never would have dreamed that after seven years this would come close to meeting the criteria! This article is as comprehensive as can be for a small village, and is a prime example of what can be accomplished with the drive and determination of just a few editors. Bentworth is a mythical village, with several large manors and so much history behind all of them. I look forward to any comments and will do everything to address them. JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – A fine piece of work by the Doctor and Jaguar. Not sure if this helps: you might link the publishers of references on first occurrence, but this is not mandatory. The only reason behind this is that readers might find it helpful if they want to visit from who the reference is. Aside from that, the article is in excellent shape. Thank you both Jaguar and Blofeld for investing so much of your time and energy on many excellent articles. -- Frankie talk 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I'll see what I can do with those publishers. Although some can't be linked as a few publishers here are genuinely from the 19th century and will likely not have a Wikipedia article, but I think there are a few that can be linked. JAGUAR  21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers FrB.TG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fine article, which is thorough, focused and well balanced. The prose is pleasing, the references are broad and comprehensive, and the illustrations are excellent. Bentworth is lucky to have such a devoted historian and guide as Jaguar, and Dr. B's guiding hand is, as I have reason to know, invaluable. Bravi! Tim riley talk 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, your comments and support much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! I also appreciate your 2012 review of this, which helped this article on its way to FA. JAGUAR  21:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great article, but one minor quibble. There is a curious lack of data for the 1971, 1981, 1991, and 2 earlier censuses. Is there any specific reason for these omissions? Mattximus (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is strange, but they're simply not sourced! The 1971, 81 and 91 censuses weren't included in the A Vision of Britain Through Time source for some reason, however there was an unofficial 1991 estimate in one of the parish PDF references that is in this article. I hesitated using it as it's not an official reliable source (it came out in 2007 I think, and censuses in the UK are recorded every ten years). JAGUAR  20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The archeological section & that on the church are not really FA-standard. Too few links, shaky use of terminology, & lists of factoids not cohering into anything much. Is "Because Bentworth lies on higher ground, its temperatures are lower than in the valleys and on the coast. Due to its proximity to the sea, in winds with a southerly component, humidity is higher and cloud bases are lower than further inland. In summer when cumulus cloud is present, in the late afternoon the sea breeze occasionally reaches the area with a consequent change of wind to south and an increase in humidity." supported by the Met office ref? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thank you for your comments, I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. I copyedited the church and archaeological sections, so the prose should flow a little smoother now. I've also added a few more links for accessibility and removed a few non-essential "list jargon" such as naming every wood/copse in the area. I've finally found the correct Met Office ref I've been looking for, so I used that to source the climate paragraph. I put it at the end of the paragraph as I didn't want to do a citation overkill. JAGUAR  21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and support by Gerda
I had a long list of points at the peer review which were all addressed. One wish open for FA is "alt =" for all images, explaining to people who can't see the image what they would see, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking, Gerda Arendt! WP:ALT comes in handy for those who have visual impairment or browsers with images disabled. I've added alternate text for every image in the article, with the guideline being that the text should be short and sweet. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR  17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus (left, in profile, pointing with his right hand) and Nicodemus (facing the viewer, with a turban, with his right hand on his heart) sit at a table, arguing over books
Jesus teaches Nicodemus (seen here in a seventeenth-century painting) was a theme used by both composers and artists.
Thank you for an alt everywhere (but the infobox). Imagine you are blind, - what would you want to have described to imagine the image? The caption will be read to you, no need to repeat that. - Here's an example from BWV 165, I was helped by RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, the alternate text needs to be more detailed in order to benefit those who need them. I think I caught a misunderstanding from WP:ALT which stated that text in "scenery" images needed to be brief - but I was mistaken. I've expanded detail in all instances of alternate text , including the infobox! I hope that this is an improvement. JAGUAR  13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 10, 38, 39, 69 and 70 from Bentworth.info are expired domains. Is there any chance of finding a archived link for these sources?
Oof, that's horrible. They shut down the Bentworth.info domain at the end of June, which is quite disruptive. Thankfully the information on that website isn't essential, and I may be able to use the Wayback Machine to archive most of the links, but I haven't had any luck with saving any PDF files on that website. I'm in the process of archiving the links now, and I'll report back when it's done. JAGUAR  13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Z105space: Refs 70, 69, 38 and 10 are now archived safely. I had to delete ref 39 and replace it with two new references. Bentworth.info domain expired on 15 July - a week ago! JAGUAR  13:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the support, thanks! JAGUAR  13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't normally comment at FAC, but the article is well-written and useful, I have found quite a worrying issue with one of the citations which no-one else seems to have spotted. You make the following statement: "To facilitate the growing population in the post-war period, the council estates of Glebe Fields and Glebe Close were built in early 1946. The name "Glebe", meaning "land belonging to the church", was chosen because the land was originally owned by the church." You support this with a citation to Crockford's Clerical Directory from 1826. The book you link to is actually the 1865 edition. Regardless, I am struggling to see how it supports your statements about the 1940s council housing. Perhaps this is a mistake? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing that up, Noswall59. I've corrected the 1865 edition and also added a new reference which backs up the claim of the meaning of "Glebe". A Dictionary of Medieval Terms by Professor John James Noel McGurk states that "Glebe" is an "area of land within an ecclesiastical parish used to support a parish priest" (the same text is also in the lead of the article Glebe). In short it means land (typically a farm) belonging to the church, as the term was frequently used in medieval Britain. The two references in that statement support the definition of the word "Glebe" and the name of the council estate - killing two birds with one stone. I hope this is OK. If need be there are no shortages of references for medieval terms. JAGUAR  16:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for replying so quickly and amending the citation. My main concern, however, was that the citation says nothing about the construnction of the Council houses in the '40s. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The construction of the council housing itself? I wasn't aware they needed to be sourced, I personally think it's too trivial? The two "Glebe" council estates aren't the only ones in Bentworth, there is another row of council houses further up in the village that were also built in 1946. But for what it's worth, there is a stone plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on one of the houses, but I don't think that would be valid for FA. I'll try to find something to back up the 1946 construction, but I'm not sure if I'll ever find anything. Regards JAGUAR  17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to call this, so you may be right. But I would cite it and if there have been other streets built I might be inclined to briefly mention them. As a reader, it looks at first glance like Crockford's is the reference for their construction. But I am not leaning either way. As for sources, local newspapers are normally good for this sort of thing. If not, the Council records may show up plans, payments or notices about it. Anyway, best of luck with this, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bentworth_Map_1811.jpg needs a US PD tag, and a more specific source would be helpful
  • File:Bentworth_Telegraph_office_c_1905.JPG: the source image has different licensing, but neither tag appears to be supported by given sourcing - do you have more details about this image's provenance?
  • File:Odiham_Hundred.gif needs a US PD tag and more details about the source
  • File:Bentworth_CP_2012b.jpg: what is the basis of this map?
  • File:Bentworth_Hall_about_1905.jpg: any more details about the source?
  • File:Bentworth_-_Ivalls_cott_from_the_Star_1900.jpg needs a source
  • File:GCIves.jpg: without a known creator how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the portrait of Ives, after a lot of digging I found that the image was given to the authors of The Pink Plaque of London by Jay Landesman, and he was the publisher of The Ives Scrapbook that came out in 1980. There are no credits for who took the actual picture though. Since it is allocated to the first decade of the 1900s it is likely that the photographer died before 1915, but I can't find any proof. It was something of a minor miracle that I could find the Ives Scrapbook itself. JAGUAR  16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the 1811 map of Bentworth, I've added a PD-US tag and altered the source a bit. The source is actually Old Maps (sounds simple I know) by Ordnance Survey, which is the owner.
  • With the Telegraph office photo, I know User:Ukiws has physical pictures of the village dating from the early 20th century, but he doesn't know how Wikipedia works and he is inactive at the moment, but nevertheless I've contacted him asking if he could help me with clarifying those images. JAGUAR  16:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fleshed out both the Odiham Hundred and Bentworth CP images, adding another PD-US tag and fleshing out the source for the first.
  • Finally, Bentworth Ivalls cottage in 1900 is was another scanned image that was publicly displayed but now belongs to Ukiws. I've added appropriate details

I hope that settles everything? JAGUAR  19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Jaguar, I'm gathering this is your first FAC? A belated welcome then! In that case, I'd like to see a reviewer carry out a spotcheck of sources, for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- a hoop we generally ask all newbies to jump through -- as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we try to do with every nom; requests for these can be left at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! This is my first FAC that hasn't been quickfailed, but otherwise this is technically my third. I'll ask around if somebody will be willing to give this article a spotcheck for sources, as I think that's the last thing it needs now. It did receive a smaller source check in its peer review, but a full one is definitely required. Regards JAGUAR  15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to spot check on printed sources at the British Library once Brian has concluded his general source review. Tim riley talk 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources check

[edit]

Not yet a full sources review. I picked this up following a request on WT:FAC, and have been carrying out a random spotcheck (limited from necessity to online sources). I'm about half-way through, and there are concerns:

  • Ref 1: This is cited as the source for the sentence: "The village name has been spelt in different ways, including: Bentewurda or Bintewurda (12th century) and Bynteworth (c. 15th century)". The alternative spellings given in the source are actually "Bintewrde" and "Binteworda", not the versions you give. Incidentally, what is the nature of this source, "Southern Life"?
  • It appears that the first reference was both correct but misplaced. British History online's version of Bentworth gives out the correct versions of the previous names "Bentewurda or Bintewurda (xii cent.); Bynteworth (xiv cent.)" in the source, so I've added that. Southern Life used to be a website that focused on villages and towns in southern England, but it got shut down a few months ago. I could remove that source if you like? JAGUAR  14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5: Which statement in this source supports the text: "The route between the Roman town of Silchester to the north of Old Basing, and the Roman settlement of Vindomis, just east of the present-day town of Alton, passed through Bentworth (the road today being the A339)"?
  • Do you mean refs 6 and 7? Both of those references were allocated to the sentence given, and they give a detailed history of Roman activity in the area. However, to answer the question of whether or not a Roman road actually passed through or near Bentworth, after a lot of digging I finally found a list of Roman road sites that is found in Bentworth and its neihgbouring parishes. I've added that to the sentence. JAGUAR  14:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I checked, the citations were 5 and 6 – the numbers have since changed. The additional source is a list of archaeological finds, and try as I ca I can't see how it supports the sentence. Can you indicate, from one or other of the three citations, which statement specifically states that the Roman road which you specify passed through or near Bentworth? You make a specific statement; it is not enough to cite sources that merely show there was Roman activity in the general area. It may be that you need to amend your text to accord with what is confirmable from your sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: The source gives 1870, not 1890, as the year in which Gaston Grange was built.
  • Also ref 25: Which statement in this source supports the statement: " Later, parts of the Bentworth Hall estate were sold to local farms, and some clearing of trees and hedges produced larger fields that resulted in easier harvests." Also, ref 36, to which the above sentence is also cited, is a mirror of 25, not a separate source.
  • That's odd. Different websites but yet the same content - removed the latter duplicate. The mention of Bentworth Hall being sold in 1982 is mentioned in the source, however I was never too keen on the dodgy sentence referring to clearing of trees resulting in "easier harvests", which isn't supported in that source given. I've rephrased and restructured the entire paragraph so it's reliant on the source. JAGUAR  14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've removed the offending sentence, but problems remain. What is the source of the information relating to coats of arms, bear carving, etc? Ref 38 – the source merely says that Berens died, not that the property was sold. Also (ref 27), your text reads: "Initially, Bentworth Hall was offered as a single property, then into several, with Bentworth Hall and its outbuildings being divided into a number of separate dwelling units and other parts being sold to local farms, which is the arrangement today". The source says: "After Berens’ death maintenance virtually ceased and the grounds deteriorated. A photograph of the west garden taken at the time indicates the state of neglect. In 1982 the estate, comprising 54 acres (22 ha), was sold and divided up for multiple ownership." Your text shouls more closely reflect what the cited source says. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: Text: "In 1942 Thedden Grange was used as a prisoner of war camp until 1944, and was known as "Fisher's Camp". No mention of "Fisher's Camp" in the source
  • It's mentioned on page 15, in a story regarding a German PoW revisiting Thedden Grange ie. Fisher's Camp. I've added the page number in the reference JAGUAR  14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: This is not a suitable source, being a promotional article relating to the sale of the property in 2007. Nor does the source in any way refer to the sentence in the text: "Before the Invasion of Normandy (D-Day), Nissen huts were built in the woods to the south-west of Bentworth Hall and troops were accommodated there before being taken south to embark for the invasion".
  • I'm not aware if the source isn't suitable and I don't know if it's promotional, but it makes a mention of Nissen huts being built: "The garage was the generator house and in our woodland you can see the foundations of the Nissen huts". Anyway, I've removed the source to be on the safe side and added another Holybourne issue that states the Nissen hurts were apparently moved to another village in the 1960s. JAGUAR  14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's that Holybourne source again! Where does the the title "History of Holybourne Theatre and Nissen Huts" come from? As I said earlier, there are navigation issues with this source, so I can't check its content. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43: The text contains the somewhat convoluted sentence "The elevation of the ground at St Mary's Church is 574 feet (175 m) and the highest point is 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) to the south at the boundary of the civil parish, 0.6 miles (0.97 km) south of the hamlet of Wivelrod is 712 feet (217 m), one of the highest points in Hampshire." The grammar is suspect, but aside from that I don't see how the map of Wivelrod confirms any of these details.
  • Removed the map. On that matter, the map did acknowledge that Wivelrod stood at "217 metres" but I'm surprised it remained in there back from 2012, when I had no idea what I was doing. Done a copyedit too. JAGUAR  15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 45 and 46: These are the cited sources for the climate paragraph that begins: "Because Bentworth lies on higher ground...". The paragraph gives numerous details of Bentworth's local climate, but I am not able to see where much of this information is found in either of the given sources. For example I see no mention of southerly winds, humidity, cumulus cloud, 19°C or 25.5°C, etc. Can you clarify where these details come from?
  • I'm afraid only precise information regarding humidity, cloud, temperatures etc is only given in the Southern England climate ref. I don't know who added Bentworth's climate information nor where they got the source from, as I've been looking for data and found nothing. I'll look through the article history to see if I can track a source. JAGUAR  15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no cases of close paraphrasing. My chief concern is that I found an issue with nearly every reference I spotchecked, which is worrying since I haven't looked at sources that aren't available online. I think the nominators need to carry out a general check on the relationship of source to text, rather than merely responding to the points above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2015

Sorry, forgot to sign Brianboulton (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, this is a problem I've raised above too, --Noswall59 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. The problem seems to be more general than you imagined, and needs a response. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with other matters lately but I can finally get to this now. JAGUAR  14:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thank you very much for your source review and taking the time to spotcheck the article! I've attempted to clarify your concerns above. The only thing that is outstanding is the climate paragraph regarding cloud, temperatures and humidity, where it appears that I added it back in 2010/11 but I gave the source to "Southern England climate", which is still used in that paragraph. Maybe the page gave different data back in 2011? That's the only one I'm not sure to do with, but everything else should be addressed. Sorry for the delay in getting to this. JAGUAR  15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and the actions taken. However, in view of the number of issues that arose from my spotcheck, I feel I will need to look at the remaining refs. I won't be able to do this today, but please be patient – I will get to it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues

As part of due diligence I carried out further spotchecks, concentrating on a group of references in mid-article:

  • Ref 18: The source details appear as "Feud. Aids, ii, 1856, p. 314", yet the source is evidently a copy of The Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle from 1774. What is the connection?
  • Ref 58: "Modern-Day Explorers" is not a high quality reliable source suitable for a featured article – in fact, it states itself that its content is out of date. Nor can I find in it the information that Jenny Lane "runs west from Upper Wield towards the east end of Alton Abbey"
  • Ref 59: Holhybourne.com again, this time with the title "The Holybourne Village Magazine".
  • Ref 60: This is the source for the statement: "Wivelrod was mentioned in documents dating 1259 and there are tumuli and burial mounds around Wivelrod Hill, near the present-day Alton Abbey", but the source does not mention Wivelrod, Wivelrod Hill, Alton Abbey or the year 1259.
  • Ref 62 is cited for "At the time of the 2011 UK census, Bentworth had a total population of 533. For every 100 females, there were 94.2 males. The average household size was 2.50" The source gives entirely different figures, and relates to 2001.

Once again, I found problems with almost everything I checked, and there are still issues outstanding from my earlier checks. In the circumstances, I can't be confident that there are not further problems with the sources I have been unable to check.

Sadly, I have to oppose this article's promotion, until there has been a thorough overhaul of the sources. I am aware that the article has considerable support, but in my view promotion needs to be delayed. The most urgent requirement is to ensure that the article text accurately represents what the sources say, which in many cases it does not. There are also questions of reliability in a few cases. A minor issue that should be resolved without delay is the error message relating to ref. 79. I am sure the article has much merit, but at present it does not meet the FA criterion relating to sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Brianboulton: for taking a look at it. The problem with the sourcing I think is due to the fact that this was written mainly in 2011 or whenever it was. I'm surprised at the number of problems considering that I wrote a fair amount in the article myself. I think though that this is a wake up call and reminder that when revisiting an old article and bringing to FAC it's always best to re-review the sourcing fully first. That rarely happens these days as most of our articles are written and then taken to FAC after a peer review. All I can remember is that it was difficult to find reliable sources to support the text in places and thought the article would be poorer off if we removed the content. Jaguar any thoughts on whether we can fully address Brian's concerns?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most can be addressed, but the thing that worries me most are the offline sources (books, journals etc) that we will have trouble to access. The matter of question is that we need more reliable sources to back up the content from this article. It's not as if most of the content here isn't true, but we need to find reliable sources in order for it to comply per the FA criteria. Regarding the climate paragraph, I have no idea where I got it from, but please bear in mind that I was 14 in January 2011 and I had no idea how anything worked back then. I'll try to find some updated Southern England climate information, but in the mean time I'll keep looking. However, I have unstable internet access at the moment as there has been a flood here, so that's yet another issue for me... JAGUAR  16:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about the flood. In view of what you say, the only reasonable course is for you to withdraw this for the moment, and re-present it when the multiple serious sources issues have been resolved. This may well mean redrafting sections of the article itself, to conform with the sources to which you have access now, rather than four years ago. I'm frankly worried by observations such as "I have no idea where I got it from", in the context of an FAC submission. I don't think that the necessary research and rewriting can be done within the context of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Dr. Blofeld are already working on a way to address your concerns, and it's not going to be a difficult task rephrasing or deleting content if the sources don't include it. I don't want this to be judged too quickly on my quips on not being able to remember what I was doing in 2011. I don't think it's going to be a major problem for the sources check to be addressed. Suffice to say, we're not going to withdraw the nomination. JAGUAR  16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that you don't make the same mistake twice. The article was brought to FAC prematurely, without any check by you or anyone else on the validity of the sources. If you feel you can address and resolve the problem quickly, fair enough, but don't underestimate the task. You will need to go through the article on a sentence by sentence basis, and look at every one of the ninety-odd references – including the 30-odd which are not online. There are no short cuts – a quick fix isn't going to work. Good luck – please ping me when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review was kept open a full month I think Brian. There wasn't really this big rush to bring it to FAC at all, but I accept that the sourcing should have all been checked before coming here given that it was written several years ago. We hope and Jaguar have made significant progress in checking but due to connection problems they've not updated me on what they've done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Premature in the sense that, as you acknowledge, the sources weren't checked first. But never fear, it seems that a few hands are on the case now, and I am accordingly optimistic. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once I was able to work properly again, I started tacking changes to the Bentworth talk page-this is a copy from there. We hope (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Took care of sourcing for the Fishers Camp/Thedden Grange issue. (Will keep adding as I keep looking back).
  • Changed text re: how Bentworth Hall was divided--I couldn't find any RS that went into the previous detail of it.
  • Removed "Feud Aids" source--this is covered with the previous citation from Biritish History Online--the article cites Feud Aids.
  • Added the British History Online citation re: Wivelrod in 2 spots.
  • Added Google Book source re: origin of Benworth name. Caution--the Book may not display fully for those outside of the US, but I read the cited page totally.

Some typo fixes and links to other WP articles. We hope (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More additions:

  • Added details re: how Bentworth Hall was divided into separate housing from a The Guardian" 1983 news story.
  • Added details re: how the local schoolhouse grew over time and how St. Mary's added a clock to the church building to celebrate King George V's coronation-book refs.

Question-I can't find anything about the children's home that was there from during WWII to circa 1951, when it was said to have burned down. The villages of Bentworth and Lasham both had their part in the war. In late 1940, a children's home was built in Drury Lane in Bentworth for those who had been evacuated from London during the Blitz.[1]

  1. ^ Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society (1905). List of houses and former attractions in Bentworth. Vol. 4. pp. 8–20.

The reference given here is from a 1905 book. We hope (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: With all due respect to the nominators, I am of the mind that the problems uncovered by Brianboulton are major and I do not think the nomination will be well-served by remaining open while the article undergoes a major source audit. It cannot possibly be promoted until every citation is checked for accuracy, and this will take time even assuming it is the nominators' top priority.

Had this remained open for at least five more days the references could have been dealt with as it's being worked on by three different people. Now I have to deal with the stress of waiting two extra weeks and contacting all the contributors again to offer their future one-sentence comments which honestly I doubt some will do again. You know this is why FAC is a horrible process because some people don't understand the pace and severity of the situation. I was hoping to have this pay off by the end of August least. We've already had half of the source review checked off at the talk page. JAGUAR  00:17, 18 August 2015 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2015 [18].

Tyrone Garland

[edit]
Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional basketball player that closed out high school by posting an exceptional number of points, behind only Maureece Rice and future Hall of Famer Wilt Chamberlain. He started out college purely as a substitute, but became known as his team's hero only two years later in the 2013 NCAA Tournament. A lot of work has been put into making this article meet the GA criteria, and with some more feedback, it should be able to meet the FA criteria as well. TempleM (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Editorofthewiki
    "He said, "Just get it over the big man and leave it in God's hands"" --Who said this, Garland or his cousin?
    Garland's cousin, Bernard Tyler, said that. Changes have been made.
    "The team went 73–35 in the years that Garland was with them, and he led them to a PPL championship appearance against Imhotep Institute Charter High School, where Bartram lost 48–56. He scored 32 points and 6 three-pointers, but his teammates were only 5-for-37 in their shot attempts." This needs a ref.
    Ref added
    "In an earlier 2009 Class AAAA playoff contest vs Pocono Mountain East High School, which is sometimes regarded as one of his best performances, Garland scored all eight points in the last 44 seconds of regulation." Later it says he scored 40 points. This is unclear.
    I changed the wording. What it meant was that he scored all eight points that were scored in the final 44 seconds of the game. In the entire game (not just the final 44 seconds) he scored 40 points total.
    "He took a single shot, which was off mark and failed to record any statistics." Going 0-1 is recording statistics. Playing 1 minute is recording statistics.
    Fixed.
    "He competed in under 15 minutes of each of Virginia Tech's basketball games until January 2, 2011 against Mount St. Mary's, when head coach Seth Greenberg had him play for 22." This sentence is clunky.
    Changed wording.
  • Is Garland to join Raptors 905.
    No, he is not to join Raptors 905. 905 is simply a D-League affiliate of the Toronto Raptors. It has no connections with the Mississauga Power players or coaches. I have added a note.

Overall this is a well-written and comprehensive article, but there are some issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issues you stated above. TempleM (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has failed to attract any support for promotion after more than a month—it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2015 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2015 [19].

GateKeeper (roller coaster)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 01:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a wing roller coaster at Cedar Point amusement park. This article has gone through two nominations with the issues being addressed each time. It was not promoted due to inactivity last nomination. This article matches the format of other roller coaster FAs. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has failed to attract any comments or support for promotion after more than a month—it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2015 (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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2015 [20].

Joker (comics)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fictional supervillain the Joker, arguably one of the most famous characters in the western world, and definitely among the top comic characters and villains of all time. Over the course of several years I've slowly helped expand the article from just before my earliest edit here to what it is today. It paradoxically isn't the easiest thing to find sources for a lot of information about a character that is 75 years old, but I finally think that the article is as complete as it can be at this point and that it is ready to stand among our best articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoyGoldsmith

[edit]

I think you should add more quotes to your inline citations, especially those which cannot be checked except at a library.

For example, you end the first paragraph of the lead with the assertion that the Joker is "the archenemy" of Batman. I think many people (although surely a minority) would disagree with that. Do you have any reliable sources?

The body of the article (in the second 'graph of the Golden Age section, the only place where it mentions archenemy again) gives the reference "Manning 2001, p. 24, 27" for the entire paragraph. If you agree that this assertion needs a source, you could add an incite to the sentence with a quote. For example (hypothetically), "Manning 2001, p. 24 "Most authors ascribe the superlative of Batman's archenemy to the Joker." This would make it clear, even to readers who don't have Manning's book, that the editors found sources, rather than illegal systhesis.

I don't say that this "archenemy" statement particularly needs more sources. But when you consider all the citations that are just "Book, page number" you'll realize that the article cannot be cross-checked by anyone who has less than your resources. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 1"4:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Think that's doable, give me a day or two. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I'm not a comics person, but I do have a moderate familiarity with Batman. Looks like a very interesting article.

  • First, I'm not sure I agree with Roy above about heavy use of quotes in the references- references merely to book and page are pretty standard, surely?
  • "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." This feels a little non-neutral.
  • The last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked- it's a tricky read.
  • "Elements of the character's roots" What does this mean?
  • "and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design" What sketch? And, presumably, you mean the first complete design, not so much the "source2 of the design?
  • "Although Kane adamantly refused to share credit for many of his characters (and refused to credit Robinson until Kane's death)" ??
  • "because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept the latter's version of events." I don't really follow- also, does your source say that historians generally accept that, or is the source one example of someone accepting that? If the latter, then the claim is not really supported
  • The last paragraph of "Creation" is mostly written in Wikipedia's neutral voice; it's not clear that you're telling a disputed story
  • "as Batman's first villain" This doesn't read well. Are you using "Batman" to refer to the character or to the universe?
  • "During this period, the first changes in the Joker began to appear; when he kidnaps Robin the ransom is paid by check, and he cannot cash it without being arrested" I can't see the significance in the check?
  • "Around the same time, DC Comics found it easier to market its stories to children without the characters' more mature elements" Do you mean they removed the darker elements in order to market the stories to children? That's not what it says right now.
  • The third paragraph of "Golden Age" (those titles are a little odd to my eyes as a non-comics person, by the way) feels like just two facts bashed together
  • "which introduced the concept of him formerly being the criminal Red Hood," I'm not sure that's a concept
  • "stripping Batman of his menace and transforming the Joker into a goofy, thieving trickster without his original homicidal tendencies" This feels non-neutral. Also "despised" and "risked" are slightly hyperbolic/rhetorical. And "campy" isn't even in the OED.
  • "The campy show's popularity (including Romero's Joker)" Grammatically odd- Romero's Joker isn't part of the popularity, he is an aspect of the show that was popular
  • I'm struggling with the information about the '60s. He was mostly absent for "the decade" after 1964, but in 1966 onwards he was appearing a lot in conjunction with the TV show? What's going on there?
  • "after a four-year disappearance" Rhetorical
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ
  • "O'Neil's 1973 run introduced the Joker's legal insanity, the reason he was sent to Arkham Asylum (then Arkham Hospital) after its creation in 1974 instead of to prison" There's a muddling of real-world and comics-world information, here
  • "changing his more average figure" Odd
  • "a hotbed of experimentation" Rhetorical
  • "and in 1975 the character became the first villain to star in a comic book series, The Joker" That's nonstandard comma use, and presumably you mean the first villain to be the title character of a comic book? Surely, he (and many other villains) have "starred" in comic books.
  • " Following the character's interactions with other supervillains, the series' first issue was written by O'Neil." Unclear
  • "character's villainy prevailed over equivalent rivals" What do you mean by "equivalent" here?
  • "The series never found an audience" Rhetorical
  • "defined the Joker for decades to come" Rhetorical
  • "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish by giving them a rictus grin (expecting copyright protection), killing bureaucrats who tell him that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible" I'm struggling with this sentence
  • "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design (adding a fedora and trench coat to the Joker's wardrobe),[39] and Englehart outlined his Joker: "He was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]" How about something like "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design, drawing the Joker with a fedora and trench coat.[39] Englehart outlined how he understood the character by saying that the Joker "was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]"
  • "Years after the end of the 1966 television series, sales of Batman continued to fall and the title was nearly canceled." Could you be more precise on when this was happening?
  • "the Joker came into his own as part of the "dark age" of comics: mature tales of death and destruction." This (as well as the "launched the era" sentence) feels non-neutral
  • "Fans never accepted Todd" This feels rhetorical- how about something like "Todd was never popular with fans"?
  • "a 28-vote plurality had the Joker" I don't understand
  • "This story altered the Batman universe: instead of killing anonymous bystanders, the Joker murdered a core character in the Batman fiction; this had a lasting effect on future stories." Difficult to follow.
  • "The novel is described as one of the greatest Joker stories ever written" By who?
  • Isn't Quinn a psychiatrist, rather than a psychologist?
  • Does your source say that the vat thing is "The most common interpretation of the character", or does it just present this interpretation?
  • "The Joker tries to poison Robin with the same Joker venom, Batman defeats him, sending him to prison" Are you missing a word, here?
  • "However, he says that this story may not be true and prefers his past to be "multiple choice"" Who does?
  • "The character's maiming of Barbara arguably turned her into a more-important character in the DC Universe" According to whom?
  • "and the character succeeds in making a member of the Bat-family break their rule against killing" Because of Grayson's temporary "killing" of him? This isn't so clear
  • Are the brief summaries of the storylines in the biography section meant to be a picture of all of the character's major appearances? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're trying to achieve in the section
  • As a general note, there seems to be a moderate amount of repetition in the article. I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem, but perhaps it's something to think about.
  • "Renowned as Batman's greatest enemy" Source? Renowned by whom?
  • "more than any other comic book character, the Joker thrives on his mutable and irreconcilable identities" Rhetorical/non-neutral
  • "and Batman who dwells in the dark" Rhetorical
  • " Murder, theft, and terrorism, no crime is beyond the Joker" Again- that whole paragraph feels a bit off, in terms of tone

I'll stop there for now- I think there are some issues with the writing in places, but there's a lot of good stuff here- good-quality research, avoidance of minutae, and so on. I think it falls a little short of FA level right now, but it's not a million miles off. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working
[edit]
    • First, I'm not sure I agree with Roy above about heavy use of quotes in the references- references merely to book and page are pretty standard, surely?
    • "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." This feels a little non-neutral.
    • The last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked- it's a tricky read.
    • "Elements of the character's roots" What does this mean?
    • "and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design" What sketch? And, presumably, you mean the first complete design, not so much the "source2 of the design?
    • "Although Kane adamantly refused to share credit for many of his characters (and refused to credit Robinson until Kane's death)" ??
    • "because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept the latter's version of events." I don't really follow- also, does your source say that historians generally accept that, or is the source one example of someone accepting that? If the latter, then the claim is not really supported
    • The last paragraph of "Creation" is mostly written in Wikipedia's neutral voice; it's not clear that you're telling a disputed story
    • "as Batman's first villain" This doesn't read well. Are you using "Batman" to refer to the character or to the universe?
    • "During this period, the first changes in the Joker began to appear; when he kidnaps Robin the ransom is paid by check, and he cannot cash it without being arrested" I can't see the significance in the check?
    • "Around the same time, DC Comics found it easier to market its stories to children without the characters' more mature elements" Do you mean they removed the darker elements in order to market the stories to children? That's not what it says right now.
    • The third paragraph of "Golden Age" (those titles are a little odd to my eyes as a non-comics person, by the way) feels like just two facts bashed together
    • "which introduced the concept of him formerly being the criminal Red Hood," I'm not sure that's a concept
      • I changed it to "characteristic"?
    • "stripping Batman of his menace and transforming the Joker into a goofy, thieving trickster without his original homicidal tendencies" This feels non-neutral. Also "despised" and "risked" are slightly hyperbolic/rhetorical. And "campy" isn't even in the OED.
    • "The campy show's popularity (including Romero's Joker)" Grammatically odd- Romero's Joker isn't part of the popularity, he is an aspect of the show that was popular
    • I'm struggling with the information about the '60s. He was mostly absent for "the decade" after 1964, but in 1966 onwards he was appearing a lot in conjunction with the TV show? What's going on there?
    • "after a four-year disappearance" Rhetorical
    • Be aware of MOS:LQ
    • "O'Neil's 1973 run introduced the Joker's legal insanity, the reason he was sent to Arkham Asylum (then Arkham Hospital) after its creation in 1974 instead of to prison" There's a muddling of real-world and comics-world information, here
    • "changing his more average figure" Odd
    • "a hotbed of experimentation" Rhetorical
    • "and in 1975 the character became the first villain to star in a comic book series, The Joker" That's nonstandard comma use, and presumably you mean the first villain to be the title character of a comic book? Surely, he (and many other villains) have "starred" in comic books.
    • " Following the character's interactions with other supervillains, the series' first issue was written by O'Neil." Unclear
    • "character's villainy prevailed over equivalent rivals" What do you mean by "equivalent" here?
    • "The series never found an audience" Rhetorical
    • "defined the Joker for decades to come" Rhetorical
    • "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish by giving them a rictus grin (expecting copyright protection), killing bureaucrats who tell him that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible" I'm struggling with this sentence
      • Any better? - "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish with a rictus grin resembling his own (expecting copyright protection), and is unable to understand that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible."
    • "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design (adding a fedora and trench coat to the Joker's wardrobe),[39] and Englehart outlined his Joker: "He was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]" How about something like "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design, drawing the Joker with a fedora and trench coat.[39] Englehart outlined how he understood the character by saying that the Joker "was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]"
    • "Years after the end of the 1966 television series, sales of Batman continued to fall and the title was nearly canceled." Could you be more precise on when this was happening?
    • "the Joker came into his own as part of the "dark age" of comics: mature tales of death and destruction." This (as well as the "launched the era" sentence) feels non-neutral
    • "Fans never accepted Todd" This feels rhetorical- how about something like "Todd was never popular with fans"?
    • "a 28-vote plurality had the Joker" I don't understand
    • "This story altered the Batman universe: instead of killing anonymous bystanders, the Joker murdered a core character in the Batman fiction; this had a lasting effect on future stories." Difficult to follow.
    • "The novel is described as one of the greatest Joker stories ever written" By who?
    • Isn't Quinn a psychiatrist, rather than a psychologist?
    • Does your source say that the vat thing is "The most common interpretation of the character", or does it just present this interpretation?
    • "The Joker tries to poison Robin with the same Joker venom, Batman defeats him, sending him to prison" Are you missing a word, here?
    • "However, he says that this story may not be true and prefers his past to be "multiple choice"" Who does?
    • "The character's maiming of Barbara arguably turned her into a more-important character in the DC Universe" According to whom?
    • "and the character succeeds in making a member of the Bat-family break their rule against killing" Because of Grayson's temporary "killing" of him? This isn't so clear
    • Are the brief summaries of the storylines in the biography section meant to be a picture of all of the character's major appearances? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're trying to achieve in the section
      • A collection of the major storylines that have involved the character and defined elements of the character such as origin, killing/maiming of major characters, impact on Batman's characterization, changes in the character, etc.
    • As a general note, there seems to be a moderate amount of repetition in the article. I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem, but perhaps it's something to think about.
    • "Renowned as Batman's greatest enemy" Source? Renowned by whom?
    • "more than any other comic book character, the Joker thrives on his mutable and irreconcilable identities" Rhetorical/non-neutral
    • "and Batman who dwells in the dark" Rhetorical
    • " Murder, theft, and terrorism, no crime is beyond the Joker" Again- that whole paragraph feels a bit off, in terms of tone

OPPOSE by Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Oppose: obviously a lot of quality work has gone into the article, but there are issues that a copyedit alone won't fix. The biggest issue is focus: is this article about the character "Joker", or about the character's appearances in comics? Given there is no Joker (character) article, that suggests this should be the base article on the character, and portions of the article bear out that this is intended to be the base article: such lines as "The Joker is considered one of, if not, the most-recognizable and iconic fictional characters in popular culture" and "TV Guide included Caesar Romero's Joker on its 2013 list of "60 Nastiest Villains of All Time", and he was the 45th villain on the American Film Institute's 100 Heroes and Villains list", for instance. On the other hand, almost the entire article is about the character's appearances in comics, with only bare mention of his extensive and prominent appearances in other media (especially TV and film) for which the cahrracter is best known to the masses. The article needs to be renamed to "Joker (character)" or "Joker in comics", and reworked to conform to the new focus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are separate articles for media appearances, it's not feasible to fit them all into one. The comics are the source material so it focuses on the original, not the derivatives. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing unfeasible about it, and the claim cannot be made when the no effort has been put into solving the problem (in fact, has been steadfastly resisted). Regardless, such an excuse that would not fly for a character in any other medium: see Tarzan, Mario, or countless others. Privileging the character's original appearance is a violation of NPOV. WP:COMICS does not get a free pass on these things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean I'm not asking for a pass, all media incarnations are based on the core product, the comics character. Animations, story arcs, designs, supplementary characters and relationships, these are all sourced from the comic character and so I have deliberately focused on making the article cover the comic character extensively. It's a character that has 75 years of history JUST in comics. It isn't Mario who has no story or character development beyond being a plumber, or Tarzan who is a less complex and popular character. The Joker article as it stands is 8779 words, so literally by the guidelines of Wikipedia it isn't possible to go into extensive detail about media interpretations of which there have been many each with their own receptions. That's what the Joker in other media article is for, it's sole purpose is to be dedicated to these popular interpretations of the core character.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, you're only interested in the comics aspect of the character—fine, rename it Joker in comics and move the rest of the stuff to the core Joker (character) article. The rest of what you've written here is totally irrelevant to the very real issue I've brought up—this article is either about the character, or the character's appearances in comics. Work it out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. Well I'm going to leave you to it Curly because the Joker (character) would only ever be centralised around the character with 75 years of history that birthed everything else when there are separate individual film/television/video game articles to focus on adaptations and an "In media" article that centralises these adaptations as in line with FA Anarky, FA Batman, and GA Spider-Man. I'll leave you to your Oppose as I'm not able to completely change the article for you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Curly's criticism has merit. You're taking for granted that there is "the character with 75 years of history" and "everything else"- at least part of Curly's objection, if I understand it correctly, is that this is an artificial split. You're dictating what is a part of "the character" and what is part of "everything else"; on what grounds are you doing this? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't understand this logic. There is a character that was created in a comic book, the article is about that character. What he does in a film is not an aspect of this character and so it is covered in Batman (1989 film) which also appears and gives more central focus to the character on Joker in other media. It's like complaining that the Eminem article doesn't give major focus to his film biopic, or Ellen Ripley where the article talks about the character with links off to media articles that discuss the subject in greater detail. This argument might fly on Harley Quinn where she was created in television. You'll have to excuse me but this is the most bizarre offshoot to a fictional character article I've ever seen and is not the case in the other comic character Featured Articles on which this article is based. Unless Josh you are talking about story elements that are included from the comics and which are included here and which aren't?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's a leap from "there is a character that was created in a comic book" (which no one is disputing) to "what he does in a film is not an aspect of this character" (which I believe Curly is disputing, and which I'm concerned about). The mere fact that he started as a comics character does not mean that he remains solely a comics character. Why are his film appearances not an aspect of his character? (And, I wonder, would you say that about James Bond?) Is it a different character in the films/TV shows/video games/whatever? If so, you're going to need to explain that, and if not, on what grounds are you not covering those other aspects? As an outsider (by which I mean someone who is not a comics person), it comes across as somewhat snobbish- a kind of "he's a comics character, and when he's not appearing in comics, it's not worth talking about" attitude. To repeat what Curly said, if this is an article about the Joker in comics, it should be called that- if it's an article about the character, you're going to have to cover all aspects of the character (and/or explain to us which putative aspects are not actually a part of the character). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have to defend Darkwarriorblake here. The title of the article is "Joker (comics)" and the first sentence is "The Joker is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics.". I think its clear that the article is supposed to be about comics. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's not Darkwarriorblake's argument, LittleJerry—he's saying the article is about the character, and that the article about the character should privilege his comicbook appearances because that's where the character originated. Besides, if the article is really about the character's comicbook appearances, then parts of it will have to be rewritten to conform to that. The article is confused in focus and fundamentally POV—these are valid, serious, actionable objections, and my oppose stands. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This seems needlessly pedantic, it's about the character, my interpretation was the comic character was the character whereas you seem to be arguing that all incarnations ever are the character. The article is about the Joker who is the comic character, if it helps it is therefore about the comic character. This is completely in line with other FA comic related articles.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is completely in line with other FA comic related articles.: I don't know where you get this, as the only comics FA that is in any way comparable is Batman, which was promoted in 2004, when FA standards were nothing like they are now, and which without a doubt would be demoted if brought to FAR today (as I noted on the article's talk page long ago). The fact remains that this privileging of the medium the character originally appeared in would not stand a chance with a character who appeared in any other medium—WP:COMICS cannot get a free pass on this. You have a choce: focus on the character or on the character in the comics medium. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character? The focus is on the comic character, that IS the character, there is a separate article for the character in other media. An article about Darth Vader talks about Darth Vader the character. You mention Mario but the article talks entirely about his appearances in games with appearances outside of them given a footnote. You link Tarzan, it talks about books, there's a messy section about other media and then reception. They're not different, your point whatever it may be has been clouded by your completely poor communication, there is no difference between these articles. You've failed to make any genuinely useful points or clarify your position at all beyond broadly saying that by somehow being about the character, the article is not about the character. You've claimed it is unfocused when it focuses entirely on the character and establishes external articles for detailed information about related but not directly appropriate content such as media incarnations. And somehow it's POV. Your objection is unfair and unhelpful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus is on the comic character, that IS the character: There's the POV—totally unacceptable in an FA. You don't get to choose what the character is based on your favourite incarnation of it—that's the very definition of POV. The rest of your rebuttle is little more than a collection of ad hominems like "When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character?" and "your completely poor communication". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character?" That does strike me as a bit rich, Darkwarriorblake. You are the one splitting the Joker's appearances into the ones that are part of "the character" and the ones that fall into "other media". I'm mystified as to why you're struggling to understand this worry. Personally, I'm still on the fence, but your apparent failure to even understand Curly's objection certainly isn't convincing me that you've got the balance right. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curly's objection isn't balanced and does not make sense. The character articles he presented are exactly the same format as this, discussing the character at the source and deviating off for external adaptations. I linked Batman and Anarky which are the exact same format. I agree that Batman wouldn't make FA now, but that is because of the overuse of Non-Free Content, the poor writing, the unsourced additions and original research, not the fact that it talks about the Batman character that is in the comic and allows other articles to talk about the character in films, television and games. How is the comic character being the character POV? It's insane, that is the character, that's what was created, that is what all other interpretations are based upon, there is no 1989 film if there is no comic character or The Dark Knight Returns, and there is a separate article that covers the film's interpretation of the character. And even when I state "it is about the comic character" this still isn't sufficient for Curly and he wants it moving to Joker in Comics. Well no, it's already set to "Joker (comics)" and is the primary topic. Every single comic article is set up in this exact same format, comic character, Other media at the bottom or broken into another article where necessary. I discuss throughout the article external media where appropriate such as "Englehart and Rogers' work on the series influenced the 1989 film Batman, and was adapted for 1992's Batman: The Animated Series.[38][47]". To accomplish what it appears Curly wants, I am duplicating information that is present in other articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is the comic character being the character POV? Because the comics character is one incarnation of the character, and the character's appearances in other media are from from obscure—millions more people are familiar with Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Joker than of any comicbook appearance. If this is to be the base article, then it has to be arranged that way. If it's to be the article about Joker's comics appearance, then it has to be arranged that way. So—is this the base article for the character, or the subarticle on the character's appearances in comics? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems like original research that the Joker is effectively only famous in terms of Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson, as if either thing would exist if the character itself did not exist or was not known enough on its own to support the media. All those accolades in the cultural impact section are about this character being the most famous/greatest comic book villain and fictional character, etc, etc Roller coasters that feature the comic artwork, clothing, toys. It seems somewhat bias that you perhaps know the Joker more for some film incarnation and so that is the main character to you, when my first introduction would've been the 1989 film and then maybe the TV series, but I still accept that all of those versions take their information/characterisation from the source comic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • the Joker is effectively only famous in terms of Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson: I said that? Talk about original research! You're obviously making no effort to understand the point, so I'll just leave my oppose as it is, and you can hope that you can find enough reviewers dense enough to support and that the closer won't notice that actionable issues haven't been addressed—in fact, that you've refused to address them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's a separate article for the external appearances, you've ignored this at every possible turn and I've reiterated multiple times it is about the comic character and despite your complaint that it is focused as such, you feel it is unfocused. I've not refused to address anything, you've been deliberately obtuse. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Two other featured articles that focus solely on their original incarnations and deviate for external adaptations - Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, both outside of the comic realm. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument, and may point out flaws in those FAs, but anyways: (a) both those characters are known overwhelmingly through the TV show, which is far from the case with Joker (though this wasn't even my point); (b) your "the comics character is the character" mantra demonstrates you don't understand the point, and you don't appear to be trying. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why are these other FA character articles being held to a different standard? You cannot claim that the Joker is overwhelmingly known through other means based on your own interpretations. The films do (and this is sourced) significantly better than other Batman films when the Joker is in them. This is despite him being sourced from the comics and there being only two films with the Joker in them. The 1960s show used a completely different version of the Joker as well to the tone of the film versions, and all of these versions are based on elements of the comic character. Your complaint, as I understand it, is that the comic character isn't the main version and so it should cover his film and tv versions and other stuff. Well it does, it has a section at the bottom called "In other media" that highlights every single voice and appearance he has made, and it links to a main article where these are covered in greater detail.
                      • I have made an effort to understand your point, I just fundamentally disagree with you, this article covers the entirety of the character, it's just that due to word and size limits, some elements are covered in a separate article. It covers conception, creation, major story actions which have inspired other elements and been covered in external sources, it covers characterisation, major characteristics, it covers relationships that are brought up in other media, it covers impact, it covers analysis and it covers the character in other media. Nothing has been excluded, nothing has been omitted, it is the result of years of work to collate every possible detail about the character down to Larry Storch voicing him in an obscure cartoon. It is all encompassing, it is the primary topic, it is what people are searching for, it is the Joker article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goodness, you're not seriously going to play this silly numbers game, are you? You don't seriously think the readership of even the best-selling comic book ever could possibly stack up to the veiwership of even the least popular of the movies? Come now, don't embarrass yourself like this.
What you're not understanding is semantics. Use the IS-A test: let's try it with, say Bill Ward. Bill Ward (musician) works because this Bill Ward IS-A musician. Bill Ward (actor) works because this Bill Ward IS-A actor. Bill Ward (cartoonist) works because this Bill Ward IS-A cartoonist. Joker (comics) doesn't work because "Joker IS-A comics" (?!?) is ridiculous. On the other hand, Joker (character) works fine because Joker IS-A character. Joker in comics works fine as well. Joker (comics) would only work if we were talking about a series, graphic novel, story, etc titled "Joker"—which is not the case in this article. SMcCandlish made this very argument at the RfC that ultimately did away with WP:COMICS' invalid automatically preferencing of (comics) over (character), and which was upheld at two consecutive move requests at Wolverine (character): this is why we use the standard of "Mike Smith (physicist)", not "Mike Smith (physics)". Please understand the semantics—I'm confident it's not over your head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What complicates this further is the lead: "The Joker is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics". Okay, so what are the essential and defining characteristics of Joker? He's fictional—hopefully that will be eternally true. He's a supervillain—yep. He appears "in American comic books published by DC Comics" ... uh, except when he appears in film, TV, video games, novels, non-American comics, graphic novels, toys, etc etc etc ... whoops! That last bit is not definitional—appearing in comic books (American or otherwise) is not essential to the character. He continues to be a fictional supervillain in whatever medium he appears, but the medium is up for grabs (and there sure ain't any lack of Joker appearances in other media!)
So broken-recording again: is this about the character, or the character's appearances in comics? Figure it out, and fix it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A move discussion was held to move Joker to Joke (character) per I assume that discussion but failed. I'm happy to try and get it moved again Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be moved. The Joker is famous to more people because of TV and film, almost certainly, than from actually reading comics. I wouldn't oppose an FAC on this basis, though. FA is about content, not the title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that my objection went beyond merely the dab (an issue that would be solved with a RM). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at these comments in a week but it seems to me that this has become a battleground between Curly Turkey and Darkwarriorblake. As I understand it, CT is in favor of splitting up the article into sub-articles while DWB want to push on with a view toward featuring the current article with the same structure, more or less .
Curly Turkey: I note that the article has already received GA status. In that process, wouldn't the article have passed the "not complete according to its title" criticisms? Wikipedia will never be perfect and, I suspect, the article was judged on its fitness at the current state of editing "The Joker", whatever its subdivisions.
Darkwarriorblake: I note that "Joker (character)" is a redirect to "Joker (comics)". Why not make Joker (character) the main article (possibly a stub article) and Joker (comics) a sub-article? Then you could still propose Joker (comics) as a candidate for FA.
To do this: Copy the entire article to "Joker (character)", getting rid of the redirect. Then vastly trim down the lead and the current, "comic" sections, squeezing them into a top section named "Joker in Comics", and add sections on "Joker in films", "Joker in TV", etc. with plenty of "Main articles" to direct the readers to sub-articles, like Main article: Batman (TV series). Then eliminate any substantive mention of other than comics in "Joker (comics)".
You would wind up with a hierarchy of articles, something like:
Main/top level: Joker (character)
Sub-level: Joker (comics), Joker (films), Joker (TV), etc.
Sub-sub-level: Joker (Golden age) [not written yet, under Joker (comics)]; Batman (1989 film), The Dark Knight (film); etc.
Your current Joker (comics) would remain as your FAC. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments in response to Roy: First, I'm not sure this is so much a "battleground", but a disagreement between two editors on which other editors have weighed in to offer views. Second, I don't think "no one caught this at GAC" is a particularly good response to a criticism. If there's a problem, there's a problem. Third, I think your suggestion to Darkwarriorblade is (in broad strokes) a very good one, but, as Curly said above, it would probably be better if the articles were titled as "Joker (comics character)" and "Joker (television character)" or something. I note that we already have The Joker (The Dark Knight). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, you're talking about splitting an article into like 6 articles for interpretations which are virtually the same. Joker Films, Joker TV, Batman 1989, The Dark Knight, all of these are covered under Joker in Other Media, all are mentioned in the existing FA candidate and linked appropriately. Or you're talking about the already existing Joker. There is no reason to split this content into so many articles or sections. Even if the article were renamed Joker (character) it would still be as it is now, because it covers everything about the character in all media from comics to toys to games and movies, and breaks off into other articles where limits require. Renaming it is doable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't suggested splitting the article into numerous articles—we only split articles when there is sufficient material to warrant a split. This article is 54kb of readable prose, which is an awfully long article according to WP:SIZE. The Joker in other media is about 26kb—which may be too long, too short, or just right. Its current length alone would not justify its splitting (although I'm sure a motivated editor could find source material enough for the various film or TV articles if they wanted to).
The extreme amount of detail in this article is almost entirely about the comics—move it all into a Joker in comics article and it would still be quite the long article, but it would leave a base article that gets to the point about the character (which I imagine would still be fairly lengthy), and then direct the reader to more detailed articles on the character in particular media. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that DWB is in no way responsible for any of the articles he hasn't nominated, only for this one, for which he has to choose a focus: etiher it's about the character, or it's about the character who appears in American comic books published by DC Comics (as the current lead states). Either requires restructuring and refocusing of some sort. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your request isn't reasonable, there is no article to be nominated if I move the comic information, the lead explains the article contents, it is about the comic character and it is covered as such, all of the detail covers the comic character, all of the detail covers what it has inspired, it features COMPREHENSIVE not extreme detail, it covers the source material, it covers all other versions of the character in or out of comics that have been based on the comic character, it is below any size limits, it is sourced and it makes no claims to be anything other than what it says it is in the lead. It doesn't switch focus between versions of the character either, it is clean, stylish, and precise. Such fundamental expectations and changes haven't been expected of any other comic or character article that has had to go through this process, and I'm not gutting the article to satisfy one editor who has given no genuine policy, guideline or reason from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for such opposition or an extreme change in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is no article to be nominated if I move the comic information: so renominate it after you fix it.
it is about the comic character: while confusedly acting at times as if it's about the character. If you want to focus on the comics (a good idea, I think), then move the page and refocus appropriately
it covers all other versions of the character in or out of comics that have been based on the comic character: yes, you continue to assert the blatant POV that "the comics character IS the character"
You have yet to acknowledge the problem I brought up with the opening sentence—the definitional sentence which restricts the character to American comic books from DC, when clearly the character is no way restricted to comics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

[edit]
This article gives wildly undue weight to the notion that Robinson, an 18 year old assistant just out of high school, created the Joker, based solely on his drawing of a standard Joker card from a deck of cards which bares little resemblance to the character. As Kane said many times, if Robinson's account was actually true, the Joker would look like his sketch, not like Condrad Veidt. "However, because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept Robinson's version of events". Nonsense. The source doesn't mention or speak on behalf of historians and it doesn't provide a quote from Finger—and for good reason, because no such quote exists. (That the source is nominally reliable does not change the fact that this claim is baseless; another of your sources, after all, is so eager to slander Kane that it credits Finger with creating Two-Face—a character, in the words of Les Daniels, that "everyone seems to agree was Kane's brainchild exclusively.") Now, I don't know if this source is reliable or not, but it certainly gives a more accurate overview of the facts of the case. If it can't be used, then I suggest you do more research and use some of its sources (like Kane's autobiography) to at the very least present a more balanced account.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim was based on one source I'd agree with you, but there are multiple sources both within and outside of the article that back up Robinson's events and refer to comic historians who accept that Robinson helped create the Joker and Robinson even credits Finger and Kane.
Meanwhile your source is some guys blog from 14 years ago, I'm not sure why it gives a more accurate version of events. I mean Kane's stance is represented in the section, but I need actual references if you want me to argue against the existing sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is particularly damning. http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-164-bob-kane-is-just-the-worst/ Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual logic behind the assertion "if Robinson's account was actually true, the Joker would look like his sketch". Just saying; I have no opinion either way on the sourcing, as I've not examined it in detail. Just don't like fallacious arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson lied repeatedly about the development of the Joker in ways that clearly betrayed his lack of knowledge on the subject. Moreover, his lies often contradicted one another. For example, in a 2009 San Diego Comic Con panel (which you can watch on Youtube at about 20:00 in) Robinson states that the Joker was not originally supposed to have green hair ("He didn't have green hair. It was just the white of the face and the red lips"), perhaps implying that the green was the result of highlights added by the colorist (which would make no sense, considering that green would be a bizarre choice for lighter hair, and if the Joker had black hair—unlike the Veight character—it would have had blue highlights like every other black-haired DC character at the time). However, on page 29 of Arie Kaplan's Masters of the Comic Book Universe Revealed, Robinson claims: "[Bob and Bill] said 'What about his hair? It's green! Why is he white?' And I said, 'That's his bizarreness! Don't explain it!'" At about 20:26 into the video, Robinson asserts: "We decided deliberately not to explain it, not to write an origin story. We thought that would detract from the whole aura, the mystery of the Joker—where did he come from, how did he get that way? No, we did not explain that, quite deliberately." Think about what Robinson is saying here. Nearly all comic book villains from this period had no origin story (even Batman's origin was revealed as a two-page extra after the character had already been established), just like the villains in all of the pulp mysteries of the era, yet Robinson—shortly after The Dark Knight came out and popularized the idea of the Joker as an agent of chaos with no discernible backstory—suddenly started claiming in 2009 that adherence to this standard formula within the handful of pages allocated to the Joker's first appearance was a deliberate, intentional choice designed to enhance the symbolic power of the character. At 20:49, the interviewer asks (as if the lowly inker would even have been involved in fleshing out backstories) "So you and Bill did not drop the Joker in a vat of acid?", to which Robinson responds: "No, we did not. Our initial reaction to that was if we dropped him into that vat, he obviously would have come out deformed". Apparently, Robinson was not aware that the Joker is deformed, with the same frozen smile on his face as the Veight character. More importantly, of course, is the fact that Robinson's alleged conversations with Finger in which they resolved never to diminish the Joker with an origin almost certainly were a figment of his imagination, as it was Finger who wrote "The Man Behind the Red Hood!" If you need any more evidence to impeach Robinson's testimony, consider his claims here (at 1:20) that he created or co-created Alfred, the Penguin, and Catwoman. Kane and Finger disagreed about the Penguin, but (as with the Joker) neither credited Robinson. "The Cat" was drawn by Kane (based on his cousin Ruth Steel) and fleshed out by Finger. (Is Robinson suggesting that inking Kane's drawings counts as co-creation?) The really bizarre claim is Alfred: According to Les Daniels' Batman: The Complete History page 57: "Evidence suggests that Alfred was created by the writers of the 1943 Batman serial (Victor McLeod, Leslie Swabacker, and Harry Fraser) and that DC comics asked Don Cameron to write the first Alfred story to conform to Hollywood's version of the Wayne household. Cameron couldn't have known, however, that the forthcoming movie Alfred (William Austin) was decidedly slender. The chubby comic book version promptly went on a diet, and grew a mustache too." What role could Robinson have possibly played in Alfred's development? Oh right, he drew "The Adventures of Alfred" humorous short stories in the back pages of Batman, then decided to astronomically inflate his importance years after all the principals were dead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another pass at the section to try and increase Kane's POV, but you're synthesising information from your own research on several Youtube videos with an elderly man reciting what he did 70+ years ago, and opened your response with "Robinson lied", so you need to acknowledge that while I will try to increase Kane's coverage, your interest in this seems to be non-neutral, so you will have to accept that I won't be removing the sourced Robinson information which is backed up by credible people outside Robinson. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I promised I would take another pass at the section Times and I am, but you are editing in a clearly non-neutral manner and it is quite clear that your belief is firmly in the Robinson did nothing camp, which is fine, but you cannot edit articles based on your person beliefs and/or bias. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the section to better clarify the dispute. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is no less clear than mine, as evidenced by your suggestion that this ad hominem attack on Kane ("F**k. That. Guy. For. Ever. Seriously, when it comes to the greatest supervillain in Batman’s history, the Joker is a distant second behind Bob Kane.") is somehow a valid factual addition to this discussion, but personal belief is quite a different matter from lodging accusations of "clear bias and pov" editing against another contributor (especially when you were the one misrepresenting the Ain't it Cool News obituary). (Admittedly, it's hard not to suspect bias when faced with the amusingly worded caption you added to the Veidt photo: "Veidt's grinning visage inspired Bill Finger's Joker design"—as if Finger were the artist!) In any case, you have presented four sources in the article for the claim that "many comic historians credit Robinson with the Joker's creation and Finger with the character's development." This statement is seemingly non-offensive, but because it is a modified version of your original "historians generally accept Robinson's version of events"—not to mention your own tendency to synthesis and overreach—the sourcing is problematic. The Comic Book Resources article actually says the opposite, referring to the Kane-Finger account as the "official version" while noting that Robinson's account was the subject of "controversy". Carmine Infantino is not a historian and does not speak for historians in any way, but—while bashing Kane—he also dismisses Robinson's account as implausible. Thus, two of your four sources either refute the assertions you attributed to them or are irrelevant (Infantino may personally believe Finger fleshed out the Joker—although his suspicion, which is really all it is, is actually stronger than that—but he's no historian). The A.V. Club and The Daily Telegraph do support the first part of your sentence, although it would be just as easy to find sources (such as IGN) that do not credit Robinson. Since you have changed the wording to "many", this would seem to be a moot point, but the bigger problems remains: The only evidence that Finger credited Robinson comes from Robinson himself (even the interview with Infantino that you provided proves that Finger disputed Robinson's account). The Ain't it Cool News obituary appears to be based solely on Robinson's assertion (during the 2009 Comic Con panel I linked to above and that you subsequently provided a partial transcript of for use in the article) that "If you read the Batman historian Bridwell, he had one interview where he interviewed Bill Finger and he said no, the Joker was created by me—an acknowledgement." I can find no record that this actually occurred, and I find it outrageous that you would source such a crucial fact to Robinson himself, especially given his history of (let us be charitable) "misstatements" on this matter, in an FA candidate no less! The only quote I could find from E. Nelson Bridwell on the Joker's creation is the following: "It seems that Bill Finger got a call from Bob Kane. He had an idea for a villain that Bill could use in the comics. He was a clownish-looking man, but a killer. However, when Bill saw Bob's sketch, he decided that it looked too clownish. He happened to have a movie edition magazine of "The Man Who Laughs," with stills from the 1928 film starring Conrad Veidt. The make-up was perfect and this inspired the Joker's grinning countenance." The extent to which the comics press mindlessly parroted Robinson's claims without regard for evidence, logic, or objectivity is indeed shocking; but Wikipedia need not do the same. As another example to demonstrate the pattern of the credulity of the supine press: The claim that the Joker "Double Guns" cover "is the only image to depict the supervillain using guns" is simply a talking point Robinson (here at 13:40, for example) used to auction the cover, regurgitated by the media in such an uncritical manner and without the smallest modicum of critical thinking, even though if they had half a brain they would realize that in context Robinson was obviously only referring to his Golden Age work, and of course there are many other images of the Joker using guns. (You added the vague original research qualifier "traditional guns" to the article, as if this changes the fact that the statement is false.) Indeed, you have presented no evidence whatsoever that this cover actually is significant beyond the statements of the man who drew it, so the entire subject should be stricken until you find a valid source. (Not to be excessively critical, but I also can't help but notice your use of over-citing to defend contentious claims; why do you cite two sources on the "Double Guns" cover, for example, when only one discusses it in any capacity? This could be construed as an attempt to obstruct verification.) Similarly, if you cannot directly cite the Bridwell interview mentioned by Robinson, then that statement should be stricken per the testimony of Infantino and others, or I will have no choice but to oppose this article's promotion to FA status on the grounds that the research is insufficiently thorough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infantino's testimony? This is not a court case and we are not dictating whether Robinson was involved or not. The sources can counter each other, that's the reason it is disputed. I accept Robinson's Bridwell statement because there are numerous sources that back up his position and undermine Kane, he is not a questionable source. You're asking me to essentially discredit Robinson entirely in this article based on your opinion and its not something I can or am able to do, especially based on inconsistencies you yourself have discovered an elderly man making in Youtube videos. I find your claim that the research is insufficient disturbing given that it is based entirely on your complete opposition to Robinson's claim and unless I can effectively disprove that he had anything to do with the Joker you are not willing to promote it. And I add additional sources to things if I find additional sources so if one becomes redundant there is a backup, I don't waste sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Comic Book Resources Article backs up everything it is being used to source. That Robinson produced a sketch, that it reminded Finger of Veidt, and that there are people who support Robinson's position.
  • [http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08/12/he-made-batman-no-one-else-kane-had-nothing-to-do-with-it-bill-did-it-all-carmine-infantino-on-bill-finger/ The Carmine Infanitno interview is only being used to source Finger's separate story and nothing else, that his opinion runs counter to other sources doesn't invalidate those sources, it's there as a reasonable source to back up Finger's influence, it doesn't outweight not just the sources present but the numerous ones you can find in a 2 second google that support Robinson.
  • This IGN source you've added, yes it only credits Kane and Finger but it's from 2008 and that seems to be common among sources at or before this time (around the heavier Joker focus around the 2008 film). I'm assuming that Robinson started receivign more credit after this time given the Rocket Llama article. I don't know that, just assuming that one.
  • "Veidt's grinning visage inspired Bill Finger's Joker design"—as if Finger were the artist!" I'm one person processing a large amount of information, I made an error as part of rejigging an entire section, but try not to accuse me of bias over errors when you removed sourced information because you didn't agree with it.
And I didn't include the Bridwell information int eh article either so I'm not sure what your problem is with it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you just clarify something for me, are you wanting me to prove Finger did it or Kane? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am quite certain that Finger and Kane are the undisputed co-creators of the Joker, and that neither credited Robinson. One of your sources clearly shows that Finger disputed Robinson's account. If you want to believe Robinson over the undisputed co-creators based on no evidence that's fine (indeed, that POV must be included because of the sources that accept it), but you should remove the claim that Finger credited Robinson (sourced back to Robinson himself). Nominally reliable sources can be clearly wrong, or their dubious claims can be traced back to interested parties, and when they are contradicted by other sources it is reasonable to exercise a degree of editorial discretion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bit about Finger backing it up until the resident Wiki Comic Historian can source it for me if possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I withdraw my oppose, although needless to say that does not constitute a support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If i've done what you asked, why does it not constitute a support? It seems needful to say. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed every issue I raised, just the most egregious one. I have not reviewed every section of the article carefully enough to judge whether it meets FA standards, although the last time I checked some of the prose was slightly lacking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Note: It is apparent that a consensus to promote this article is far from reach and there seems to be a reluctance to work with reviewers to achieve one. I will be closing this nomination in a few moments. I remind the nominator that a cooling-off period of fourteen days must elapse before renominating any article. In the meantime I encourage the nominator to take on board the actionable comments. Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2015 (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) 12:22, 15 August 2015 [21].

Broadnose sevengill shark

[edit]
Nominator(s): SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the broadnose sevengill shark which I have solely significantly improved it from its previous state and have added absolutely everything I could find about it. Additionally, for being a "Data Deficient" species, there is a remarkable amount of information. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Burklemore1

[edit]

Going to have a look now. I'm no expert on sharks, but I'll give it a go. Comments will proceed shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Article is pretty nice, but I have a few points, especially with the way you cite your sources:[reply]

  • I suggest you should rename the measurements section to description section and incorporate some information about its appearance. Not only that, the section is unsourced and choppy.
  • In the lead, its gills are mentioned several times but are never seen in the body of the article. You could add this into the description section (if you follow my suggestion).
  • I have also noticed that a lot of the anatomy mentioned in the lead is never mentioned elsewhere. Likewise, incorporate it into the description.
  • "In 2004, John G Maisey of the American Museum of Natural History published a detailed analysis, 52 pages to be exact, of the broadnose sevengill shark including imagery such as CT scans and morphology of its braincase." Perhaps you could scoop up some info from the reference you cited. Also, is it necessary to mention how many pages there is about this?
  • Book and journal citations do not need a retrieval date (only needed for websites and news links)
  • Link for reference no. 29 is dead (could go to archive.org and retrieve a copy there).
  • Journal subscription is required for reference no. 19, so use this template: (subscription required)
  • ISBNS should be hyphenated as ISBN-13's, use this link to convert.
  • Are the authors for ref. 10 reputable, considering the fact it is a self-published source?
  • I have noticed that some journals you have cited have been cited as webs, which is not exactly the most appropriate thing to do. This is how you should source the following, a long with additional recommendations:

Since I will be gone for today, that is all for now. More to come with the references. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are no exact photos of its gills and I simply added the best photos that were available at Commons and pretty much every photo seems to at least show what looks like seven gills (particularly this one?. As for ref. 10, I hear you but this is not the first time a self-published source has been used and it seems to contain very useful content (so I'm assuming good faith with this one). I should note I nominated this because Entoloma sinuatum looked similar to this and I thought it was FA-worthy. As for some of the unsourced content, it is found in several of the listed sources (including the "further reading" which are very detailed and contain alot of this content) but I matched some for convenience. As for the dead 29. ref, it was not dead recently and it seems to have happened because the website was redesigned. As for the John G. Maisey source, I wanted to add more but it seemed seem so technical, I wasn't sure if I could add it and still make sense (for this, I'd need to consult with someone familiar with this or a ichthyologist expert). I also mentioned the number of pages to emphasize the detail of the analysis. Finally, there are no more sources to add because I searched end to end and added the best there was. What would bring more information and insight is if there was more research and analysis performed on this species and thus a new classification by the IUCN. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you have went through google scholar and google books, have you gone through sites such as JSTOR, Pubmed, PMC or biodiversity library? They're great to find sources. I understand how the description of animals and such are technical and difficult to follow through (I edit ant articles and I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of the terms for their body parts). By no means I am familiar with the shark anatomy, but it would be easy to look up these terms you are not familiar with and you could find some useful pages on Wikipedia to discuss them. The paper is very detailed and would greatly benefit the article. You could ask someone who is an expert on sharks to help you with the article too. I also apologise for not returning with more comments yesterday, I was suppose to return with more comments. I was kind of... in a terrible situation. Anyway, here are some more comments:
  • As pointed out below, there needs a taxonomy section. Essentially all organisms will need a discussion about its taxonomic history. Judging from the 13 synonyms provided, the shark seems to have an interesting taxonomic history that was classified into other shark genera and different species were recognised. It would be nice to see a taxonomy section added and the reasons why it was moved to other genera and the justification of other species being erected and later syonymised. These sources are indeed attainable, online or not. This source has a small chunk about its taxonomic history, as well as the etymology of its scientific name.
  • Cite the data deficient with the following ref: {{IUCN2015.2|assessors=Compagno, L.J.V|year=2005|id=39324|title=Notorynchus cepedianus|downloaded=August 8, 2015}} (and replace ref no. 5 with it).
  • The extra reference below ref no. 33 is already cited, so why is it cited again?

At the moment, I will stay neutral. The way you have formatted the references is a big concern for me, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix them up. However, the prose seems to be problematic according to other reviewers, so its best you highly consider their suggestions. The article is nice, though it needs some work (and urgently needs a taxonomic section!) If no work on my issues is done, I'll have to oppose the FA promotion. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Regrettably, oppose promotion at this time. Burklemore1, above, did an admirable job at addressing some of the many problems with the referencing here, but there are bigger problems with the prose. The lead is not compliant with WP:MOSLEAD; it does not provide a summary of the article. Rather, much of the information in the lead is a physical description of the species that does not appear elsewhere, and is entirely unreferenced. That should be combined with the "Measurements" section – which needs its information presented in prose and cited properly – to provide a proper section concerning the shark's description. With thirteen (!) synonyms, this really needs some discussion of its taxonomic history, too. The IUCN's justification for deeming this shark as Data Deficient is important also, and entirely unmentioned (except noted as present in an external link). This is a solid start to an article on an commercially important shark species with a long history of study despite the IUCN designation, but I'm afraid it's not ready for FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm afraid I have to agree with the above- though this article has its merits, it is not yet ready for FAC. If you nominate this at good article candidates or peer review once this review has been closed, I'd be happy to go through it with you with the aim of working towards FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this nomination does seem premature; as well as all the points above, I note that there are some paragraphs that don't end with citations, as well as an apparent typo at the end of Range and habitat. I'm sure the issues are fixable but this amount of work should be undertaken outside the FAC process, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I agree with Josh that, when the issues have been addressed, GAN and PR would be good steps before re-nominating at FAC (which in any case cannot happen for at least two weeks after this nomination is archived, per FAC instructions). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2015 (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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2015 [22].

Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968

[edit]
Nominator(s): Spartan7W § 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This articles covers the 1968 campaign of Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. A figure subject to great interest to this day, the article discusses Nixon's second bid for the Presidency, briefly outlining his background as a politician, events leading up to the campaign, and the campaign itself. It details the strategy and events which the campaign experienced during the pre-primary months, the primary season, and the general election. Unlike the article covering the 1968 election itself, this article covers many areas specific to the future president which would be excessive on an article covering all three candidates' sides of the election. It was made a GA-class article in 2010, and has remained very stable since, with few major changes (none affecting its GA-quality) prior to my Featured Article preparation efforts. Spartan7W § 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Map caption needs editing for grammar
Fixed Added simple caption for map image, previous wording was the alt source, also fixed Spartan7W § 23:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Found updated link to original National Parks Service website Spartan7W § 23:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to these victories, and pledged delegate support from states not holding primaries, he secured nomination on the first ballot.... a little clunky. Why not, "These victories, and pledged delegate support from states not holding primaries, secured him the nomination on the first ballot..."
Fixed Replaced with superior line as suggested above
Nixon spoke extemporaneously - why not just, "out of turn"?
Fixed
Is what is meant that he spoke without a prepared text, as he often did in 1968? In that case, likely "extemporaneously" is what is meant. You might want to link to Wiktionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he had not yet "locked up" the nomination. - why is this in quotes?
Fixed Air quotes removed

Looks ok apart from that. I think we're ok on comprehensiveness and prose.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion taken and executed upon Spartan7W § 14:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose - no other prose-clangers are jumping out at me and I can't see anything missing...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments writing this during a first reading so no view on article as a whole yet.

Lede

  • " that a halt in bombing of Vietnam had been achieved." suggest "agreed" for "achieved". Whether or not what Johnson did was a good thing can be argued on both sides, and the word "achieved" connotes positively.
Done "negotiated" is a good phrase
  • State names that are not directly relevant to the subject of the article probably don't need to be linked.
Done Each 'Governor' links to the specific office in each state. State links removed, readers likely know about New York and California.
  • If I recall correctly, Nixon's home state for his 1968 candidacy was New York. This should likely be mentioned in lede or infobox.
Done Mentioned + mention of return to CA registration in '72
  • It may be worth a mention that Nixon is the only former VP to be elected president.
Done Reworded sentence to say first VP to become POTUS since Van Buren, only not to do so while not incumbent

Background

  • Image caption: "Senatorial" should be lower case. You may want to check the MOS on whether "President", "Vice President", when not used preceding a name should be capped.
Fixed
The lead line of the 'Background' section states his election to Senate in 1950. Worked in the '46 Congressional beforehand, the '50 Senate was already there (in text and caption)
  • "uncomfortable disposition" I think you should be clearer about this. Many readers will probably already know and be expecting to hear about it.
Done Unhealthy appearance is what I used. He had staph infection, banged his knee hard, was sweaty and stiff.
  • Nixon's role at the 1964 convention and in the 1966 campaign might be worth a mention as it helped him rebuild his reputation in the Republican Party. Also some mention of the people at Mudge Rose who later became important in the campaign and administration. You should adopt some shortened form of that name after the first mention. I suggest "Mudge Rose" as it avoids using Nixon's name, which could cause confusion.
Early stages
  • "Nixon leading Governor George Romney of Michigan, his closest rival, 52% to 40%" I would strike "his closest rival" It's a bit obvious no one else is really in the same ballpark, given that there's only 8 percent left to distribute to the rest of the field.
Done
  • Goldwater's comment seems inconsistent with his expressed support. Am I missing something here?
Re-worded this sentence. However, Goldwater wasn't an ardent Nixon supporter
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken and acted upon. Thanks @Wehwalt: Thank you Spartan7W § 23:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back to the lede. I'd delete the sentence about George being Mitt's father, it's extraneous to the subject of the article, which should be the intense focus of the lede. Similarly, I'd ditch the bit about 1972 and California.
Done My trivia-oriented mind liked this too much. Its gone.
  • The second paragraph of the lede should have the word "presidential", referring to Nixon's campaign, somewhere in there. At the present time, if the reader read the paragraph in isolation, he could not be certain if Nixon was running for president or had a hankering to be veep again.
Done
  • I see you piped to the 1950 election article, but if you pipe simply from the word "election", the reader may think the link is to take him to an article on elections in general. I would pipe to "election to the Senate" or perhaps "in 1950".
Done
Done I moved this into a ref text, as its inclusion does undermine the quality of the endorsement. Spartan7W § 23:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in 1967
  • You should probably mention by around the time Nixon announces his candidacy when the NH primary will be. These days, they've barely pulled off their New Year's hats before Dixville Notch is voting.
Primary
  • "Wallace" was he the AIP candidate at this point, yet?
  • " Nixon spoke out of turn, receiving numerous interruptions of applause." Despite what Cas said, I think that "extemporaneously" is meant for "out of turn". They do not mean the same thing in American English. I've viewed the speech files at the Nixon Library as part of my research into "Bring Us Together". Nixon often made ad lib speeches during the '68 campaign, and the media would be given a list of themes he planned to cover.
General comments
  • How are the sources reliable? I see that most are newspaper articles from relatively minor newspapers, I assume AP or UPI pickups, but do contemporary sources know all the facts regarding Nixon's campaign, really? Additionally, I see, for example, footnote 102 is sourced to Black's bio of Nixon ... the entire volume. I also see McGinniss's book, ditto. Also, how are news articles from the time really better than, say, more recent Nixon biographies, of which there are several? (independent of the source review below, but coming to the same conclusions). Not all of them seem pure news articles, Evans & Novak were more of a Washington insider column; do they pass WP:RS? Some of the accessdates are day month year though most are month day year.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really concerned that the sourcing and comprehensiveness issues are going to overwhelm this FAC. Possibly they can be fixed during the course of this, but I don't know. One difficulty with the present sourcing is that newspapers are necessarily limited to what they may know from scanty sources at the time, and they are sometimes wrong. Much of the use of newspapers here for the details of the campaign that might escape a biographer is admirable, but I'm worried that, as Wasted Time R, some of the "big picture" (the aides, Haldeman, etc., that when as unclear to the public then as, say, who the inside mover and shakers of Hillary Clinton's campaign now and what they are advising her (perhaps more so then). I should add that, whatever is done, I will be happy to continue to offer feedback and make copyedits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Romney

The treatment of George Romney's campaign could use a little work. The first poll for the 1968 Republican nomination, taken in November 1966, showed Romney ahead of Nixon. Nixon considered Romney his chief opponent during these early stages. But Romney was a lousy campaigner at the presidential level; by January 1967 Romney fell about 10 points behind Nixon, which is about where he remained through August 1967. Then came Romney's "brainwashing" remark at the end of August, after which he fell 25 points or more behind. By the time Romney withdrew at the end of February 1968, his cause was hopeless. See George W. Romney (an FA article that I'm the primary contributer to) for a table showing the poll numbers and for the cites for all this. In terms of this article, I think you should include the first poll and Nixon's view of Romney as his chief opponent, and also clarify that the 'brainwashing' remark was not right before the New Hampshire primary, which is how it reads now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The article sourcing is very newspaper-oriented. There's nothing wrong with newspaper accounts, but the omission of the 'standard' book account of the campaign, Theodore H. White's The Making of the President 1968, is surprising. Moreover, many biographies of Nixon have been written – Richard Nixon#Bibliography shows a number of them – but only a couple are referenced here and then only a handful of times. Books will often give a deeper perspective on campaigns than newspaper accounts.

Cites and formatting

The formatting of the cites has a few issues relative to usual FAC standards:
Book cite page number prefixed by "p." while newspaper cite page numbers are bare
Some all caps in story titles that should be normalized for our use
McGinnis book site inconsistent between footnote and Bibliography, should use long form/short form
No need for location in newspaper titles that already contain it (e.g. Los Angeles Times)
Mostly mdy dates but a few iso dates
Inconsistent formatting in External links section
Also a checklinks run shows some problems that are usually supposed to be resolved during FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing or unsure things

Some coverage as aspects of the campaign seem to be missing or unsure, compared to what I would have expected:
No mention of the role this campaign played in the development of the "Southern strategy". The presence of Wallace complicates things a bit, but Nixon did win some of the southern states.
No section, or list in the infobox, or much of a discussion, of who the top campaign staff were. Campaign articles almost always include this. It's especially worth mentioning figures who later became well known like Haldeman, who gets a lot of mentions in the White 1968 book.
Same, for his policy team. It might be worth including that Kissinger was not one of them (he was a Rockefeller man).
I think the term 'October surprise' is an anachronism? I don't remember it being used until the 1980 election.
There needs to be more of a discussion of Nixon's proposed approach towards the Vietnam War. What was his attitude before the Tet Offensive? After? Legend has it that he said he had a "secret plan" to end the war – did he really say this and if so, how and when?
Did he really use the phrase "silent majority" during the campaign? This Nixon Library page says it came in November 1969, a year later. I don't see it in the August 16, 1968 Time magazine piece that's used as a cite.
Why is Senator Percy mentioned in the lead as a challenger? He wasn't. The White 1968 book barely mentions him. The only three challengers worth mentioning are Romney, Rockefeller, and Reagan.
The vice presidential selection discussion is disjointed and inadequate. In an earlier section it mentions Lindsay, Hatfield, Bush, and Percy as possibilities, then in the Convention section Agnew suddenly appears. It needs a better discussion than this, see White 1968 pp. 249–253. Robert Finch turned down a hard offer earlier, then the decision lingered until the final day of the convention, when Finch turned down another offer. John A. Volpe and Agnew were the last two left on the short list.
The word "percent" is missing two. In FAC level articles and per MOS:PERCENT, that should be used instead of "%", unless it's in a table or infobox.
Was any exit polling done of the general election? Are there any demographic breakdowns for how well Nixon did with men vs women, whites vs non-whites, young vs old, etc?
Where does Nixon's campaign and victory fit within the history of party nominations? 1968 is right around the inflection point of old-style nomination battles turning into primaries-dominated contests. The Cohen et al book The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform probably has some good material on this.
That's it for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2015 (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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2015 [23].

Ontario Highway 427

[edit]
Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second busiest freeway in Canada. I recently put subjected this to ACR so it should be pretty polished. Hopefully it will attract more attention than my previous nomination Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Floydian, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize, as you'll see on my talk page I did not notice that stipulation, but when I was informed, I requested a hall pass since my last FAC only failed due to going stale. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cobblet

[edit]
Lead
  • How does one define "four-level interchange"? This only appears in the lead and isn't explained in the text, and looking at the interchanges themselves I'm not sure how one arrives at such a conclusion. Is there a source for this terminology? Stack interchange suggests that there's only one such interchange in Canada, the 407-400 interchange. And if they're not four-level interchanges then I'm not sure they're all that notable as the construction of the Allen Road-401 interchange (for example) predates the 1967-1971 timeline given (although the History section seems to suggest these interchanges did exist earlier in perhaps a less complex configuration – perhaps this could be clarified).
  • Run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the lead (the second sentence). Rexdale refers to northern Etobicoke, not western; the reference to it should be removed. Also is Claireville big enough to be worth mentioning? Maybe the newly built suburb of Ebenezer, Brampton is a better choice?
  • Reference 2 (the MTO AADT counts pdf) is broken.
Route description
  • "QEW / Gardiner Expressway" does not always appear with a spaced slash. Frankly I'm not sure this construction is necessary in the situations where it's used in this article – is there a problem with referring to them as two distinct expressways? If you're trying to allude to the fact this section of the Gardiner used to be part of the QEW, I'm not sure that's necessary either.
  • While the statement at the end of the second paragraph is undoubtedly true, pointing to a road map as a reference for the intentions of the people who designed the highway is inappropriate.
  • Actually, unlike the 401, the design of the 427 inherently limits vehicles to the appropriate carriageway because there aren't numerous transfers between the two. I do see what you mean however, and I'll see if I can find a good source for this. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever I've heard the expression "The Basketweave" on Toronto traffic radio it's always referring to the one on the 401. I think MapArt maps also explicitly label the 401 structure as such, but not the 427 one. Suggest removing if no reliable source can be found for referring to this structure as "the Basketweave", particularly since the wikilink redirects to the article on the 401.
  • "from express to collector lanes, or vice versa" seems clumsy. How about "between express and collector lanes"?
  • Avoid the use of "complicated" and "sprawling" to describe interchanges unless there are reliable sources for these labels. The complexity of these interchanges can be expressed without resorting to peacock words – for example it could be noted that the 427-401 interchange is essentially a six-way interchange between the 427, 401, Highway 27 and the Richview Expressway stub. Also the source for the size of the 427-401 interchange given in the History section should be given here too.
  • By "demarcation line" do you mean the municipal boundary? This is also mentioned at the beginning of the next paragraph.
  • "as it drains" should more precisely be "where it drains". Also this is the West Humber, not the Humber itself, as noted in the History section.
  • "undeveloped area" – judging from the latest satellite maps this no longer seems accurate.
  • Expressions like "two-lane" and "four-lane" should be consistently hyphenated.
History
  • For clarity, "minister" should be "Minister of Transportation".
  • The heading "Upgrade to Collector-Express" might be better phrased as "Upgrade to collector-express system" or simply "Widening".
  • "the largest interchange in Canada" – at the time, or is this still true?
  • "Dixon/Airport Road" should take a spaced slash.
  • What does "defaulted" mean here?
  • I don't think "left-turn" needs a hyphen.
  • Weird that you mention the dates of construction of the interchanges with the 409 and 407 in the lead but not in this section.
Future
  • I believe the construction of HOV lanes is currently ongoing, so use the present tense.
Exit list
  • "north (700 m (2,300 ft))" - maybe "north for 700 m (2,300 ft)" to avoid the double parentheses.

Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a number of fixes, with replies presented indented above. Still have a few points to address yet. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Floydian, I was about to archive this as abandoned but I see you're currently active; what is happening with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I completely forgot about this combined with a very very busy IRL right now. Can you give me until the end of Monday? I've bookmarked this for top priority! - Floydian τ ¢ 05:12, 9 August 2015 (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) 08:29, 8 August 2015 [24].

List of Norwich City F.C. managers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Políticaydeporte (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a list and a description of managers that trained the first team of the Norwich City Football Club, a football club based in Norwich. Políticaydeporte (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest speedy close – I believe this is a list. Secondly, the nominator has zero edits (to the article) to his credit. Doesn't look like they had consulted the principal contributors either. —Vensatry (ping) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- regardless of the question of the article format and the nominator's involvement or lack thereof, the number of fact tags alone nullify this nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2015 (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) 06:46, 8 August 2015 [25].

Money Inc.

[edit]
Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional wrestling tag team. It has been a Good Article for several years, and it should be featured because it is complete, reliably sourced, and well written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Right, I'll take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, in the Formation it sorta jumps straight into it. Can we have some context? How did these two folks get together? Whose idea was it? (I'd put the last sentence of the para first, which would help, but it still doesn't give me any background...) yeah that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thinking about it some more - I still don't know why they are a team - the company just decided they were having tag teams so paired everyone up? Or what? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


''Money Inc. defended their title against The Natural Disasters at WrestleMania VIII and lost the match by countout. - a date would help give some idea of time related to the previous section - was this days, weeks or months later?
This result repeated itself on television and at house shows. - I have no idea what this means here. now needs a cite
...the Legion of Doom got a rematch... (too casual)
Ted DiBiase wrestled a match against Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake. - sounds weird, why not just "Ted DiBiase wrestled against Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake."
fter failing to regain the WWF Tag Team Championship, Money Inc. went into a feud with Razor Ramon. - too casual - "began a feud with.."
the In wrestling section is uncited. Would be better as prose and the moves discussed and elaborated upon. ok, if that's the format so be it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm reading it and it jumps around - there is not enough context in several bits to give me an idea of what's going on. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the "Formation" section, but very little behind-the-scenes information is ever shared. I added a date for WrestleMania, and changed the rematch "wrestled a match against", and "went into a feud" parts. It is standard in all professional wrestling articles for the "In wrestling" section to be in list form. I'll try to add a bit of context to improve the flow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the "result repeated itself" statement and sourced the "In wrestling" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by starship.paint

[edit]

Here we go - in return for your comments on WK9: starship.paint ~ KO 09:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite last sentence in lede ... ... have made one-off appearances on special episodes of Raw?
  • Source needed for The teams faced each other in rematches on television and at house shows with the same result.
  • Rename second subsection to Initial Tag Team Championships?
  • Rename third subsection to Feud with The Mega-Maniacs?
  • From reading Brutus Beefcake#Parasailing accident and return (1990–1993), it seems that it was not true that Beefcake was wrestling his first match in over three years
  • 2007 reunion's source has changed - exact page needed.
  • 2010 reunion needs sourcing.
  • For the signatures ... the source doesn't mention explicitly that they are signatures. Just says that they performed the moves.
  • DiBiase is listed as holding the Million Dollar Championship... but the article never actually says how the belt relates to the team.
  • Picture of Jimmy Hart please.
  • Wrestlecrap.com is acceptable as a source, GaryColemanFan? starship.paint ~ KO 03:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence rewritted, source added for repeated result, third subsection renamed, Beefcake statement changed, 2007 reunion cited with archived link, Million Dollar Championship explained, Jimmy Hart picture added (if someone wants to move the images around, I'm not offended). Wrestlecrap is a reliable source, as R.D. Reynolds has published multiple wrestling-themed books with ECW Press (no relation to the other ECW) and is an accepted industry expert. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, I will be away for about a week. I would like to make the remaining changes, so I would appreciate it if this candidacy could be kept open until I have a chance to get back to it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some copyediting, and I'm still working on this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. I've been working on the Roddy Piper article to get it up to standards for the Recent Deaths feature. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- noted the preceding but this has been open a long time and is not in any case progressing towards consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive it and you can bring it back after two weeks or when you've done your copyediting and other work (whichever is later). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2015 (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) 06:39, 8 August 2015 [26].

Graduados

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. The previous FAC was closed simply by lack of reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by SuperMarioMan

  • Infobox image caption: This is almost as large as the image itself, and arguably overlong given that Template:Infobox television contains a "Starring" parameter. Is there any way that it could be shortened?
  • Past/present tense: A recurrent (but minor) issue is the article's use of past tense to describe in-universe detail. Example sentences include "The resulting parental dispute, the love triangle of the main characters and 1980s nostalgia were frequent plot elements, and story arcs related to school bullying and LGBT rights were also featured." (in the lead section) and "The plots included characters and situations for all ages, and the series' general tone was family-friendly." (Reception). As with the plot section, these should really be in the present.
    • Other examples: "although it was primarily a comedy" (Production); "also suggested that the show's structure invited viewers to compare their lives with the plans they made when they were younger" (Production)
  • "Graduados was broadly successful, prevailing in the ratings over the blockbuster competitive dance program Showmatch and the telenovela Sos mi hombre." (lead section). For "broadly", do you mean "widely" (they're not synonymous)? "Broadly", meaning "largely" or "generally", seems ill-fitting given the stated ratings and awards successes. What does "blockbuster" mean in this context?
  • "Although Graduados (written by Ernesto Korovsky, Silvina Frejdkes and Alejandro Quesada) was primarily a comedy ..." (Production) – reads awkwardly. It would be better to state the writers' names elsewhere, outside brackets.
  • "Los Pericos sent a cease and desist letter to the production team and complained on Twitter about the episode, with Bahiano dismissing their reaction as jealousy." "with ... -ing" is an awkward construction. This may work better as two sentences.
    • Presumably they complained because the show featured their music without their consent. Is that correct? This point could be made a little more explicit.
  • Reception section: There is plenty of useful information about viewing figures and awards, but very little about critical reception. Are there any print or online television reviews of Graduados that could be summarised and presented here?
  • Audience ratings: Do you know how many viewers (in thousands or millions) a "point" equates to? (If this kind of information isn't available, no worries.)
  • "This was the first fictional same-sex marriage on Argentine television since it was legalized, reflected the growing acceptance of sexual freedom in Argentina." When was it legalised?
  • Cast section: This consists solely of a table, which should probably be re-written as prose using the "actor as character" style. Also, shouldn't this section be further up the page? Its positioning between "Reception" and "Other media" is a little unusual; immediately after the plot section seems the most natural place for it.

I'll post some other comments and suggestions after re-reading the article a few more times. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images. Overall, these seem fine. However, I would recommend that File:Graduados2.jpg be resized, as 804 x 533 pixels / 146 KB is not really low resolution. (This can be done automatically if you apply Template:Non-free reduce.) The fair-use rationale looks reasonable enough (because the make-up seems worthy of illustration), although I do wonder whether some editors might object to the appearance of two non-free cast photos (this plus the infobox image) within the same article. I don't think that there's any problem, but more opinions are needed.
  • Is there any relevant information that could be moved to the top of the "Features" subsection, between the headings "Features" and "Drama"? Empty subsections look a bit out of place. On a side note, "Recurring elements" may be a better title.
  • How long was each episode? (This should be added to the infobox.) SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done most things, except for the Cast table. If I write it as prose, I would be basically rewriting the "plot" section (which is already a general description of the characters and their relations). Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this review hasn't really gone anywhere in a month-and-a-half, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2015 (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) 06:24, 8 August 2015 [27].

Ununseptium

[edit]
Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article about a very rare substance that does not naturally exist; 15 atoms have been synthesized in total since 2010, all decaying away in less than a second. The article is short, yet quite complete. The subject is quite technical, but I hope the article is readable; some efforts have been applied to assure that. The previous FAC highlighted problems in prose quality; this article has been copyedited (and updated) since then, so it should be okay in that respect now. Your comments are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the summary above revealed the interesting detail about the number of atoms that have been synthesized, which I had missed in a couple of read-throughs of the article. I have added this to the lede. YBG (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have the most recent element to be discovered. I am certain that the global criteria (1d, 1e, 3 and 4) are satisfied; the prose criteria are mostly OK, though I have some qualms with the weight given to the two major topics (while 2c follows from citation templates, 2b is satisfied if the naming section is subsumed into history and 2a seems questionable given the higher weight on history rather than characteristics in the lead, though I'll pass over this for now). Criteria 1abc I haven't looked over yet; I have made some unifying edits in the meantime. Parcly Taxel 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time. Your edits have been good so far; thanks for them as well. Naming was a separate section mainly because that's how things are in ununoctium, which is an long-standing FA. In general, I agree it belongs with after-discovery recognition. Regarding weight on topics in the lead, I think the history part is just the right size, but we have little data about this element, and while I'd like to expand this part, it's hardly possible. I mentioned the relativistic effects and added one sentence on oxidation states, but there's nothing more to say. We have too little data on chemistry (so we can't add generalized info, and adding separate bits of info is, you know, going into detail, not the right thing for the lead), and about physics, the situation is basically the same (we could add a couple of figures, but that is just going into detail as well).--R8R (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "only eight atoms have been synthesized," I think this is inaccurate. The synthesis of 8 has been recorded and reported. In theory more were possibly synthesized but detectors didn't catch them.
    Fair enough. I went with "have been synthesized and reported."
  • "The original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012" but 8 atoms were from 6 in 2010 and 2 in 2014. if it was successful why weren't any produced in 2012?
    A great one. Seven more atoms were produced in 2012.
  • "The beam is made in Russia " shouldn't this be past, or "would have been made"?
    Sure, let's go with past.
  • "The resulting nuclei become " there is something wrong with either the tense of the linking of this to the previous sentence
    I agree; I'll check the article history.
    I changed wording a bit; hopefully it's okay now.
  • "target would no " => would have?
    I agree; as a side note, this sentence has always been phrased somewhat differently, this must be a recent change I missed
  • "would remain " => would have remained?
    Same as above
  • "the world's most powerful for the synthesis of superheavy elements" is this true?
    Actually, this statement is intended to mean, "world's most powerful as of the experiment", I'll use another wording.
    I think I originally saw this statement in the press release dedicated to the discovery, but I can't find it, so I removed it. The current source only says, "one of the most powerful."
  • "matching their previous results" => how many new atoms did they get?
    Seven.
  • side question: how much "weaker" is the Darmstadt accelerator?
    I don't exactly know, but I'll check that. I remember reading some plans from the Darmstadt team to get a still more powerful accelerator; maybe their 2014 experiment was conducted using it.
    I can't find an exact answer. I've found that the Dubna accelerator deals with energies within the range of 3–29 MeV/nucleon; I can't find the press release, I think it may have to do with total maximum energies rather than per-nucleon ones, but since it can't be made sure (for now, at least), we'll go without it.
  • the chart image should clarify that known isotopes are those in framed squares
    Sure.
  • can the eV scale be rotated vertically?
    Yes: File:Valence_atomic_energy_levels_for_At_and_Uus.svg. The image was originally vertically aligned, and the change for horizontal aligning came later. It was made because the original image is disturbingly long, so it may not even fit into screen if your monitor resolution is low (unless we consider low scale, but then labels would be hard to read). Not great, really.
It is an svg, so all it needs is scale all the text 3x and it will look ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the file. I doubled the font size; however, I am somewhat doubtful if a change from the current horizontal file to an update vertical one would be an improvement at all. However, if you wouldn't agree with me, feel free to make the change or just let me know.
  • "The +7 state has not been shown—even computationally—to exist" if you put such atoms in very high fields you can ionize them beyond their valence electrons. I think the statement before should be fine-tuned a bit. Unless the ionization energy is so high that you break the nucleus apart (which should be way higher in energy imo) it does exist at least in theory
    Agreed.
  • what is the ionic radius of Uus anion?
    Do you have an answer in mind? I generally agree this article could use more data, too bad so little is available at all. I'm sure that if I had seen a figure that important, I would've included it.
  • the decay chart in inaccurate since it is missing the Lw-266 path
    I sincerely believe it's better to show just the decay chain we already have (so it could support the text, since it is located near the part on discovery), and change the caption to match the context. So I went with "Decay chain of the ununseptium nuclei produced in the original experiment."
Meah, it is fine but see File:Ununoctium-294_nuclear.svg for a model to include both if you change your mind. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact these isotopes are not really needed, such updates would need to be made each time someone synthesizes another isotope the original nuclides, Uus-293 and Uus-294, could decay to. Like, say, Mt-277, which was first synthesized in 2012 as a decay product of Uus-293. So, to make sure the article is correct, someone would need to keep track in news on superheavy isotopes, especially now that ununseptium news won't be as important as they used to (the element is not as new as it was in 2010 or 2014 anymore). Sure, I get it we would need to keep track on news on whether the 2012 Dubna application is recognized by IUPAC or not, because it's an important part of the story for the element. The exact end of the alpha decay chain isn't.

Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments, thanks for taking your time. I'll try to reply to them sometime soon, hopefully tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TIAYN

[edit]
  • IUPAC is mentioned six times throughout the article, and IUPAP once, but only in abbreviated form.... What about International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)/International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Joint Working Party, or alternately the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics?
    That's true; I went with "the Joint Working Party (JWP) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics"
  • What about removing "so" in ""Once it is so recognized".. "Once it is recognized" reads easier, and "so" doesn't contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence.
    Sure, why not
  • "The Russian team desired to use berkelium"—while its not grammatically incorrect, desire is an emotional term. You can desire someone emotionally.. It seem strange to desire to use berkelium; what about "The Russian team sought to use berkelium"?
    A good one, changed to "sought"
  • "After this period, half of the target would have no longer been berkelium"... "would have no longer been berkelium" seems awkward, but since I don't know anything about this, that might be the best way to explain it?
    The idea is, each type of radioactive (IOW, decaying over time) atoms has a period called "half-life", after which one half of those atoms would decay and therefore no longer be the type of atoms they used to be. (After a second half-life, a half of the remaining half decays away, so only a half of the remaining half---one quarter---is left, and so on.) If you think there's a way to rephrase this, I'm open for suggestions
  • "As of 2015, no official permanent name has been suggested for ununseptium" -> As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium or As of 2015, no permanent name has been given for ununseptium
    I used the first suggestion
  • You explain island of stability twice.. First as " island of stability, a concept wherein some super-heavy atoms can be relatively stable" and then "This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted"... One would suffice...
    Agreed; I introduced the term to the lead and focused the explanation on the second section. Thanks for bringing my attention to this
  • "Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element of all created so" -> Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element created so far
    Agreed
  • "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" — why use "especially"?
    The effect discussed in this sentence does occur for other elements, and it becomes stronger as atoms become heavier. It could be said these effects are strong for the heavy elements (as opposed to the "superheavy" elements, like the one this article is about), such as lead or mercury, because they affect their properties (for example, this is the ultimate reason why gold is yellow or mercury is liquid); they are supposed to affect the superheavy atoms even stronger. In general, this is the reason why some properties/actions have a degree in the text, while they wouldn't have one in most other situations
      • OK... Reword from "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" ->The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much quicker". ... The sentence is grammatically incorrect... I would also like to remove "much".. Its a filler word, and really, since as a reader you don't inform how much quicker it is, quicker would suffice. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I see your point regarding "much." As for "quick," I just consulted a dictionary, it suggests "faster" should be better, so it becomes "because their electrons move faster."
  • You still have not fixed the sentence, it still reads "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons"; that is grammatically incorrect. Should be "The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much faster"... --TIAYN (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to make it clear: it's not about the elements being strong, it's about the effect being strong. Here's the sentence in context: "Significant differences are likely to arise; a large contributor to the effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster—at velocities comparable to the speed of light—than those in lighter atoms." I would say it is quite clear the "it" in the beginning of the second sentence refers to the SO interaction; if you disagree, please suggest a way to rephrase this.
        • What about; Since their electrons move faster (moving at a velocity "comparable to the speed of light"), the electrons in superheavy elements are more powerful than those in lighter atoms" or Since their electrons move faster (moving at a velocity "comparable to the speed of light"), the superheavy elements are more powerful than those in lighter atoms. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          Nobody refers to the elements or electrons as "powerful," and I don't even think that's what you could read from my original wording... I tried, however, to prevent anyone from making the mistake, trying, "a large contributor to the effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. The SO interaction is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster..."
  • "Because the 7s electrons are very stabilized, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons" -> "Because the 7s electrons are stable, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons"
    I'm somewhat reluctant to make this change. This is not some binary "stable/unstable" we're talking about (unlike, say, atoms: they may be either stable or unstable/radioactive, although the latter term also allows some differentiation based on how quickly they decay); moreover, this is a theory (as you can see from the title "Predicted properties"), it matches the current data and is totally believable by current measures, but no one has actually checked if that's true because no one can at the moment (although some want), and "are stable" seems somewhat even less tolerant to objections that the current line. Not to mention it was explained just before this sentence what might've stabilized the electrons in question.
  • "This molecule is significantly stabilized by the SO interactions" -> This molecule is stabilized by the SO interactions
    Again, I wouldn't move to the binary "stabilized/not stabilized" because this effect exists even for much lighter atoms to a much smaller degree, and there is some difference between those cases
  • What's an SO interaction?
    At the moment, we have "the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin," and I'm afraid to go deeper into this, because this may scare readers away and could actually be a little off-topic here
  • Notes a, b & c are not referenced.
  • :I wonder why the unreferenced note d is okay with you :) But there is a reason. This is not the first time I'm asked to provide references for phrases like this. But the problem is, it is very difficult; as you can read from those notes, they're not discussing some facts (unlike the note e, which is referenced), they're discussing some nomenclature, they explain what some complex terms/symbols mean. One by one:
    • a: says two terms do not denote the same set of elements by definition. This one is difficult to cite; I've tried this before and didn't succeed. Give me a couple of days to see if this is doable.
      I have finally found the kind of info I wanted, so I added a ref.
    • b: some readers may not understand these reaction equations, so an explanation how to read those is provided. I argue no ref is needed. The reference for equations themselves is provided.
    • c: this note is just explaining what the ns2np5 construct even means. However, it's good you brought my attention to this; I just added a reference for the formula itself.
    • d: this note is explaining (very briefly, because that would be a long and somewhat off-topic text if it were to be completely explained) the concept of the azimuthal quantum number. I argue no ref is needed. The fact this note is helping explain is referenced.
    • What I don't get is, lets take note b, you say its referenced by ref 10, but why don't you include ref 10 in the note?
      I'll try to explain the idea behind this, but have in mind I don't pretend to be a qualified expert at this (so if you're reading this and saying, "Well, then you're certainly using ref placing wrong!", I won't argue).
      Suppose we have a quote from, say, Henry VIII, and we list it. We provide a reference, but then we realize English was quite different back then from Modern English, and not all readers may be able to understand it or it's just too hard, and we're providing an translation into Modern English in a note. This is basically the same thing: those equations are the information we're discussing, but since we may expect not all readers will be able to read them, a note is providing info on how to read these lines. I didn't add the ref to the note because that information is just common knowledge in the area. It is not directly supported by the ref; just everyone who works with this is super common with this, they even teach this at schools. I mention this because not everyone remembers what they were taught at schools (including myself in some other subjects).--R8R (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article's content, it seems good (but I don't know, this isn't exactly my field of expertise). --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, its a good article—I've learnt something new by reading.. I'll take a second look at it tomorrow (or Saturday–depends when I have time) to make sure I didn't miss anything... --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that's exactly the kind of reaction I wanted to get from a reader not all that familiar with atomic physics or chemistry :) --R8R (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, other problems pilled up.
  • Using the term "original experiment" alot in the lead. How about spicing up the language?
    Yeah... better now?
    • Good; not a huge thing, but ending a sentence with "experiment" and beginning the next with "The experiment" makes the text less fun to read. While the text is important, good writing is why people bother to write in the first place... But no biggy--TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration, making it the most recently discovered element as of 2015. → "The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration. As of 2015, it is the most recent discovered element."?
    I think this would kind of break the chronology. "Ununseptium was synthesized in 2010. It is the most recent as of 2015. One of its daughters was created directly in 2011. The synthesis was repeated in 2012 and 2014. No comment on recognition by IUPAC as of 2015." The current wording isn't perfect either, so I tried to follow the hronology of the events we cite; should be OK?
    • It does not make sense; "It is the most recent as of 2015"? I know what you mean, but other won't.... What about: Ununseptium was synthesized in 2010 and, as of 2015, is the most recent discovered element. One of its daughters was created in 2011. The synthesis was repeated in 2012 and 2014. IUPAC has not recognized it as of 2015... OK?
      I tried to do this
  • "Once it is recognized, the discoverers will receive the right to give the element a permanent name" → "If recognized, the discoveres will be empowered to give the element an official name (ununseptium" is a temporary systematic element name)?"
    I can agree on the wording thing, but I don't want to parenthesize the part regarding the current name... it's important to explain where the current name came from, too important for parentheses
    • What about; If recognized, the discoveres will be empowered to give the element an official name. Ununseptium is a temporary name.
      I don't want to hide the link to "systematic element name" under just "temporary name," because it might be unclear otherwise where the link leads to (concept of temporary names in general, or just superheavies-related ones?) However, I changed the punctuation a bit to match your suggestion
  • You explain Island of Stability both in the lead, and the body... What about just the lead, or the first place its mentioned in the body?
    I've always held the lead for comparably separate from the rest of the article (a reader may either skip the lead, if they're going to read the whole thing anyway, or skip the body, if they just need to get the basic idea of what the article is about), so I give a super short description in the lead section (which could have easily been skipped if the term was self-descriptive, like Ministry of Supervision), and then go into detail in the part of the article where the whole concept of stability of the element is discussed in detail.
    • I agree somewhat, but if you're going to summarise in the lead you should dumb it down by not mentioning the island of stability but rather explain it without mentioning the concept (if that made sense). --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this and the next comments are somewhat contradictory to each other :( please clarify to me (I tried to address the next comment, though). And why shouldn't we mention the concept, one of the basic concepts used in research on superheavy elements
  • "Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept in which some superheavy elements may be more stable than expected otherwise; the synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds. " → Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept which tries to explain why some superheavy elements are more stable than expected. The synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds
    I think it's okay for colloquial speech, but in a serious text, I wouldn't say a concept tries to do anything. And I think it's great we use a semicolon, because the two facts ("ununseptium may be located in the island of stability" and "the synthesized atoms have lasted tens and hundreds of microseconds") are super-closely related; the Dubna team believes these results serve as definite proof of the existence of the "island of stability," as we say in a caption to a picture
    • What about Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept that explains why some superheavy elements are more stable than expected. The synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds..OKish? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried it; not yet sure if dropping the semicolon is right, but I agree on the new suggestion otherwise
  • Unlike the halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states → Unlike halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states
    Why? We did mention the word "halogens" just a sentence ago, and it's a small finite set of elements.
  • In 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed an experiment to synthesize element 117—so-called for the 117 protons in its nucleus—that required fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam. .... Did the JINR propose a joint experiment with ORNL? It could easily be mentioned here.
    Yeah, a great suggestion, added.
    • What about "In 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed a joint experiment with the American Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to synthesize element 117—so-called for the 117 protons in its nucleus—that required fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam...?
      Done (except I didn't neglect the ORNL's hometown)
  • However, the team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in the United States—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not then provide any, citing a lack of production of the exotic material → However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, claiming they hadn't produced enough. ... The last sentence is also awkward, but at least I understand it...
    see below
  • "The Russian team sought to use berkelium—an element they could not access—because calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such a neutron excess." → The Russian team sought to use berkelium since calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such neutron excess" ... You've already stated that the Americans were unwilling to send berkelium to the Russians...
    A reader might ask, "Then why wouldn't they try some other reaction with an element they could access?" I'm trying to emphasize the importance of calcium-48 by this.
  • "Thanks to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability." → Due to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability, (explain it here maybe?)"
    I never actually had the idea. A great suggestion, I'll try to do that after I'm done with the other points.
    I gave it a try, I hope I made it understandable (although you might have ideas on how to improve prose).
  • Suddenly you write "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team".. So with this "citing a lack of production of the exotic material" you were trying to say that However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, stating they had temporarily ceased production."?
    That'll do. Also, I added the town the ORNL is located in to the sentence.
  • "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days and in another 90 days was chemically purified" → They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.
    I won't fight for this to death (so if you still disagree, I'll easily follow; actually, this is true for many points I meet with some initial doubt), but this seems somewhat illogical. If we make the change, the fragment would be "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team.[5] The production resulted in 22 milligrams of berkelium; enough to perform the experiment.[12] They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[13]" That "they" seems to be somewhat far away from defining what the pronoun means.
    • What about: "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team.[5] The production resulted in 22 milligrams of berkelium; enough to perform the experiment.[12] The Russians cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[13]" ... Use Russians, and not Russian team—spice up the language.. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The cooling and the purifying both happened in the U.S. (I think this is clear from the text and the order of events we list), so it would have to be "In 2008, the American team resumed production of berkelium;[1] they produced 22 milligrams of berkelium, enough to perform the experiment.[2] The Americans cooled the berkelium for 90 days and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[3]" Doesn't sound all that great to me (but if you say it's okay, I won't resist)
  • The berkelium target had to be quickly transported to Russia because the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is only 330 days.. → The berkelium had to be transported to Russia as quickly as possible, since the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is 330 days.... What does ", the isotope of berkelium produced" mean? Are you saying that the berkelium produced isotopes have a half-life of 330 days?
    All isotopes of an element are named by the name of the element, followed by its mass number separated by a hyphen. "Berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced" means "berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium that was produced," but that just seemed to be too wordy to me. I'll try "berkelium-249, the produced isotope of berkelium," it should be clear?
  • "If the experiment had not begun within six months of the target's departure, insufficient quantities of the quickly decaying berkelium would have remained for the experiment" → For the experiment to succeed, it had to begin within six months of its departure from the United States since to much of the berkelium would have decayed during the given period."
    Done
  • Despite advanced preparation for the journey, Russian customs officials twice refused to let the target enter the country because of missing or incomplete paperwork. → Despite preparing the journey in advance, Russian custom officials refused the target to enter the country twice because of missing or incomplete paperwork."
    Agreed, done
    • You haven't actually done it. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Come to think of that, the suggested version sounds like the customs officials were the subject of preparing for the journey; that wasn't the case
  • The target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times over a few days → Over the span of a few days, the target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times... Why?
    Done.
    If I correctly understand the question "Why?", then here's the deal. The target was first transported to Russia (first travel over the Atlantic Ocean), then in a Moscow airport, Russian customs didn't permit the target's entrance into the country because of bureaucracy, so it had to fly back to New York (second), the scientists worked on documents so this would not happen a second time, and gave it a second try (third), Russian customs again didn't allow the target to enter the country, and it had to fly back again (fourth), then in NY, scientists worked on documents again and gave it a third try (fifth), and finally the customs were documents were okay with documents, and the target was successfully imported into Russia. (If I got it wrong, please, specify the question.)
  • On its arrival in Russia, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film → On its arrival, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film.... I don't understand what "fixed on a thin titanium film" is, care to explain in the text?
    I tried to do so in the body
    • But this is the first and only place in the article you mention thin titanium film... --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I wish I knew how to rephrase this, but I don't understand what the problem even is :( The thin titanium film is a thin layer of titanium, if that was the question, and "film" is used to avoid the layer--layer repetition
  • It then went to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator... Its not a mammal, it can't move... → From there it was transported to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator.
    Ha ha, you're right! Except I used "It was then transported to Dubna..." because "from there" seems to be a somewhat redundant phrase to me
  • "On April 9, 2010, an official report was released in the journal Physical Review Letters identifying the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds, formed as follows" → On April 9, 2010, a report by the journal Physical Review Letters identified the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds. They were formed as follows
    Agreed.
    • You havn't actually done it yet. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, a second thought made me rethink this... the report was published by the journal, but it was authored by the discoverers, and the journal recognized they were the authors and did not try to be the author instead
  • All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] so their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery → All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] therefore their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery.
    Yeah, I agree.
  • In 2011, when one of the decay products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium → In 2011, when one of the decayed products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"... I'm not sure what you mean about "its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"...
    The thing is, after they synthesized ununseptium in 2010, ununseptium-293 decayed to form ununpentium-289 (which was not known at the time as well), and after ununpentium-289 decayed, the scientists were able to measure some of its decay properties (how long ununpentium lasted, type of the decay, amount of energy released after the decay, etc.). After they created ununpentium-289 directly in 2011 and then it decayed, its decay properties matched those measured in 2010. I don't know how to reword this, I thought it was clear; please make some suggestions.
  • "The discoverers did not submit a claim for the discovery of ununseptium in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." ... You really like the word discover, don't you? .. Let's try: "The discoverers of ununseptium did not submit a claim for their findings in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." It still one discover to many, but better..
    Agreed
  • The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results of the experiment matched the previous results;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper → The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results matched the previous outcome;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper... What are " a new element registration paper"?
    Good one, thanks. The paper is a formal paper for the IUPAC, in which the authors declare they've synthesized a new element, try to prove the results they got could not mean anything else, and appeal to the committee in order to get recognized as the discoverers.
    • What about a note which defines "registration papers"? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we'll be better off by just using better wordings, like what I tried to do in this case. "filed an application to register the element" -- hopefully this is clear?
  • On May 2, 2014, a joint German-American collaboration of scientists from the ORNL and the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery → On May 2, 2014, a joint collaboration by the American ORNL and the German GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery
    I think it would be somewhat unfair to neglect the GSI location, because we mention the locations of both Russian and American institutes, and because "Darmstadt" is often used as a specifier for GSI in the field, similarly to how "Dubna" is used as a specifier for JINR.
    • What about; On May 2, 2014, a joint collaboration by the American ORNL and the German GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research (in Darmstadt, Germany) claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? We have referred to the ORNL as "the American team" a couple of times before this sentence, it's surely clear (besides, "German GSI (in Darmstadt, Germany)"?)
  • As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium → As of 2015, no official name has been given for ununseptium
  • :Suggesting a name to be used as official is not equivalent to establishing it as such, and the two may be separated by years; for example, there are suggested names for ununtrium, none of which is official, and there were the so-called Transfermium Wars, which was a long-lasting debate between American, Soviet, and German physicists on who synthesized some elements first and, therefore, how they should be named.
    • OK.
  • According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the permanent names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine → According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine
    Sure

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been open well over six week without approaching consensus for promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2015 (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) 06:30, 8 August 2015 [28].

Tank Girl (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1995 science fiction action comedy film. Truly one of a kind; people either love it or don't get it at all. I've loved it since the first time I watched it as a child. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Yeah good point, I added four more reviews. Better? (Haha yeah you either love it or hate it, you don't find many people sitting on the fence about this one lol)Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Editorofthewiki: Found a tiny bit more info, specifically what it grossed in its opening weekend, but it wasn't much. I've merged it with above section. There's plenty of sources that give the box office results a line or two of comment, saying it "tanked at the box office' or something similar etc, do you think I should add a sentence like that or just leave it as the raw facts? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the box office performance is concerned, it's a small problem that only the US gross is listed. The IMDb gives a figure for the worldwide gross, and while I know we can't cite that page it does at least tell us that the information is out there somewhere. Fortunately, Variety has something I don't think would be synthesis to include if carefully worded. I think we can use that, plus the remaining tidbits from Box Office Mojo, to at give a narrative to the theatrical run in terms other than, "it was released, made x, bombed." Try something along the lines of this, which foregrounds the important part (it bombed) before going into the fine detail (such as it is) for those so inclined:

In the United States, Tank Girl "sank like a stone at the box office". Opening in 1,341 theaters, the film made $2,018,183 in its first weekend, towards $2,684,430 in its first week of release. By the end of its second week, Tank Girl had made only $3,668,762. Its final gross in the United States was $4,064,495. Internationally, the film added approximately $2,000,000 to that total, against a production budget of $25 million.

All with cites in the appropriate places, of course. Steve T • C 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks so much for your comments and finding that source Steve. I've added that reference to the infobox and changed the gross revenue there to be "Approx $6 million". If you have any further comments i'd love to hear them. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: @Steve: Hi guys, just pinging you both here one final time to see if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cliftonian. Have capped all my input below. Well done Freikorp. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cliftonian
I've never actually seen Tank Girl, but I have seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of it (he does not care for the film). I'll note thoughts as I go through.

Infobox, lead

  • Perhaps clarify in the infobox that it's based on the Tank Girl *comic*
  • They had these three people billed above *Malcolm McDowell*? ... (no action)
  • Why not mention in the second sentence that the Tank Girl comic, or the Deadline magazine, was British?
  • "a film adaptation of the Tank Girl comic" shouldn't Tank Girl be italicised here?
  • "Talalay applied to Deadline publisher Tom Astor to direct a film adaptation" This isn't quite clear. Did Talalay ask for the film rights, or permission to direct the film, or what? We don't make clear that Astor did indeed grant permission.
  • "Special effects were done by" seems clunky to me
  • Hmm, my only problem with this is that while Winston's study certainly handled the Rippers costumes (which granted is un-doutebly the most notable special effect in the film), they wouldn't have done all special effects; I think other teams would have done the scale models and computer effects for example. Your thoughts on wording accordingly? Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which she had no control over" perhaps "which she said she had no control over"
  • "it has achieved a cult following." where, principally? among whom?

Plot

  • Copyedited this.
  • Reference was made to the girls realising they'd been "set up" when they found the body of Johnny Prophet in one of the crates? Set up by whom? W&P?
  • Oh ok. So they go to an awful lot of trouble of stealing the heavily guarded weapons crates. When they get them back to the Rippers hideout the Rippers state their intentions of destroying the weapons, though when they begin to open the crates most are empty, though one contains the body of Johnny Prophet. When the Ripers start howling/screaming in rage, it is revealed that Kesslee is listening in on them and is laughing at their distress (Tank Girl is revealed to have been bugged). Let me know if you need anything else clarified. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When exactly do they get the tank? And where from? Do they have it from the start?

Themes

  • "Writing in the book The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen, Dominique Mainon said the film" perhaps "In her 2006 book The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen, Dominique Mainon writes that the film"
  • "unlike many comic-book adaptation films which gratuitously objectify women" careful; it is her opinion that comic-book adaptations "gratuitously objectify" women, not something that we should say in Wikipedia's voice
  • "with the exception of the "cliché victim/avenger complex"" does she say specifically where this occurs? Which characters?
  • "as shown by Tank Girl's response to the computer training device instructing her how to dress appropriately at the Liquid Silver club" what is her response?
  • We keep making reference to Tank Girl being tortured, but never is it made clear how she is tortured.
  • Could you please describe for me exactly how this pipe operates in the film? I'm trying to copyedit but without actually knowing it's hard to find the right wording. What's the torture here? That she's supposed to be scared that she might drown? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it is a very long pipe on a downward slope. As the pipe goes on and on it gets smaller and smaller, meaning you will eventually get stuck when sliding down it. Once stuck in addition to the claustrophobia, the pipe is then filled with water, giving the impression that drowning is imminent. Though is the later case with Sam Kesslee probably does intend for her to die. Let me know if you need to know anything else. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "About a year after the launch of the Tank Girl comic in 1988, Deadline publisher Tom Astor initiated the search for a studio interested in making a film version." Make clear what Deadline is. Why not mention anywhere that this was a British comic? The reader will presume it was American.
  • "While several studios including New Line Cinema expressed interest," perhaps "While several studios expressed interest, including New Line Cinema ..."
  • "while she was shooting her debut directorial film, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" who? Talalay or the stepdaughter?
  • "debut directorial film" perhaps "directorial debut film"?
  • "read the comic in between takes" perhaps "read the comic between takes"
  • By this stage, Booga "was a character and not just a kangaroo [so] it wasn't an issue anymore." who is this a quote from?
  • Crap. I'm not 100% sure, it was probably Petty or Talalay. All I remember was that is was in the making of book, which I seem to have lost since the last time I moved house. Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was purchased from the government of Peru about 12 years prior to filming, and had already been used in several films" Who bought it? MGM? Which other films was it in? Was it in any films after Tank Girl?
  • Unfortunately I didn't find a lot of info on the tank itself. The Blu-ray directors commentary does mention that the modification they made to the tank were removed after filming, though one would expect this so I didn't mention it in the article. Do you think I should mention that? Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

  • Perhaps mention Greg Graffin's from Bad Religion and Paul Westerberg, who replaced him, is appropriately from the Replacements
  • "it peaked at No. 27 on the Mainstream Rock chart and No. 12 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart." in the US, right?
  • "Stephen Thomas Erlewine from Allmusic" not of Allmusic?
  • Aren't Hole Courtney Love's own band?

Release

  • Rebecca De Mornay, Lauren Tom, Brendan Frasier and Jason Simmons: who are these people and why were they there? (Isn't it Brendan Fraser? Or is that someone else?)
  • "Rachel Buck" what?
  • "Tank Girl only ever received a "basic" DVD release" what's a "basic" DVD?

Legacy and related media

  • "Despite being a critical and commercial failure, the film has achieved cult status." see point above. Where? When? Among whom? Is this a recent phenomenon? Why has it achieved cult status?
  • "A novelization of the film was written by Martin Millar,[60] and Peter Milligan wrote an adaptation comic.[61]" When? Why? With whose approval/permission? Were they faithful to the film?

References, external links etc all look fine to me.

A pretty good job overall and an article I enjoyed reviewing. An odd film (haven't watched it personally, but have seen a fairly thorough summary and read of a couple of reviews). If you ask me part of why it did so badly at the box office was probably the really appalling theatrical release poster, which makes the film look like something for kids. Anyway, I hope this helps. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cliftonian: Yeah they could have done a much better job of that poster come to think of it. Anyway thanks so much for the very thorough review. I've made a reply to each one of your points. Looking forward to hearing what you have to say about them. Freikorp (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to points specifically above. Mostly okay; I've stricken what's been dealt with. I've rearranged and copy-edited the last section a bit to give a nice peroration ("I'm happy that I got to do it and that I'll always have her."). One more comment: we refer to "super soldiers" in the lead, with a wikilink, but don't mention the concept in the article itself. (I know some super soldiers personally, but that's another story). Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to everything again. Looks like we're nearly there. Thanks again for the copyedits, particularly to the last section. Freikorp (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention several people in the infobox who are then never brought up in the article, for example Graeme Revell (composer), Tedi Sarafian (screenplay), Gale Tattersall (cinematography).
  • Hmm, I never even noticed Revell being mentioned. Turns out he did the film's score. Forums have provided me with the information that it was never released as an album, though bootlegged copies are all over the internet. I added a referenced sentence stating he did the score in the prose. I'm working on the other two now. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find plenty of source that confirm Tattersall did the cinematography, but nothing specifically about her work on the film. The only thing interesting i've found is this DVD Verdict review [29], which comments on the fact the film's main cast and crew were largely female, noting Tattersall of one of the notable crew members. Do you think the source is good enough to say something similar in the article? Or should I just stick to one sentence stating she was the cinematographer? Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise there was plenty of source saying Tedi Sarafian wrote the screenplay, but nothing much about him. The only exception was a source I found stating it was his first production credit. I added that information to the article. Freikorp (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that's what I mean. I only used that term because it is what the source says - the source doesn't specifically say it was his first screenplay, though I suppose it wouldn't be an unreasonable leap to say that instead. Freikorp (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which countries was the film released, do we know?
  • I surprisingly never came across any information on the film's release in other countries, with the exception that Talalay mentions something about the UK premiere in the director's commentary. Even precise box office figures for other countries couldn't be found unfortunately. My only source to go off is IMDb, which of course isn't reliable but it would give me something to at least attempt to start digging further on the matter if you'd like me to. [30] Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say in the infobox that the film was released on 31 March 1995, but in the article we say it premiered on 30 March. I would clarify this somehow.

Will note more as and when. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Tank_girl_poster.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
  • File:Tank_Girl_open_casting.jpg: if this image is to be included, it should have a more extensive FUR - "how casting for the film was sought" can easily be expressed in text. We'll also need to know the copyright holder, and original publication details would be very helpful.
  • Added as much justification as I could think of. Let me know if it's not enough, or if you could think of further justification. The add features both the logo's for MGM and United Artists, so I have mentioned that copyright for the image would belong to one, or both, of these companies. Original publications details are unknown but I have narrowed it down as much as I can. I can have a look through microfilm next chance I get, and see if I can find the exact date, if that will help keep the image. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tank_Girl_film_tank.jpg also needs a more extensive FUR, as the current one does not identify the purpose of use beyond "informational"; it too should explicitly identify copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've specified in the description that the modifications are "outlandish". I could go into further detail but I think it's clear from the image that these are not the modifications that would typically be made to a tank. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bollyjeff

[edit]

Soundtrack section:

  • No need for a review table with only one entry.
  • Sources for most of the additional soundtrack songs?
  • Do you think I can just cite the film's credits for this? I dare-say that's the only place the information would be. The Shaft theme is currently cited to the director's commentary. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can. BollyJeff | talk 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on i'll get to this, just want to make sure each song actually appears in the credits first. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Credits verify each song. I've added the event time as 1:42:35, when the first one is verified, though the others gradually become verified over the next 60 seconds or so. Freikorp (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production section:

  • Four duplicate links found in second paragraph.

Sources:

  • Refs 62 and 63 are identical.
  • Fixed. Unfortunately ref 63 gives no page number in the google books preview, so I don't know what page the information appears on, though I can certainly link to it. Freikorp (talk)
  • Ref 67 Who interviewed her? When? Audio, video, print?
  • Specified it was during her interview that appeared on the Blu-ray release. Whoever interviewed her is not actually specified (or even heard). The questions appear in text on the screen then Petty simply replies. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please then cite the bluray and which special feature using 'cite media' and at what time it occurs during the feature using |time= . BollyJeff | talk 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blu-ray was already cited, though i've formatted the reference to specifically say it is the blu-ray. I didn't bother adding times for any of the featurette sources. I no longer have access to the Blu-ray, so I can't add the time of the specific quote in the interview, though I deliberately left them out even when I had access to it. For starters it meant I would have had to reformat the same references several times to quote different times in a featurette, as opposed to just citing it once for all quotes from an interview. Plus I wan't asked to do so at my last sci-fi FAC (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) so I didn't think it was a necessity. Plus the featurette is only a few minutes long and if anyone feels the need to verify it i'm sure they'd be interested in watching the whole interview, rather than just skipping forward to that particular bit. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, its fine now. BollyJeff | talk 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no link to the Wynne book? According to Open Library (and Amazon) it was published on May 4 1995.
Thanks for getting the exact date, i've added that to the article. There's no google books link because unlike the other books there is no preview available. Would you like me to link to this [31] anyway? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so its consistent with the others. BollyJeff | talk 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Milligan wrote an adaptation comic in 1995,[61] and a novelization of the film by Martin Millar was published in 1996.[62]" Could these be listed as book citations under a 'Further reading' section? Also can the citations in this sentence be given via Open Library, instead of commercial site Amazon? BollyJeff | talk 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't 63 and 64 listed in the bib like other books instead of inline?
No reason. Done now though. As previously mentioned 64 unfortunately doesn't have a page number though the url links to the exact spot in the book. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead seems too short to me. There is nothing about Themes and too little about Production and Legacy. It should summarize the whole article better.
Still not addressed. BollyJeff | talk 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes: "In her 2006 book The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen". Italicize all book titles.
  • "as shown her repeated emasculation of Kesslee". Shown by her? Her who?
  • " The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, over more experienced designers; Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke to work on the project" Perhaps: The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke over more experienced designers. Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, to work on the project.
  • "skeptical that the open casting was a publicity stunt" Skeptical that it was a stunt. Don't think so.
  • Even the lead is still not good enough:
    • ", originally published in Deadline magazine". The comic or the film? Perhaps remove the preceding comma and insert "that was" to fix this.
    • "antiheroine" appears nowhere else in the article.
    • I am not sure that I would say "Winston's studio insisted on being given the project", especially in the lead. What, did they threaten them somehow?
  • I actually used to have an example of who said it in the body, though another FAC reviewer removed it. I agree with the removal, however, as I don't think it adds anything to the article to say which author said this and the book in which they said it in. This fact that it is said to have a cult following is very well cited in the body, and it's hardly an outrageous claim. Freikorp (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial screening and box office - "as well as Rebecca De Mornay, Lauren Tom, Brendan Fraser and Jason Simmons." Why is this significant?
  • "Tank Girl "sank like a stone at the box office"" - Unattributed POV quote.
Go figure. These kinds of quotes should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. BollyJeff | talk 14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is just too much wrong here, and I still have not even read the whole article yet. BollyJeff | talk 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bollyjeff: Well I must say that's not very helpful. I've made an attempt to address each concern you've raised or explain why I disagree with you, and now you're opposing without giving me anything specific to fix. As per the guidelines, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." You're not giving me anything to address here. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has turned into an extensive peer review. The article should be in better shape before coming to FAC, sorry. I am opposing primarily based on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1a. It is just not as good as other FAs that I have seen. BollyJeff | talk 14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • What's in the article is pretty much what the 'Making of' book said - jet thrusters were added as the tank was required to travel faster. However the book only said it in passing, and nothing is mentioned in the director's commentary about it. After reading the Making of book first I was surprised to not hear anything about jet thrusters in the director's commentary, especially as the director lamented how slow the tank was without saying adding anything about thrusters. I'm now thinking this information should be removed unless a second source is found. Freikorp (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mixed date styles, e.g. "Retrieved February 9, 2015." and "Retrieved 9 February 2015." The second style seems far more common, so probably should stick with that one. Don't forget nonbreaking spaces between month and date. Hang on... why do I see {{Use mdy dates}}? • Lingzhi♦(talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed all to 'Retrieved 9 February 2015' style . Looks like a novice editor slipped in the mdy date tag for some unexplained reason and I never noticed the addition [32]. I've changed that now, since there was no basis or justification for it's addition. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi: Hmm I suppose that information could be moved to critical reception; that's the only other place it would fit in. I'll wait for a third opinion on the matter. Anyway please let me know if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi: Hi Lingzhi, this FAC is at the bottom of the older nominations list and a decision will likely be made very soon so i'm just pinging you here one last time to see if you have any final comments. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support With one minor nit pick

  • Shouldn't numbers less than ten be represented with words?

(Mind reviewing this?) Thanks--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been under way more than six weeks and we still don't have consensus to promote; while Bollyjeff's objection is indeed a general one regarding prose quality, scanning the article myself I feel that a copyedit by an uninvolved editor wouldn't go astray, and that should take place outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (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/August_2015&oldid=860836746"