Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2011

[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 23:05, 30 January 2011 [1].

ZX81

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th anniversary of the ZX81's launch falls on 5 March this year. In advance of the anniversary, I am nominating this for featured article following a complete rewrite and expansion of the article. I hope to get the article to FA status by the time of the anniversary so that it can be nominated for the home page on 5 March. It was a DYK lead article on 7 January (and got over 18,900 hits, the second highest for January so far), so it is likely to prove a very popular home page article. I have used existing featured articles as the model for this one - I was surprised to find that only one other home computer article (Macintosh Classic) has featured article status, so this appears to be an under-represented topic area. I had great difficulty working out how the reference formatting is supposed to work, so I would be particularly grateful if people could check it for errors. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
Image Origin Licence
File:Sinclair ZX81.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:The Mighty ZX-81.jpg Mikey Walters (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX81 Interface.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:SinclairExecutive-01.jpg User:MaltaGC GFDL
File:Sinclair - Science of Cambridge MK14.jpg Steve Elliott (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX80.jpg Daniel Ryde GFDL
File:ZX81 Leiterkarte.jpg User:Journey234 Public domain
File:ZX81 concept design.jpg Rick Dickinson (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:ZX81 kit.jpg User:Smaddison CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Sinclair ZX81 Setup.jpg Mike Cattell (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:ZX81 - rampack - ZX Printer.jpg Carlos Pérez Ruiz (Flickr) CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:Zx81-timex-manipulated.jpg User:Carlb Public domain
File:Microdigital TK85 with joystick.JPG User:Henrique Vicente CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • One more point for Fasach Nua on the "copyrighted 3D items" issue. I've found that this is specifically addressed at [2], which does specifically mention the copyright status of "my computer case" and states that it is exempt from copyright protection. I hope that settles this issue. Prioryman (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This example states that the case in US law, and as of yet US does not extend beyond it's internationally recognised boundaries, at this point we have a number of images taken in unknown countries, and with unknown copyright status. Please state the origin of these images and on what legal basis they are deemed to be free Fasach Nua (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Wikipedia is hosted in the US, so US copyright law necessarily applies. Wikimedia Commons' policy on such images is clear as I have quoted it to you but you appear to be going well beyond that. I have seen nothing in the copyright policy of either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that would support your approach. The contributors of the images have all affirmed that they took the images themselves and have explicitly licensed them under free licences or released them into the public domain. It is neither realistic nor reasonable to demand that the writers of articles on Wikipedia should have to independently verify every image on Wikimedia Commons, particularly when some of the images in question are years old and contributors may have moved on. Please direct me to a policy statement that states the existence of such a requirement. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law Fasach Nua (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this question would be better discussed over at Wikimedia Commons, frankly. I'll post a link. Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a commons issue. Don't waste your time here with it. I'm not sure if any jurisdiction considers photos of computers a copyright violation. - hahnchen 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if Fasach Nua's position was adopted it would effectively require the deletion of pretty much every image of a consumer item from Wikimedia Commons, as uploaders aren't asked to record their countries of origin. That info certainly isn't provided on the thousands of existing pictures of such items. That strikes me as a rather radical proposal. You're right though, it's well beyond the scope of this page. Prioryman (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a request for clarification here on Wikimedia Commons. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will definitely need a fair use rationale on File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png for use on ZX81. - hahnchen 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had missed that. I've added it now. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • 1c/2c Sources Review: Major work required Do we have a peer review specifically for citation quality for A/GA/FA grade articles? If we do, this could do with that. Generally, you're inconsistent in the use of commas and fullstops after particular elements of citations (ie, titles, authors, etc) particularly in Other Sources. I'm more than a bit concerned about the use of primary sources (flickr pictures?), newspaper articles from the time in a history of technology article (this, a little more forgivable). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Flickr reference (one image only, not multiple "pictures") is to a depiction and description by the designer of the ZX81, with whom I have been in touch, of an early design of the machine. He's donated the image in question to Wikipedia to use in this article. It's a primary source but used in a way that WP:PRIMARY allows: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Could you explain why you see the use of contemporary news articles as a problem? Prioryman (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • References, Other Sources: Please cite in full such that other wikipedians can locate the documents. Place of publication. Type of publication (pamphlet) (brochure) (advertising poster) etc. With untitled documents such as "Brochure. Sinclair Research. Undated, circa March 1981" it is normal to include the first line of material, ie "Other Sources: Please cite in full…" if citing this paragraph as an untitled ephemera.
    • References, News reports: If the article was written by Staff on the byline, then the author is Staff. If the article is assumed to be Staff due to no byline, the author is [Staff]. ""Sinclair's tinkering talent". " has no author (probably [Staff]). A volume number is required for "Goodwin, Simon N. (January 1988)."
    • References, Books. Where a place of publication is likely to be unknown to the reader, please state the US State or Nation-State of the location, ie "Laing, Gordon (2004). Digital retro. Lewes: " ; Morris, Ben (2007). ; Thomasson, Don (1983).
    • Notes: Dates are inconsistent ("Financial Times (6-3-1981)" ; "Thomasson 1983" ; "New Scientist, 7 February 1980") Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've cited news sources in the Notes using a short date/month/year format, where appropriate, and month/year where a date does not exist. Books are cited using years exclusively. News dates are spelled out in full in the References section. The New Scientist reference you mention slipped through the cracks; I've corrected that. Prioryman (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[edit]
  • Comments. Leaving aside the question mark over the number of non-free images, which has not yet been satisfactorily addressed IMO, I have a few further comments, which I'll break down by section as I read through the article:
Lead
  • "The machine had no moving parts – not even a power switch – but used a touch-sensitive membrane keyboard for manual input. These proved to be serious limitations ....". What is "these" referring to in that second sentence?
  • "Such limitations, however, achieved the objective of keeping the cost of the machine low and making it relatively easy to use." I'll buy the point about keeping the cost down, but not about making the machine "relatively easy to use". The lack of a graphics processor made it difficult to maintain a decent display, the lack of memory made it difficult to program, the keyboard made typing difficult ...
  • "... rather than the preserve of businesspeople ...". I don't think that "businesspeople" is a word is it? It's not in my dictionary anyway.
Features
  • "Two 3.5 mm jacks connect the ZX81 to the EAR (output) and MIC (input) sockets of an audio cassette recorder, to which data can be saved or loaded at a rate of 250 baud." "To which data can be ... loaded" doesn't make sense, the sentence needs to be recast.
  • "The ULA chip, described by the ZX81 manual as the "dogsbody" of the system, has a number of key functions that other contemporary computers shared between multiple chips and integrated circuits." One of either "other" or "contemporary" is redundant.
  • Why is each element in the bulleted list suffixed by a semicolon?
  • That's the way I was taught to do lists; short list items with a comma at the end, longer and more complex list items with a semicolon at the end. APA style, if I remember rightly? Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ZX81's built-in RF modulator can output a video picture to either a UHF (PAL) television (used in the UK, Australia, and most western European countries except France) or a VHF (NTSC) television (used in the US and Canada), although this has to be pre-set either at the factory or during the assembly of the kit." The tense here is strange ("this has to be pre-set at the factory") as there no longer is a factory building these machines.
  • "However, the ZX81 and its predecessor, the ZX80, both have a significant drawback in the way that they handle visual output." The word "both" is clearly redundant here, and I'm not sure why the sentence begins with "however", as it doesn't really seem to be elaborating on what went before in any way.
  • "The ZX81's designers adopted an improved approach, involving the use of two modes called SLOW and FAST." So each of the two modes was called "SLOW and FAST"?
  • "... in practice the speed difference between FAST and SLOW modes depends on what computation is being done". Is that what computation or how much computation?
  • The specific example I'm quoting is of a series of tests carried out by a magazine that made the ZX81 and a comparator carry out standardised routines, with the time taken to complete them being recorded. The difference in speed between FAST and SLOW is not constant but depends on what routine is being run. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... The same pin on the ULA is used to provide both the video signal and the tape output". Once again, the word "both" is clearly redundant.
  • "In any case, the ULA cannot maintain the display during SAVE and LOAD operations ...". What is "in any case" telling us?
  • "Simply displaying a full screen takes up 792 bytes ...". It's not the displaying that takes up memory.
  • Actually it is. This was one of the peculiarities of the ZX81 - the display is written directly from the same area of memory that holds program code, variables etc. As the memory fills up, increasingly weird things start happening to the display. It's possible to get the machine into a state where it doesn't have enough memory to display an out of memory error! I'll elaborate on this in the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of memory used for the screen display depends on how much there is on the screen. If you display a full screen - i.e. one with every character in the 32 x 22 grid occupied - then that takes up 792 bytes. Note that if you then clear the screen the amount of memory taken up by the display shrinks to only a handful of bytes. In other words, the act of displaying the screen causes the amount of free memory to decrease substantially. The amount of memory used for the display is in effect optimised on the fly. Ideally, you'd display as little on the screen as possible so as to maximise the amount of memory available for your program. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, it can indeed be reused, though doing so isn't recommended because of the effect it has on the machine (parsing breaks down, bits of the display disappear, etc). The mechanics of the ZX81 display were very peculiar even by contemporary standards. I'll add some more info on this topic to the article; see what you think of it then. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the rear of the ZX81 is an edge connector ...". Already told us that there's an edge connector at the back of the machine, right at the start of this section.
  • Memory was conserved to a certain extent by representing entire BASIC commands as one-byte tokens ...". My own memory may be faulty here, but didn't the ZX81 always store BASIC commands as one-byte tokens? The way this is written makes it look as if that was an innovation introduced in the 1K ZX Chess program. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm leaving these others out for reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know there's some discussion of images above which I have not read, but I am unclear on why precisely either of the images currently tagged as non-free (File:ZX81 Sinclair Research advert.jpg and File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png) are being used. The rationales are rather vague- the advert is particularly large for a non-free file, and so is going to warrant a very good reason for use, and the game from which the screenshot is taken is mentioned only briefly (while its graphics are not really mentioned at all). J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can probably find an alternative for the screenshot. Would the advert be more acceptable if the image was smaller? Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "To illustrate an article about the Sinclair ZX81, specifically relating to the Sinclair Research marketing campaign" does not meet nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced File:3D-monster-maze-T-rex-2-steps-away.png with a freely-licensed image. This leaves the advert as the last remaining non-free image. I'll add some additional text to the article to strengthen the discussion of the advertising and revise the rationale for the advert. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is now done. I've reduced the size of the advert image by 50% to address the concern about size. I've added a chunk of new commentary on the advertising campaign, with specific reference to the advert shown in the image, and I've written a more focused rationale: "To accompany critical commentary on Sinclair Research's marketing campaign for the ZX81, with reference to the layout, design, typography, language and purpose of this display advertisement." Prioryman (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for dealing the NFC issues, but skim-reading the article, I'm a little concerned about the tone, which doesn't feel the most neutral. Phrases like "often parents who had become fascinated", "One of the more bizarre software products", "A dramatic illustration of the ZX81's explosive popularity" and "Reviews of the ZX81 highlighted the great value for money" strike me as a little non-neutral. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased sources in some places, so some non-neutral language might have crept in. I'll do a re-read of the article and see where I can weed out such language. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 23:05, 30 January 2011 [5].

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

[edit]
Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Capcom's "legendary" Vs. fighting video game series known for the Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK installments went on hiatus for nearly eight years. With the arrival of Street Fighter IV, came the revival of the fighting genre and the next Vs. installment. Since Capcom's Seth Killian went all over the place promoting this game, my sources are diverse. I think this article meets criteria, etc. « ₣M₣ » 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and it showed up nothing in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the subject of plagiarism, GR took that from us. I recently copyedited the article, and rewrote that section of the lead; the version displayed on GR is my revision. And, having never seen that GR page before now, I think I can safely say that I didn't steal from it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree, but GR should be attributing the fact that the stole it from us - we do require attribution. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, but it has no bearing on the nomination at hand; I can't help it that another site copied my revision without attribution. I didn't steal it from them, obviously, so I can't see why the issue should be a sticking point. If you need more examples of their trend to be convinced, see this (Super Mario Galaxy 2), this (Halo: Reach), or this (Kirby's Epic Yarn). I find it more-or-less impossible that all of these articles plagiarized such an unknown site as Game Revolution. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was insisting that the issue be resolved before I'd support, it's not needed for support. However, given the recent issues of some (okay, mostly by one person) FAs having plagarism issues, we've begun doing some checks, and running the FACs through the various automated tools is one of those steps. I was merely pointing out to other reviewers that I had done so, and that - although there was one result that could be read as indicating plagarism - it shouldn't be read as necessarily indicating such absolutely. A much bigger concern would be all those links that need to be shown as reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, okay; no problem. I don't really participate in the FAC community, so I didn't know that plagiarism had become such a big issue here. And when you didn't cross out your note, I assumed that you considered it unresolved. Anyway, FMF is handling the sources; I'm just along for the ride as a copyeditor, and am handling objections related to the prose. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take sourcing lightly, and I really wish I could replace most of these. The way Capcom went about promoting the game, leaving some of these out may compromise the article's comprehensiveness. I had no other choice but to use good judgment and do some background work. The latter included contacting Seth Killian myself. I really did think at one point, "I'm going to get an earful from Lady Ealdgyth." So, I will attempt to break them down.
These sources are exclusive interviews and chances are they cannot be replaced:
Andriasang is from IGN's Anoop Gantayat for news exclusive to the Japanese region.
Others
Well, on the above - just because it's an interview doesn't make it reliable. The same rules apply on who published the information whether its an interview or a regular article. Who is Brian Crecente and why is he reliable? Nothing else here is showing me that they are even close to reliable, much less rising to the "High quality" level. No, I'm not expecting academic publications, but I do expect a bit higher standard of website for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed [8], [9], and [10]. This is replaced with an Impress Group website[11] (their about page). Brian Crecente from Kotaku is an established writer who've appeared on Fox News and is a video game writer for the Rocky Mountain News[12]. Destructoid is ranked 4 among the top gaming blogs by CNET and nominated twice for the Webby Award along with these sites [13], [14]. GamesRadar is published by Future plc. I've mentioned ASCII Media Works above. The company is a member of Kadokawa Group Holdings and is thus affiliated with Kadokawa Shoten, a well-known Japanese publisher. Kadokawa's press release discusses their expertise here. Lastly, I've replaced siliconera with G4.« ₣M₣ » 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Andriasang.com website.
I would categorize it as a reliable source. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've struck what's been resolved, and the rest I'm leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

After copy editing the article, there were a few issues that stood out to me.

  • Excess game guide info: Some content I think does little to further the reader's understanding of the game.
    • The third paragraph of "Gameplay" goes into a lot of detail about the universal techniques. Unless someone is going to play the game, I think the last sentence is excess and can be summarized into something more simple of generalized.
    • I think the two tables of characters are unneeded. Listing a few of the more notable series as well as the notable characters from each company is enough in my mind.
  • Flow: The article talks about the game as if it is a separate topic from the Japanese version. While this makes sense in some areas, I think it confuses the reader in others.
    • The "Gameplay" section makes no mention of the control scheme for the arcade version, but list all the options for the Wii versions. A sentence at the start of the second paragraph would be good.
    • The "Reception" section has a "Pre-release" and "Release" subsections, but the bulk of it refers to Cross Generation after its release. I would imagine that "pre-release" content would deal with reception prior to any release of the game. I suggest integrating the two subsections into a regular "Reception" section.

I'll do a full review of sources and everything else later. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Probably, these mechanics are important. I went ahead and cut down use of some terminology, but left those that are the most notable.
I've combined reception and added the arcade controls.
So you do not think there's enough weight in the article to keep a list? « ₣M₣ » 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I know not every editor agrees with this, but I don't think such character lists further the reader's understanding. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Instead of covering individual characters, I went with franchises. Hows that? « ₣M₣ » 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's much better now. Two more points:
  • Why is the Famitsu score omitted from the review table?
  • I'm not familiar with VideoGamer.com. What makes them reliable?
The article looks very good and I'll support once the above list is addressed. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove the list. That's the only score for CGoH and since its never abbreviated in the article (I don't think anyone other than fans abbreviate it), I chose to leave it in prose. VideoGamer.com is cited by IGN ([31][32]), 1Up.com [33], GameSpot [34], G4TV [35]. There's this about Virgin Media, if that helps. « ₣M₣ » 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Support: Sounds fine then. All my concerns were either addressed when I did copy edits or by you and other editors. I think the articles meets the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 3 external redirects (see the tool in the upper right of this page- 1up, gamezone, and metacritic); fix those if you wish. --PresN 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-written and well-organized in compliance with WP:WIAFA. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 26 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 23:05, 30 January 2011 [36].

Cuisine of Madagascar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the criteria and the topic is important to expanding coverage of Madagascar, Africa and cuisine-related topics on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I plan to do a review of this article, but don't have time at the moment. I did start reading into it and noticed an incorrect date and the omission of the island's megafauna in the "Prior to 1650" subsection. I suggest reviewing (and using) sources #33 and #34 on Subfossil lemur. (It might also help to skim that article as well, focusing particularly on the extinction details.) You don't need much more than a sentence or two about the megafauna and the possibility that early hunting prompted their decline. But people might be interested to know that the early settlers may have eaten giant lemurs, dwarf hippos, and giant birds (or their eggs), giant tortoises, etc. As for the date of arrival for humans, the sources I've seen suggest 2,300 to 2,000 years ago. If you need access to these sources, I can email you the PDFs or I'm sure someone else here can also. Just email me though Wiki and I'll reply with the files. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of arrival in the humanities literature (history etc) vary widely; I've seen an article published in 1993 arguing for the colonization of Madagascar in the 8th century CE, which is obviously incorrect. What it seems to come down to is waves of colonization from Indonesia over several hundred years or more, which helps to explain the confusion, not to mention the later waves of settlers from other parts of the world. The earliest date I've seen anyone propose for the settlement of Madagascar was what I listed here, from a very knowledgeable source (and her statement is that the date range of 100-400 CE is a majority consensus among historians and others), though she doesn't discount the likelihood that small, scattered communities may have settled there (and possibly died out) prior to that date (which might explain the older subfossil lemur bones with evidence of butchery). What we can say with certainty is there is still debate in the scholarly community about this. I haven't seen any articles that propose dates of settlement as early as 300 BCE, so if you would pass me the citations I'll track down the articles through my university sources. That way the statement included in this article can be one everyone can agree upon, and once we have it nailed down I will go through the other Madagascar articles and make sure the dates of settlement are consistent from one to the next, citing the source we choose and framing it using defensible language. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing one of my most recent sources (2010), your assessment is probably correct. Small populations were on the island by ~350 BCE, but the effects of larger populations weren't seen until 230–410 CE. (My source is "Chapter 21: Subfossil Lemurs of Madagascar" from Cenozoic Mammals of Africa (2010), ISBN: 978-0520257214.) Per the editor's proof PDF sent to me by the author, see the 3rd to last paragraph before the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.) I guess that muddies the water for giving dates. They clearly "arrived" earlier, but it's hard to say they didn't "settle" until later. Technically, we need to go by the wording of our sources. Your source is dated from 1996. Is there anything more recent that supports the date it gives? The chapter I mentioned above might be a good source to follow since it discusses both arrival and increase in human populations (effectively using both dates or close to them). So rather than saying: "Austronesian seafarers are believed to have been the first humans to settle on the island between 100 and 500 CE," we could say, "Austronesian seafarers are believed to have been the first humans to reach the island,(Gade 1996) arriving as early as 350 BCE, with sediment cores suggesting an elevated human presence by 230–410 CE.(Godfrey et al. 2010)" Of course, that's just a suggestion and could be tweaked considerably. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Article really looks good, especially with a lot of the in-progress changes. Here are the points I've come up with so far.

  • Do your sources not mention other fruits, such as jack fruit (mokonzy) or Cœur de Bœuf] (bora bora = Custard-apple?)? There was another fruit I bought while on the taxi-brousse, but I don't remember what it looked like or what it was called... There were also some berries that a guide offered me to eat while we were trekking through the forests in Petriky, but I doubt it's a well-known fruit...
My sources haven't specified other fruits although they certainly exist. I'll keep my eyes peeled for additional fruits and maybe new sources. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping the Bradt guide would offer some help, but if it's in there, it's not indexed very well. If I see something, I'll let you know. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are ranonampango and ranovola, besides traditional beverages?
They're first introduced and described in the section on rice since they are beverages made by burning rice. Do you think it would be helpful to reiterate that information in the beverages section? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, no... But in cases where it's a term from another language, it might help. Unless the reader is familiar with a word, they may forget that they've already encountered it. This question should probably be addressed by other reviewers as well. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this now. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...has increasingly grown in popularity at upscale urban restaurants over the past ten years." — Please try to avoid statements that can become dated. Maybe: "...starting around 2000."
Good catch - I thought I'd removed all of those kinds of statements. I'll have another look. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were you still planning to fix this? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed the wording in two other instances where this was a problem. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned it on the articles talk page, but what about the practice of bushmeat? Shouldn't that receive a mention?
I briefly mentioned bush meat right after the discussion on hunting subfossil lemurs; I don't want to overemphasize this because it isn't normally a severe problem (although admittedly it's become a major problem since the coup). I don't want to mischaracterize the severity of the issue by drawing excessive attention to it. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed when that sentence was added. However, not everyone may be familiar with Madagascar's situation, and another sentence should probably be added to note that the 2009 Malagasy political crisis, as well as poverty and famine, have had an impact on people's diets as well as the use of bushmeat. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on this? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not to politicize this article with links to the current political crisis. Mentioning that bush meat is being poached more often at the moment does not strike me as fitting within a historic and contemporary overview of Malagasy cuisine because the spike in poaching is ephemeral; if I could make a more generalizable statement, like "the practice of poaching bush meat increases with each political crisis or in times of severe economic depression" then that could be more easily integrated into this larger general narrative, but I don't have the evidence to support that kind of statement. It would perhaps be more appropriate to mention if I also incorporated discussion about the famines in Imerina in the 1700s, but I omitted that as well because the famines didn't have a lasting impact on the composition of the cuisine of the area once they had ended (unlike the famines in the south, mentioned as a consequence of the permanent loss of a food staple). -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to suggest politicizing. It's more of a documentation issue. As you said, as food becomes more scarce, people turn to the forests—thus is the nature of (most) bushmeat hunting. The next time you're at the library, you might be able to cobble together a non-politicized statement about bush meat from pages 79–82 of the Lemurs of Madagascar, 3rd edition. If they don't have the new 3rd edition, which was published in November of last year, the pages will be different the the information may not be as helpful. If you can't access it, I could try constructing a statement and submit it for your approval. But the issue of bushmeat used to be considered a minor issue, but recent studies have shown that it's an ongoing, complex issue. The fact is that the native wildlife is on the menu for various people in Madagascar. The article doesn't need to dwell on it or turn it into a soapbox issue, but it should be noted. Do any other reviewers agree or disagree? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some people continue to eat bushmeat is acknowledged in the current wording... Is your concern about how the statement is worded, or is there more content you'd like to see added (without making it a soapbox issue)? It's undeniable that wildlife is eaten by some people (as the article mentions), and it appears that number might increase in times of greater food insecurity based on recent news articles - although the ones I've seen emphasize hunting lemurs for foreign consumers, not local ones (not mentioned due to lack of supporting evidence). I haven't been able to find the book you suggested. If you have the time to scan the pages and send them my way, I can read them and propose a modification. Otherwise, maybe you could paraphrase the gist of it for me so we can come to an agreement about what needs to be there.
For me, since this is an article about cuisine, it seems to me that the essential is to talk about *what* is consumed (i.e. lemurs) and *how* it is prepared (i.e. grilling, smoking etc) since this is the essence of cuisine and the focus of the article so far. To make a lengthier discussion of bushmeat make sense in the context of the article, I think what would have to happen is to write a separate section about the pressures that some food practices put on the environment, in which case we'd have to discuss the consequences of slash-and-burn, overfishing, international trade of foodstuffs and coral reef destruction in addition to poaching, although I'm hesitant to do it since that would so clearly lend a political overtone to the article when cuisine articles for other countries manage to sidestep their political issues (pollution caused by industrial agriculture, animal cruelty, genetically modified foods and all that). I wouldn't want to unjustly cast the cuisine of Madagascar in a more critical light than other cuisines on WP. I'm especially reluctant to write that section in this article because where it really belongs is in the Agroecology in Madagascar article. There are also several other Madagascar-related articles that address issues related to pressure on the land and resulting animal extinctions that do not touch the issue of bushmeat or over-hunting, such as Ecoregions of Madagascar and Fauna of Madagascar, but in my view are better candidates for an in-depth discussion of issues like this than this article on contemporary cuisine.
That being said, I'm open to adding a new section in if similar sections have been added to other cuisine articles. And if we decide not to go with a new section, then that brings us back to how to word the part about bushmeat (or what to add) so that the passage (or sentence) contains the necessary information while ensuring it still fits with the flow and focus of the article. You said earlier that the issue is becoming more complex - I wasn't able to find the more recent resources you've read that are informing your view, so clearly I need to be caught up... let's start there. Do you think you might be able to scan and send me those pages, or if not, give me the rundown? Thanks in advance. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Now I wish I had taken pictures of the street markets and the food they sold, as well as the meals prepared for me by the Malagasy families I stayed with. I really wish I had written down the names, too. Oh well... next time. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 1 (Gade) - is this a journal? If so, I'd expect an article title. Or is it a book? If so, I'd expect publishers…
  • Current ref 2 (Kent) needs page numbers.
  • Again, I can't figure out if Current ref 4 (Campbell) is a journal or a book - it has a volume number like a journal but no article title, but there is no publisher as I'd expect with a book.
  • Current ref 6 (Flacourt) needs page numbers
  • Current ref 7 (Stiles) has the same issues as refs 1 and 4
  • Current ref 10 (Pearson..) needs page numbers
  • Current ref 11 (Olson) has the same issues as 1, 4, and 7…
  • Current ref 13 (Grandidier) needs page numbers
  • Same for current ref 14 (Raison …) and 15 (Ogot) and 16 (Oliver). Just because you give urls doesn't mean you can escape the need for page numbers on books.
  • Same for current ref 19 (Robinson), 20 (Sibree), 21 (Ade Ajayi), 23 (Karner), 24 (Chan), 25 (Spolsky), 30 (Sibree), 31 (Sandler), 33 (Nativel) - urls don't negate the need for page numbers
  • Current refs 22 (Campbell), 26 (Slawecki), 32 (Espangen-Ravo), 34 (Jacob), 37 (Ecott) need page numbers.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize page numbers were a must. I'll get to it pronto. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all page numbers except for two books that will require a trip back to the university library downtown. There should be time for that on Wednesday. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images there is little documentation regarding Malagasy copyright, I have concerns regarding File:Three_Horses_beer.jpg as an image of a copyrighted subject, can you explain the copyright of this image? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a link to the original text of the copyright law of Madagascar here. It's in French. I read through it and here are the elements of the law that strike me as most relevant to this photo:
  • 1) According to Ch.3 Art.11 the photo may qualify as a "composite" work: "Est dite composite l’oeuvre nouvelle à laquelle est incorporée une oeuvre préexistante sans la collaboration de l’auteur de cette dernière" = "A composite work is defined as a new work into which a preexisting work is incorporated, without the collaboration of the author of this preexistant work."
  • 2) According to Ch.3 Art. 13, the rights involved are as follows: "L’oeuvre composite est la propriété de l’auteur qui l’a réalisée, sous réserve des droits de l’auteur de l’oeuvre préexistante" = A composite work is the property of the author that created it, reserving the rights of the author of the preexisting work."
But this kind of scenario is always a gray zone in law. Whether copyright infringement happened would have to be argued in court, and the burden of proof for this kind of case rests with the claimant - at least in the US. Since no money is being made off its use and it is a small element in a larger image the case would typically be difficult to make... not to mention copyright law is absolutely unenforced in Madagascar. But if you'd prefer to simply remove the image to play it on the safe side, feel free. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All images are now in the Commons. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia foundation taking on a potential legal liability is probably something we don't want to do, especially for such as small benefit to the project. The intention of this project is to make material available for commercial re-use, so suggesting no money is involved is not the case. The de minimis argument doesn't hold either as the bottle is the primary subject of the image, as for enforcement of copyright this has no relation to the legality. Fasach Nua (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the THB image with another. There are still two THB cans in the shot, but they are partially obscured and not the main subject in the image. Do you think this is all right or would it still pose potential copyright problems? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 02:36, 24 January 2011 [37].

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

[edit]
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC), — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN and two peer reviews I feel it meets the FAC criteria. — GabeMc (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Earwig and Coren's tool both showed the article as a copy of http://novel.tingroom.com/html/book/show/164/, which I'm pretty sure is a scraper site, but probably good to double confirm and then add to both tools sites to exclude. Please note I'm NOT thinking this is plagarism by the editors of the wikipedia article, but better to be safe here.
  • Current ref 22 (Calhoun …) needs a page number, even with the url
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. (Well, earwigs showed one known mirror, but it was a garbled obvious derivative) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - you've done some good work with this, but I don't feel it's yet at FA standards

  • Breitman is in References but not in Citations, as are Clarke, DeCaro. Goldman is quoted in the text but has no citation; same with Lomax
    • Actually, Goldman and Lomax aren't cited in the text either. We'll move all works not cited from "References" to "Further reading"
  • "Dyson writes, "[Louis] Lomax says that Malcolm became a 'lukewarm integrationist'. [Peter] Goldman suggests that Malcolm was 'improvising', that he embraced and discarded ideological options as he went along. [Albert] Cleage and [Oba] T'Shaka hold that he remained a revolutionary black nationalist. And [James Hal] Cone asserts that he became an internationalist with a humanist bent."" - this seems very awkward. Is it possible to quote the original sources directly?
    • The point here is to quote Dyson, who is summarizing the opinions of five scholars. Are you suggesting editing one quote into five or more quotations? May I ask, what specifically about the Dyson quote do you find awkward? — GabeMc (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dyson is trying to explain the many ways in which (in his view) the last year of Malcolm X's life has been misinterpreted. We may have complicated things by adding first names in brackets. All the authors to whom Dyson refers are listed in Further reading. Would it be better if we removed the first names (which aren't in the original)? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links could stand to be trimmed
    • done
  • Use a consistent format for both References and Further reading entries
    • done
  • Use a consistent format for all book entries in Citations
    • You want books that are cited only once to have Harvard-style footnotes? That hasn't been required in the past (see Emma Goldman or Malcolm X for examples), but we can change it if you'd like
  • Be consistent in how states are abbreviated
    • As far as I can tell, all state abbreviations are standard. Can you point out any specific problems?
  • Check title for Marable 2011
    • done
  • Clarke: if you're citing the 1991 edition, 1969 should appear in square brackets; same issue for Wolfenstein
    • done
  • Lomax: formatting, and same date issue as Clarke
    • done
  • Calhoun: publisher and page number(s)?
    • Removed as a reference
  • Time is a magazine title and should be italicized, as should Newsweek
    • done
  • Why do you include publisher locations for Citation and Further Reading entries but not for References?
    • fixed
  • Image review: File:Alex_haley_US_coast_guard.png provides no source or proof that the photo was taken by Coast Guard personnel, and there is thus no proof of its PD status; "promotional" is not a sufficient statement of purpose of use for a FUR
  • Link important and potentially unfamiliar terms, but don't link the same terms multiple times, particularly not in close proximity
  • Several instances of overly long sentences and overuse or misuse of commas, and a few other grammatical problems
  • "Dyson and Marable[30] agree, that it is not borne out of a critical analysis of the Autobiography, or the full relationship between Malcolm X and Alex Haley, that they describe as a collaboration" - phrasing is awkward and a bit unclear
    • fixed
  • "Eliot Fremont-Smith, reviewing the book for The New York Times in 1965, called it "extraordinary" and a "brilliant, painful, important book". Two years later, historian John William Ward said the book "will surely become one of the classics in American autobiography"." - is it necessary to have these sentences appear twice in the article?
    • fixed
  • I am of the opinion that this article relies too heavily on direct quotes. Though there is not a specific requirement mandating this, I suggest that the article would be better served if you were to present a few of these ideas in your own words. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. The Cambridge.org link isn't resolving for me, but I'm going to good-faith assume that the problem is temporary. --PresN 18:53, 11 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 02:36, 24 January 2011 [38].

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl was the Connecticut Huskies's last bowl game win. Following their loss in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl and their head coach Randy Edsall leaving for another head coaching job, perhaps it now represents "happier times". This is the second nomination of this article at FAC; all actionable opposes from the previous review have been addressed, and User:Giants2008 was kind enough to provide a copyedit. The article's "Aftermath" section has also been updated with information from the 2010 college football season and beyond.

Note: Although I am a participant in the 2011 WikiCup, I will not be claiming any points for this article as the vast majority of work on it was done last year. –Grondemar 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. (Well, earwigs showed two known mirrors, but they were garbled obvious derivatives) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – As stated in the intro, I had a minor role in copy-editing this; in particular, I concentrated on the excess links that were an issue last time. Here are a few thoughts on the article as it stands, keeping in mind that I've looked through almost all of it before.

  • There are likely still some elements related to the selection process that have jargon in them, but simplifying them would be difficult, as the system really is as complicated as it sounds. I don't know how much can be done without a large removal, which I'm not sure is for the best.
  • For the source concern, there's an easy remedy: the Sports Reference people (whose sites have passed muster before) have a new college football page. All the content cited by the questionable source is covered in the respective team pages.
  • Aftermath: This has seen some expansion since the last FAC. The one thing that sticks out is a space before reference 99 that should be removed; other than that, the additions look okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 15 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 20:26, 22 January 2011 [39].

I Joined a Teen-Age Sex Club!

[edit]
Nominator(s): SingToMePlease (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I Joined a Teen-Age Sex Club!" is a comic book story from 1951. Some consider it one of the racier stories of the period but by today's fan standards it's pale. Most importantly though, it reflected the social and cultural realities of the period rather than romantic fantasy. This is a story about real kids - not the usual suffering starlets looking for handsome, rich, and eternally devoted boyfriends endemic to the romance genre. I enjoyed writing and researching this article. I hope that you will enjoy reading it. SingToMePlease (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC) trongly suggest some more research and work. You just created this article on 16 Jan, peer review might be best for this if you[reply]

  • Oppose - some paragraphs are entirely unreferenced, prose needs some work to meet WP:NPOV and related guidelines. Also, it would probably be best to wait until the AfD closes before nominating the article here], although it does look like the result will be Keep. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenceed paragraphs are essentially "summaries" of the quotations that follow them. I can source these paragraphs. I'm hoping to get some feedback here and some suggestions to improve the article to avoid a deletion. I can meet the technicalities within 24 hours but I need to know what the "related guidelines" are. I'm eager to work on this! Please check back in 24 hours, and thanks for showing me the direction to go! SingToMePlease (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large chunks of verbatim quotations can be can be set into prose within 24 hours. Please check back then. I'll look forward to your feedback. SingToMePlease (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is NOT a peer review service, the article should be close to meeting the criteria BEFORE it's nominated. Kindly consider withdrawing and working on these sorts of issues before nominating. Also, swant feedback. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this but a glance through this page will reveal that many articles are not ready at nomination and simple things such as typo-correction, reorganization, image-deletion, and much more appear to be accomplished in this process. If articles are ready for FA promotion at the point of nomination, then why is there a humungous backlog?

Thank you for reviewing the images and pulling a boo-boo. I missed it. What can I say? And I prefer not withdrawing the article over a few minor points that can be adjusted within moments. What's the point of reviewing an FAN? I missed it somewhere along the line. Why is there an enormous backlog if articles are FA ready at the point of nomination? I can withdraw this article, adjust the few issues mentioned above, and return the article to FAN but what's the point? Gotta run! Doorbell! SingToMePlease (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:54, 22 January 2011 [40].

Elimination Chamber

[edit]
Nominator(s): Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article is Featured Article Material. Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult the principle contributors, per WP:FAC instructions? The "History" section is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Sandy, it turns out that Nascarking was the one who put the article up for GAN. link. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any indication significant contributors were consulted, but more, I don't know why this article is a GA: Match history is also uncited in the GA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I peer reviewed this article on January 17, and I see no indication that any of my comments were taken seriously or acted upon. For example, I noted the lack of sources for the "Brand and pay-per-view designation" and "Match history" sections, the doubtful reliability of the sources, and the failure to distinguish between fiction and real-world phenomena. Finetooth (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy if you look at the contributors section it tells you I'm one of the Main Contributors.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAC instructions regarding notifying significant contributors. (And an uncited article should not be GA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:57, 20 January 2011 [41].

Saint Croix Macaw

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it fulfills all criteria. It recently went through GA and has been improved to the point that it is difficult to think what could be added to the article. There are two wiki-links to DAB's, but they are to morphology pages that are not suited nicely for bird morphology. The English could maybe use an edit copy (non-native dyslect), but several people have helped me out on that, so it should not be too bad. The length is within the range of FA's. There is one external link that is a redirect but I cannot find out what the direct link is.Fixed it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Colour me impressed that you could get a potential FA out of a subfossil island species. I wonder, however, why no mention is made of the extinction. There must be some mention of the causes. Steadman usually mentions extinction causes in his works. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, why not. Anyway. I have added a sentence about the possible cause of the extinction, basically humans. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please indicate on the range map what part of the world we're looking at
    Done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…but this is considered a lapsus (an accidental misspelling)." the ICZN source tell us about lapses, but does not confirm that this specific spelling is a lapsus.
    There is no source for that, other than the rules and an e-mail from Olson who confirms that his usage of the wrong name is a lapsus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, there are no sources that claim Wetmore made a to-be-corrected error. As long as there is no reason to correct the name, the original name stands and typo's are considered lapsi. The last part is standard practice in taxonomy (hence the validity of the ICZN ref), while the first part (the corrected name) needs to be sourced by someone who recognized a reason to fix the name (which has not been done). I will clarify things in the text. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the multiple citations (3, 4 and 5 cites) are awkward, please consider bundling them (see WP:Citing sources
    I have bundled one already, pondering about the others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have bundled things, but personally, I seriously dislike it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am going to revert this, because I really don't like it. If that means it cannot be FA, so be it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll approach this differently. Why does the sentence "The Saint Croix Macaw belongs to the macaw genus Ara." needs three references? If the classification is controversial, that should be discussed in the article, and separate citations given to each source. If it is not controversial, then the multiple citations are redundant, and one reliable source would be sufficient. Similarly, the following sentence "The Saint Croix Macaw and the smaller Cuban Red Macaw (Ara tricolor) are the only two Caribbean macaw species that have been described based on physical remains." Has five citations... why? Can't this fact be supported by just one of these sources? Or, if these five sources are being used to source different parts of this sentence, this should be made to the reader (who may want to confirm or further explore the literature for themself) in a bundled cite/footnote. Sasata (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I get what you want to say. It must be the scientist in me, because if there are 5 good sources, you mention those five. I can fix that easily. One moment. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, looks much better! Now just explain the jargon and I'll have no choice but to strike out my oppose ;-) Sasata (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The jargon unfortunately is a bitch to deal with. I fear I have to upgrade a few other wikipedia articles before I can fix it here. Working on it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the taxobox, what is the point of the two citations beside the species name? Doesn't the single citation to the prologue beside the authority & year cover this?
    Agreed and fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tibiotarsus and carpometacarpus of the Santa Croix Macaw are of intermediate size." Intermediate relative to what? Why is this is the Taxonomy section, rather than the description?
    I agree that it is unclear. Intermediate of size relative to other macaws. The reason it is mentioned there is because the criterion is used to determine that it is a valid species and not just bones of an already described species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are too many technical terms that are redlinked and not explained. How is the average reader supposed to understand "a ventral lip of the glenoid facet that is more protruded; and a humerus with a more proximal placement of the ectepicondylar process and the attachment of pronator brevis." ?
    I had a stab at the jargon, please see it this makes more sense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • needs to be proofread, eg.
  • "showed that he bones differ"
  • "drawing of a unknown species of parrot by Richard Lydekker with in red the bones available"
  • "is an pre-Columbian"
  • why is yourdictionary.com being considered a reliable source?
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • the x-axis of the Macaw bone size graph needs to indicate the size units
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • The initial sentence of both "Name and etymology" and "Taxonomy" are quite similar ("The species was placed in the macaw genus Ara by Alexander Wetmore" vs. "Wetmore placed the Saint Croix Macaw in the macaw genus Ara"); have you considered combining these sections into a single "Naming and taxonomy" section (or something similar)?
Fixed first sentence of naming, which is all about the species name.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Wetmore placed the Saint Croix Macaw in the macaw genus Ara based on a single tibiotarsus,[1] which was confirmed by Olson who reexamined the bone." It is not clear what Olson reconfirmed: the generic placement, or that it was a single tibiotarsus.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The discovery of a second specimen consisting of several bones confirmed this placement." Who and when? I know the information is given later, but it leaves me hanging the way it is now, not knowing this information will be divulged later.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Based on this, authorities generally recognize this as a valid species." Not completely clear what "this" refers to.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Of the hypothetical species, the geographically nearest report is of the Lesser Antillean Macaw" Is it the report that is nearest, or rather the range of the hypothetical species? (Picky, I know)
Fixed, range is better.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Could you give a date for the publication when these hypothetical species were proposed? Currently, it's sourced to a paper from 2001, but Wetmore (1937) says taxonomic affinities are unknown.
The hypothetical species are from different dates. The 2001 paper is the best source (per your comments earlier), but the rest hinges on wetmore and I think there should be two references.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Is it really necessary to cite every consecutive sentence if the source is the same (see for example paragraph 1 of "Description"). It would make sense if you were using short form references, and giving us the page # each fact is found on, but I think it's just redundant here.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The slender proportions of the bone, and more elongated ridges about the proximal end, distinguish the species from the Amazon parrots." Is anything lost by removing the second (or even both) commas?
No, so fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The bones found by Máiz López include the left coracoid (missing a portion of the head)" I don't understand… there is a part of the coracoid called the head, and this piece that was found is missing it? (the article on the coracoid bone does not help) Or part of the bird's head was missing? Perhaps I'm just being too disingenuous :)
Added bones head.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if giving specimen numbers in the main text is perhaps too much detail for a Wikipedia article? In any case, does USNM 448344 refer to just the "worn distal portion of the left tibiotarsus", or the collection of bones described in the paragraph that were found by López?
agreed, removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of the bones by Olson and Máiz López showed" could reword out the passive tense.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • there's an earlier link for pre-Columbian than the current link
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • is ice-age supposed to be hyphenated?
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • any approximate dates for the 2nd and 3rd extinction periods?
i will dig this up later. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of the bones in kitchen middens indicates that the species was hunted for food." I would swap "indicates" with "suggests", as it seems to be a big inference based on finding the bones of only a few birds in kitchen waste (maybe they kept the birds as pets, and when they died, threw them out with the trash?).
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "extinction of the Saint Croix Macaw has occurred after that."
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "… without specifying the age of the bone." Is it unusual that he didn't specify the bone age in his 1937 paper? Radiocarbon-dating wasn't introduced until a while afterward. Did they have another method for guessing bone age in the old days?
No, many older bones are not more precise dated as the culture they are found in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Máiz López found several bone parts of a single bird" What are "bone parts"? Fragments?
Fixed, should read bones.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • what is PO 13?
removed, not necessary.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Pomarrossa Phase" is this spelled correctly? I cannot find any reference to this phrase on the internet other than this article and mirrors thereof. Also, in the next instance, "phase" is not capitalized.
Typo, fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • the title of ref #1 is missing the words "birds", and the journal title is not quite correct
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • author format is not consistent in the refs; #2 and #3 have second author listed as first initial last, unlike the first ref of #4
This is a template issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please fix the double fullstop in ref 6 (and 3rd ref of #4). It should also indicate somewhere that it's "Special Publication 13".
Template issue, circumvented.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • if the publisher location is given in ref #3, it should be given for the other book references too
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • In mammalian osteology Condyle and Trochanter are rather general terms for bony protuberances, and I think that the article should use the correct anatomical terms for the particular parts of bones. Perahps "internal condyle" should have the wikilink and piped to an appropriate page. I have not heard of an "ectepicondylar process", but there are mammalian bone features known as "epicondyles"; for example, medial and lateral epicondyles at the ankle joint and similar at the elbow. I think that it is not adequate to leave "ectepicondylar process" as a red link. See red link to "cnemial crest" also. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the revised version.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red wiki links: several red links on anatomy should be checked in case those in the article are alternative names or if they can be linked to one of the main pages on bird bones. Terminology extracted form old papers may be archaic. "Glenoid facet" is probably equivalent to the mammalian "glenoid fossa" (refereed to on the wiki as glenoid cavity), but I did not want to write this in as I only know a smattering on bird osteology. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the revised version.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

images - I am not convinced that the low resolution of "Mean length and ranges of ..." makes it particularly useful, or whether the associated caption is "succinct" Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a SVG. Originally, I forced the thumb to be larger, but this is apparently not done for FA articles, so the size was removed. I think it should be larger for readability. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Condensed the caption. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the upright attribute that allows scaling relative to the user preferred thumb size. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

The slender proportions of the bone, and more elongated ridges about the proximal end, distinguish the species from the amazon parrot - "The amazon parrot" looks funny, I'd maybe say "amazon parrots" (plural), or "an amazon parrot"
Fixed, agreed, better plural-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have both "amazon parrot" and "Amazon parrot" - choose one for consistency.
Fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was musing on adding something succinct to the lead such as "It is known from several limb bones" - to clarify for the lay reader what we have in as plain terms as possible.
Yeah, I think that was a good diea. Fussed around with it, see if it works. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. I disclose that I am a wikiproject birds member but had had little to do with the article until now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was replace the whitish with red, leaviong the grar as is, but it is confusing, so I fixed it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am asking about the fracture near the top of the left tibiotarsus in the black and white line diagram. What was the original line diagram used for? Was it to illustrate a fractured bone? Snowman (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can tell, it is not a fracture but a grove on the bone. The tibiotarsus is a fusion bone, so it could be from that. I will remove it for clarity. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to see how such a pointed piece of bone could be anything else except a fracture. However, I can not be certain from the black and white line sketch. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is solved with the removal of the image. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "glenoid facet (roughly equivalent to the glenoid cavity)"; I would have guessed that there is a more exact equivalence than suggested here. Is "glenoid facet" the same as "glenoid cavity" (also called glenoid fossa), if not then I suggest using; "glenoid facet (equivalent to the glenoid fossa of mammals). Snowman (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
glenoid fossa is a disambig to glenoid cavity, so I used that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the English name here does not look consistent with the other bone and muscle name. "pronator brevis" is latin. Are the other bone names all in latin? Snowman (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I piped the wikilink. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line drawing shows whole leg and wing bones in red, but the text mainly talks about portions of bones. I think that the line drawing is misleading, because it gives the impression that the discovered bones are more complete than they acutally are. To me, with this problem, the diagram is fatally flawed. If red can be painted in to represent the discovered bone portions, then I think it could be in infobox image. Alternately, I recall that there is an X-ray of most of an African Grey Parrot on Commons and that shows the bones. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it depends what the function is. I added it to give the reader an indication which bones are found so they can place it in the animal, not to be a exact represenation of the exact parts that have been found. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the image as it is not precise enough, and as it is not a an image of a macaw skeleton, it never can be precise enough. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red in the diagram indicated complete bones and not fossil bone portions. Readers will no longer see this misrepresentation. Surely, readers are never assisted by seeing misleading diagrams on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the caption to make the point that the sub-fossils only represent bone portions, to minimise the potential confusion caused by the long bones being coloured in red in entirety. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 16 January 2011 [42].

Gymnopilus maritimus

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to be bringing this here when I started the article, but, in light of this recent discussion, I decided to nominate it. This is a newly described species of mushroom; the article makes use of all available sources and, I feel, discusses everything one could hope to know about the species. It passed GAC with compliments from the reviewer, and I look forward to your thoughts. On the subject of an image of the species, I have contacted Laura Guzmán-Dávalos, but she has not replied. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. The length and the reliance on a single source are not in themselves problems. However I don't think it meets the FA criteria at present. My concerns are:
  1. Comprehensiveness. The description of the mushroom is very detailed. However, there is relatively little to put it in context. For instance, what is its place in the ecosystem? What were the circumstances of its discovery/identification?
  2. Media. I would be loath to support this article without one or more pictures of the organism itself. Since it is an existing species it is clearly possible to obtain such pictures.
Regards, The Land (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is there a reason you don't link spectabilis and imperialis in the lead?
  • "G. maritimus produces the smallest mushrooms in the clade, but it shares with all other members"—previous sentence implies maritimus is sister to, not part of, the imperialis-spectabilis clade; this implies it is part of the clade
  • "The yellowish hyphae are between 15 and 13.5 μm wide"—is this just a transposition or is one of the numbers wrong?
  • The description mentions the mushroom's mild taste (in the abstract); why is there nothing in the article?

Otherwise, I see few problems with the article, though I haven't checked the sources in any detail yet. Ucucha 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—It's been quite a while since I've been able to comment about someone else's mushroom article at FAC! I've deliberately kept my hands off the article (mostly) so I could weigh in here. Sasata (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: I am not familiar with this topic, and with regard to length, comprehensiveness etc I'm happy to accept the opinions of those with expert knowledge. However, the almost total reliance on a single article as a source does seem to me to be questionable, and probably unprecedented at featured level. Is there no other learned source relevant to this subject? Maybe the subject experts could comment on this? Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For species like this, there typically would only be a single source for some time; other sources will slowly emerge (for instance, people studying Gymnopilus generally, people discussing the habitat, people describing other, similar species, appearances in guidebooks, etc) but this is still relatively new. There is another source, written by some of the same authors, in the Italian language; effectively just a description of this and another species in Italian for the first time- the description is very openly just a translation of this article, but there are some new notes and comments, so there may be a couple of things to add. Alfredo Vizzini did say he would send it to me, and so it should be with me any day. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like JM said, there really is nothing other than the main publication, and the Italian-language publication with which a few sentences might be added. It would be possible to artificially inflate the bibliography by including some sources that are more generally about the genus, or adding citations from other sources in the "Similar species" section, but I don't think it would truly improve 1b (comprehensive) or 1c (well-researched). Personally, I'm leaning towards support, but am holding out and hoping JM gets a hold of the Italian pub (... and a photo too, but I know from personal experience that that's unlikely). Sasata (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog, no consensus to promote after two weeks, please come back as soon as Sasata is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 16 January 2011 [43].

Mount Fee

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it goes again. I fixed every issue in the last peer review and found a copyeditor to check the article's prose. Volcanoguy 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – I noticed a comment about the use of sources at the last FAC, so I decided to do some spot-checks.

  • Article: "a sequence of lavas and breccias on the eastern flank of the main ridge." Reference 1: "a series of lavas and volcanic breccias on the east side of the main ridge." That's pretty close; only a few words are different.
Reworded. Volcanoguy 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "a viscous series of lava flows forming its narrow, flat-topped, steep-sided northern limit and the northern end of the main ridge." Reference 1: "a thick sequence of lava flows that makes up the narrow, flat-topped, steep-sided northern limb of Mount Fee and the northern end of the main ridge." Pretty much all of the wording is the same.
Reworded. Volcanoguy 00:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "The volcanic belt has formed as a result of ongoing subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate...". Reference 3: "These volcanic belts are the result of subduction of the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate beneath the North American tectonic plate". Structure is identical, and much of the wording is as well.
This is part of a larger sentence that is not largely copyied. In addition, it is not that easy to reword this portion of the quoted sentence because it will still include the terms like "subduction", "Juan de Fuca Plate", "North American Plate". Volcanoguy 22:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "and consist of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, blocks and bombs." Reference 5: "constructed of alternating layers of lava flows, ash, and other volcanic debris." Structure is similar to the source here as well.
Reference 5 is public domain material. Volcanoguy 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "Black Tusk, a pinnacle of volcanic rock near the northern shore of Garibaldi Lake to the southeast, is also interpreted to be the remains of a deeply eroded cinder-rich volcano." Reference 7: "Black Tusk, a spire of volcanic rock over two hundred metres high, is interpreted as the remnant of a small volcano, perhaps the conduit for lava within a cinder-rich volcano." Not as clear a problem as the others, but their are still distinct structural similarities, which as a pattern are troubling.
Reworded. Volcanoguy 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check all of the references, but what I saw is enough to concern me. In particular, I see a pattern of substituting words while leaving the structure of a sentence intact, with key words unchanged or only tweaked. This is close paraphrasing, and I urge you to make sure that nothing else like the above issues exists in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox references The infobox is missing references for elevation, prominence and coordinates. All three values match that of bivouac.com although the same elevation is given on the GSC page. The GSC coordinates (50°4'59" N 123°15'0" W) are different than bivouac's; who is correct? Is one referring to the north tower and the other the south tower? Since south is highest, the infobox should reflect that. I would recommend using the GSC for elevation and coordinates (change them to match) and use bivouac for the prominence. RedWolf (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources for elevation and coordinates, but I am not too sure for the prominence. According to one of the FACs I was associated with before, bivouac is not really a reliable source. So if there is no reliable source that gives Fee's prominence I think it should just be deleted. Volcanoguy 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Multiple instances of close paraphrasing. Examples: "is also interpreted to be the remains" vs "is interpreted as the remnant"; "the only exposed remnant of Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor outcrop of pyroclastic rock" vs "The oldest volcanic rocks at Mount Fee are represented by only a small outcrop of pyroclastic material" ; "no major eruptions have taken place in Canada for over a hundred years and the volcano is located in a remote region" vs "Because no large eruptions have occurred in Canada in the last few hundred years and most of our volcanoes are currently in remote locations"; a significant portion of "Monitoring" is closely paraphrased from this source
I believe you are being a bit extreme here. "The only exposed remnant of Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor outcrop of pyroclastic rock" vs "The oldest volcanic rocks at Mount Fee are represented by only a small outcrop of pyroclastic material" do not have the same wording and are completely reworded, same for the "Monitoring" section. Volcanoguy 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contain 70% brown volcanic glass and 15% vesicles" vs "containing up to 70% brown glass and up to 15% vesicles" - article doesn't match source
Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic activity at Mount Fee is among the oldest in the Mount Cayley volcanic field" - source?
This is something that is a bit hard to source. The way I found this out was from doing research, not from written information. Mount Fee and Mount Cayley are the only two volcanoes in the Cayley field that predate the last glacial period as far as I amare of. Every else formed during or after the last glacial period. Volcanoguy 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "%" should be spelled out
No they shouldn't. According to WP:PERCENT "the percentage symbol (%) is preferred in scientific or technical articles, in complex listings, and in articles where many percentages are reported". This is a scientific article. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A portion of the southwestern flank of Mount Fee comprises no volcanic glass, but rather composed of an abnormal cryptocrystalline matrix" - grammar
  • "It likely represents a dissected stratovolcano...that was larger in area and higher in elevation than its current form" - source?
Sourced. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the volcano is located in a remote region...A significant eruption at Mount Fee would probably have considerable effects, particularly in a region like southwestern British Columbia where the Garibaldi Belt is located in a highly populated area" - seems contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it dosen't. Just because it is located in a remote region dosen't mean it can't have effects on the surrounding area. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the latter part of the sentence says that it is not in a remote region, but rather a highly populated one. Is that not the case, or is that not what is meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GVB is in BC's populated southwest corner yes, but not all of it. Fee is situated in mountainous terrain where people do not normally live. Same for volcanoes like Silverthrone Caldera and Franklin Glacier Volcano; it's pretty much nothing other than ice and rock. Towns and cities are not normally located on top of mountain ranges or in areas with little space. But a significant eruption from Fee can still have effects because ash and gas can travel far away from its source, mostly from wind blowing it around. Volcanoguy 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. It might be worth expanding on this slightly in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose. I will add comments here as I go through the article. Please excuse my ignorance of the field; I have some questions about terminology that may be obvious to someone who knows this topic.

  • "The summits are separated by a U-shaped crevice that gives them a prominent appearance": is "prominent" the word you want? Seems like it should be something like "distinctive". In addition, this information isn't in the body -- generally everything in the lead should be in the body. As a result this sentence is unsourced -- it's not the physical description that needs sourcing, but the fact that it is prominent, or distinctive, or whatever. If the statement is self-evident it won't need a source, of course.
  • "a narrow north-south trending ridge of fine-grained volcanic rock": what does "trending" mean here? Does it just mean that the ridge runs north-south? If so, I'd suggest cutting it unless this is the usual terminology in geology texts.
  • "edifice" seems an odd word to use to describe the physical form of the mountain. How about "Mount Fee is what remains of", or "The present form of Mount Fee is what remains of"?
  • I'd suggest linking "stratovolcano" at first use; and "dissected stratovolcano" is a bit of jargon -- is there either another way to say this or a link that could be added?
  • "forms the narrow north-south trending ridge of Mount Fee" -- this is the fourth time "north-south trending" has been used; is it really necessary to add this? Could this be cut to just "forms Mount Fee's ridge", or "makes up the ridge of which Mount Fee is formed"?
  • The first paragraph of eruptive history baffles me. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't see how knowing that it formed before the Wisconsinan Glaciation implies that: "the rocks comprising Mount Fee do not display evidence of interaction with glacial ice; the duration of volcanic events is unknown, and the exact timing of eruptive events is unknown". Why are these results of the age of the volcano?
  • "ancestral Mount Fee": "ancestral seems an odd term here; is this normal usage in the field? Something like "original" would be better, or even a paraphrase such as "original form [or version?] of".
  • I'm also not clear about the topology. The view from the south makes it seem that the peaks are to the east and west of each other, but then the text says "Following extensive dissection, renewed volcanism produced a viscous series of lavas on its northern flank. The U-shaped crevice separating the two main summits of Mount Fee separates this lava flow from the main volcanic ridge." That doesn't seem to make sense of the crevice separates east from west.

-- I'm going to stop there for now and wait for your responses; I'm finding the article a bit hard to follow, though that may be my ignorance. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to promote after more than two weeks; please work on outstanding issues and come back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 16 January 2011 [44].

History of Sesame Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it deserves it, meaning that it's ready because it fits the criteria. I have worked really hard on this article; it is well-researched and has been vetted extensively by some great editors and copyeditors. I hope everyone who reviews it enjoys it, because it's about an interesting topic that taps into our collective consciousness, I think. Christine (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference comments from CrowzRSA
  • Consistency issues between the listing the year in short citations.
  • Ref 104: 2 p's needed.

CrowzRSA 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked really hard to get the references in this article consistent, so thanks for catching what I missed. I missed Ref 104 because it was hiding in a note. (Missing one ref out of almost 170 isn't bad, I must say.) Just to be certain, I went through the refs again and fixed a few more, so I think that the refs are now completely accurate and consistent. Christine (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose serious abuse of non-free content, too numerous to reasonably be expected to list Fasach Nua (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the discussion about this article's images as per Sandy's recommendation. Thank you for your continuing consideration of this article. Christine (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reviewers' and delegates' reference, the discussion hasn't actually been deleted; it's been moved to this FAC's talk page. Delegates should also be aware that Fasach Nua's oppose is still there, unstruck; Christine, I think you shouldn't remove an oppose like that, though I'm sure you had good intentions per Sandy's comments. I suggest you bring back some representative text (including the bolded oppose) and ping Fasach Nua to see if the oppose still stands. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike (yes, when moving commentary to talk, you should 1) first check with the opposer, and 2) leave the Oppose portion on the page :) And always leave a link to talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks as well. No, I didn't mean anything untoward in what I did. The oppose is back here, and I'll ping Fasach right away. Thanks for assuming good faith on my part, since that's what happened--as per Sandy's suggestion, I wanted to encourage more reviews, which wonder to behold, is exactly what happened! ;) And here's the talk link: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1. Christine (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources comments

  • In several case you have used mdashes in page ranges, rather than ndashes. See 12, 46 and 104, and check for others
Fixed. Christine (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the formatting of the book references is untidy. For example, "Clash, Kevin and Gary Brozek & Louis Henry Mitchell (2006)". Mixing "and" and ampersand is ugly. Also, why should co-authors not have the standard surname-first format? Thus I would expect this to read: "Clash, Kevin; Brozek, Gary; Mitchell, Louis Henry (2006)" There are several other instances in the listing that require similar attention.
Fixed, fairly certain. Christine (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two footnotes require citations
Done. Christine (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've read through about a third; thoughts so far:
  • Davis described it - first mention of Davis, we need context of who he is and why we care.
Got it, thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spite of Cooney's lack of experience in the field of education,[24] her study was well received - by whom?
The sources don't clarify by whom, so I deleted the phrase and moved the first part of the sentence up a paragraph. Christine (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear up use of Carnegie - sometimes it's "Carnegie Foundation", sometimes "Carnegie Institute", sometimes just "Carnegie". Are all these referring to the same thing?
The accurate title, is "Carnegie Corp. of NY", but the sources (Davis, Lesser) use the above titles interchangeably. I just changed all mentions to "Carnegie Corp." Christine (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural references and guest appearances from celebrities would encourage parents and older siblings to watch together - is this being stated as fact? Or something they just felt was true (presumably there wasn't research on the topic)?
Nope, no research. I think it's safe to say that Cooney was the one who came up with the idea to use celebrities and since the paragraph talks about her initial proposal, I added, "Cooney believed that..." Christine (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was primarily responsible for fundraising - does this mean she was the main person in charge of fundraising, or does this mean her main responsibility was fundraising (in which case I think it should be "responsible primarily")?
I use too many words in my writing. Since Morrisett was responsible for more than just fundraising, I cut out "primarily". Christine (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • procured additional grants totaling US$8 million from the United States federal government, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Ford Foundation - was the 8 million split roughly evenly between the three? If available, I'd personally prefer a breakdown of funding.
None of the major sources used in this article do that. I suppose we could find it in Sesame Workshop sources, but I was trying to avoid using primary sources. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Christine (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connell took over animation and volume; and Gibbon served as the show's chief liaison between the production staff and the research team. - first mention of Connell and Gibbon so full names and possibly some context?
Got it, thanks. Christine (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had worked on Captain Kangaroo...together - slightly unclear who "they" refers to.
"They" refers to Stone, Connell, and Gibbon; I clarified the sentence by replacing the list of names with the word. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a popular and highly-regarded daily children's show which aired on CBS) - I'd be tempted to put this information higher up, where Captain Kangaroo is first mentioned.
That doesn't feel like something I wrote, so I removed the phrase. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good and I'm finding it very interesting so far. Will have a look through more of it in the next few days. Trebor (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading a bit further:
  • but Stone understood that there were infinite ways - "infinite" seems a bit hyperbolic.
Looking at the sentence, I've realized that the sentence doesn't really fit, so I deleted it. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The researchers involved with the show found that preschoolers were more sophisticated television viewers than originally though - more sophisticated in what way?
To answer that question would require a significant expansion, which wouldn't really fit. I think it would much better fit in Sesame Street research, an article I created after working on this one. I think that the section here should remain, since it has a different focus (historical and developmental). So, like above, I cut it. Christine (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • almost immediate praise - odd phrase, what caused the delay?
Too many words again! I cut out "almost". Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 2 to 4 of "Premiere and first season (1969–1970)" could do with some rearranging of content. The fourth paragraph (which also uses odd phrase "almost immediately apparent") in particular seems a bit disconnected - the ideas aren't all linked by "effectiveness" as the first sentence suggests it will be (I hope I'm making sense).
You've made some good points. I did some restructuring and cutting. It was a bit of a mess stylistically, wasn't it? Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor, thanks for the feedback and assistance. It's made the article that much better! Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I will try to finish the article in the next few days. Trebor (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Few more comments:
  • This would protect them from the financial pressures experienced by commercial networks, but later created problems in finding continued support - later in the '70s? This doesn't seem to be expanded on much
Actually, that decision has caused some challenges in funding all along, so I removed the word "later" and added "throughout the show's history" to the end of the sentence. Christine (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • team of researchers analyzed Sesame Street{{'}s content - brackets error; would correct it myself but was unsure if you were trying to do something special there.
Nope, just a silly error. Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the increase of thirty-minute children's shows on cable had demonstrated that programs lasting ninety minutes or more could hold the attention of young children - non-sequitur? The rest of the paragraph confuses me a bit: were they wanting to appeal to the younger children? What does it mean by target age? The next sentence suggests younger viewers weren't able to hold attention for 90 minutes, because they lost it after 40-45. (Part of the confusion might be that the meaning of "young" and "younger" viewers isn't crystal clear.)
Sorry, I'm probably being dense, but I'm still confused by the sentence As a result, the target age for Sesame Street shifted downward. The sentence before is about viewers losing attention after 45 minutes, and I'm not sure how that logically means the target age should be reduced. Trebor (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're being dense, but I'm being unclear. I moved the phrase in question to the section below in its discussion of changing the entire show. I think that my other changes might answer your questions. Please let me know if I was successful. Christine (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good now. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • younger toddlers - same problem as above, it's not clear exactly what this means.
I fixed the above two issues by rewording some things and removing others. I think it's clearer now. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished an initial run-through, but still need to check notes/references/etc. and then give it another read. Thanks for the quick responses. I really enjoyed the article, it's an interesting history. Trebor (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I agree, of course. I highly recommend Street Gang, but Michael Davis. Great book, and very well-written. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lead:
  • I'm not in love with the first sentence although I'm struggling to think of a better way to phrase it. "With" seems like the wrong word, maybe "using" (although then I think the sentence structure would need altering). "Cultural references" doesn't seem to quite fit with the others on the list either. Maybe it's just me, though.
I kept "with", but I did alter the sentence of that sentence, to "Sesame Street, with its combination of Jim Henson's Muppets, animation, live shorts, humor, and celebrity appearances, premiered on public broadcasting television stations on November 10, 1969." Notice how I expanded the phrase "cultural references". I've realized that to SS nuts, it's a catch-phrase for the things that encourage "co-viewing", or encouraging older siblings and adults to watch. It means including humor and celebrities to do that, so I clarified. Christine (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sesame Street has undergone significant changes in its 40-year history. - could be cut?
  • The show's success continued into the 1980s - bit of a stubby sentence - it suggests the next sentence will be about success, but it's not. Maybe expand it a little?
I cut both, and then tightened up the paragraph a bit. Christine (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be me, but the lead doesn't seem quite as well-written as the rest of the article (although I always think they're the hardest bit to phrase properly). Other points from refs and notes:
Writing leads has always been one of my weakest areas in WP editing. I appreciate the assistance. Christine (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes are inconsistent in their use of en dashes and em dashes for page ranges.
  • Notes and refs sometimes use "Davis" and sometimes "Davis, 2008".
Um, I just went through the notes and found no problems. I did find others, though, which I fixed. Christine (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and notes 64 and 143 use "Davis, 2008". All the others use "Davis". Trebor (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I realize that you've been talking about the "Footnotes" section. I've gone back and fixed them now. Christine (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 10: "social reasons" is a bit ambiguous in meaning. Typo in "he the split". Another possible dash error in the money range?
Does switching the word "social" for "humanitarian" make it more clear? Fixed grammar error—"I is a English writer"! I thought that the m-dash was correct in this case, but I changed it, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I reach a new low for nitpicking, the square brackets in ref 7 aren't quite right.
Fixed. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what current policy is on wikilinking the publishers etc. in the references is (e.g. Newsweek, New York Times, Current, How Stuff Works). I normally do it but I don't know if it's required, or even encouraged.
I'm a real proponent of decreasing over-wikilinking, so I don't do it, either. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from my minor quibbles, notes and refs look good (at least in terms of formatting). Trebor (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I've corrected everything now. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. I'll give the article one more run-through soon, to catch any other minor details, and then that should be it. I don't know enough to comment on the image issue properly, but it seems to me that the "elmo's world" and caricature images are more justified than the others (although I agree it's a shame that any of them have to go). Trebor (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Move to support. Well-written, well-sourced, and thorough. I believe it meets the criteria (disclaimers: I do not have access to most of the sources for accuracy or close paraphrasing; and I am assuming the image issue above can be resolved). Trebor (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 Dab- David Connell; 0 dead external links; 1 external redirect, which I've fixed. --PresN 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

  • Per WP:LEAD, I think the content of your second sentence should be in the first sentence: it's a preschool educational television program, and the first sentence should say that.
  • I changed an instance of "US$" to "$" before realizing that you had multiple instances of this; I think, per [WP:$]], that since this is almost entirely about a US topic there is no need for the "US".
  • The total initial funding is given in the lead as $8M, but the "Development" section makes it sound as though the $8M is in addition to the original $1M from the Carnegie Corporation. Could you clarify?
  • "several studies showed its educational impact": this is a bit vague. Would the sources support: "several studies showed that it was having a positive educational impact"?
  • "CTW turned to other sources, such as the magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign income": since we haven't mentioned the magazine division before, I think this needs to be "its magazine division".
  • In a short span at the start of the last paragraph of the lead, you have "challenges", "changes", "changes" and "change"; could one or two of these be rephrased?
  • You repeatedly use a standard format for quoting an expert: "As author David Borgenrich stated"; "As historian Robert Morrow stated"; "As researcher Gerald Lesser ... reported". I think these need to be varied a bit. In a couple of instances you are probably OK to just use the material and cite it, without naming the source; in other cases perhaps "According to historian Robert Morrow", or "Historian Robert Morrow has commented/described/etc." could work.
  • "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, especially from poor and minority backgrounds": to my ear the final clause isn't very precisely attached to "children"; the reader quickly understands it but it's a little loosely phrased. How about something like: "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, with a particular focus on grants to assist children from poor and minority backgrounds"?
  • "For this reason, the creators chose public television to broadcast the new show": I don't follow this; what is the reason given? That paragraph actually seems to be arguing that public television was an unlikely choice, unless I misunderstood something.
  • The "Beginnings" section covers a lot of ground, and I think it might be beneficial to pull out the first two paragraphs to an initial section above the "Beginnings" title -- you could title it "Background", or just leave it untitled. Also, paragraph 4, 5, 7 and 8 in that section are essentially about Cooney's report, but paragraph 6 is about the plan to do something as a consequence of the report. Wouldn't that material be better at the end of that section, or in the following section?

I've glanced through the rest of the article but will stop reading there for now. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog. More than two weeks, no consensus to promote-- please work on outstanding issues and bring it back in two weeks for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:16, 16 January 2011 [45].

Missouri River

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAC for the Missouri River article. The first FAC got... not much attention. Shannontalk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with some of the sources.
  • Is this reliable (fn 114)? Its spelling is so shocking that you've had to correct it significantly when quoted in the article.
fixed. Shannontalk contribs 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the first decade of the 20th century to the 1940s…" There are a number of consecutive sentences before we get to the first footnote here which only offers support for the very last part. The source isn't great anyway as it's written by the operator of the dam. That essentially leaves some significant unverified content. For example, I can't see any citation for the claim that the Black Eagle Dam was the first dam in Missouri. (BTW "series of dams were built" should be was).
Wording corrected, added two references. Shannontalk contribs 03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new reference added, footnote 101, is to this page. Again I don't find any support in the source for the material in the article (eg built in 1891, first in the area, dams being built until the 1940s). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have doubts whether this is reliable.
Outdated references from the old visage of the article, removed/replaced. Shannontalk contribs 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see where this source, as footnote 71, supports any of the four and a half sentences that it follows in the article.
I don't see a problem with ref 71 - appears that it links here. Shannontalk contribs 03:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that I don't see how any of the material in the source supports the material in the article to which footnote 71 relates. The source only gives brief mention of an unnamed camp - it says nothing of the rest of the 4 and a half sentences in the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added two references with material. Shannontalk contribs 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a spot check - these are four of about eight I've checked, so I'm concerned about the article as a whole.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns were raised in the last FAC; if those have not been resolved, this FAC should be withdrawn until they have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very overlinked and I question what the flag is adding to the reader's understanding.--John (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Most of the points in my long list of sources concerns at the last FAC remain unaddressed. This confirms the imression that this article had been brought back here too soon, without any serious preparation for a new FAC. Also, there are additional concerns raised above, re spotchecks. I agree with Sandy - withdraw for the moment, get all the outstanding issues settled before renomination. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just too many questions on sources and also some concerns about whether or not the sources back up what is said. I don't honestly have the time to double check all the sources against the statements in the article.

Besides the concerns that Brian listed, I have the following other ones:
New Orleans Local News?? check again... Shannontalk contribs 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speer, Gary. "Great Plains Region Changed by Horse Cultures, Gold Prospecting Rush". Ezine Articles - what the heck is this? A webpage? If it's an email newsletter, it isn't strictly speaking published and would fail as a reliable source.
  • "A majority of the Native Americans relied heavily on the bison as a food source, and their hides and bones served to create other household items. In time, the species came to rely on the indigenous peoples' periodic controlled burnings of the grasslands surrounding the Missouri, in order to clear out old and dead growth. However, once Europeans got to North America, both the bison and the Native Americans saw a rapid decline in population." this is not exactly what the source linked to says. It doesn't say that the majority of Native Americans relied on the bison (and that's wrong anyway, as that implies that ALL of the Native Americans in North America (if not South America too!) relied on the bison, which isn't true. Nor does it say that those that did hunt the bison "relied" on the bison, rather that the bison provided "critical supplies". Nor is there any mention of "In time, the species came to rely on the indigenous peoples' periodic controlled burnings of the grasslands surrounding the Missouri, in order to clear out old and dead growth." or of the last sentence either.
Changed a few words and adjectives to clarify, also included "Native Americans in the basin", specifying the Missouri basin as the area being discussed. Shannontalk contribs 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links to this site replaced. Shannontalk contribs 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Shannontalk contribs 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced, Shannontalk contribs 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Used by a lot of decent river articles (including Columbia River, a FA and Snake River, a GA); additionally, Nature Conservancy and WWF are both 'big' organizations. Shannontalk contribs 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://www.ewg.org/?
This article is written by a PhD (I am not, though.) Shannontalk contribs 00:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern - do you REALLY need that huge list of "see also"?
    done , tried shortening it a bit, now about the size of Columbia River's see also, but a teeny bit larger. Shannontalk contribs 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking - you link Rocky Mountains in the "course" section, and then again at Watershed. Do we really need links to canyons? Or North America? You link a huge pile of states in the course section, and relink a bunch of them in the Watershed section. That's just what jumped out at me while checking the sources.
    done Shannontalk contribs 00:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the pictures/lists/graphs are creating big swathes of white space on my screen - this should be looked into also.
White spaces -- those sometimes happen to me with a PC, but I am a Mac user, and there are no bugs on my screen, so I don't know. Shannontalk contribs 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But... I'm on a Mac. Using the latest version of Safari. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Google Chrome, will try Safari right now. Shannontalk contribs 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Well, actually, Earwig's turned up content on "findwomen.com" and some garbled matches on two other sites, but I'm betting those are unrecognized mirrors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to all above comments Done. Shannontalk contribs 05:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon, please read the instructions at WT:FAC and refrain from using "done" templates-- they cause the archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled. Shannon, please review the instructions at WP:FAC. When you bring an article back to FAC without addressing previous issues, it is unlikely that reviewers will engage, as their time is valuable, and they aren't likely to appreciate reviewing the same issues twice. Please take at least two weeks and make certain you have addressed all issues before renominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:28, 12 January 2011 [46].

Davenport, Iowa

[edit]
Nominator(s): CTJF83 chat 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...it's time for my annual end of year FAC of Davenport :). Anyways, I believe the 3rd time is the charm, and this time it meets WP:FA?. I believe I've addressed everything from past FACs and the recent PR. CTJF83 chat 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • 88: two p's needed
  • 89: two p's needed


CrowzRSA 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed CTJF83 chat 19:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images What are the first publication dates of File:Davenport_Flag.gif & File:Davenport_Seal.png? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag 2000, looking for seal. CTJF83 chat 19:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All assertions in the article must be backed up using reliable sources, this includes those assertions regarding the claimed copyright status of imagery used. I would like for the copyright status of this image to be verifiable, and I would suggest you contact the appropriate municipal authority to clarify the copyright and date of creation of this emblem. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have no problem doing that, but how do I source me asking a city official? I'll also go to the library Monday and see what I can find in books. CTJF83 chat 17:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either we can Assume good faith on your part, we can get the authority to submit an WP:OTRS ticket (if it is older than 1923), they may give you a reference a town charter or other device, they may point you to a civic building with the seal which was installed quite early on which you could photograph, if they give you a year it was produced typing "Davenport, Iowa coat of arms 19XX" may produce better results than "Davenport, Iowa coat of arms" in Google. My gut instinct is that it will be out of copyright as it's style seems to be a constant theme in Iowa CoAs in the 1800s, but we lack verifiability at this point Fasach Nua (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will get back to your tomorrow! :) Thanks, CTJF83 chat 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the lady in the historical archives at the library, she thinks the seal is from around when the city was founded and we found a newspaper article from 1922 with an opinion saying the city needs to adopt an official flag, so it is after that. She said she remembers an older flag before the current one...other than that, not sure where to look. CTJF83 chat 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two images licensed as non-free are necessary for a reader understanding Davenport, and as such they fail WP:NFCC and consequently the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3, I believe that the seal is probably free and could be used if this could be proven. The other images are fine, and the oppose is regrettable. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although other FAs have similar images, if that is the only oppose reason, I have removed them. CTJF83 chat 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA Criteria 3 met - One of the problems observed at FAR is editors tend to benchmark articles against other FAs, rather than the WP:FA Criteria, although in most of these articles the flag and seal are free, and the others failed to have an image review. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


More sources issues: The following arise from a spotchscking of sources:-

  • Ref 48: What is being confirmed by this source?
  • Ref 50: Is it a good idea to use Lee Enterprises's own site to confirm facts about the organisation? The site reads as promotional material.
  • Ref 60: Newspaper titles should be italicised (check for others)
  • Ref 66: The publisher here is Davenport Public Library
  • Refs 78 and 79: these are basically sites advertising services, and need to be used carefully in a neutral article about the city. Thus the statement "The Celebration Belle has river cruises from a one-and-a-half-hour sightseeing cruise to an all-day three-meal cruise up to Dubuque, Iowa" has too much specific detail, and should be rewritten along the lines e.g. "The Celebration Belle advertises a range of river cruises". This may be an issue elsewhere in the article.
  • Ref 121: I cannot find the cited quotation on this source page.

Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your concerns have been addressed. CTJF83 chat 04:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned at your request for another look at sources. It would help if you could summarise how you addressed my earlier concerns, since some of the numbering has changed (there isn't a 121, for example). Refs 78 and 79 both carry strange messages saying that the page I'm looking for doesn't exist, yet they both carry information, so I'm ignoring that. Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of work I removed ref 48, and sourced it to a current ref, so that's why 121 was lost, found a Reuters source instead of Lee Enterprises, italicized the newspaper, missed the library publisher fix, so fixing that now, and won't be in above diff, made the cruise info less like an advertisement, and removed the info not in the source from old ref 121. CTJF83 chat 15:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, removed Celebration Belle stuff, as it isn't really Davenport related. CTJF83 chat 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine; sources issues resolved now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links anymore- you had 2 links redirecting, of which one was marked in the article as dead. I fixed them both for you. --PresN 03:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CTJF83 chat 04:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose review – oppose - we have some problems here.
    • Past tense should be used at all times.
    • Are trying to cite every sentence? Otherwise you can reduce a lot of these to one citation at the end of a paragraph.
    • In 1803, The United States acquired land from France under the Louisiana Purchase.[2] "land"? There was a lot of land. This gives us no idea of how large the purchase was, nor where it was. Lieutenant Zebulon Pike was the first official United States representative to explore the Upper Mississippi River which runs through the newly acquired land.[2] Past tense. Why should we care about this part of the river? Does it run near Davenport? On August 27, 1805, Pike camped on the present day site of Davenport.[2] hyphenate present-day
    • In 1832, Sauk Indian tribe chief Keokuk and United States Army General Winfield Scott signed a treaty to end the Black Hawk War.[3] Does this treaty have a name? Antoine LeClaire, who was part French and part Pottawattamie, served as translator. Why is there no link here to the man's article? Who cares about his ancestry? Chief Keokuk gave a generous portion of the land to Antoine's wife, Marguerite LeClaire, who was the granddaughter of a Sac chief.[3] Wouldn't the treaty have done this? I'm guessing Keokuk forfeited this land to the US (but I can't check because there is no link to the treaty). No last name for the wife is needed, it's implied by "wife". Antoine built his home on the exact spot where the treaty was signed, as stipulated by Keokuk or he would have forfeited the land. Again, Keokuk or the treaty? Also we have a Antoine -> Marguerite -> Antoine flow here. Did Antoine actually build the home? Wouldn't it be their home? Antoine did so, finishing the Treaty House in the spring of 1833. "Antoine did so" -> just said the same thing in the sentence before. Davenport was established on May 14, 1836 by Antoine LeClaire, and named after his good friend Colonel George Davenport and incorporated on January 25, 1839.[3] Blindsided with this colonel. What's his story? Seems an important part of the history of the town if it was named after him.
    • In 1837, shortly after Scott County was formed, Davenport and neighbor Rockingham both campaigned to become the county seat.Why was it formed, and by who? What is a county seat? The city with the most votes in the February 1838 election would become the county seat.[4] Who is voting for this? On the eve of the election, Davenporters secured the temporary service of Dubuque laborers so that they could vote in the election and Davenport won. Did these laborers make the difference? This sentence needs to be read aloud and rewritten. Rockingham supporters protested the elections to the territorial governor, who refused to certify the results of the election. Protested on what grounds? The laborers? A second election was scheduled for the following August. To avoid another import of voters, the governor set a 60-day residency requirement for all voters. Davenport was again the victor by only two votes.[4] The close results lead to a third election in the summer of 1840. Past tense? As the August election drew nearer, Rockingham residents grew tired of the county seat cause, and the efforts of Davenporters were difficult to challenge. How did they grow tired of it? What efforts? Davenport easily won the third election. Sentence needs a transition, like "Consequently, ..." To ensure that the county seat issue would not be played out again, Davenport built the first county courthouse.[4] Why would it play out again when they had already won?
    • My advice is to reread the whole article, reading the sentences aloud, and try to address issues like these throughout the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensive? - as I indicated in the AfD for African Americans in Davenport, Iowa and on Talk:Davenport, Iowa, this article should be expanded to cover race relations, buildings on the NRHP regardless of race, Bix Biederbecke and the local jazz scene. The Davenport, Iowa article is well-done and very close to FA, but it needs to cover all of Davenport without relegating 9% of the population to a POV-fork. Racepacket (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Oppose by Ruhrfisch - I was asked to review this by Ctjf83. While what is here is a very good article, I do not find that it meets several of the FA criteria. Please note that this is not a complete list of problems with the article, but that I find these issues sufficient to oppose (albeit reluctantly).

  • 1a, well-written - I agree with the oppose above on prose problems in the History section. I also found a number of prose and MOS issues, with examples just from the lead.
    • For example, the first three sentences in the lead all start with Davenport (and it seems to me that the first two could probably be combined).
    • The third sentence could be switched from passive voice to active voice and thus made more concise, perhaps something like Antoine LeClaire founded Davenport on May 14, 1836 and named it for his friend, George Davenport, a colonel stationed at nearby Fort Armstrong during the Black Hawk War. (not sure if the fort needs to be in the lead, could just be "stationed nearby during the Black Hawk War")
    • The last two sentences of the first lead paragraph could surely be combined to something like Davenport is the largest of the Quad Cities, which also consists of Bettendorf, Iowa, and the Illinois cities of Moline, East Moline, and Rock Island, and had a total population of 379,066 [as of YEAR]. Is Quad Cities singular or plural, by the way?
      • Depends on context....I guess. Several references to both ways. I don't know how else to answer. CTJF83 chat 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense - if you are referring to the region, then "The Quad Cities is a region in Iowa and Illinois on the Mississippi River..." makes sense. If you are referring to the cities themselves, then plural makes sense "The Quad Cities are actually at leat five in number..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides these issues in just the first paragraph of the lead, I note that the lead mentions and links to Bix Beiderbecke twice. The lead needs to be a concise summary and avoid needless repetition.
    • There are several other examples of WP:OVERLINKing - Illinois and Mississippi River are each linked twice in just the lead. The usual rule for linking is once in the lead and once more on first occurrence in the body of the article (with some exceptions). Links to common terms like city also seem like overlinks to me.
    • At the same time, my rule of thumb for the lead is to mention every section header somehow - I am not sure the current lead does this.
  • 1b, Comprehenisveness - there is no mention of history prior to the US purchase in 1803, but what of the Native Americans in the region before this, or the French owners who sold it to the US?

Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a tough choice in the face of your continued optimism, but I don't feel this article is yet at FA quality.

  • Organization: I would suggest putting Government earlier, and potentially moving Arts, Sports and Media later. I also don't feel that "Livability Award" merits its own level-2 heading, especially given the very short length of that section. In general, one-paragraph sections or sub-sections should be merged or expanded
  • I agree with several of the concerns raised by Ruhrfisch and Theed17 regarding prose, MoS, and comprehensiveness. In particular, I suggest a thorough copy-editing of the article to deal with grammar and prose clarity issues
  • Multiple issues with reference formatting and accuracy ("QRivers of Life"? "City of Davenport="?). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "city" linked? Why is a list of countries in the world linked in the infobox? Why is "Mayor" linked? "County seat" linked twice, close by. Linking every component of town, county, state, country bunches the links in a way that is discouraged by WP:MOSLINK. Why not focus the blue link-indicator on the most specific, from which the other, more general items can be linked (if anyone really wanted to visit "United States" from the opening of this article ...). Same for County Carlow, Ireland.
  • What does pp. 7-1 mean?
  • Numbering: 600 but twenty-three?
  • Minus temperatures need minus signs, not hyphens. (Could you get this across to whatever Wikiproject is responsible? Same for map coordinates.)
  • 101,360 in the prose, but no commas in the demographics table? Tony (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:22, 12 January 2011 [48].

U.S. Route 30 in Iowa

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Fredddie™ 05:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked on this article for the better part of the last year and feel it meets the criteria. It's one of the most important roads in the state of Iowa, probably the most historic road, and I feel I've done the road justice. It's my first time to FAC, so please be kind! –Fredddie™ 05:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US_30_(IA)_map.svg - I really have no idea where Iowa is or what it looks like, can this image be given some context Fasach Nua (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in File:Map of USA IA.svg as an inset. Will that work? –Fredddie™
WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the criteria. It is my opinion that:

  1. It is well-written, , comprehensive, well-researched (all reliable sources), neutral, and stable.
  2. The lead is appropriate for the article; the structure is likewise appropriate and all of the citations are consistently formatted.
  3. All of the photos are either public domain or Creative-Commons-licensed. There are no fair-use images, and all of the captions are appropriate.
  4. The length of the article is appropriate for 330 miles of highway in the state of Iowa that is 97 years old, both in terms of description and history.
Imzadi 1979 → 06:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The biggest problem I see in the article is overlinking. To provide a couple of examples, I saw four Ogden links at various points in the article, and one paragraph had multiple Ames and Iowa State University links. The whole article could use a good scrubbing in this regard.
  • "While US 30 was created in 1926, the route itself dates back to the 1913...".
  • Move reference 14 after the punctuation in the last paragraph of the section.
  • Also in this section, at the end, a period is needed before reference 11.
  • Not a big deal, but reference 2 could use a PDF indication like many of the other refs have. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a significant number of links, removed the erroneous the, and corrected the references. –Fredddie™
Left the first comment unstruck originally because I found a couple remaining examples of overlinking while checking the other comments. I just removed them, and am now content with the improvement in that regard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Many of the sources are maps. It is frequently very difficult to verify statements which are cited to these maps. Just one example: "In 1955 a couple of routing changes occurred. In Cedar Rapids, it began its move to the south, avoiding the downtown area, and in Clinton, it was rerouted over the Gateway Bridge, allowing Iowa Highway 136 to cross the Lyons-Fulton Bridge."[19] How do I verify this statement from the map?
    • Would it be helpful to provide a ref to the previous year's map? –Fredddie™
  • Ref 2: It is virtually impossible to verify the 15 citations to this source. Can you harness the helpful bookmarks provided to the left of the pdf? This would at least bring us to the right page.
    • The reference is, in actuality, a log of the average annual daily traffic for every segment of road in the primary highway system. The length was derived by adding the lengths of all segments listed for US 30. I will show my work to allay any questions about how it was derived. –Fredddie™ 01:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the sources I can interpret look good, and spotchecking reveals no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not questioning the use of maps as sources per se. As with books, online or offline is not an issue. I am suggesting that when maps are used to support statements, indications be given e.g. by grid references, to enable verification in much the same way that page numbers are given in books. I am also dubious about whether sentences such as the one I have quoted above can be verified entirely from a map. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said before, I can provide refs to the previous year's map (where possible) to show the change. The downside is that would effectively double the number of map references. –Fredddie™ 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "Despite the 1-mile (1.6 km) wide valley, due to the river's meandering course, the historic Kate Shelley High Bridge, which is 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) north of US 30, is not visible from the route" -- necessary?
      • Probably not, so I removed it. I only included it because it's the most notable feature in the Boone area. –Fredddie™
    • "While not ideal for transcontinental travel, Iowa's dirt roads were very good roads; that is, when they were dry. Some people even compared them to the best roads in France. The same could not be said, however, when the roads were wet. " -- you have some redundancies and unnecessary words here.
      • I moved around a few words trying not to change the meaning of the sentences. –Fredddie™
    • Overall this is pretty good writing, though not particularly engaging – however, I can't see how engaging a road article can be. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! –Fredddie™ 05:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. A couple more thoughts on the wet roads. "Vicious" is an interesting way to describe mud. And who said they were the equal of France's? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people" were just as vaguely referred to as "foreigners" and vicious is the word used in the source. I discovered that the booklet is now online, so I linked to it in the citation template. When I was doing my research, the library had a copy of the booklet. –Fredddie™ 06:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One last thing: ref 29 either needs a link or no retrieval date. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. –Fredddie™ 04:39, 30 December 2010 (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 not promoted by Laser brain 03:29, 11 January 2011 [49].

Roger Federer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Taro-Gabunia (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured article criteria Taro-Gabunia (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. Trebor (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Look at the questions from the previous attempt and see whether they have been resolved. The rivalries section needs referencing and all deadlinks should try and be removed as well. I will help you. KnowIG (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I′ll handle the dead links but what can I source for the Rivarlies section? Taro (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There doesn't seem to have been much, if any work behind this nom. The Bowers biography is not cited at all and the Stauffer biography only twice. Both seem to be credible sources. I'd expect an FA to make much more use of those comprehensive and researched sources and much less use of news sources. See criterion 1c. Also, I only had to glance at the article and see the apostrophe howler "Federer's main accomplishment's as a junior player...", to conclude that the prose needs a lot of work. There are wild jumps in tense. Large tracts of the article are unsourced. This is the kind of article that needs strong ongoing attention by experienced editors. The out-of-date second sentence of the article "As of 28 November 2010..." indicates that it is not being maintained well (latest rankings are here. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I see some {{cn}} templates in the lower half of the article. One or two could be forgiven as I'd assume they'd be taken care of during the nom, but there's too many here. Other sentences are needlessly cited with 4, 5, or 6 references which hinders the flow of reading. The tables need attention, too: Why does the second row "Grand Slam Tournaments" span all 18 columns in the first table?; The "Year-End Championship performance timeline" has extra coding and has caused extra lines at the right side; I'm pretty sure the use of Flags in the championship column of "Finals (5 titles, 1 runner-up)" is a violation of MOS:FLAG, possibly for the opponents, too; all the tables look like someone's tossed a bag of Skittles at them and there is no key or other indication as to what the colours mean. See WP:COLOR; the three tables in the "Records" section shouldn't be hidden for WP:ACCESS reasons, such as with users accessing paper copies Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no it doesn't meet the criteria. Please clean up this article, add refs (why are there "cn"???), too much references for sentences like Federer is widely considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time. or or simply Maestro (yes simply his nickname and 5 refs!), triffles like not linking (clay, grass and hard courts), useless things like and met Pope Benedict XVI while playing the 2006 Internazionali BNL d'Italia tournament in Rome. or the unsourced Like all male Swiss citizens, Federer was subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces (also against NPOV). All in all "only" a GA, but far, far away, behind the Milky Way, it meets the criteria.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nominator has never edited the article, Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. No indication that regular editors of the article were consulted prior to nomination. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from anything else, this is the second current FAC nom from this nominator, clearly breaching FAC rules. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Withdraw – Several cite tags and dead links in the article and some unreferenced content in the 2010 section; in addition, it looks as though the issues brought up by opposers in the last FAC haven't been addressed. All of this points to a lack of preparation, and I see no reason that this FAC should continue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:16, 8 January 2011 [50].

Pyramid Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A judge of men and a faceless, voiceless executioner...One of the more disturbing monsters to grace the Silent Hill video game series is Pyramid Head, arguably best known for his appearance in the second installment of the series. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. Currently an A-class article, it also recently underwent a peer review. Please enjoy this article and all comments are welcome! Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some initial comments (sorry I wanted to do a full run through but have to run off quickly):

  • What makes Doris C. Rusch a commentator worthy of note, to the point of giving her views a whole paragraph? The article doesn't say and the absence of a blue-link otherwise lends itself to the suggestion that she is not a significant commentator.
  • "he has since been cited by reviewers" do we need "since"?
  • "Of the creatures that appear in Silent Hill 2, only Pyramid Head features an "overtly masculine" appearance" The source says he is the only overtly masculine enemy. Are there non-enemy creatures?
  • A number of mentions of "Pyramid Head" could be changed to "he" to avoid repetition, assuming that he is an appropriate pronoun. See for example the first three sentences of "Design and characteristics"
  • "According to him". "According to Ito" would be better here, I think.
  • "twenty five" needs a hyphen. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for first comments!
  1. Summarized into a sentence and merged with the other paragraph.
  2. Done.
  3. No, all the creatures are out to kill James.
  4. Done.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Too much citing to online fanzines rather than reliable sources such as mainstream publishers and academic journals. Statements such as: "University of Leicester's Dr. Natasha Whiteman theorized that because of the character's "dark ambiguity", "his female admirers can use him to explore and discuss their own fantasies and visions of sexuality".[31]" should be sourced to something other than an online fanzine. Preferably, a paper published by the University of Leicester. This statement: "One commentator remarked: "Pyramid Head is a dark canvas we can use to project our sexual feelings, and the addition of violence makes it a lot less clear-cut. If the sexual violence in Silent Hill were more realistic, say if the victims were responding by screaming, would that still be attractive?"[45]" One commentator? Who? Once again this statement has been sourced to a fanzine. Articles at the FA level should cite something other than pop culture sources such as online fan magazines. Maybe in 50 years the academic presses will have gotten around to Pyramid Head but for now, thumbs down. Withdraw. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. The Escapist is an online magazine, not a fanzine, run by a staff.[51] Did I give it too much weight? Probably. So, I have condensed the paragraph into a sentence or two. Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. The article should be withdrawn until the subject has been treated with depth in reliable secondary sources such as academic papers and the mainstream press. At FA level articles must be sourced to something with more substance than an online magazine. This article has a superficial quality about it. I suspect there is little coverage about the subject and that the academics have yet to tackle this one. Until they do (and you can access and use their analysis), the article should be withdrawn. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent I agree with this, which is where I'm going with the Doris C. Rusch issue. There's nothing in the article or the source it cites that explains why she has any credibility on the subject at all (she might of course, but we need to know). The same goes for sources like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had an edit conflict. Anyway, Rusch "holds a postdoctoral position with the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab in the Programme at Comparative Media Studies at MIT. Before that she did postdoctoral work at the Institute for Design and Assessment of Technology at Vienna University of Technology. Her current research investigates the metaphorical potential of games and how it can be used to produce a wide range of emotionally satisfying, thought provoking and insightful experiences. Although her work is theory-driven, Rusch aims at applicability of her research to actual game design with the goal of pushing the boundaries of games as media. Rusch has an eclectic background, having completed studies in German Literature, Philosophy, English and Comparative Media at the University of Vienna, where she also received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics."[52] Leigh Alexander has written for Destructoid, Paste, and Gamasutra, where she is the news director.[53][54][55] Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on video games use the best reliable sources which do end up being mostly online sites that the VG WikiProject has gone through to cull over the years to those that we know have editorial practices and history of being accurate and reliable (see WP:VG/S). When there are print or academic sources for a topic, we jump on them, but we can't always rely on these to be there. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but at FA level something more is expected. The article is at GA level and should remain there. It's basically a brief character description with a list of "appearances" and a few superficial reviews from gamers. Why is it necessary to promote this to FA? The article has a superficial quality and lacks academic analysis and disinterested criticism. It isn't FA ready and probably won't be for many years. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a little unfair here. There is no reason that articles on subjects which have received little to no attention from noted academics cannot be promoted to featured article status. (No opinion on this article at this time, just trying to respond to 56tyvfg88yju). J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Like I explained above, the author of that is Leigh Alexander, who has written for has written for Destructoid, Paste, and Gamasutra, where she is the news director.Look for the bio at the end[56][57]
  2. Games Radar is considered a reliable source by the Video Game Wikiproject, per this discussion.
  3. It is a CC-distributed book. The publisher, ETC-Press, is "an academic, open source, multimedia, publishing imprint affiliated with the Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)"[58]; the author of the essay is Doris C. Rusch, who "holds a postdoctoral position with the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab in the Programme at Comparative Media Studies at MIT. Before that she did postdoctoral work at the Institute for Design and Assessment of Technology at Vienna University of Technology...Rusch has an eclectic background, having completed studies in German Literature, Philosophy, English and Comparative Media at the University of Vienna, where she also received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics"[59]
  4. Ref 13 is a making-of video, found on the DVD release of the Silent Hill film. I'll go fix the formatting of that ref in a little bit. Sorry about that.
  5. After doing some searching on Waltz's Twitter, I found a direct link to the interview, so it's not like it was made up. It's an interview with him at Comic Con, used for his opinion on a comic book he wrote.
Hope that helps. Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll leave the ETC-Press for others, but I'm not really persuaded by the others. Writing for sites that I'm questioning isn't exactly going to show she's a reliable source. I wouldn't object to the gamesradar is it was just being used to source that the site found the subject one of the scariest villans in some list of scairest villans, but you seem to be using those entries for more than that. The fact that the video game wikiproject considers it reliable isn't necessarily going to mean it meets the FAC requirements of high quality and reliable. How much control does this publishing company actually exert? As for the link to the interview on twitter - how do you know that's his twitter account? And what qualificiations does the interviewee have to make sure that the interview is reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking for a while, I have decided to withdraw the nomination. Thank you to everyone who took the time to review. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:00, 5 January 2011 [60].

Twyfelfontein

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Twyfelfontein for featured article because I currently cannot see how it could be further improved. I'm not saying it is perfect, I just cannot see what to do, and I solicit input from the reviewers regarding what it needs to be lifted to FA. There is only one unresolved issue from GA review: the book by Scherz, Ernst-Rudolf (1975) which is not available. This is not just a lazy statement, the world's biggest library of Namibian texts does not have it, neither does anyone else in Namibia, as far as I know.--Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would like to see a reference for the meaning of ǀUi-ǁAis, given as "jumping waterhole" in the article; there are others that say "only well" or "surrounded by rocks".
  • Ref number 7 doesn't work (gives a mere searchbox) :(
cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: The nom statement indicates that you have nominated this at FAC to "solicit input from the reviewers regarding what it needs to be lifted to FA". That indicates that the nomination is premature; FAC procedures require that you ensure the article meets all of the FA criteria before you nominate it. If you are still seeking input, the appropriate forum is WP:Peer review. I note that though the article has had some informal talkpage review, it has not gone through PR. A few comments on sources follow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I did of course read the requirements before I nominated. The reason I worded it like this was that I am new to FAC and really don't know what to expect. I wasn't aware that the peer review was unofficial. Expect the "brilliant English" requirement which I cannot fulfill because I am not a native speaker I believed everything was up to scratch. I did not expect that this would pass without any comments, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Ref 4: This links to a site advertising the Twyfelfontein Country Lodge hotel. Why is this a high-quality encyclopedic source?
  • Ref 7: There are 700+ archives in this source, but you give no information as to which of these have been cited in your text, hence these statements cannot be verified. For each citation you need to provide search details.
  • Ref 9: Who is the publisher of this German-language source?
  • fixed ref 7. Ref 9 is self-published by the late Dr.Dierks (better: his heirs). If this is an issue, the text ref 9 refers to has also appeared as book; I thought the web ref is better because the reader could look it up. Ref 4 can probably be replaced with existing sources, only the speculation that some engravings might be 10,000 years old is not supported anywhere else, I believe. Is tourism literature generally to be avoided? I so far assumed these texts are fine as long as only tourism-related facts are taken from there. --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The description and analysis of the "big thing" here - the rock art - is simply too brief for FA; just a couple of short paragraphs. It is unfortunate (especially as you read German) that you can't get hold of Scherz. Have you tried asking the National Museum/Archaeological Service? But there are other books: The hunter and his art: a survey of rock art in Southern Africa, Jalmar Rudner, Ione Rudner, C. Struik, 1970 looks promising, Rock art research: the journal of the Australian Rock Art Research ...: Volume 20, 2003 seems to have a paper. The Archaeology of Southern Africa by Peter Mitchell is readable (to me anyway) on google books and refers to a great deal of literature [61]. As it is all your references are online (ok some UNESCO & one JSTOR) which doesn't really cut it. I'm sorry to have to say this as African FAs are so rare, & I don't think we have any on sub-Saharan African art. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input, Johnbod. How long should the art discussion be? The two really well-known slabs are mentioned and pictured, and some of the interesting speculation (penguins? sea lions?) is in. I tried to be as concise as possible when writing this article, that's why it is so short. Regarding the books, I am aware of some of them but could not see any obvious omission from them. Most have many pictures and very few scientific discussion. "The hunter and his art" I have held in my hands, nothing salvageable in there. BTW, what is the "deadline" before this gets de-listed--an expansion like the one you request is not written in an hour. Or is that too late anyway because of your oppose? --Pgallert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprehensive" not "concise" is what the FA criteria require. I can't specify a minimum length, but I would expect to see say 2,000 words at least, & I'm sure it could be much longer. Another thing that should be covered is the climate during the long period concerned; there is a good deal on the modern climate but nothing on what were presumably very different climatic conditions at various points in the art-making period. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is also a National Library. It is perhaps not surprising if the Polytechnic library does not have Scherz, as it specializes in vocational and applied scientific subjects, as you will know. Johnbod (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Polytechnic library has the largest Namibiana collection in the world; my office is situated 100m away. That doesn't mean they have everything, of course. The National Library doesn't have the book--as mentioned in the nomination I checked the most obvious places for this book. --Pgallert (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs; this external link as timing out but as it appears to be a Namibian government page it supposedly is only temporary. --PresN 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I started an expansion as reaction to Johnbod's opposing comments, but now it is inconsistent in a number of factors--no way it is going to pass in its current state or in a state I might achieve during this week. I would appreciate directions on my talk page as to if and when I am allowed to resubmit (Is the Scherz book a necessary condition?). Please don't pull it from Wikipedia:Good articles, I will sort out the issues that have been raised but all libraries are closed due to summer holidays. I am really sorry if some of you feel I have wasted the time of the community. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. I look forward to seeing an expanded article back here in due course. The GA status should remain, imo anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:46, 3 January 2011 [62].

Dexter (episode)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thecheesykid (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is watching you!

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the best TV series episode articles on Wikipedia. It is well written and provides significant coverage in all areas of the subject. It's well structured, free of unnecessary information, and uses several images. It is also fully referenced and sourced and is unbiased as it also represents those who disliked the episode in the reception section. ^____^ Thecheesykid (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)That Ol' Cheesy Dude, Talk to the hand![reply]

I just corrected WP:MSH errors, and see boatloads of incomplete citations, publishers and titles are needed on all citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them also need access dates, where applicable. Trebor (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for time being. I've included a mixture of points below, but the main issue is that the prose is not polished enough yet. Without commenting on content and sourcing, I think it needs a decent copyedit to tighten things up. Some specific points:
  • I'd always thought plot was assumed to be cited to the episode itself, without the need for inline paragraph refs (someone please correct me if wrong).
  • executive producing - I guess it should be "executively producing", although I'd prefer to see her mentioned as the "executive producer".
  • given the show a green light - wikilink green light to make it clearer.
  • to not audition - better as "not to audition" to avoid split infinitive.
  • roles[15], Robert Greenblatt and Michael Cuesta approached him with the script. - that should be a semi colon or full stop.
  • Hall was in New York and thinking of returning to theatre work, and had no intention of returning to television so quickly - double use of "returning" is clumsy.
  • Hall read various books on serial killers and the psychology of serial killers - double use of "serial killers" is clumsy.
  • fan of Michael C. Hall - wikilinking the same name very near to the first wiklink - not necessary.
The nomination is possibly a bit premature—at the least, it could do with a bit of tidying up of prose and references. Trebor (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Trebor, I've made all the corrections on your list. :) - Thecheesykid
My points were meant to be indicative more than absolute. The point is that I'm not studying the article in great detail, but there are still a number of issues with prose. A more thorough reviewer would probably pick up on stuff which I let slide. I strongly recommend a thorough copyedit; if you don't feel comfortable doing this yourself, then WP:LOCE might be able to help. For some further examples:
  • It was watched by 603,000 viewers, the highest audience numbers for a series premiere since Fat Actress aired in March 2005, beating the series premieres of Weeds, Brotherhood, Sleeper Cell and Huff[61]. - I assume it meant that Dexter beat the audience numbers, not Fat Actress, but the sentence is not clear.
  • An encore at 11:00/10:00c brought in 443,000 viewers - be kind to a Brit - I have no idea what those times mean!
  • the total amount of viewers - "number" not "amount" - viewer are discrete.
  • giving Showtime its' - "its" when possessive does not need an apostrophe.
  • A little less than 300,000 viewers - you use "a little less" in the next sentence. Viewers are again discrete, so should be fewer (although that would sound weird so maybe "Almost 300,000 viewers" or "A little under 300,000 viewers".
Trebor (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Many references are not formatted, or the formatting is incomplete. All online sources should show, minimally, a title, a publisher and a retrieval date. In this respect, 2, 3 and 4 are correct, while 6, 7. 8 and many others are not.
  • Formats need to be standardised. At present, for example, there are different formats used for retrieval dates - compare, say, 21 with 28
  • Refs 11, 16 and 63 are all dead links
  • Printed sources should be in italics. See, for example, refs 69 and 72, and check for others

I'll look again when these are fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images what is conveyed in File:DexterPilot.jpg that is not already contained in the caption "Dexter covers his head with plastic wrap and kills his victim." under gfdl text Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 2 dabs- Brotherhood (TV series) and Hurricane season; 1 dead external link - here; and about a dozen external redirects. I did not fix these as they are too numerous; use the external link checker in the upper right corner of this page to see them yourself. --PresN 22:04, 3 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:46, 3 January 2011 [63].

Ramones (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I obviously think that it meets the criteria. The legendary album has gone from a start class article, to GA, and to the current version. The Peer reviewer can't find anything, all the ISBNs are valid, and the article is of good size. Thanks, CrowzRSA 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the time being.
  • Joey Ramone related: "Lisa came down to see us, she was blown away by us. She said that we changed her life, She started writing about us in Rock Scene, and then Lenny Kaye would write about us and we started getting more press like The Village Voice, word was getting out, and people starting coming down." - generally should put references for quotes straight after the sentence they appear in.
  • Craig Leon, who had seen them perform in the summer of 1975, and, even though they had not processed yet - it's not clear who Craig Leon is (I know there's a wikilink, but there should be something in the article too); and I don't understand what "they had not processed yet" means
  • The band performed in front of record companies Blue Sky and Arista Records in order to get a record deal.[13] After the Ramones signed to Sire Records they organized several local shows - this whole paragraph confuses me: they are offered a deal, they refuse the deal, they perform for other record companies, and suddenly they're signed for Sire? This needs expansion.
  • I've only read the first section, but it is clear this hasn't been proof-read, let alone copyedited. I found double words and missing quote marks, and glancing at the start of the next section I already see an out-of-place capital letter ("In early 1975 They took a temporary break"). Skimming the rest of the article, it looks as if the hard work of adding and referencing the content has been done; however, to be FA-standard the facts need to be presented fluently and articulately. A bit of work and I'm sure this can get there.
Trebor (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looking at the first two sections again:
  • which led to the Ramones auditioning with Seymour, Craig Leon, and others - "Seymour" was used a few words earlier which isn't great prose; who are these "others", did they work for Sire records?; was this audition the one which led to the offer of a contract for a single?
  • but would eventually sign again to Sire Records - is this the contract for the single? Or did they get offered a new contract? They record an album in the next section, so it needs to be clear that it's for Sire, and that Sire were okay with it.
This section still doesn't read very well and is a bit unclear. Do we know the order of the events? Did Sire immediately offer an album deal after the single deal was rejected? Did The Ramones audition for other companies because they didn't have an album deal at the time, or because they didn't like Sire? Trebor (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early 1975 they took a temporary break from their performances, in order to prepare to begin recording at Plaza Sound studio. - they started recording in early 1976, did their break last the full year? What preparations were they doing which lasted a year - technical issues, writing material, etc.?
  • It also took $6,400 to record. - stubby sentence, try to incorporate it a bit better. You don't really need the "also" because the previous sentence was referring to time not money.
  • Joey related: "Some albums were costing a half-million dollars to make and taking two or three years to record. - was this said in pride that they were able to make it so cheaply and quickly? Or was it more frustration that they weren't able to spend that much?
How do you know it was said in pride? I don't have the sources, so it's hard to make suggestions, sorry. Trebor (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the book right now, I'm pretty sure that it says something. CrowzRSA 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recording process was similar to... - the sentence beginning with this changes tense at the end, and probably could be rewritten (or split) to make it a bit clearer. The following sentence has issues as well (The mixing of the recordings were also more modern techniques.)
  • The studio recording for the debut album has been expanded by Mickey Leigh and Craig Leon for percussion effects - I might be being stupid, but I don't understand what that means - expanded in what way? Trebor (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what it means? Trebor (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means that the drum beats originally have a low velocity, so it was mixed to increase the velocity, therefore elongating how long the drum beat lasts. If that makes sense. CrowzRSA 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything has been fixed. CrowzRSA 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded might imply an overdub. Does the source support additional "percussion effects" were recorded by Mickey Leigh and Craig Leon? — GabeMc (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Comments I haven't stricken out are ones I consider unresolved, and I have added additional comments for some of them. Looking further on in the article:
  • On January 6, 2004, Rhino Entertainment released "Blitzkrieg Bop" was released with "Sheena Is a Punk Rocker". - doesn't make sense.
  • "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" was released in October 1976 as a seven inch single. The single was released with the tracks "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend", "California Sun", and "I Dont Wanna Walk Around with You" - it's hardly surprising that "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" was released with the track "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" on it - can be written better.
  • Several concerts were performed both before and after the album's release - does this "several" include the "thirty" gigs mentioned later on? If so, several seems a bit misleading. The whole sentence could go without losing much.
  • Nearly all of the gigs booked for the band in 1975 were in New York City, with Waterbury, Connecticut being the only concert outside of New York. - at least half the sentence is redundant, strip it down.
  • The album's lyrics consist of different concepts and structures. - does this just mean the lyrics aren't all about the same thing? I'm dubious that this sentence adds a great deal.
  • On second twenty of the song - does this mean "at the twentieth second"? Possibly worth clarifying.
  • and according to Nicholas Rombes - who is this guy? Why should I care about his opinion? Needs explaining.
  • The piece is resolved in the same way as the seconds twenty to thirty–three. - again, it is unclear what this means. Are the chords the same? Are the lyrics?
That's as far as I've got for the time being. I'll suggest again that you try to take a step back and reread what you've written, since there are still issues with fluency and understandability. I'm finding quite a few issues without looking too hard; a more thorough reviewer could probably find more. Regards, Trebor (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, they've all been fixed. CrowzRSA 04:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links; 2 external redirects which have been fixed. --PresN 06:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed
To get images of this quality and during this era, while not unknown is rare, and we occasionally have users upload content and tag it as free when it is not, I would like to have confidence that this image is correctly licensed, the simplest way to do this is for the uploader to submit an OTRS ticket Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the uploader
Image review pending (FA Criteria 3) Fasach Nua (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SilkTork recently moved it from Ramones (Ramones album) to Ramones (album) probably because the only other album named Ramones is a cover album on the Ramones by another band. SilkTork didn't give a reason in their edit summary. CrowzRSA 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Cites to this book; Nicholas, Rombes (2005). Ramones (33⅓). Continuum. ISBN 9780826416711., use 2006 as the date, while the ref states 2005. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the ref: "Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk", uses a specific date of April 13, 2006 while the other refs state just the year. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs should be listed alphabetically. — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant alphabetically by author not title, I went ahead and fixed this, hope you don't mind. — GabeMc (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is some inconsistency in the cite templates used in the article. For example some cites to Leigh, Mickey (2009). I Slept With Joey Ramone: A Family Memoir. Touch Stone. ISBN 9780743252164, are Harvnb, while others are not. The article should be consistent throughout, whatever style you prefer. — GabeMc (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite; it has problems more fundamental than those that can be fixed by a mere copy-edit or two:

  • A long and rambly lead with abrupt sentences completely disconnected from one another. Just take a look at the third paragraph:
The album features several themes, including Nazism, violence, male prostitution and drug use. It has fourteen tracks and is twenty-nine minutes and four seconds long. The group covered the song "Let's Dance" by Chris Montez. Several of the tracks have backing vocals which were sung by Mickey Leigh, Tommy Ramone, and executive producer/engineer Rob Freeman. The album received very high ratings by reviewers, with Allmusic and Rolling Stone, both rewarding it with a maximum rating of five out of five stars. Robert Christgau gave the album an A, writing "For me, it blows everything else off the radio."
  • No differentiation between contemporary reviews (i.e. from 1976) and retrospectives. The Reception section seems to suggest that Ramones was critically acclaimed upon its release in 1976 by quoting a review from the website Allmusic about the album's merits.
  • Content in the Reception and Legacy sections is confused and overlapping. Why is the Billboard chart position mentioned in both sections? Why are four retrospective "greatest album ever" lists from the 90s and 00s in the Reception section, and one in Legacy? And does that long quote from the Rock Hall discuss the band or the album?
  • Please see In_Utero_(album)#Music_and_lyrics for how to write a Composition section. Avoid a song-by-song discussion in favour of lyrical and musical themes found throughout the record. This is especially true for the music on Ramones, as most of the songs are so similar-sounding, and hence don't really merit individual discussion.
  • Unreliable sources: Super Seventies, Foo Archive, Rockometer.

Apart from these there's the long list of grammatical errors ("Soon after the demos release"), MOS errors ("heard separately on the stereo channels — electric bass on the left"), overlinking (punk rock, Rolling Stone and Allmusic are all linked twice in the lead) and, I suspect, incorrectly quoted text ("with women sitting aroing"), among other things.—indopug (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see Ramones on the main page of wikipedia, but this article does need a complete rewrite. The introductory paragraph should be enough, from the article, that it suffices for a read about the topic, namely the album. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramones_(album) pre-signing by Sire, Lisa Robinson popularizing the band, the band's potential manager, a pre-Ramones demo and its release, then the band "performing under the Sire Records company," there's got to be something about the album in the lead. This album was a major influence on American punk and other music, yet there is no sense of this whatsoever, until a glimmer of hope erupts in the fourth paragraph. As prominent as Lisa Robinson is in the first paragraph, the article might as well be about her, not the album. And who are Danny Fields and Seymour Stein that they deserve mentioning in the lead paragraph without any discussion of who they are?

Who cares how much it cost to make the album? Oh, wait, back then it cost a lot more than that to produce a cheap single, that's not much money. The costs are meaningless without any comparison. Cool that the cover art is so great, one of my all time favorites, but that's just one more thing that's primary to the music, and, really, that's what an album is: music.

Then the next section. Robinson wrote about the Ramones in Rock Scene, but the fact that she was an editor at twice-wikilinked Hit Parader takes more prominence than whatever she wrote in Rock Scence.

What are ""progressive" force bands from Europe under contract"? The instruments took three days to do what? Or it took three days to record the instrumental tracks? Is that unusually long? No, it's a very short time. The Joey comment is good, but it needs backed up. This was discussed in the music industry for a long time, and is still discussed today, how little time and money was spent for an album of such long-lasting impact on the music industry.

The Beatles comparison sentences needed a direct citation to one of them. What's the significance of using the same mic locations as orchestras? Live orchestra recordings? Studio orchestra recordings? How's it different from rock recordings? What are "four-track recording representation of the devices," of what "devices?" What does that mean? The album was "expanded by Mickey Leigh and Craig Leon for percussion effects"? What does that mean, they added more percussion tracks? Whose?

Who's Arturo Vega? What's a passport photo machine?

"In 1974, the band performed at thirty gigs, that were nearly all at CBGB. All but one of the band's 1975 gigs were booked for New York City, with Waterbury, Connecticut being the only concert outside of New York. In 1976, over seventy concerts were performed, each to support Ramones. There were over a hundred concerts performed in 1977 by the band.[28]"

It's a recitation of numbers. About gigs. Not about the album.

Beat on the Brat was sung in a video camera mode. This makes no sense.

"Ramones was released April 23, 1976.[55][56][57][58]" I'm glad we've confirmed the release date with 4 sources, to be certain, but how about a single authoritative citation?

The Reception section is difficult to follow and jumbled up with contemporaneous and later reviews. Most of the article is not ordered well. I don't think it's close to a FA, as much as I would love to see it on the main page. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALT is pretty bad for the cover and band's image. According to ALT give poor descriptions to images is not helpful.
  • Infobox
US & UK -> WP:&
  • Lead
American punk rock band the Ramones, who are widely cited as the first punk rock band. -> repeated twice in the same line, requesting synonyms.
No sources in the WP:Lead
the album the in February -> typo
Leon, and co-produced by drummer Tommy Ramone -> Wikilink them
author of the 33⅓ book Ramones -> Why it is linked to Book sources?
  • Background
Link the band, never linked after lead
Joey Ramone related... -> who was Ramone?
and said that they would produce -> you can ommit "that"
Arista Records -> link it
  • Recording and production
Joey related -> synonyms needed
In 2004, Craig Leon -> craig is already mentioned.
Tommy Ramone was planning -> ommit his surname, already mentioned
The album was produced by Craig Leon, -> redundant, already mentioned "Producer Craig Leon, who had seen..."
co-produced by drummer Tommy Ramone -> overlinked
The studio recording for the debut album has been expanded -> has been?
Nicholas Rombes said that the production's quality -> Nicholas Rombes, which is/was notable due to, said the production's quality
  • Photography and cover art
to the 1964 Beatles -> overlinked
  • Promotion
on Ramones: "Blitzkrieg Bop" and "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend". "Blitzkrieg Bop" was released -> on Ramones: "Blitzkrieg Bop" and "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend". The first was released
and "I Dont Wanna Walk Around with You" as b-sides -> consistency needed.
All but one of the band's 1975 gigs -> All, but one of the band's 1975 gigs,
  • Composition
Johnny said that the when writing the -> typo
"Blitzkrieg Bop", -> overlinked
Tommy Ramone. -> Overlinked
New York City. -> idem as above
—Joey Ramone -> idem
Joey saw some mother going after a kid with a bat -> is me or this is grammatically incorrect, should not be "a mother"?
one minute and 32 -> consistency with you numbers
the slowest and the only romantically colored piece on the album, -> POV?
The text has themes of irony and humor and depiction of violence -> The text has themes of irony, humor and depiction of violence.
piece pays homage to love songs in pop music acts of the 1960s. -> piece pays homage to love songs in pop music acts of the 1960s.
The album's length is twenty-nine minutes and four seconds, and features fourteen tracks.[14] -> shouldn't go first?
  • Reception
Specify why Allmusic is two times.
Ramones was released April 23, 1976.[55][56][57][58] -> Irrelevant for the section
Reviewing for Allmusic -> Not a magazine and overlinked
Jeff Tamarkin of Allmusic -> as above
was ranked thirty-three in Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Albums of All Time."[62] -> was ranked thirty-three in Rolling Stone's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time".[62]
In Spin's 1995 Alternative Record -> In Spin's 1995 Alternative Record
  • Legacy
the 33⅓ book Ramones wrote -> why is linked
The album made little commercial impact, reaching only number 111 on the Billboard album chart. Neither of the album's singles, "Blitzkrieg Bop" and "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend", ever charted.[69] -> many issues: 1) Full of POV that makes you feel like "poor album, it was not successful" 2) reaching only number 111 on the Billboard album chart was mentioned above 3) Overlinked
  • Track listing
I was wondering why it has references (for the original LP only)
  • Chart positions
Alphabetical order
Swedish charts -> why it is italiced and why link to Sweden?
  • References
All books need where they were published
ISBN of Ramones: The Complete Twisted History. is wrong, that is from I Slept With Joey Ramone
  • Notes
Ref 1 has a typo (ramones)
Ref 14 need the format in which Ramones was released
Ref 24 -> if it is a book or a magazine need much more information, such as authors, ISBN/ISSN and page(s)
Ref 26 -> AllMusic. --> Allmusic, and need its publisher
Ref 33 needs an update on its title
Ref 54, 60, 75 and 76 as above
Ref 63, 65, 66 need publisher
Ref 77 -> reimprove it.

Oppose, sadly. The article, especially the lead, is very disjointed, with short disconnected 'bullet-point' like sentences. It has fourteen tracks and is twenty-nine minutes and four seconds long. The group covered the song "Let's Dance" by Chris Montez. Several of the tracks have backing vocals which were sung by Mickey Leigh, Tommy Ramone, and executive producer/engineer Rob Freeman.. The legacy section seems underdeveloped, given the lasting impact of the album. Ceoil 15:11, 1 January 2011 (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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:22, 3 January 2011 [64].

Thomas Müller (footballer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already a GA, and I feel that it matches the FA criteria. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • A couple of general points:-
    • In ref formats, only print sources should be italicised. Thus Kicker, which is a magazine, should be in italics, whereas otganisation such as "Bayern Munich", BBC, FIFA, UEFA etc should not be in italics.
How would I change this? The work= field automatically italicises. Which field should I be using instead? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use the "publisher= " field for all non-print sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 13 is in German, and as with the other German sources, this one should be noted.
OK, fair enough.
  • What makes Ontheminute.com (Ref. 30) a reliable source, and was does the digit "4" in the reference signify?
I'll get rid of it, it's a duplicate anyway. 4 is the day of the month.
  • None of the eight FIFA page links are working
Dammit. I'll hunt around for replacements.
Huh? I've checked them 5 minutes ago and except for one (which I corrected) they were working fine. --Jaellee (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else went in and fixed them after this review. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned about the number of citations to the official cite of FC Bayern Munich (28 citations in all). These are heavily PR-oriented, presenting a highly positive picture of the club's star young player. Although at a glance I don't see obvious POV content in your text (I have skimmed, not read), this abundant use of the club's own PR material does not bode well for a supposedly neutral encyclopedic article.
I see your point, but all I'm really referencing is objective facts like results, Müller's participation in games and his goalscoring. The Bayern website is the most comprehensive English language source for this.
  • A sample of verification checks on English sources produced no issues. I have not considered the German sources.

Otherwise, sourcing and citation OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses above. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The lead doesn't require citations if the material is cited in the body (and it should be included there). Even if they are kept, the several cites that don't follow punctuation really make the lead difficult to read. I would recommend moving such references to a place following the next punctuation, whether it be a comma or period.
  • Early years: Remove the hyphen from "newly-formed", as there should be no hyphen after an -ly in most cases (compounding elements can have them, but I don't think this qualifies).
  • Breakthrough season: "During the second half of the season, Muller has continued to be a regular first-team starter". This is about last season, not the current campaign, and should be converted to past tense.
  • Current season: Add "the" to "he missed much of pre-season"?
  • "Muller hasn't been able to match last season's goalscoring exploits." There should not be any contractions like "hasn't".
But why? - Taro-Gabunia (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are considered informal, I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the best of these being the first goal in a 2–0 Champions League win against AS Roma on 15 September." By what objective standard is this his best goal so far this season? Or is this what the Bayern Munich website says? This sounds like an example of the POV content that Brian expressed concern about above.
  • 2010 World Cup: The hyphens before and after "his fifth of the tournament" should be changed to dashes.
  • Remove s from "medals" in "to take the bronze medals."
  • Is there anything that could possibly be added to the Personal life section? The one sentence looks quite stubby at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those have been addressed, I think, except a couple of language points:
  • It's not really "the pre-season", in footballing vernacular: it's not really a fixed event, more a vague period of time.
  • Bronze medals plural as it's a team game.
ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the honours template is untidy, it uses too many lines, and assist stats are often inconsistent and hard to verify. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It uses only two lines. And I think assits statistics are inevitable for Featured article.
  • Oppose for the time being, although what is there looks fine. The lead says he's been praised for his "pace, technique and composure" but this is not really elaborated on in the text. Ideally in a football bio there would be a section on "playing style" with a description of it, using various quotes from newspapers, other players, manager, and so on. Given his young age, there may not be enough written about him for that - I haven't checked for sources - but in that case I think more about it needs to be woven into the career sections (for instance, none of the words "pace", "technique" and "composure" is used again).

    The other thing I think is lacking is his reaction to events. Surely there have been interviews after his more significant matches or accomplishments, and I think the article should include something about how he felt at various points. At the moment (and it's very easy to do this without meaning to), it reads more like a list of achievements in prose form; ideally, it would tell more of a story, and give a wider view of his whole life. Gilberto Silva, while not perfect, demonstrates both of the things I'm suggesting fairly well. Trebor (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on this a bit further, given a bit more reaction from himself and others, and added a section particularly about his playing style. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good from a quick read. I'll come back and have a more thorough look in the next few days. Trebor (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Assists statistics are imminent — Taro-Gabunia (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the article with the new sport honours so as I see this article needs to be expanded are only Personal Life and statistics. Taro-Gabunia (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For me, the use of sources published by Bayern Munich is too extensive for an FA. Among other things, such sources are used to make positive comments about the article's subject. See for example the way that footnote 37 is used in an overwhelmingly positive manner. The BM sources produce lots of nice quotes about how good Muller is, but of course there is not going to be any real criticism that one might see if the article relied exclusively on, say, newspaper sources. A football club's website will speak to its fans and therefore cannot be relied on to form the basis of a neutral and balanced article. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that what's really sourced is quotes from him, his coaches, team-mates and opponents, and the kind of basic facts referred to above. Where the website itself is praising Müller, I've tended to ignore it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that the quotes are all praiseworthy, as is to be expected. There's none of the critical analysis that one would expect from neutral sources. Footnote 37 is also used for one non-quote: praise for Muller's "awareness and positioning". So its a combination both of the use of BM sources and the relative non-use of neutral sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (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/January_2011&oldid=875996562"