Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2012

[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 GrahamColm 06:00, 29 June 2012 [1].

Cerebral palsy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Haon 2.0 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it has a throughout, objective, easy to understand, and extremely informative page of this medical condition. Every time a person comes to me with a question about the matter, I direct them to this page, which I almost never do with Wikipedia articles. Haon 2.0 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't see any edits from you (on the first page of edits); have you notified the major contributors of the article before submitting this to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose. Per comment on my talk page, editors of this article were not consulted before the nomination, as required by FAC instructions at the top of the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my talk page:
After reading your response to my first response, I have decided that it is a lost cause. I got ahead of myself and didn't read the rules as I should have. I will wait for the page to have more cited and more thorough edits, and will then proceed to nominate it for Good Article Status, and see if it passes, before nominating it to FAC, before which I will consult the primary editors. Thank you for your input, and sorry for any inconvenience. - User:Haon 2.0 (talk)
No problem at all. Anyone on Wikipedia who isn't making mistakes, isn't doing it right :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is clearly not ready for FAC. There are many unsourced paragraphs, inconsistent reference formatting, and many sources that do not meet WP:MEDRS standards. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Comment Yes proper referencing is required. Check out dengue fever or schizophrenia for examples. This is a very important article and thus should be improved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 09:43, 26 June 2012 [2].

Big Two-Hearted River

[edit]
Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think I've done about all I can here. An Ernest Hemingway story about fishing. Nothing much happens - on the surface. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


references
ref issue
Flora (2004), 41 Multiple refs contain this content
Hemingway (1973 ed.), 179 Multiple refs contain this content
qtd in Berman (2007), 39 Multiple refs contain this content
Benson (1989), 350 Multiple refs contain this content
Mellow (1992), 57–60 Multiple refs contain this content
Benson1989,350 Multiple references are given the same name
Mellow57ff Multiple references are given the same name
ISBNs
ISBN 978-0-395-37777-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum (Mellow) is invalid
ISBN 978-0-521-45574-X Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character (Smith) is invalid
ISBNs are a mix of ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s, and ISBN-13s are preferred
http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old-school quote boxes should be reimplemented with {{quote box}}. See wp:deviations, which asks that editors eschew such inline markup when better mechanisms are available. And "cellspacing" is a deprecated attribute.
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: Please archive this nomination. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:41, 24 June 2012 [3].

Kappa Kappa Psi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sycamore (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to have it checked rigorously against the feature article criteria and that wasn't done point-by-point in the article's peer review. I also want to find some concrete ways to make the article better now that it's a GA; I don't want it to stagnate and have GA be as good as this article can be. Sycamore (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I haven't read through the article yet, but at a glance: "See also" should come before "References" and you should try to minimize the number of one sentence paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these issues have been addressed. All the one-sentence paragraphs collapsed easily into existing paragraphs or were trivial enough to be removed. Sycamore (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - citation formatting should be much more consistent. Journals/magazines/newspapers without weblinks need page numbers. Be consistent in what info you include for what type of sources. Also, avoid duplicate wikilinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed these issues where they were obvious—so you're aware, the Podium does not have volumes or issue numbers. Can you point out which citations still need to be addressed and which articles I have linked to more than once? I know I have linked A. Frank Martin twice, but I believe that's acceptable given that it's linked in prose at the beginning of the history section and then in the list of presidents at the end of the article. Sycamore (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the list at http://www.kkpsi.org/prominentmembers.asp , I'm surprised the notables listing isn't longer and better organized.Naraht (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue there is finding independent sourcing. If that's not as big a concern with fraternity FACs since there is so little written about their memberships, I could easily expand that section. Sycamore (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know only Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha have reached fraternity FAC and both of them have so many they are separate articles.Naraht (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In examining the ΑΦΑ and ΑΚΑ articles and their respective notable member pages, I've removed the notable members section of this article and added sections devoted to brief descriptions of the chapters and districts as well as the national conventions. I will add a separate article devoted to the notable members of KKPsi. I'm hoping this FAC gets some more traction; I don't want it to sputter out and die. Sycamore (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Sadly, insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. Graham Colm (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 18:50, 22 June 2012 [4].

John Smith's Brewery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have created it from scratch but I feel as if I have taken it as far as I can now, and the time seems right to give FA status a try. John Smith's Brewery is an important page because it is the highest selling ale in the world, and one of the UK's highest selling beers. Farrtj (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Farrtj, you recently nominated Stones Brewery at FAC, and three users pointed out that the references were sloppy and (for the most part) unverifiable. Very little effort was made to address the issue, and the FAC quickly failed--for the second time, I might add, and for the same reasons as the first attempt. Now you've nominated a different brewery article that has the exact same problems. Tell me: why do you think this FAC should pass when the others failed? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: looks like a lot of cleanup is needed here. I suggest that you withdraw this and undergo a peer review before renominating.
  • Pictures should have captions.
  • You really should add full reference information to the bare urls.
  • Some of the prose is a bit messy, "In 1847 the 23 year old John Smith bought a small, run-down brewery in Tadcaster from the widow of the grandson of Hartley of Backhouse & Hartley that dated from 1758." Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 02:07, 22 June 2012 [5].

Armed Forces of Liberia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Buckshot06 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a Milhist A-Class Review and I believe it is ready to be considered for FA status. All comments welcomed. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning oppose

  • Citations: There are numerous problems with the citations. Ref 62 is dead, others may be. Various other citations are incompletely or incorrectly formatted, far too many to list here but I see lots of bare urls, publisher information lacking, inconsistencies in retrieval date use and formats, and many other issues. The article itself may be excellent for all I know, but this aspect is nowhere near FAC requirements, and needs to be sorted out, top to bottom
  • "Legal standing": Why is it necessary to preface the article with this slab of legalese? It's a massive turnoff to the reader, and the gist of information, so far as we need to know it, could be paraphrased into a couple of brief sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts Brianboulton. I obviously need to work on the refs, and thankyou, that's exactly the sort of comments I was looking for. On Legal standing, the convention, following on from another FA, Australian Defence Force, is to have the legal basis of the force up-front. As this is the only place on the entire Web where extracts from the Liberian NDA 2008 are available, I choose to add the full text. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When an issue presents itself, "I saw it in another FA" is not a valid argument for keeping the article as is. All it does is highlight a way in which the the other article can be improved further. In this case, it is also worth noting that the Legal standing section of this article is not at all similar to that of the Australian Defence Force article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, open to revisiting. One of the major differences between A-Class and FAC is the focus on MOS, referencing and images, and it's here that this article needs polishing. In addition to the issues noted by Brian, I also found the following:

  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Liberia.svg: should indicate the date of creation and copyright status of the coat of arms itself
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. For example, "The LFF in its early years was frequently recruited by inducing men from the interior forcibly" - "recruited" doesn't fit (would either be "forcibly recruited men" or "frequently staffed"), and "forcibly" should be combined with a verb
  • Spell out "%" in article text
  • Check for consistency in details like US vs U.S.
  • Don't abbreviate dates in article text
  • WP:OVERLINK: Monrovia twice in as many paragraphs, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. Not your fault, you were attentive at the A-class review 2 years ago, but I don't think you were served well by that review. The frequent quotes are not appropriate for FAC; one way to understand this is that we're trying to avoid the feel of a "brochure". Agreed with Brian about the Legal standing section. I'm leaning oppose because I think it's far enough away from FA that it would be an inefficient use of manpower to fix everything at FAC ... but feel free to prove me wrong. I don't really know where to begin; I'm a copyeditor, and it's not time for copyediting yet, it needs a shift in focus. If this one isn't promoted, you might try WP:GAN, or you may pick up enough helpful comments before this closes to be ready next time around. Sorry I can't be more helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In addition to the Legal standing issues I commented on above, here are some other problems:

  • Why is there a navbox in the middle of the article?
  • The "Organization of the Liberian Militia" box is not useful and should be removed.
  • Captions are not punctuated correctly. Those that are full sentences should end with periods, those that are not full sentences should end without periods.
  • One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be expanded, merged, or deleted.
  • The block quotes in Rebuilding the AFL are almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
  • "On January 11, 2008 a total 485 soldiers graduated from Initial Entry Training class 08-01. The addition of this third class of soldiers, consisting of 468 men and 17 women, raised the total strength of the AFL from 639 to 1,124." First off, the fact that this is 4 years out of date makes it not useful. However, even if it were up to date, I don't think this level of detail is necessary in this context.
  • "Recruits had to pass a literacy test, an aptitude test, a drug test and an HIV test, and their names and faces are put on posters which are distributed to try to make sure none have a history of war crimes or other human rights violations." Past tense or present tense? Like toothpaste and orange juice, the two should not be mixed!
  • Good detail: "The Liberian Air Force was established from the Aviation Unit by an Act of Legislature on August 12, 1987." A succinct summary of an important event in the history of the AFL. Yay!
  • Bad detail: "The LAF was to be headed by a colonel in his capacity as Assistant Chief of Defense Staff for the Air Force and was mandated to do the following: to train personnel and develop doctrine; advise the Chief of Staff of the AFL on matters relating to the Air Force." Clunkily worded bureaucratic shenaniganry that literally no one would ever need to know ever in the history of forever.
  • Much of the article is underlinked; there are entire paragraphs without any wikilinks at all. Don't be afraid to redlink the shit out of this article -- Wikipedia desperately needs to develop more Africa-related articles, and redlinks should be used to facilitate that process.

While I don't think this article is ready, I do hope that you continue to work on it. Your efforts are greatly appreciated; do not allow a failed FAC to convince you otherwise. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Yes, as Cryptic says, pls continue to develop this, taking on board the above comments. Per Dank, GAN (and/or Peer Review) may be the appropriate next step before another try at FAC, for which, in any case, a minimum of two weeks must pass before another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 17:31, 20 June 2012 [6].

The Concert in Central Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): GoPTCN 13:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

500,000 spectators visited this free (and legendary) concert to help rebuild the park. It is the 7th most attended concert ever and marked a temporary reunion of the influential duo, Simon & Garfunkel. The article was copyedited by User:Wehwalt, User:Yngvadottir, User:Jmg38 among others. I believe it is a comprehensive article, the pictures meets criteria, well-written, well-reearched and follows the MOS. Happy editing! GoPTCN 13:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did a copyedit and helped out at the GAN. I will continue to copyedit, but I think it's a strong candidate with an article that resonates with me as that album is very much a part of my youth. Rather than final prose comments, I will take the liberty of editing directly (most likely tonight).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (thorough review later):

  • The number of songs is confusing. Lead has "The show consisted of 22 songs". Section Events has first "Overall, Simon & Garfunkel played twenty songs: ..." and later in the same section "17 songs + encore of 3 + encore of 1" (paraphrased = 21).
  • 2 were not played. The lead does not state they played all 22 songs, but just that the show consisted of 22 songs. And the track listing was confusing as some ip included the duration of the two songs [7]. Also you are correct; they played 21, not 22. I changed that.--GoPTCN 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Events: "... encore [from] three songs." => "... encore of three songs." sounds better.
  • Done
  • Section title "track listing" (for recorded songs) doesn't work well, as the article includes titles, which were specifically not on the album - would "Set list" (for the concert) be the better section header here?
  • Agree, changed to "set list"
  • First sentence of Track listing has "... in this album". It's a new section and previous text mostly covered only the concert. So "... in the live album" or similar would be more specific to refocus on the album itself. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Ling
    • Aftermath section: a few comments below, but actually I think this section is simply too long. A lot of discussion about topics that should be in some other article(s).
      • "Immediately after the concert, Simon and Garfunkel were disappointed." In what?
      • "For a long time they both performed only individually." Vague. Was it two decades, or...? – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look at the whole Preservation of Central Park section carefully. "promised to donate 250,000", "rain evolved into a rainfall", "was near to be" etc. But actually, I do not think this section is germane to this article, and suggest removing it completely, except for one or two sentences about S&G, which could be relocated. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will wait for suggestions
          • I have two suggestions, though they are mutually exclusive: First, I suggest you simply delete the section, retaining one or two of the more relevant sentences. Barring that (and I do sincerely hope that you do not bar that!), I suggest that someone should have a go at an additional round of copy editing, starting from the bottom of the page and working upward. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critical reception
      • "Stephen Holden, in The New York Times the day after the concert, and in Rolling Stone magazine concerning the live album, praised the performance." Move verb phrase to position behind subject for crispness/clarity/balance.
        • Done
      • "romantic-sweetish pop musician Garfunkel and the gloomy, rock 'n' roll-leaning Simon complemented each other perfectly, despite their different styles" Is this close paraphrase?
        • It is indirect speech
      • "He felt that the new arrangements for the Simon songs clearly improved them" Unnecessary pronoun: He felt that the new arrangements clearly improved the Simon songs... Also: "the Simon songs" == songs penned by Simon, or Simon's songs, or...
        • Done
      • When presenting the reviews, the article sometimes seems to speak with Wikipedia's voice by leaving content unattributed. I know you are trying to avoid too many "he said, she stated" etc., but... perhaps another approach?– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concert
      • "Particular parts of songs, in which the lyrics refer to the city of New York or the concert, were met by the audience with applause, for example a line from Garfunkel's ode to his home city in "A Heart in New York", which describes from a New Yorker's point of view the first glimpse of the city when returning by air and also refers to the bad state of Central Park" Vague expressions like "particular parts" and "bad state"; arguably a run-on sentence; etc. Writing needs to be sharpened.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some fixing up of the lower sections. GOP, there are a couple of hidden comments in there for you to address, as I do not have the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (GermanJoe) an interesting read, some prose and content issues, but no unsolvable problems:

  1. Lead "The concept of a concert had been proposed ..." ==> a bit unspecific, there were concerts before in Central Park. Probably the benefit aspect needs to be pointed out again as important part of the concept.
  2. "...worked with Delsener to decide..." ==> awkward combination, they worked together on the concept and they decided together, but "worked to decide" doesn't catch that meaning.
  3. "... (one due to a fan interruption) ..." ==> disturbs text flow and leaves the reader asking for more information. Suggest to remove that bit completely here (or give more details, but i believe it's not that important in the overall lead context).
    Ok, removed.--GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Despite the success ..." ==> Would that part better fit in the last lead para (needs slight rephrasing)? It covers part of the "aftermath".
  5. "..., the duo decided not to perform together." ==> Actually they did perform together later, but not regularly as a band (needs rephrasing). Also "why?" would be good to explain here (ongoing tensions, different styles, ...).
    Reworded--GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Quotes in general ==> i found a few occurences to check: make sure, all quotes are 100% identical with the source or mark editorial changes, where needed (see MOS:QUOTES). Also quotes are not capitalized at start, if they form a correct sentence with the surrounding text. Yet another "also": quotes have only full stops in the quote itself, when the source has them. Otherwise the punctuation is outside the quote.
  7. A concert for the park "Shortly after the release ..." ==> just checking, are all following sentences (with some strong statements) covered by ref 9?
    I checked the source and yes it covers that information--GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Planning and rehearsals "...(with Simon getting the greater amount of time) with the ... with the ...." ==> 3 "with ..." and the brackets need rephrasing. As the plan was dropped, the "amount of time"-bit could probably be removed, it seems to have had no influence on the decision according to the article.
  9. "Despite the need to adapt to Simon and his style, Garfunkel enjoyed some of the songs and was glad to work with him on a duet version of Simon's "American Tune"." ==> any more background info on what he enjoyed specifically or why? At the moment this is a rather emotional statement, would be good to expand it with a bit more factual information.
  10. "... more than at Woodstock,[16] the seventh-largest concert attendance of all time. [22]" ==> Source 22 (and the Woodstock sub-article, for what it's worth) estimates Woodstock at 500.000 as well. Even if it's sourced, the "more than" is debatable. 2 "estimates" with both 500.000 can't be more than each other. Also the comparison with Woodstock seems to carry a lot of praise, bordering non-neutral POV. Why compare it with Woodstock and not with any of the 4-5 other similar-sized concerts? Finally: is source 22 (Rebecca Baker in MTVHive) a WP:RS?
    To your second question: I think MTV is generally reliable, but I will try to find a better source --GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "...who introduced the performance with the sentence, "Ladies and gentlemen, Simon and Garfunkel!" ==> like every moderator since the dawn of concerts :). Unnecessary detail, stop at "performance." and remove the rest.
    Well, I don't think it is unnecessary as they did not began immediately.
  12. "...The incident provoked associations ..." ==> by whom?
    By the audience I believe --GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "...it did not appear on the live album because of the interjection." ==> Source for the "because ..."-part? Otherwise the reason needs to be removed unfortunately (WP:OR).
    WP:OR is truly one of the worst policies here ;) (never liked it). --GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "The audience ..." ==> pretty emotional quotes, but then it was probably an emotional concert. Just saying, OK for me.
  15. "After the ending of the 17th song, "The Boxer", which included a stanza not included in the album version, ..." ==> Minor point, but the order of events is a bit off here. The decision to not include the stanza was probably made later after the concert? Its removal would better fit in the "recording section", where it happened. Question out of curiosity: Did the original 1969 song include the stanza or not?
    There is an additional stanza in the song, that was played at the concert, beginning "Now the years are rolling by me, they are rocking evenly ..." which presumably indicates the passage of time for the narrator since the song was first written. It does not appear in the 60s version.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Critical reception "The New York Times critic concluded, "It was a wonderful concert." ==> The very positive review is already shown in lengthy detail. That emotional summary adds nothing new. Remove.
    Removed--GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "For those who grew up listening to Simon & Garfunkel this LP represents a trip down memory lane." ==> See above, remove. Of course positive statements should be included, but focus on those, which actually offer some kind of argument or background information. "That concert rocked!!" is not a review.
    Removed--GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Aftermath "Immediately after the concert, Simon and Garfunkel were disappointed." ==> I think, that point is still not addressed. Disappointed with what? OK, Garfunkel's thoughts are elaborated, but what about Simon?
    Well, the interjection during one song, I assume--GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Second para of "Abandoned studio album ..." ==> i somewhat agree with Ling.Nut, please recheck the whole para. The article is not about the bands career, so everything, which is not directly related to the concert or its album and film, has to go. "Borderline cases", which provide some interesting context or background, are OK, but should be mentioned as briefly as possible without further details (see guidelines for summary style and article scope).
    I trimmed it a little bit--GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Preservation of Central Park ==> i actually like that section. It gives some interesting additional information about the park's preservation, which was the concert's main reason after all. It's short enough and fits as the closure of the article.

I hope, those points help with the FA and will gladly support after some more tweaking. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I will first go through the easiest points.--GoPTCN 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To follow up: I think the Atermath section should be comprised wholly and only of its first paragraph, plus the paragraph in the Preservation of Central Park section. Lose the Preservation of Central Park section header. Then you have an Aftermath section with two paragraphs. – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the general sentiment, but would rather save a few bits of information from the second para: The world-tour and new album should be briefly mentioned - they are an immediate follow-up of the concert. But most of the details can be removed, we don't need to know every single station or the number of spectators (that information should be in the band's main or a tour article). Then the "final" breakup with reasons and the events around the second Central Park concert could be briefly mentioned to finish the outlook on future events. The Madison Square Garden information is not closely related to the article topic, so i would loose the last sentence completely (again more fitting for the band article). Two subsections or one? Not sure actually, would have to see how the sections look after tweaking. GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it a bit and sorry for the harsh comment, LingNut. I was in bad mood at that time. --GoPTCN 08:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your fault; it's mine. In certain specific circumstances, my supply of patience hovers near zero. This can be irritating to other editors. Unfortunately, teasing apart the marginal benefit of different approaches is not always easy (again, under certain specific circumstances). – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN3: since this is a vanity press, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN11: pages?
  • FN23: publisher? What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in whether website names are italicized
  • Be consistent in whether online newspaper articles are given access dates
  • FN51, 75: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books
  • Dead link tags should be addressed
  • Some of your refs put website name in front of title - why?
  • FN68: publisher?

Oppose—mainly 1a. The prose isn't yet of professional and engaging standard. Sample of errors, not exhaustive. (article needs a thorough copy-edit from fresh eyes):

  • Repetitively using the same word makes for clumsy writing—in the lead, "concert" is used 11 times, once for every sentence. Audit for this and other words throughout.
  • Prose seems disjointed. See the "summer of 1981" para, for example. "Simon's confidence had declined and he had sought treatment for depression" springs out abruptly, especially after we hear that he "was enthusiastic about the idea". Was his depression brought on by the failure of his film or the viability of the concert and collaboration? This needs to be fleshed out better.
  • "(with Simon getting the greater amount of time) with the show concluding with the two". Also look to cut down on redundant wording "the greater amount of" could be just "more".
  • Have any of the biographies been consulted beyond their GoogleBooks previews? There are so few book sources used, that the comprehensiveness appears doubtful.
  • Is cdstarts.de reliable? Surely there are better sources than a German-language CD-reviewing website?
  • Devoting an entire paragraph to Holden's NYT review is excessive. "In a few places ... Simon's voice felt a little thin, even after mixing, but that was 'actually refreshing'." - scare quotes + reads very strange.
  • What was the official name of the concert?
  • The two cquotes in Events look very distracting, IMHO.
  • Since this is primarily an album article, IMO you should remove the set-list and add a more-standard Track-listing section at the end. BTW what does " "Mrs. Robinson" (Simon & Garfunkel) " mean? That song was written by Simon alone.
  • More than half of the article is about the concert and its benefit for the park. So i see the article scope more as a broader topic consisting of all related aspects (concert, preservation, film, album, reunion). Maybe the scope is a bit broad, but it is a logical choice of closely connected aspects. It's not "primarily" an album article imho. WP:SCOPE, while no formal rule, has some good pointers for this question. GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flow of info can be improved: why does it take four paragraphs after the rehearsals are first mentioned, before we find out that they took place in a Manhattan theater?
  • "and could not play guitar for two hours" - unclear what exactly this means; so he could play for three hours?
  • Does the "Recording" section header refer to the verb-form or the noun? Usually in album articles, it's the former, so I suggest "Release" instead.
  • Aftermath: the second paragraph is mostly irrelevant to the Central Park concert. It deals with minutiae from the subsequent world tour.
  • Stuff that's missing: impact of the concert and album? Who did it influence? How is it looked upon now, twenty years since the event? Maybe you can expand the bit about its role in reinvigorating the park by adding a few choice quotes from officials and commentators?
  • It is easy to say what is missing but it is very hard to find such information. Also I removed what you have now wrote and probably won't add it again.--GoPTCN 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these are not exhaustive of the problems in the article. I think it needs to be withdrawn, and re-examined closely.—indopug (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your comments but I don't think it deserves an oppose. You mainly commented on nitpicks although you stated that it fails criteria 1. It was copyedited by Wehwalt and co and I can't believe how it still fails it. As long as you do not raise more comments I can not trust your oppose. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't hurt to get another opinion, I'm not perfect by any means. Certainly the specific concerns would be worth looking at.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:32, 20 June 2012 [8].

Sheriff Hill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for two years now. The article was promoted through WP:GAN last year and has been WP:PR twice since and I think it is now ready for an attempt at WP:FAC. Comments and suggestions welcome- thanks! Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, mainly as the article contains a fair amount of unreferenced material - almost all of the 'Transport' section and some sentences scattered through the article have no supporting references. While the article is generally sound, it's also too detailed in parts, and some material would be better used in articles on specific buildings, etc. Here are some more detailed comments:

  • Is this really a 'settlement' as the lead calls it? A quick check on Google maps shows that it's a suburb of greater Newcastle (as is stated in the last para of the lead), while the first paragraph of the lead makes it sound like its a discrete township in the countryside. The use of 'settlement' througout the article is really confusing for this suburb-dwelling Australian!
This is a tricky one. All of the secondary sources refer throughout to Sheriff Hill as a tiny village, which developed into a settlement, but more recent official documentation tends to lean towards it (there is no consensus among the documents) being a suburb of Gateshead (it is definitely not a suburb of Newcastle, which is a totally different place) as the countryside between Gateshead and Sheriff Hill shrunk and Gateshead expanded towards the settlement/village. I think settlement is best but not sure at all... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think suburb, and the changes you've made in this regard look good. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The settlement was once the site of one of Gateshead's largest boarding schools but is now served by Glynwood Primary School." - this doesn't make sense - boarding schools obviously don't serve their local community
Okay, changed to something a little better (I think) Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gateshead Fell had become a place of considerable notoriety" - what was it notorious for?
Both it's 'bleakness' and criminality. I've added a quotation to the footnotes which I hope covers this Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to say "Gateshead Fell had become notorious for bleak weather and criminality" or similar to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1809 an Act was finally obtained" - why the use of 'finally'? Had there been demands for this for a long time?
Yes, for centuries in fact. I've made an amendment to reflect this Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a small number of settlers and at least two public houses sprang forth" - 'sprang forth' is rather awkward in this context.
Again, I've amended to reflect this and the sentence now reads better (I hope!) Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Built on turf by tinkers, these were initially inhabited by a combination of the tinkers themselves and a sizeable mining community." - this is also a bit awkward (mainly due to the repetition of 'tinkers')
Agreed and reworded Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The political party who holds the national electorate Sheriff Hill is part of isn't clear from the way things are written at present. The party should be noted before who the MP is.
Do you mean Mearn's political party or the present governing party in the UK? I'm not sure which... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mearn's party Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the situation is in the UK, but the Australian Electoral Commission publishes the outcomes of elections at the booth level, which allows analysis of how individual suburbs and towns voted. If the same is the case in the UK you could draw on this to discuss Sheriff Hill's political leanings.
If the UK electoral commission provides this data, then I do not know how to access it I'm afraid (though I'd be pleasantly surprised if they did to be honest). All the data available relates to results by constituency and turnout Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. I had a poke around and couldn't find anything either. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what's causing it, but an inline reference is appearing as part of the text in the 'Demography' section
Yup, spotted and fixed Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • Can you use Census data to track changes in the population of Sheriff Hill over time? Even the change on the previous Census would be of interest.
I'm afraid not. The population figure given is that provided by Gateshead MBC and even that is something of a 'guesstimate' based upon calculations on low-super-output-levels. Sheriff Hill is neither a ward, not a village/town so the data does not seem to be collected specifically anymore. Old OS Maps contain some data (the 1862 Map provides a population of 891) but that is all I'm afraid... Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those who do hold positions of employment tend to travel to either Gateshead or Newcastle" - 'travel' is not really an appropriate way of describing what are actually quite short commutes within the same urban area.
Okay, I've re-worded Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trees would be placed on paths" - is there a reason this is not in the past tense?
Not a good reason, no...I've reworded this Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the schools is much too long. The coverage of Glynwood Primary School is particularly lengthy and over-detailed (for instance, what's notable about its hours of operation or lunch prices?). This material also contains a number of platitudes; for instance, what school in the world doesn't seek to "to provide a positive culture of successful learning in a safe, secure environment"? This section should be trimmed to three or so paragraphs.
I've made (what feels like) substantive trimming to this section Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the material on Hodkin Park is much too long
Again, I've made substantial trims to this section. I do think a separate article will be worthwhile and I'll pop one up in due course... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Public houses' section repeats some topics already discussed in the article, and is also over-long; I don't think that we need a paragraph per pub
I've taken a lot of this out, including all of the material relating to the two pubs which recently closed and simply because I cannot find anything which confirms that both closed and were demolished in 2003 (this is the major problem with wp:verifiability I guess) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This also looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on St John the Evangelist Church and Sheriff Hill Methodist Church is also much too long. It might be worth splitting off separate articles for these and the above topics if they're notable.
I've made some more selective omissions but I am loathe to take much more from the St John's section-this church is the principle landmark of the settlement/village and requires (I think) a little depth Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't reflect all the article's content. In particular, it should note that this is currently an economically and socially disadvantaged area; at present this is revealed as the article goes on but never explicitly stated upfront.
I've changed the lead to reflect this Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the demise of heavy industry in the early 20th century left a suburb with no major employer and which now suffers from comparatively high levels of economic and social deprivation" seems rather narrow - this is a suburb in a significant urban area which is within 15 minutes commute of two city centres, so it doesn't necessarily need its own employers to generate jobs for its residents; it might be best to put the suburb in the context of the general urban area and/or not attempt to explain the causes of the disadvantage here. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the table of current bus frequencies is needed, and if it's retained you should re-check the source: it's now a year old, so may no longer be current.
The same comment was made at WP:PR and so I'll take the table out Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've addressed all of these. Let me know what you think and we'll see what can be seen, so to speak... :) Meetthefeebles (talk)

Those changes look really good, but there's still some uncited material in the 'transport' section. I've responded to some other points above. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of the remaining points (though I haven't indicated these above as it is getting rather messy up there). If anything else remains please let me know Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed; great work with this article. As one extra comment though, please explain what the 'B1296' Sheriff Hill is on is (I presume that this is a major road). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not read the article.

  • Reference cleanup needed
    • ref 6: Manders, 1973: 308&endash;9
Corrected Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 153: Davis, 31 August 2010)
unnecessary bracket removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SHCAMP, 2007: para 6.6 (same text for 3 refs): ref 96 is named, but 97, 98 are unnamed.
The source is the same. Corrected Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 268: McKenzie 1834, p.108 Inconsistent style
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 141: Quinn is externally linked here, but information is in "Journals, reports, papers and other sources". Shouldn't the link be in Bibliography?
This is where my HTML uselessness creeps in; not sure how to do that! Will have a go...Edit: have figured this out. External link added to bibliography instead Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference spotcheck for refs 189-193
    • I couldn't find any ref say "major bus route out of Gateshead"
I've taken the 'major' out so that the sentence is verifiable (it is certainly 'a bus route') Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In no ref did I find "Sheriff Hill" mentioned. Is some street or other landmark from Sheriff Hill mentioned in the list of stops?
In the route map for the 28 bus, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Travellers Rest and Queens Head are stated. All are in Sheriff Hill and that is made clear in the article. In the 56 bus route map, both the QE Hospital and Sheriff's Highway (the major road in the suburb) are listed. The same are listed in the link for the 57 route map. The QE Hospital is listed again in the route map for the 93 bus. To avoid ambiguity, I have changed the links from the original, bus description page to the pdf.route maps Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
    • Infobox image is repeated.
I didn;t actually know that this wasn't allowed? I've taken the photo out of the topography section to avoid the repetition Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all addressed now. Thanks :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else want to take a look at this please as it is beginning to sink a little! I'm available to deal with any unresolved issues...Ta Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Link needed for " allotment land disputes " or define
    • I'm guessing the word at issue here is 'allotment'? I've linked this but if I've misunderstood, let me know... Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • Wording "one of the safest Labour parliamentary seats ..." - Maybe "most secure" or "most reliable" would be better than safest?
    • I think 'safest' is the correct word here; that is the term popularly and routinely used in the UK to define Parliamentary seats which are predictably retained by the same party and with huge voting majorities. I've already included a link to safe seat for those unfamiliar with the term. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash formatting: "5,051[47]–53% of the population ..." - in my browser, the dash is touching the right bracket following "47". Can you re-word the sentence to avoid that problem? Maybe put a space in front of the dash? or move the footnote to the end of the sentence?
  • Wording: " itself is a neat, plain, ..." - Can a better word be found than "neat"? US readers may take that as fun, cool, or exciting.
    • I'm not really sure that the context of the word 'neat' here could possibly cause anyone to misconstrue the meaning intended. Additionally, that is the exact word used by the source cited in the adjoining reference. For those reasons, I'm not overly keen on amending unless absolutely necessary here. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double quote? - "awarded the title of 'Gateshead Pub of the Year' ..." - Check the MOS to make sure single quotes are okay there; double quotes may be preferred. Ditto for several other places single quotes are used.
    • I have removed the offending sentence and, I think, any single quotes where inappropriate to the MOS. Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • Commentary? - "An "enormous sum of public money", some seven million pounds, was set aside ..." - Why the quote? The number should speak for itself. If the quote has some special significance, explain its significance in the text.
    • I think that the quotation provides accurate context to that which follows. Ultimately, £7m isn't an 'enormous sum' for building 34 new schools in today's money, but at that time it was considered so by the author. Does this not provide genuine context for younger readers? Had I not included a quote and simply written 'A very large sum of money was set aside' would I not be possibly infringing WP:PEACOCK? I can take it out if required, but I personally would like it to stay... Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics? - The entire estate is now part of the Sheriff Hill Conservation Area. Also part of the conservation area is Sourmilk Hill ..." - Check with MOS on the use of italics there. I think the italics are not correct.
  • Redundancy: "the number of children entitled to, and claiming, free school meals .." - Best if just have "entitled to" or "claiming", but not both.
    • I'm not sure that these are synonymous as you seem to suggest: just because a child is entitled to free school meals does not, per se, mean that s/he will claim that entitlement. I've added the word 'both' to the sentence as there are two points being made here, rather than one, which I think works better? Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cap in quote: "One noted that "We watched the ..."" - Check with MOS to see if W should be capitalized inside quote .. I think it could go either way here.
  • In correct section? The Health section includes: "Whilst once considered an affluent suburb of the town of Gateshead,[116] the area is now markedly less so, with almost half of the total working age population not economically active and less than half of the households in the area owning a car.[21] Over one quarter of the adult population of the area are considered clinically obese, ..." - It looks like the first two sentences should be in some Economics section, not the Health section.
  • Italics again: - "Ye Olde Cannon is situated at the northern end .... locally recognised: Ye Olde Cannon is one of ..." - I don't think italics are correct; especially if subsequent uses are not italicized.
  • I think this article is very close to FA quality, but it should probably go through one more peer review.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I think they are now all addressed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:25, 20 June 2012 [9].

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Till 12:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the Featured article criteria. Till 12:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN1: author name and name in title don't match
Done typo. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: album ID/catalogue number?
Done. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4 and similar: should be dash not hyphen
? 'Similar' please explain. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several footnotes which include this type of error. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, which ones? Till 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37, 47, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90 all use hyphens incorrectly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16: italicization
Done. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't Glasswerk be considered a reliable source? And featured articles such as Hollaback Girl have used mvdbase. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Glasswerk, it doesn't appear to have an About page and Contact Us gives little information, so I'd like you to explain why it's reliable. As to mvdbase, "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument- what is the site's fact-checking or editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" might not be a strong argument but it's still confusing as to why it is used in some featured articles and not others. Glasswerk appears reliable to me but if I must remove it then I must, and won't pursue that challenge any further. Till 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I remove mvdbase as well then? Till 11:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN57: doubled quote marks
Done. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN59 returns 404 error, and title shouldn't be all-caps
Done. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN22: 404 error, part of URL seems to have bled into the title
Done fixed. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Till 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Even if used properly, an exhaustive list of release dates is trivia, i.e. information unworthy of an encyclopedia. Here, there's just one date, so the table has no merit at all.—indopug (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 17:40, 16 June 2012 [10].

Part of Me (Katy Perry song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 23:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and I personally think that its an interesting article and people will be interested in it considering the fact that Perry's movie will be released soon. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 23:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: looks like some copyediting is needed here, some examples of problematic passages:
  • "Perry eventually finds herself reminiscing over her experiences with her ex-boyfriend, yet remains spiteful towards him, burning a love note next to a LAV-25 and venting frustration through the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program."
Done reworded. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bill Lamb from About.com also gave the song 4 out of 5 stars stating; "In the wake"" The semicolon is wrong here.
Done , Removed semicolon teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priya Elan of NME, gave a negative review of the song" No need for a comma here.
Done removed comma. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 16, 2012 Capitol Records released an official trailer" Missing a comma here.
Done added comma. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Ireland, 'Part of Me' peaked at number 5, becoming her 12th single to reach the top 10 on the chart.[34] In Italy, the song was certified Gold by the FIMI with sales of over 25,000. [35] "Part of Me" reached number one " Inconsistency here, single quote vs double quote.
Done fixed quotes/references. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So this is the complete special edition of my album for my fans" [6] On February 13, 2012, "Part of Me" received" Some other sentences don't have periods at the end, either.
Done added period and added period to other sentences that I saw needed.
Done Fixed all citation spacing issues. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • General copyediting needed throughout - for example, why is "Military" capitalized? Why the duplication in "through the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program"?
  • Some WP:MOS problems: bracketed and spaced ellipses, song titles should consistently include quotation marks, etc.
  • Multiple inconsistencies in citation formatting - these need to be cleaned up
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
  • File:Snapshot_of_Part_of_Me_video.jpg needs a much stronger fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your feedback however I don't quite agree with your comments on the reliable sources, all of the websites that are used are websites that are commonly used on music-related Wikipedia articles. How can Yahoo! not be a reliable source?? If your look at Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) About.com was used there and all of the other sources are reliable music websites that not just anyone can write for. As for the image I agree, as well as the military being capitalized. I will work on cleaning up the references and working the MOS. Thanks, teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 15:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo! page you're using is a blog; though it's hosted by Yahoo!, there's no indication that they exercise editorial control over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Lamb is a massively established writer and has been used in FA's in the past. It is a high quality reliable source.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have handled most of these requests. What Giacobbe said was Very true, and as with Yahoo! Yes it may say its a blog but its under Yahoo!'s publication which is needless to say a reliable source, therefore it should rule out the fact that it qualifies as a blog. Had it been written by some random guy in his basement, then yes i would understand, but its Yahoo! so I don't understand, Yahoo! hires experienced journalists with degrees. But since its a blog I guess it does go against the policy so it has been removed. As with the references style and bracketed and spaced ellipses can you please provide examples because I have tried to execute these requests but I cannot find what's wrong. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I honestly can't see how this passed GA, let alone be able to pass FA. It is not very well written. The first paragraph of the background section, for example, does not flow what-so-ever, and is basically a bunch of facts all put together that don't connect. "Part of Me" was initially written by Katy Perry, Dr. Luke, Bonnie McKee and Max Martin in 2010, during the same studio sessions for "California Gurls", "Teenage Dream" and "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)". Perry, who had been casual friends with McKee for years, requested her assistance in co-writing "Part of Me". McKee stayed up all night writing the lyrics, and when Perry read the third line she had written, she shouted: "We're buying you a car!". Perry's satisfaction with her writing ability led to further collaborations. --> Not even sure the "We're buying you a car!" should be here, but I put it in anyway. I think the fact that she was satisfied with her writing is good enough to say. And yes, About.com is an unreliable source for FA. Statυs (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, but I read some parts of the article and noted that the prose is not good at all. Some examples:
    • Part of Me" received a mixed positive response amongst music critics ---> How mixed positive? Mixed? or Positive? or do you want to say Mixed to positive? — Tomica (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The music video for "Part of Me" was directed by Ben Mohr, filming began on February 16, 2012, ---> reads awkward
    • while the music follows the chord progression of Dm–F–A♯-C ---> This is Wikipedia:OR
    • In "Part of Me", the song begins with Perry somberly ---> awkward
    • ...for the Teenage Dream era ---> This reads like a fan made sentence.

These are just some examples, the whole article needs lifting. For now this is far away from an article with a feature status. — Tomica (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:22, 16 June 2012 [11].

Boddingtons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfills the FA criteria and is an excellent introduction to Boddingtons Bitter.Farrtj (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose
  • Seems like a difficult slog, at least for a copyeditor.
  • Greater Manchester is one of the largest metro areas in the UK; this article doesn't seem to make the case that this beer "[raised] the profile of the city" or (this part is okay if you insist, since "revitalise" has been removed) "[revitalised] the image of Manchester", other than by suggesting that there are at least a few attractive women in Manchester. Did the beer somehow make Manchester more widely known or enhance its reputation?
If you read the article through then you'd see that this claim is later sourced to the Financial Times, but I'll add the reference to the lead as well if it suits. Besides, I link to the 500,000 population Manchester city, not the Borough, or the Greater Manchester Area. Farrtj (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't explain what it means, or what it could mean, for a beer to "raise the profile" "revitalise the image" of a city that's the center of one of the largest metro areas in the UK ... Is the beer more famous than the city? Did it lend the city some of its allure? In what way? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the beer is popular nationwide and is advertised as the "Cream of Manchester" then it is promoting the city in the public eye. As a successful export it promotes an image of the city as successful, given that in the previous decades Manchester suffered from deindustrialization. I think that the article as a whole makes this clear, but the introduction is not the place to go into further detail.Farrtj (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"promotes" seems fine. "revitalising", as if the beer or its campaign were more important or better known than the city and lent the city some of their authority ... is an insult to the city, or advertising hype, or both. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rising profile of the city is explained further in the article, I don't want to go too much into it in what is only supposed to be an introduction:

The extraordinary rise of the beer coincided with the elevation of Manchester from "city of dark, beaten mills to the cultural magnet of Madchester". Manchester and the North of England were now fashionable in the public consciousness, and rejuvenated from industrial slump. Whitbread chief executive Peter Jarvis commented in 1995 that:

It was very fortuitous that the brewery was in Manchester. To outsiders, Manchester is a very attractive place – known the world over for soccer, art, music and broadcasting. It would be difficult to have a Cream of Wolverhampton even though Banks's beer is very good. People do not aspire to visit Wolverhampton. On the whole they try to by- pass it.
  • "Boddingtons Bitter ("Boddies")": Established alternative names in the first sentence of the lead are bolded per WP:LEAD ... I guess if the advertising campaign was successful, and it seems to have been, then "Boddies" would qualify as an established name.
  • "Strangeways Brewery, Manchester, England and": See WP:Checklist#second comma. I'd prefer an "in" before Manchester, but I won't push it.
  • "Boddingtons becoming one of the city's most famous products": User:Tony1 calls this "noun plus -ing", and Garner's calls it an "absolute construction". Both frown on it ... mainly because it's almost always possible to find words that are clearer and tighter.
  • "second only to Manchester United and Coronation Street": wouldn't that make it third?
Not according to the Financial Times, one of the leading UK broadsheets. Unless your authority is higher than theirs. The "and" groups Man U and Coronation Street as a collective. Here is the original FT quote: "The brewery, close to Strangeways prison and the city centre, is second only to Manchester United and the Coronation Street television soap opera as a Manchester brand name."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7f4de4a-287d-11d9-9308-00000e2511c8.html#axzz1x2O5VtQq

Okay, it was also close paraphrasing, although your recent edit that removed "second" dealt with that problem. Btw, SOED says "second" means "coming next after the first in ... position [or time or ...]". - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The kind of problems that Dank identified in the first three sentences are present throughout the article, and the referencing is frankly shambolic. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This version, in no particular order.

  • ABV should be defined.
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the naming of InBev.
  • There is mention of the taste of the beers prior to c.1981, though no mention of the taste of the bitter that went national, or if the move to Moss Side changed it. (Old people assure me the taste declined in the 1980s.)
  • If Cask Boddingtons doesn't exist any more ("production was discontinued in March 2012") it shouldn't be in the list of current products.
  • Wouldn't one of the other refs be more suitable than ref 2? What makes these reliable sources: refs 3, 5/12/13, 11, 30, 34, 39? Ref 58 needs clarifying. Are all the refs fully titled and authored? (e.g.43, 59, 75). Are refs 84 and 86 the same?

Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just some random comments, as i won't do a full review.

  • Lead seems to miss content summaries for history from founding to pre 1990s.
  • Same for section "products" (variants) - a brief mention in lead would suffice.
  • I am not sure about the article scope, is it only about the beer itself with some brewery background information or is it about the beer and it's breweries as equal parts of the topic? Whatever the focus is, make sure the article covers all aspects of it in appropriate length. The history section appears slightly too detailed. Maybe some information about the breweries would better fit into the very short brewery sub-article, especially when the information has no direct relevance for the beer. GermanJoe (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening sentence is misleading in that is describes a beer and not the company that brewed it which is what the bulk of the article is about. The lead should mention the famiy's involvement.J3Mrs (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN1: page?
  • Compare FNs 6 and 10
  • Identical refs should be combined
  • Don't use bare URLs
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
  • Provide pages for multi-page PDFs
  • Some web cites are missing access dates
  • FN43: formatting
  • FN44, 76, 77, 78: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate month names
  • Be consistent in whether website names are italicized
  • Redman: formatting

These need significant cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:09, 16 June 2012 [12].

Turtles All the Way Down

[edit]
Nominator(s): TBrandley • talk • contributions 14:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has meet with FA criteria. TBrandley • talk • contributions 14:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. FAC is not the place for articles with lots of broken English:

  • "The story and concept of the episode was written"
    • Done
  • "sits in a jail cell temporary"
    • Done
  • "while in the green reality ... while his partner ...", with no independent clause
    • Done
  • "It was and directed by"
    • Done
  • I see a long list of complaints on your talk page that you haven't followed instructions. Please don't take articles to FAC without proper preparation; it sucks up reviewer time for no real gain. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose choppy writing throughout, I don't understand how this passed GA with this prose, and I suck in prose. Here's some examples.

  • In his "green reality" (where his son is alive and his wife is dead)... Can it be explained further through some wikilink as it's still unclear what is a green reality ?
  • "Detective Michael Britten (Jason Isaacs) sits in a prison cell temporary for killing Detective Ed Hawkins (Kevin Weisman), who caused Britten's car accident in the first episode, while his partner, Detective "Bird" Freeman (Steve Harris) finds heroin that Hawkins, under orders from Captain Kessel (Mark Harelik), had placed in a self storage unit." Massive run-on sentence, does Britten car accident deserves to be mentioned in the plot, and why did Hawkins placed the heroin in the storage unit?
  • Britten regains conciousness (after having passed out before due to a gunshot wound from when Ed Hawkins was chasing after him in the previous episode) near a dumpster in the "red reality" (where his wife is alive and son is dead). Again prose issues, note the typo as well.
  • Britten finds his therapist, Dr. John Lee (BD Wong), forces him to sew up the bullet wound, and takes him to the self storage unit to show him the heroin stash.. Some redundancy here.

From Reception

  • is "enjoyed the episode" encyclopedic prose?
  • He claimed that "the chicken heart really begins to grow". What's the point of this statement, seems like random commentary.
  • Zack Handlen review is loaded with random quotes which seems extremely bloated? Possible fair use violation over excess of quotes, trim.
  • "Nick McHatton of TV Fanatic, again, enjoyed the episode". "Screen Rant's Kevin Yeoman, again, enjoyed the episode" hmm.....

This article needs some rewriting and a extremely strong copyedit before going back to FAC. Sorry Secret account 23:50, 14 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 13:11, 9 June 2012 [13].

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to nominate this article for FA-status. It has gone through two peer reviews, a great deal of informal peer discussions, and a recent copyedit. The subject matter spans an important subset of First Amendment law, one that I hope this review process will only help expand. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Alright, first things first: this will be my first time having reviewed an article, so I know there will be things I missed.

Maybe it's just me, but should court be capitalized in the following instances:
  • In the Lead section: "The Court ruled that this specific restriction violated ..."
  • In the Supreme Court decision section: "The Court affirmed the decision ..."
Not relevant, as Lord Roem describes below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction
1. In the sentence: "... stating that while they were glad the restriction fell "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks" Could this be improved by adding two commas: "... stating that, while they were glad the restriction fell, "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks"?
Subsequent developments
2. The following sentence confused me a bit: "Since the Court struck down the limitation LSC has engaged in welfare-reform litigation, due to the injunction preventing enforcement of the restriction (which was entered by the District Court)." Did the court strike down the limitation LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation? Or has LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation because the court struck down the limitation? If I am right, a comma might help clarify: "Since the court struck down the limitation, LSC has engaged in ..." If not, is there are better way of saying it so it is a little easier to understand?
Analysis and commentary
3. In this sentence: "... Justice Kennedy's analysis renders the opinion "uncredible" (sic) and "unconvincing." " Could/Should it be changed to: "... renders the opinion "uncredible {{sic}}" and "unconvincing." "
Miscellaneous
I found a few instances of duplicate links.
This last bit I don't believe is extremely important, but there are several links that are redirects.

Like I said, my first time reviewing an article, and I know I probably missed some stuff, but, hey, that is part of learning. L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thought you might want to know that the website the first reference links to ("Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, Carmen, et al./U.S. v. Velazquez") is "off-line" at the moment (as of 8:24am PST, 8 May 2012). L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'll work through these suggestions later today. Quick question though: you mention in #6 that there are several 'redirects'. I'm having trouble seeing what you're describing. Could could be specific please? Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, some of the links on the page are redirected to...well...I'll give you a few examples:
  • [What you link to] => [The actual article]
  • Legal Services Corporation Act => Legal Services Corporation
  • Public fourm => Forum (legal)
  • Law journal => Law review
  • Indigent => Poverty
I'm sure you know how to fix it, but just to clarify, you put, for one example, [[indigent]] and it could be [[Poverty|indigent]]. Like I said, not really something extremely important, but it makes it look nicer, IMO, if when you follow a link to another article, it doesn't have the "(Redirected from [article linked])" on the article's page. And, obviously, do to fix this, you can avoid a "redirect" to the article using piping. Sorry if that is difficult to understand, and if it is, please know it's my fault, not yours (it is my way of wording it, and sometimes I can be pretty vague). L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and happy to help! =) L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lightshow! I've worked through all your suggestions for the article. Only thing I didn't do is the change of "Court". The proper way to refer to the Supreme Court is "the Court held" or "the decision of the Court" (for example [this Supreme Court featured-article]).
If you think I've resolved your concerns, if you could strike through it or put a "collapsetop/collapsebottom" box around it, that would be great. That way, other editors and reviewers know that I've worked through the suggestions. Thanks again! Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from what I saw when I first reviewed it. Sorry it took me two days to add collapse boxes/strike throughs. Nice work! L1ght5h0w (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed reading this article (and the case). Here are some suggestions:

  • "funding restrictions" That sounds like restrictions on who can receive funds, but the restriction is that lawyers working for entities that receive the funds are restricted in what types of cases they can represent. Needs clarification
  • "private speech—that of its clients" Do you mean grantees? Using the word clients makes it sound like the attorney's client's speech but the Court's decision is based on the attorney's ability to speak freely (bring certain cases). This needs to be clarified.
  • "created a public forum" What public forum did it create? I know I saw "existing medium of exchange" in the opinion.
  • "government's ability to regulate speech is highly limited" - The government's ability to regulate speech is always highly limited - needs clarification.
  • "Because the restrictions excluded attempts to affect only a certain type of law" - cumbersome wording
  • "In academia there were more were critical responses to the Court's holding. Do you mean there were more critical responses than favorable responses? If so, make clear and source.
  • indigent defendants should be clients
  • the act, the Act, the LSC Act - needs to be consistent throughout article
  • "Velasquez retained" Since she didn't pay, I don't think this is the best word.
  • "a provision of the LSC Act" Since there's really only one provision of the Act that's at issue here I think "the provision of the LSC Act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law" would be better.
  • In the "Lower-court proceedings" section you use "welfare advocacy" and elsewhere it's "welfare reform", should be consistent throughout article.
  • A couple of times you say the government was trying to. This doesn't sound professional, "attempting" or "its purpose was" would be better.
  • Somewhere there should be a clarification of what types of welfare cases an attorney working for an LSC grantee could represent and what that attorney could not represent.
  • "Supreme Court decision" section is very short. I think it needs considerable expansion to clarify the Court's reasoning. In particular explain governmental speech, private speech, "distortion", impermissible viewpoint discrimination -- what these are and how they relate to this case. Now they're just mentioned, they need a more thorough explanation.
  • I think the article would benefit from subsections giving brief descriptions of Rust and Rosenberger, specifically why the restriction in Rust was permissible (very unclear now) and why Rosenberger was impermissible. BlueBonnet 20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working through your suggestions. I'm down to the last three points you have, each about expanding the article, which will take a tad more time than the other fixes I'll get to those expansions over the weekend. Thanks for the review! I appreciate the help in improving the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely finished I believe. I've expanded the article's discussion of Rust and Rosenberger. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Split into two: "The restrictions affected only a small portion of the caseload; however, they prohibited the LSC from using its funds for actions: ... initiating legal representation or participating in any other ..." - Those are two key concepts. The latter needs a dedicated sentence as in "One of the restrictions prohibited funding cases that ...".
  • Wording: also in the above: "small portion of the caseload; however, .." - The latter clause is not the opposite of the former, so "however" is not correct.
What I was driving at was that there are two distinct thoughts there: (a) the several restrictions, together, were actually relatively minor and impacted only a small portion of the LSCs workload; and (b) one of the restrictions dealt with Welfare, and that one was the subject of this SCOTUS case. I think those should be in 2 separate sentences (and the "however" will naturally disappear). --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite needed: " ... and sought to challenge the provisions of TANF under which Velazquez lost her benefits. The district court denied an injunction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
  • Cite needed: "The national LSC asked the Supreme Court for review by petitioning for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit was wrong in striking down the welfare-advocacy restriction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
  • Cite needed: "The Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of 5–4."
  • Cite needed: "With this in mind, he concluded with a process by which the Court should have decided the case: a process leading to the upholding of the restriction by finding that LSC's purpose was in promoting the government's message, in contrast to a diversity of private views."
  • Cite needed: " Notwithstanding the difficulty of an organization to classify itself as an "affiliate entity" of LSC, Gozdor argued that there was no real prevention of speech when there were ample alternative means of relaying the message."
  • Clarify direction: "... could undermine abortion law " - Undermine in which way? Increase restriction on a.? Or reduce legal restrictions?
  • Mention Rosenberger v. Rector - That case is listed in "See also"; if it is in any way relevant, it should be mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Subsequent cases? - Has the Supr Court relied on this case in any subsequent cases? If so, mention them.
  • Wording: "Moreover, attacking the distortion principle's application, Gozdor also argued ..." - I think many editors will agree that "moreover" is never a good word to use. Reword.
  • Holding should be standalone: "Because the LSC facilitates private speech, the government speech doctrine does not apply and the speech restriction is therefore unconstitutionally viewpoint-based." - I know it is hard to summarize a whole case in 1 or 2 sentences; but here "the speech restriction" makes no sense because a restriction has not yet been mentioned before. Maybe something like: "A federal law which prohibited the LSC from engaging in welfare-law related cases violates the 1st amend freedom of speech because such advocacy by the LSC is private speech and thus not subject to the govmt speech doctrine". Or something like that.
  • Wording: "Supporters of the ruling were cautiously optimistic, ..." - The phrase "cautiously optimistic" is hackneyed. Recommend reword.
  • Was this case mentioned in the NY Times or any other general-audience media? If so, it would be worthwhile to present their take on it.
  • Easter egg link: Link "own message" leads to article Rust v. Sullivan which is probably not consistent with WP:LINK guidance.
  • Be specific: "The immediate reaction was mixed, especially among members of Congress." - Reword as "The immediate reaction was mixed among members of Congress." - unless you are going to identify who else had a reaction. The general public?
  • Reword: - "Parties involved in the case also had mixed reactions...." - It then gives two responses; but (1) it looks like both responses are from the same side; and (2) the responses both appear to be supportive of the decision - so Im not sure "mixed" is correct here.
  • Tense: "The implications of these subsequent rulings mandate two new rules" - That is a shift to present tense, and seems wrong.
  • Overall, a fine article. Not a spectacular topc, but it is on a narrow, focused topic, so one cannot expect to see lots of illustrations and celebrities. Leaning to Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments.

I believe I've addressed all the issues you've raised. If you have any questions about my changes or more suggestions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for the thorough review! :-) - Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Does not meet criteria 1(a) or (b) - writing is confusing and imprecise, difficult legal concepts that many readers will be seeing for the first time are not adequately explained, lacks complete and clear description of the parties involved, insufficient description of the Court's evaluation of the problems caused by the restriction, insufficient description of how the Court applied legal principles to reach its decision, contains factual inaccuracies. Also the article is unbalanced, leaning toward criticism of the majority opinion. The discussion of the majority opinion is short and does not adequately explain the Court's reasoning whereas the "Analysis and commentary" section contains only criticism and is much longer.

Additional comments

  • "The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez" - not accurate - "Lawyers employed by the New York City LSC grantees, together with private LSC contributors, LSC indigent clients, and various state and local public officials whose governments contribute to LSC grantees, brought suit..." (quote from the Court decision)
  • "whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions" - inaccurate "...brought suit ...to declare the restriction...invalid." (quote from the Court decision)
    • Some of the points you raise are fair, but these first two I think are invalid. She was trying to challenge the welfare restrictions, but could not so so because of the restriction. I think the wording of the lead sentence then is accurate. Additionally, while her lawyers were the ones who brought the case technically, its in their client's name. Hence the reason its called LSC v. Velazquez. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This lawsuit is to challenge the restriction within the LSC Act, it is not to challenge a provision of welfare law. Challenging the welfare law would come in a different lawsuit against whatever government department denied welfare benefits. The Court states who filed suit. It's LSC v. Velazquez et al.. Current description of parties and suit is inaccurate. BlueBonnet 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nature of how LSC funds are distributed" - what does how they're distributed have to do with anything? This is in the intro and I don't see an explanation later in the article.
  • "created a public forum" - What public forum does the LSC create? I thought the forum was the court system. The LSC didn't create that.
  • "Reactions to the decision were mixed within Congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing on the propriety of the decision." This is in the intro but I don't see anything later in the article about any Democrat having an opinion on the matter. Which source supports a Republican/Democrat split over the opinion.
  • According to the Greenhouse article the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction - that is significant and needs to be mentioned.
    • The Clinton administration/LSC is the same thing. It was a suit against the government, so to say the Clinton administration intervened is not technically accurate and thus should not be included. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The LSC is a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation established by Congress, it is not the government. Do you have a source that contradicts the Greenhouse article? There needs to be a full and accurate description of parties. And now the article gives the impression that Republicans were for the restrictions, Democrats were against it - inaccurate if the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction as the New York Times article states.BlueBonnet 21:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of discussing Rust and Rosenberger in a "History..." section. The Court discusses these cases in its opinion so they can be discussed in the "Supreme Court decision" section. Still needs a more thorough explanation of how the principles in those cases relate to Velasquez and how the Court distinguishes Rust from Velasquez.
    • I think the History section is the appropriate place to put it. Please refer to the only SCOTUS article that is an FA here. It uses the background of prior case law in a similar 'history' section. That's my reference point. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs clarification that "specific relief" means suits for benefits and that such suits were OK under LSC Act so long as there was no challenge to existing welfare law
  • "Bronx Legal Services filed suit" - inconsistent with intro which says Velasquez brought suit
    • Done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You changed it to: "Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velazquez, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking a declaration that the provision of the act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.[4] " and you cite to the case. Please quote the language from the case that says Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velasquez, filed suit. I think this is wrong and that, if anything, Bronx Legal Services was a co-respondent with Velasquez and the others.BlueBonnet 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (I did a quick online search and found where it looks like Bronx Legal Aid represented Ms. Velasquez after she lost benefits and attempted to challenge welfare law but the attorney was barred from representing her and she lost her benefits - that was a different case. That's not this case.)BlueBonnet 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article gives the impression that Ms. Velasquez filed suit to get benefits and this case proceeded from that lawsuit, but that is not what happened - needs clarification.
  • "The majority reasoned...[that] the purpose of the act was to promote a diversity of private views with its funding; not an attempt to restrict any views" - I'm confused, I thought the Act clearly restricted LSC attorneys from asserting the view that existing welfare law was unconstitutional
  • "The Court said that the government can only issue "content-neutral" conditions on such speech, and that the specific prohibition on welfare-reform litigation was viewpoint-based" - sounds contradictory to what was just said - that it was "not an attempt to restrict any views"
  • "the Court also attacked the fact" - sounds weird, poor wording
  • "The Court also attacked the fact that the restriction functionally barred attorneys from participating in the courts." - The restriction did not functionally bar attorneys from participating in courts. That is way too broad and I'm pretty sure the Court didn't say that. I also don't see support for this statement in the source that is cited (Greenhouse article).
  • "Any attorney receiving LSC funding would not be able to litigate welfare claims" - Inaccurate - they could litigate claims for welfare benefits so long as they didn't challenge existing welfare law
  • Need more accurate and more thorough description of the Court's discussion of problems the restriction caused in the functioning of the court system
  • Need explanation of how "distortion principle" came from majority opinion
  • If the "Analysis and commentary" section is only going to contain criticism (as it currently does) then it needs to be re-named to something like "Criticism"
  • The most notable critic of the opinion is Scalia, yet the Dissent gets a tiny paragraph and several less notable critics get much more space (they also get more space than the discussion of the majority opinion) - that doesn't make sense to me.
  • To the extent that the critics in the "Analysis and commentary" section are repeating what Scalia said, that criticism needs to be in the Dissent section so that it is clear that Scalia first made the point
  • "Taking the Velazquez rationale to its logical ends", he wrote, "the LSC subsidy itself could become an unconstitutional speech restriction. If Congress substantially increased LSC appropriations in order to allow LSC to take all of its cases ... the functioning of the legal system would be distorted because such a subsidy likely would result in a dramatic increase in the federal courts' caseloads." - How would a dramatic increase in the federal courts caseloads be an unconstitutional speech restriction? This doesn't make sense to me and is not adequately explained.
  • "Because Velazquez "blurred" this distinction, the privileged nature of doctor–patient conversations could be subjected to future regulations and limitations." - But Velasquez struck down restrictions, why would it be used as a basis for regulation and limitation in doctor-patient conversations? Sharpe's article was written in 2002, has Velasquez been used in such a way in the last 10 years? If not, why is this even relevant?

BlueBonnet 20:42, 23 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 13:04, 9 June 2012 [14].

Bulgaria

[edit]
Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the relevant issues of the December nomination have been addressed. The article has been copyedited by the GoCE. Hopefully this will receive objective and constructive comments, as I believe the article is ready for FA status. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random drive-by comments I probably won't post a review, but I'd like to make the following comments:

  • The arty photo of 'The Black Sea coast near Chernomorets' has very little encyclopedic value. It's a nice photo, but doesn't show anything of interest.
  • The MiG-29 fighters in the 'Foreign relations and military' section aren't flying in a 'combat formation': fighter aircraft generally maintain a fair distance apart during combat operations. This is an airshow-style formation flight.
  • "Bulgaria remained free of foreign deployments on its territory until 2001" - unnecessary as it's later stated that this was the first time combat forces were stationed in Bulgaria since World War II. 'Remained free' is rather POV-ish.
  • "In 2006 Foreign Policy magazine listed Bezmer Air Base as one of the six most important overseas facilities used by the USAF." - what does the USAF use it for?
  • The tense of the last two paras in the 'Foreign relations and military' swaps around a few times. The para also would benefit from a stronger focus on the Bulgarian military - at present it seems to emphasise foreign defence relations.
  • What are the green circles in the map of 'Bulgaria (orange) and its largest export partners'?
  • Most of the first para in the 'Second Bulgarian Empire' section is unreferenced, as is "refugees who put additional strain on the already ruined national economy." a bit later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced photo.
  • Changed image description of the jets, left out just "Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters"
  • Removed redundant wording
  • The Bezmer Air Base doesn't serve a significant purpose now, but the magazine claims it would be one of the principal supply and troop transfer airfields for an eventual war in the Middle East. Currently it's used for joint training and parachute/SpecOps drills.
  • Green circles represent the percentage of Bulgaria's total exports. Clarified it in image description
  • Sourced the first one, I thought the second one is a logical consequence of any war but I'll look for a source on it. Found source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've picked them according to quality. Most are high-resolution with good contrast and colours. I'll replace the more standard ones with something else, though there's little choice when it comes to Science and technology and military. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed all pics in the Culture section, I think these are more descriptive and would be more interesting, especially the example of an early book in Cyrillic script. Replaced the wind turbines with one of the units of the MI thermal complex, it's pretty huge and I'm not sure if there's another such concentration of both mining and energy production activities in Europe. Left the IBM and the MiG-29s as they're not such pieces of equipment that one can find in just any country. Hope it looks a bit better now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, well-referenced, and very thorough. Interchangeable 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning towards Oppose The prose in the article is mostly grammatically correct, but I'm not yet convinced that it is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (from WP:WIAFA) Examples:

  • "It is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation, and is a free country" – the final clause connects poorly with the initial clause. Generally speaking, 'action' + 'and' + 'action' does not create great prose—there are a few others in the lead. You could enhance the above sentence by emending it to "A free country, Bulgaria is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation".
  • "After 670, he led a horde of as many as 50,000 across the Danube" – 'as many as' is non-neutral language.
  • "By the late 14th century the Ottoman Turks had started their conquest of Bulgaria and most towns and fortresses south of the Balkan mountains were under their control." – silly question time: did the Ottomans control the towns and fortresses before or after their conquest of Bulgaria? The sentence lacks cohesion.
  • "Considering its relatively small size, Bulgaria has an unusually dynamic climate due to its location at the meeting point of Mediterranean and continental air masses and the barrier effect of its mountains." – should be "...owing to its location", as the phrase is adverbial, not adjectival.
  • "Bulgaria's relationship with its neighbours since 1990 was generally good." – until when?
  • "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range, with a large private sector accounting for more than 80 per cent of GDP." – 'with' is a poor linking word, and present participles are generally avoided after nouns (see WP:PLUSING); you could change it to "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range: a large private sector accounts for more than 80 per cent of GDP."
  • "Even though relatively poor in natural resources, local deposits of iron, copper, lead and coal are vital for Bulgaria's manufacturing sector." – grammar.
  • "It is the most ancient Slavic written language, distinguished from the other languages in this group due to certain grammatical peculiarities." – another 'due to' error; also, for us language mavens, it would be nice if you would mention what these grammatical peculiarities constitute—for instance, loss of noun cases, definite article at the end of nouns, no infinitive etc.
  • "Government estimates from 2003 put the literacy rate at 98.6 per cent; approximately the same for both sexes." – what follows a semicolon must always be a complete sentence, so you'd better introduce the subordinate clause with a comma.

These are my initial comments; I am contactable on my talk page if progress has been made. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addressed pin-pointed examples and streamlined others that weren't mentioned but had similar constructions. The only thing I don't understand is why "as many as" is non-neutral language ? It just points out the highest possible estimate, the lowest estimates vary too much and I decided not to include them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress seems to have stalled somewhat. I'm not yet ready to support it, but I won't oppose it. Here's the rest of my review:
  • "It is a European Union, NATO and Council of Europe member, a founding state of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and has taken a seat at the UN Security Council three times." – I suggest that you recast the sentence to: "It is a member of the European Union...", lest it read like Bulgaria is the EU.
  • "Prehistoric cultures in Bulgarian lands include the Neolithic Hamangia culture and Vinča culture and the eneolithic Varna culture (fifth millennium BC)." – use 'and' only once, at the end; commas are more appropriate.
  • "Under Samuil, Bulgaria somewhat recovered from these attacks and managed to conquer Serbia and Albania, but this rise ended when Byzantine emperor Basil II defeated its army at Klyuch in 1014." – what is the antecedent of 'its'?
Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Putting my personal stylistic differences with the article aside, this seems to me to meet all of the criteria required of a FA. I commented in the Peer Review of this article, and have had it on my watchlist since that point. This article doesn't try to explode with pictures as many country articles do, it's very concise yet covers a lot of information, and has no egregiously short sections or paragraphs. As raised above there seems to be room for improvement, but no article is ever finished and Tourbillon responds excellently to all queries, so I have all faith that any issues will be resolved. Even if it doesn't pass, it's an excellent job to get it to this point. There's hope for Balkan country articles yet. CMD (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. due to potential comprehensiveness issues. Also, I am not convinced by the organization of the article. I gave the article only a quick glance, but I see crucialpotentially important pieces of information missing.
    1. To what degree are there ethnic-social conflicts with Roma (hint: there are)? In what form is the pressure of the European Union on Bulgaria in this regard?
  • How is this of any significance ? Apart from several clashes that can be seen in almost any country in the EU, there is no general conflict. I will add a sentence or two, but this is of highly overstated significance.
  • What the heck? This is completely untrue! Romania, Bulgaria, followed by Slovakia are the countries having significant problems with Roma, at least to an extent that they are on an agenda by the EU. Saying that you won't add anything displays your ignorance. Nageh (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a sentence.
    1. The Bulgarian parliament's so-called Dossier Commission in December 2010 disclosed that almost half of the countries ambassadors (including other key persons as well as clerics) where members of the former Communist Committee for State Security, including now former president Parvanov, who refused to recall the personnel. This affair cause quite some ill feelings within and outside of the country. Here is a link.
  • This issue is one of the most hyperinflated problems inside the country, especially during the current government which keeps ranting about the ambassadors while having former State Security ministers in its own cabinet. I'll dismiss this remark, it's simply a poor observation.
    1. What are the important/influential media in the country? Completely missing.
  • There was a media section, it was moved to Culture of Bulgaria.
    1. The Culture section seems to focus strongly on classical culture. For example, it completely omits the dominance of contemporary Balkan pop. On the other hand, traditions and folklore seem to be completely missing. Also, it might possibly help to introduce subsections (Literature, Music, Cuisine, Sports, etc.).
  • Subsections will be far too short. Modern Bulgarian music does not extend beyond the Balkans, I don't think it's popular enough to deserve mention here. Maybe in Culture of Bulgaria, but not here.
  • So you are saying, there is no contemporary music worthy a mention, and there are no traditions and folklore of relevance? I seriously doubt that. Nageh (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. John Vincent Atanasoff is probably the most notable scientist of Bulgarian origin. Not mentioned a single time.
  • He's simply of Bulgarian descent, was neither born in Bulgaria nor raised in a Bulgarian-speaking environment.
    1. Infrastructure: What are the important transit routes? Which cities is the high-speed line going to connect? Do railroads connect to all neighboring countries? (E.g., it does not connect to Macedonia). Btw, there is a narrow-gauge railroad line famous in Bulgaria.
    1. The discussion of energy politics is very weak. How much energy does Bulgaria import/export? What about strategically important pipeline projects such as Nabucco and South Stream? What about the second planned nuclear power plant, at Belene? What energy is private, which is under government control?
  • Again, there's a respective main article for that. Won't add anything.
  • Maybe you don't get it, but these pipelines are affecting entire European energy politics, and are widely discussed outside of your country. Adding two lines is crucial information in an overview article this is supposed to be. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What trade agreements does Bulgaria sustain? Which organizations is it a member of? For example, it is a member of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. What is the economical role of Bulgaria in the EU? (Where) does it get financial aid?
  • Given that it's a member of the EU, it's more than clear what trade agreements it has, where does it get aid from, and what its trading policy is. There's a membership template at the bottom of the page for those interested in membership. The major organisations it participates in - NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe - are already listed.
  • Since when does EU membership imply membership in the BSEC? Does the article mention that Bulgaria gets financial aid, and in which size? You know, there is a reason why I am using question marks: it means that I don't know all the answers. Nageh (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, my question whether Bulgaria does get financial aid was hinting towards that European countries are either net receivers or payers, and Bulgarian is a net receiver, which should be mentioned together with the amount of annual funds it receives. Nageh (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping now. Nageh (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are all of these crucial? If I want to learn a general summary of Bulgaria, how on earth is knowing that some Bulgarian nurses may have given children in another country HIV going to help with that? How does knowing some ambassadors were formerly communist help me learn more about Bulgaria? There is some merit in a couple of these, but this list does not at all illustrate massive comprehensiveness issues. Articles are written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, there isn't space for every bit of newsworthy information. CMD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nurses case was a major issue in Bulgarian foreign politics, and was widely reported in European countries. The extent to which each of these points should be covered varies, some may be addressed by a single sentence (and I'm open to debate). Note that this is a list of issues that I compiled in a short time. But it includes several items that are indeed crucial topics and are not covered by this article. In general, the article is very/too brief in many aspects. Nageh (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nurse case was very widely reported, but that doesn't mean it needs to be covered in the Bulgaria article at all. In fact, I see few reasons why any single cases of a few civilian nationals being convicted of crime abroad should be included in any overview country article. The article prose is at 38 kB, which is basically right in the middle of the optimum range recommended by Wikipedia:Article size. Some things, like the Roma, do deserve mention, but if your list of "crucial topics" includes things like an American scientist and a proposed nuclear power plant project that was never built and has been abandoned, I find it hard to take it as a serious objection to the article's comprehensiveness. CMD (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's be fair. There are 9 items in the list, and you are repeatedly objecting to the same ones. I already said that I'm open to debate, but there are a number of items that are crucial. I did not know the Belene nuclear power plant was abandoned, I'm not all-knowing or immune to mistakes. Nageh (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Vincent Atanasoff may be an American scientist, but he is celebrated as a Bulgarian born in Bulgaria, as far as I can see.I thought he was raised in Bulgaria, my bad. That reminds me, are there any acclaimed universities or higher education schools in Bulgaria? Nageh (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to every item on the list. I have repeatedly noted some make sense, and have specified that I agree with the point on the Roma. My point is that you call this a list of crucial issues, when quite clearly some of them are not only not crucial, but probably not worth mentioning at all, making the list as a whole quite weak. In regards to universities, that depends on what you mean by "acclaimed", which is a rather meaningless subjective word.
I'll leave this now for Tourbillon, who should be able to comment on the merits of these and address those that should be addressed. CMD (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep the article as brief as possible - more is less, remember ? There's no point in throwing a ton of facts that might not interest anyone. There are respective main articles for each of these topics, and I'm pretty shocked to get a firm oppose on something like this. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great attitude. So in essence you are saying you don't bother. Nice. Nageh (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point of a summary article, like this ought to be. Your other replies are always like "it's moved to a seperate article, won't add anything". I'm not asking you to add entire new paragraphs to the article, I am asking you to spare a few sentences to these issues. Your reply is amazingly ignorant, and certainly won't change my vote. Nageh (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just responding in kind. Summary style means excluding details that aren't significant. How is a narrow-gauge line famous or significant to be mentioned here ? Yes, there is a separate article on transportation and it should stay there. I don't care if you change your vote because it's not a serious opinion anyway, and if you have a degree of self-criticism you'd notice that too. I've added some info on the Roma and HIV issues, but the others are simply not anything that significant. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are bashing me because I set an oppose vote (which I only intended to hold the article until I get to review it, sorry for the misunderstanding)? This is a really constructive attitude for someone seeking FA status for his article. Nageh (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the hundredth time, I was hashing ideas, I was under the impression that the narrow-gauge line was famous (for historical reason, whatever). I was trying to be helpful, you just go respond in bashing me. Thank you, this is what you get from doing FA reviews. Nageh (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think suggestions such as these would weigh enough for an oppose vote, simple as that. The first time I nominated this, it got rejected because of commas and brackets in the sources and a single IPA transcription in the title. Now I'm being told that I've missed things which were actually there, but I omitted them because other guidelines stated that I should be as brief as possible. There is no way to be ultimately constructive when trying to handle contradictions. I'm not asking for support votes, just for a degree of rationality and flexible thinking, which are quite absent around here. And since this is actually my first - and probably last - FA nomination, I'll just respond: This is what you get from doing FA nominations. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously a lot of misunderstandings. My mistake was to post an "oppose" when I only meant a "temporary oppose", to prevent the article from being archived/promoted prematurely. I corrected that mistake, and apologize for that. What concerns FA reviews, you are free to review my previous FA reviews (e.g., the last one is Giraffe), and I am certainly one of the thorough content reviewers. That many of my items in above list are admittedly of poor quality is a result of the quick nature in which I compiled it. However, when I ask for additional information it does not mean that you extend the article to the extreme but rather that you add concise additional information where relevant. Please review my commented list above. I'll leave it for a day to cool down the situation. Nageh (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additions:
  • On the Roma issue - added three sourced sentences. I'm reluctant to add anything else first because it will add too much weight on the subject and that would require an expansion of the whole section, and second because it's a potential battleground for rampant antiziganists and human rights fanatics; I prefer not to leave such a loose hook.
  • State Security dossiers - as I said, this is a subject that is widely exploited by virtually all parties on opportunistic grounds. The current government itself has, and has had, former StaSec members [15] despite the entire anti-Communist rhetoric it uses. It's really a Gordian Knot not worth the effort.
  • Pipelines and transport links - added a sentence on South Stream and info on rail links with other countries.
  • Added information on renewed recession and the amount of EU funds received.
  • Added some information on customs and folklore.
  • I couldn't find any reliable sources on pop music, so I just threw in some of the better-known Bulgarian performers.
  • Mentioned the largest media outlets.
I hope that covers the remarks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the changes look satisfying. The one sentence on failed EU integration efforts is spot-on, and just what is needed to say about this within this overview article. I understand that the ambassador issue is more complex, and cannot be addressed in a convincing way in this article. As for the other issues, the coverage is in just the right detail. A minor one though that I mentioned above: Should membership in the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation be mentioned?
I still intend to provide another review, but I'll take my time to spare me another blunder. Nageh (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BSEC is in the International Membership template. It doesn't have much influence on regional politics; as long as I remember, the last time I heard of it was during the 2008 war in Georgia and their only activity was a statement calling for a quick resolve to the conflict. There's a ton of other organisations with similar weight (ex. La Francophonie) that could be added along this one. I think it's fine as it is now, down in the bottom. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question is how much economical impact it has. But I really don't know, so I'll take your word. Nageh (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Like to see a spotcheck of sources before we wrap up this review; also an image check unless there are no additions or outstanding licensing issues from the previous nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Mila_Rodino_instrumental.ogg needs a US PD tag for the anthem and a licensing tag for the recording
  • Added PD-Art (if that is what you mean under US PD tag) and PD-USN
  • File:Location_Spain_EU_Europe_1.svg (source of infobox map) lacks a source
  • Replaced map with another one based on a CIA map.
  • File:Krum1.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Added.
  • Do we have any evidence that the uploader of File:Campaigns_of_Ivan_Assen_II.png owns the source site?
  • The site is a source for the map, is it necessary that the uploader owns the site ?
  • The uploader asserts that he owns the image, yet it appears on the external site. If the uploader owns the site, that's fine; if not, how could he own the image from another site? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as I see, it's not the exact same image. He just made his own map using the overall layout as a basis.
  • File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • Added.
  • File:Bulgarian_soldiers_with_wire_cutters_WWI.jpg needs to include evidence that the author never claimed authorship and when/where the image was first "made available to the public" (which is different than the creation date). Same for File:Bulgarian_photographers.jpg
  • Source site doesn't state when they were "made available to the public", there's creation date. It does however mention that they came from donated albums and archives. I don't know if that is sufficient.
Not according to the licensing tag used - need public date and further details of source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Used PD-Bulgaria, the photos certainly respond to at least one of the four criteria.
  • Because Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all images showing 3D works (including buildings) also need to include licensing info about the 3D objects/buildings
  • Don't know if there's any templates available for FOP-eligible, so I just added info on the architect of the Parliament and University library buildings. File:Downtown Sofia Boby Dimitrov 1.jpg is impossible to assess if it's FOP or not. Removed an image which doesn't have FOP.
  • There's a lack of FOP, but only on buildings and 3D works whose author/architect has died less than 71 years ago ([16]). The architect of both buildings is the same and died in 1923, which means the restrictions do not extend to these two buildings.
  • File:Cape_Shabla_Lighthouse_3.jpg: author requests caption attribution
  • Would look ugly, so I replaced it with another image.
  • File:Bulgaria_Aministrative_Provinces_numbered.png: on what source is this image based?
  • Added.
  • File:Bulgaria_export_partners.png: on what data set is this image based?
  • Added.
  • File:Chasoslov_031.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • Added.
  • File:Location_NATO.svg: data source?
  • File:Euro_2008.png: data source?
  • File:Carte_du_Conseil_de_l'Europe.png: data source?
  • File:Balkan_topo_en.jpg: data source?
  • I don't get it, none of these is used in the article ?

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review. Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "home of some of the world's most ancient cultural artifacts." such as?
  • They're mentioned in the culture section - oldest golden treasure in the world, one of the most ancient cities in the world, first Christian monastery in Europe. I decided not to include them in the intro in order to provoke some degree of curiosity.
  • I added some basic details on the artifacts - crafts and religious work, and I mentioned the early literary schools as part of the culture, though I'm not aware of that will suffice.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two instances of "marked by" in the second paragraph. Some variety of phrasing would be nice!
  • Changed some wording.

* The lead seems to be heavily focused on History, while saying very little about Culture or Geography. What kind of climate does Bulgaria have? What about music?

  • "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools have been instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." The phrasing is a bit off here. The definite time frame in the first clause clashes with the use of the present perfect tense in the second clause. Perhaps what you meant was "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools were instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." Also, other than the time frame, this sentence seems really really obvious. Of course the art schools were instrumental for the development of art! This is not in any way unique to Bulgaria!
I think that in this sentence the focus is on the word Slavic, not art, i.e. the point is that Bulgaria was the cultural powerhouse of the Slavic world during this period. Nicksss93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're quite right. I somehow forgot that "Slavic" and "Bulgarian" are not the same. Struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, it's a tad off-place anyway, at least in the way it was formulated. It doesn't really fit, neither with the previous nor with the next sentences. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: Sources selected using WolframAlpha's random number generator. Ref numbers accurate as of this version. Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 9: Source covers material, no problems with paraphrasing. I do find it somewhat odd that this summary news article is used as the source instead of the journal article about the study. News writers have a nasty habit of completely misinterpreting the findings of research groups, and I would greatly prefer to see the original source used for this sort of thing.
    Did a quick search, but no PDF or official research files came out. It has only been cited by media sources, so I'd assume it's not published online yet.
    That seems very weird to me, as it makes the statement even more difficult to verify. I've never done a source spotcheck before, so I don't know what the course of action should be for a situation like this. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Cryptic's concern about the accuracy of a news item discussing a study, rather than the study itself, but perhaps it's not such a big risk noting that the Britannica article used at Ref 12 also makes a connection between the Bulgars and the Thracians, which seemed to be one of the main points of Ref 9. On the other hand, perhaps that makes it less necessary to bother with Ref 9 at all, if the idea is to establish the Thracians as among the modern Bulgarians' ancestors -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If Ref 12 also connects the Bulgars to the Thracians (and I see that it does), it seems like the most convenient solution would be to replace Ref 9 with Ref 12, or to use both for the same statement. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced it with a Britannica Online source, so there's no problem with this one anymore.
  • Ref 37: "...participation in four wars during the first half of the 20th century..." is not covered by the source. The source mentions World War I and World War II, and it mentions Serbia and Greece being "major territorial rivals" with Bulgaria, but it doesn't explicitly mention four distinct wars.
    The source supports the statement for the militaristic nature of Bulgaria during these years, the four wars are simply mentioned in the next subsection.
    That's a problem, not a solution. The reader should not have to hunt for citations in a different section to be able to verify this statement. I suggest either rephrasing it to leave out the "four wars" bit, or add another citation to a source that confirms it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped the four wars.
  • Ref 41: Google preview does not include p. 273. Sad pandas.
    I found a mention of the number in a table here (scroll down to next page). Will simply change the page number.
    I'm not sure I understand why you intend to change the page number -- the link you've posted above is to a completely different book, is it not? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch, indeed - got confused by the authors, they're (almost) the same. Anyhow, I cited this book as it's readily available to verify.
  • Ref 42 needs a page number.
    Added.
  • Ref 94:
    • Article: "The National Police Service (NPS) combats general crime and supports the operations of other law enforcement agencies, such as the National Investigative Service and the Central Office for Combating Organised Crime."
    • Source: "The National Police Service ... is responsible for combating general crime ... and supporting the operations of other law enforcement agencies such as the National Investigative Service and the National Service for Combating Organized Crime."
    • Are "Central Office for Combating Organised Crime" and "National Service for Combating Organized Crime" the same thing?
      As long as I remember, they aren't. I'm not sure if the former even exists anymore; the latter is something like a specialised anti-mobster organisation.
      The article and the source are inconsistent. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Dropped out the names of the two institutions to avoid confusion (they don't have their own articles anyway) and cited the website of the NPS instead.
  • Ref 105: I cannot read Bulgarian. Sad pandas.
    Very poor, but comprehensible automatic translation: click
  • Ref 162: Both article and source use the somewhat mysterious phrase "last deserted beaches"
    Meant to say "last beaches without a regular, massive influx of tourists" or something in that spirit. Will reword it somehow changed to "the last remaining beaches outside the reach of the tourist industry".
  • Ref 172: Subscription required. Abstract covers most of the material, but doesn't mention anything about the greenhouse being a Bulgarian invention. I suspect that this fact is not present in the body of the source, as it is not in any way relevant to the mission. If, for some weird reason, it is covered by the source, then a specific page number needs to be given, as this is an 11-page document.
    As long as I read, it says "SVET-2 SG Bulgarian equipment of a new generation with optimised characteristics...". I have a book on the issue, but it's not available online. Would it be better if I cite that along with this source ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you misunderstood my concern. Here's the phrase in question: "[Bulgaria] has deployed ... space greenhouses (a Bulgarian invention) on the Mir space station." Ref 172 confirms that they deployed greenhouses on Mir, but it doesn't say anything about the claim that the greenhouse is a Bulgarian invention. Our own greenhouse asserts that the modern greenhouse was invented in Italy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the space greenhouse is not a greenhouse per se. It's more of an incubator with all sorts of equipment and life support systems for plantlife in a cosmic environment. Unlike Earth greenhouses, which are simple glass structures, this is more of an electronic device - therefore somewhat distinct. I also added a book source with a quote on the statement.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Developing a new generation of equipment (which is what the sources say) is not the same thing as inventing a piece of equipment (which is what the article says). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced "invention" with "development", I hope that's more suitable.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 222: No problems here.

Spotchecks complete. All of the above issues have been resolved. However, I'm somewhat concerned that there may be other problems in the sourcing. Out of the 250+ source used in the article, I looked at a mere 9 and found 7 problems. These ratios are not encouraging. Does anyone else want to take another look at the sources? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Why is the official name of Macedonia included and those of the other countries not?
      • Hm, hadn't noticed that one has changed. There's a naming dispute over the use of "Republic" vs. "Former Yugoslav Republic of", and using only "Macedonia". It's a very controversial topic, but I'll take it back to "Macedonia" only as it's the shortest and will avoid confusion.
    • "to ally align with Germany"?
    • "Bulgaria as the leading regional electricity and raw material supplier through its energy and mining industries." Leading supplier of which area?
      • "Supplier" is a bit unclear, changed it to "exporter".
    • "Kyoto protocol" --> "Kyoto Protocol"
    • "the fall of Communism" --> "the Fall of Communism"?
    • Could you add alt text to the pics? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of "Politics". Hmmm ... did I happen upon a bad patch?

  • "which consists of 240 four-year[-]?term deputies elected by direct popular vote" ... better per MoS as "which consists of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote"?
  • Changed.
  • "The Acts of Parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law."—particular acts we've just been told about? Or generic ... "Acts of parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law." law ... legal ... law: can it be cleaned up? I mean, acts of parliament are in every country I can think of the ultimate source of law for anything. The legal system is based on civil law?
  • Changed it to "Bulgaria has a typical civil law legal system", it's already mentioned that the Parliament enacts laws a few lines above.
  • But here, surely we do need a "the": "Law enforcement is carried out by organisations mainly subordinate to the Ministry of Interior." -> "Law enforcement is mainly carried out by organisations subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior." It is a translation of the Bulgarian, I presume.
  • Sorry to go on about "the": "the most powerful executive position is that of the prime minister"
  • Cleaned up.
  • "for citizens 18 years of age and older" –> "for citizens 18 years and older" is good enough, or "for citizens at least 18 years old".
  • Changed.
  • "the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament" ... unfortunate rep. "for all members"? Tony (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh, and it doesn't specify how many seats each party has and which parties are in the governing coalition. I'd like to know whether GERB is reliant on just the "blue coalition" or needs the far right as well. Numbers? Tony (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of "Economy" ... hmmm ... "where a large private sector accounts for more than 80 per cent of GDP". So why "large" and "80 per cent"? I'm leaning towards opposing this FAC. Research is Bulgaria's top priority? Errr .... I haven't checked the source, but this claim sounds suspicious. Tony (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed the "large". And it was among Bulgaria's top priorities. You probably missed the "by the 1980s", source is Britannica. Any other specific concerns to be addressed ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was one small spot-check. What's the rest like, I wonder? Is this the third go at FAC? I'm surprised to find it in such a state. Tony (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, it might be good, it might not be. There's 250 sources out there and only about 20 or so have been spotchecked, about a half of them were added a few months back by me so they should be OK for the most part. This is the second FAC of this article done by me, and without a more comprehensive look I won't be able to know what needs to be changed or improved - I've strictly complied to all guidelines but there's always something coming up, so I rely on reviews. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose
  • "home of some of the earliest metalworking, religious and other cultural artifacts in the world." even though is in the lead I would like to have a reference to this.
  • Added some.
  • " The massive industrial expansion during the postwar economic boom established Bulgaria as the leading electricity and raw material exporter in Southeast Europe through its energy and mining industries." sounds just too pompous for the lead of a FA
  • Removed it.
  • I think the two subsection on the Bulgarian empires can be merged and trimmed.
  • I proposed it earlier, but consensus was reached that a 800-year period is a bit too large to encompass in a single subsection.
  • wikilink khan
  • Done.
  • " Bulgaria achieved high Human Development status." I think the HDI is relatively low for an European country
  • The HDI classification is "high", that's how it has been officially labeled.
  • "continues to improve its traditionally good ties with China[113] and Vietnam" this seems quite random
  • Define "random" in this case ?
  • "an industrial economy with scientific and technological research as its top priorities" what is this supposed to mean?
  • Clarified a bit.
  • doesn't Bulgaria have a relatively notorious organized crime for which the EU had imposed some penalties?
  • It does have organised crime, much like a number of other European countries, but the penalties were imposed due to mismanagement of cohesion funds.
  • how is "Some of Europe's last deserted beaches survive along the Bulgarian coast." from the reference transformed into "and the last remaining beaches outside the reach of the tourist industry" here?
  • Look above, other users claimed it's too unclear. It's perfectly clear under any formulation IMHO.
  • "make it a key European energy hub" is a complete overstatement of what the ref says
  • The ref pretty much states that Bulgaria is a critical location for pipeline projects in the EU; "Bulgaria's recent energy cooperation with Moscow, as it is, in the US view, undermining efforts to decrease Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas" is quite obviously underlining that there are some big interests in the energy issues here.
  • isn't Kozloduy past its designated life?
  • No.
  • "Bulgaria has the fastest average Broadband Internet speed in the world after South Korea" is misleading as the reference does not imply it listed all the ountries below S Korea
  • Third-fastest, changed + sourced.
  • "The oldest Slavic written language, Bulgarian is distinguishable from the other languages in this group through certain grammatical peculiarities such as the lack of noun cases and infinitives, and a suffixed definite article." should be probably be moved to the culture section
  • It fits better with the demographic composition in terms of ethnic groups, religion and languages. It would look misplaced in the Culture section at best.
  • What are the major cities in Bulgaria?
  • There's a nice map with provinces in Administrative divisions, it's mentioned that they're centred around the largest cities.
From reading the text the major cities were not very obvious
  • This is hilarious: from "Times have changed, and now 97 percent of the apartment units in Bulgaria are privately-owned (owner-occupied)." to "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world; about 97 per cent of the population live in privately owned and owner-occupied homes"
  • Alright ?
The reference does not state that "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world;"
  • Removed the highest home ownership rate bit.
  • "what is the meaning of this sentence: "Traces of Gothic culture also appeared in Antiquity, as evidenced by the Wulfila Bible—the first book written in aGermanic language, created in Nicopolis ad Istrum in the 4th century"
  • It means that Gothic culture was also a part of the chaotic soup of cultures on ancient Bulgarian lands.
Then why dont you simply state that, without the extra details?
  • Did so, separated statements.
  • From "Bulgarian scholars of archaeology consider Bulgaria to be the third richest country in Europe in terms of archaeological heritage after Italy and Greece." to "their total number is the third-largest in Europe after Italy and Greece" is a pretty big leap
  • Changed to "the size of local archaeological heritage is..." instead.
The point is that the reference states that BULGARIAN scholars consider it. Do you see how that is not a very repudiable source? You need to find an unbiased opinion for such a boasting statement
I changed it to "Local archaeologists claim...", but I still don't see how a statement by local archaeologists would be biased or considered unreliable. We're not talking about a Fourth World country here.
  • "The site revealed evidence of the first European civilisation" which one?
  • It has no name, generally called Old Europe by archaeologists.
  • "Bulgarian folk music is by far the most extensive traditional art " citation?
  • Bulgaria is pretty good at winter sports too
  • Hasn't marked any significant success in the last years, no.

Overall, the article is waaay too positive about the country to be regarded a FA. Many of the references I've checked say some positive things which are highly exagerrated here (leaving asides how reputable those references are for the strength of the statements they make). Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll find cites for the ones that I haven't addressed now. If it's too positive, what should we write ? It's the most corrupt ? Already written. Lowest wages and life expectancy, low quality of medical services, non-functioning judiciary, demographic catastrophe taking place ? Already mentioned. If other media, authors or any outlets in general covered the country more extensively, I'd use more "reputable" sources. But they don't, so I've used the most reliable of sources available.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an overview article, which means everything should be covered in a balanced manner. I feel like a little too much of the article is about the achievements of Bulgaria compared to the average situation. Plus, I have checked only the references for the boasting statements and I found that a large part of them are tweaked too much here. That makes it hard for me to asume good faith. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but I certainly don't think that the article is "positive" or displays that many achievements. The only things that might be seem a bit exaggerated are in the Military section, which sort of presents Bulgaria as a noticeable player in international relations, while in fact it isn't. As for the statements on archaeological heritage, earliest artifacts and the like - they might seem exaggerated simply because they're not well-known nor researched, and punch the reader as something unexpected. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:54, 8 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 07:23, 9 June 2012 [17].

Zanzibar women's national football team

[edit]
Nominator(s): LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is meets all the criteria for featured article and represents the best article about a women's national football team in Africa despite the lack of recognised FIFA status and recognised international matches. The article underwent a lot of scrutiny both at the DYK level and the GA level. I have gone to the Australian National Library and the National Sport Information Centre to make sure I have any offline sources that might be available. I've also searched extensively through various databases and the web to make sure it is as comprehensive as possible. Given the short playing history, the article is shorter than most featured articles but it should still be comprehensively covering the team. No pictures beyond the logo because I cannot find any free images. LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1a: comments on the lead ... not encouraging, I'm afraid

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't doubt that sources on the topic are scarce, but the article does not give the impression of comprehensiveness. It comes across more as an article about Women's football in Zanzibar than one specifically about the national team. It lacks basic facts about the team. What colours do they play in? How have they fared in their matches? We are only told about a single friendly against a Swedish club.

Specific comments:

  • The team soon played an unofficially recognised international game against the Swedish women's club side Terresso FC – If it was against a club side it wasn't an international match at all.
  • At the time the team was created, there were few opportunities for it to compete against other women's team inside Zanzibar Why would a national team play against domestic opposition?
    • Because this is a team in Zanzibar where the women's game has limited funding, domestic opposition for their existence, etc.? A similar situation exists for Sudan women's national football team and other national women's football teams in certain parts of Africa where there is little support, cultural reasons that deter female participation and political instability. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead we are told that Zanzibar "is neither a full member of CAF nor FIFA", and in the body that the Zanzibar FA "is recognised by the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations, but not by FIFA or the Confederation of African Football". The infobox is different again, saying that it is an associate member of CAF. The membership status for each body needs to be laid out more clearly.
  • Given that Zanzibar is part of Tanzania, and we are told "National team players are eligible to play for Tanzania...", why does the team exist at all? Is it a national team, or a sub-national one? This is not clear.
    • It is the national team of Zanzibar. Players are eligible to play for Tanzania just like people from Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas Islands are able to represent their national teams but also to represent the United States on the international level. Beyond that, they have played in a CAF sanctioned competition. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's why I think this needs clarification: players can only represent one FIFA member in international competition. Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are all FIFA members. A (say) Puerto Rican is also eligible to play for the USA, but has to choose between one or the other (articles 15–18 of these FIFA statutes). As Zanzibar is not currently a FIFA member, this may well be different to the norm, and so could do with explanation. What would happen if Zanzibar faced Tanzania in a CAF competition? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the state of the team in question and that they have yet to play a full fledged FIFA recognised international owing to their lack of FIFA recognition, this point seems moot. The national team coach for Zanzibar is also the assistant coach for Tanzania so it would suggest involvement with one does not preclude or disqualify the other. (Though this is a bit of conjecture based on available sources.) They just aren't playing recognised matches near as I can tell for this to be an issue. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game Such as what? Oldelpaso (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what happened here. :( In the GA level, things were moved from the development section the team section so those issues are there instead of in that paragraph. In any case, fixed that sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not so sure these are unique to Zanzibar, or Africa. Like on the hijab issue, there was a high profile incident last year involving Iran, which resulted in Iran forfeiting an Olympic match ([18]). Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can remove the statement and just leave the better sources problems for the whole of Africa section as the unique to them stuff has basically been integrated into the team section. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For a featured item I would expect at least some summary table with the results that the team has played throughout the years. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tables added. Were not originally included because putting zeros and zeros and did not participate for every single event seemed a little bit pointless. --LauraHale (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not what I ment. How many games did the team play? how many goals it scored, etc. Infobox would be a fine place to put these numbers. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article basically says it: They have played in local competitions and only have played one game against a foreign club side. Thus, not sure how that would be put in the infobox. Do you want the Swedish club side there as the team's only international match and that as the loss? Which article text do you want put into the infobox? --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – There are just too many little things that point to this article not being our best work.

  • Surely "The" should be the first word of the article in this case? It is in Germany women's national football team, a similar FA.
  • CAF and FIFA should be spelled out in their first usage, like CECAFA is.
  • "as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations and CAR, but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognized by FIFA as an independent national association." Absolutely no need to repeat the association's name in this sentence. That's three excessive words, which is three more than I'd expect, particularly for an article so short.
  • Team: "which eventually became the national team, and the team was created...". Again, a redudancy in the writing, this time "the team". That doesn't need to be there either.
  • Also, a space needs to be removed before a block of four refs here. Are that many really needed to cite this?
    • Fixed spacing. Four citations are needed because of the complexity of the facts being presented and cited: The Women's Fighters are the national team. They have become the national team known as the Zanzibar Queens. They were founded in 1988. They were founded by Nassra Juma Mohammed of Tanzania. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What stadium did they play in in the game against Tyreso? If it was the largest stadium in Zanzibar, it's worth mentioning this fact.
  • "the" should probably be added to "from Zanzibar Football Association", and at the start of the section's next paragraph.
  • Another space needs removal, before ref 17.
  • You don't need to link CECAFA twice in this section, and I don't understand why the abbreviation appears in the second usage and not the first. By using it the first time, you can reduce the second usage to just the abbreviation.
  • "The federation is an member...". "an" → "a".
  • Why was the 2007 CECAFA Women's Challenge Cup canceled? That isn't clear at the moment. Also, we have "canceled" in the lead and "cancelled" in the body; those should be made consistent throughout.
  • Remove space before ref 21.
  • Background and development of women's football: Kind of surprised that this isn't the first section of the body, as it would provide context for everything that follows. That's what a background section normally does.
  • "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent is that higher ability players leave to play in Europe or the United States." Is this really a problem, or a positive? The players are likely improving by playing in bigger leagues worldwide, which may end up improving the team in the long run. Personally, I've never felt that American players leaving to enter European leagues has hindered development here, but maybe that's just me. Is it due to a lack of players? If so, that seems well worth noting.
  • The first sentence of the section's second paragraph has multiple items repeated from the Team section, which isn't optimal. Makes it look like the material is being stretched to the limit, which it probably is.
  • For newspaper refs, the name of the paper should be italicized. Refs 3 and 18 stick out as needing them; there may be others too. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm afraid that I cannot see this article reaching FA level in its current state. An international team that has not played any matches? Even if all the available information is included here, can it ever reach the required level of comprehensiveness for a FA? Putting this question aside, there are several other issues which make me oppose, and there is some way for this article to go. And generally, it is rather confusing and lacking in focus. I've read to the beginning of the "Team" section and commented in detail on the lead and first section. But these comments are examples only and there are plenty of other issues which need addressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Founded in 1988, the team has limited recognition as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (CECAFA) and Confederation of African Football (CAF), but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognised by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) as an independent national association": Long, convoluted sentence which does not quite make sense. Maybe better to split after "recognition" then remove "as". And should there be "the" after "(CAF) but…"?
  • "The national team was supposed to have its first international matches": Clunky. Possibly "The national team should have played its first international matches".
  • Last three sentences of lead all begin "The", which is not ideal.
  • Background: The first paragraph seems a little thrown together, as if we are just cramming in whatever seems relevant, but is not really about the Zanzibar team.
  • "Women's football in Africa has not developed compared to elsewhere because of a variety of factors, including limited access to education, poverty amongst women in the wider society, and fundamental inequality present in the society that occasionally allows for female specific human rights abuses.": This seems a very sweeping claim about an entire continent, particularly when referenced by a football book. And why does Africa need linking?
  • "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent": Clunky, and unnecessarily re-states the opening of the previous sentence.
  • I agree with Giants' comments above that top players playing overseas does not necessarily mean a problem exists.
  • "According to Kuhn": Who is Kuhn? Some indication should be made in the text, otherwise it is just a name.
  • "According to Kuhn, funding for the game on a regional level is problematic as national associations do not fund the women's game adequately": What does "regional level" mean here? And is this not about a national team, not a regional one, which makes this irrelevant. And this a wordy way to simply say "The women's game [in Africa? In Zanzibar?] is not well funded by national associations".
  • "Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game": I find it extremely hard to believe that these problems are unique to Zanzibar. I can think of many places where this may be a similar problem.
  • "There is minimal support for the game at schools, with the national federation not responding to requests from the national team coach to work harder to get girls to play the sport in school.": Long and clunky sentence.
  • "A national women's league was created in 2004 after a twenty-six year effort": Can we not detail the 26 year effort? (And it should be 26, not twenty-six)
  • "however, the league has since collapsed": Why? When?
  • Are there no more details about the league, assuming it is relevant to the national team? For example, how many games were played? How well received was it by critics or the public? Who were the leading players?
  • "the Women Fighters, which eventually became the national team": When? Where? Why?
  • Refs in the wrong order at the start of the team section.
  • "and the team was created at a time when there were very few women's national teams in existence": How many? Some context would be good here. Although they were not a national team at the time, apparently.
  • "Prior to 1988, women had played informally or on men's only teams; several of these players, as well as those from other sports, including badminton, made up the inaugural team": Is this speaking of the Zanzibar team, or women's football in general? What inaugural team? When it says "several of these players", no players have really been referred to, just women in general.
  • "The national association, founded in 1926": Presumably the men's association? This should be made clear.
  • On a more general level: So, have the team actually played any games? It looks like they have never played. In an article like this, some details of performances should be given. And who are the players? Who are the officials? What colours do the team play in? If this info cannot be provided, I really can't see this being a FA. It is just too brief and does not give any of the information a reader would be looking for.
  • The article seems to be more about general women's football, not this team in particular. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 07:18, 9 June 2012 [19].

Bloody Thursday (2011)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first I attempt here. It covers of the events of the forth day of Bahrain Arab spring uprising when police launched a pre-dawn raid on protesters in Pearl Roundabout, killing four and injuring hundreds. I hope that the article which was reviewed by Malleus Fatuorum and The Rambling Man, might be TFA on the second anniversary (17 February).

About half of the references are in Arabic, most of which are from Al-Wasat, Bahrain's only independent newspaper. It and it's editor-in-chief have won several international awards following their coverage of the uprising. Other sources include news articles and international human rights reports, including the BICI report which was cited 26 times. Most images are taken from a website which claims to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Doubts were cast on whether the website really owns the copyright of images, and thus some were removed, however the "exclusive" images were kept, most of which are over 1000 pixels (some are over 4000) wide and have full metadata. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No offence to Bahraini Activist, who has done great work on the subject, but previous DYK experience suggests that close paraphrasing spotchecks will be necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on spotchecks.

  • "demands included the release of those detained during earlier protests" vs "demanding the release of those detained during earlier protests"
  • "asking citizens to stay away from gatherings in vital areas of the capital" vs "asked citizens to "distance themselves from gatherings in vital areas in the capital""
  • "disturbution by the violent means used to disperse demonstrators" vs "disturbed by the violent means used to disperse demonstrators"
  • "said he spoke with his Bahraini counterpart and stressed" vs "said he spoke with his Bahrainian counterpart and stressed"
  • "Key institutions such as banks did not open and workers stayed at home" vs "Banks and other key institutions did not open, and workers stayed home"
  • "that will enrage many of its people and cost the regime international prestige" vs "that will enrage many of its people and cost the regime international prestige". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Crisco and Nikki. - Dank (push to talk) 10:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while. I've fixed the paraphrasing issues above which seems why it got 3 opposes so far. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 00:00, 8 June 2012 [20].

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly worrying c 1430-40 Jan van Eyck diptych. If even half of its prophecies are correct, we're all in serious trouble. Has been a difficult article to piece together; thanks to the unflagging Truthkeeper88 for providing sources, and to Kafka Liz for the copyedits and advice. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks interesting; I've never reviewed an art article, but this piece looks quite compelling ... will put up a full review soon. Until then, I think the last paragraph of "Attribution" needs a citation. Sasata (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for spotting. Tks Sasata, looking forward to engaging. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Comparing with FAs The Entombment (Bouts) and The Magdalen Reading

  • The word "vulgar" in the lead seems inappropriate, considering its other connotations which are more common use as well as tone (vulgar is a colloquialism).
Personally I disagree, as van eyck so obviously stove to present them that way. But have removed and couched the description. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: some info is repeated. "The Crucifixion wing is divided into three horizontal sections" is in the start of the section and then again in "Crucifixion". IMO, Description needs to be reorganized into 3 parts with no repetition: a general para about the whole structure of the diptych and the specifics about the two scenes.
This has been heavily reworked, regiged and expanded since. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "It is unknown if the work was commissioned ... " seems out of place.
Gone. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness: Details of the Latin inscriptions is needed.
Working. They are mentioned on the musueaum website, but in passing; I want to track thwem back to the origional sources. This is the reason for my tawrdiness, sorry. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, worked in several mentions and translations. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redtigerxyz; mostly done, I need to reintegrate some of the material cut from the decription overview, and make some additions re the inscrioptions. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holy Family" includes Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Only 1 of them is shown mourning: "members of the holy family writhing in loss and grief in the foreground" Confused???
Yikes; fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mourner's reflection can be seen in the shield ... " What reflection? Can't see any even in this version [21]...
You can see it in the gold coloured shield on the back of the dude in purple with the lance and curved sword standing in the area between the women and horse men. I've added a clarifier, but can put up a crop too it it might help. Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it in close ups from the books. Its the guy in purple though I might have to clarify there. Ceoil (talk)
  • "Crucifixion": After lower section is discussed, there is no mention of the middle section with men on horseback etc. Suddenly the top section. ("The narrative of the panel reads broadly upwards")
Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inscriptions on cross, Michael's shield etc. missing [22]
A great deal added on these. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some historians believe the central panel may have been stolen by one of Tatistcheff's servants" No context about Tatistcheff. Prince DP Tatistcheff is not introduced yet.
Sorted (literally; I moved the paras about). Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok mentioned, with some context added. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on comprehensiveness and organization concerns. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apostles, seated on benches, not mentioned. A Google search showed that Burroughs (jstor) mentions them. Peter carries the Key, some others carry books.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nude humans seek shelter in Mary's rope - not mentioned. Then kings, popes?, clergy, monks etc. all different people in various attires... I am missing the details.
Working Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz, I'm not meeting you point for point as Im hearing you overall. Many tks for the close review, and bear with me if you dont mind. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simon is his first name; Seabag Montefiore his double barred family name. I dont see a problem? Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All very good points, working through. We went on a source crawl and found a lot of material on JSTOR, adding, but nothing yet on the (many) inscriptions and free text across the panels. Bear with me and thank you very much for the detailed look. v happy with your input so far. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update The artticle has grown quite a bit over the weekend, with a lot of material added on the inscriptions in paticular. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read the whole article. Comments based on "Last Judgement" section.

  • "hell, the Earth and heaven": why a the here? In the convention followed, it should be earth OR Hell and Heaven for consistency.
Removed; it should be obvious. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthew 25:41: context of this inscription is very important. The article does not highlight the significance of the phrase. It is a reference to The Sheep and the Goats discourse by Christ.
Started on this. 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • " ... demons. Those assuming recognisable forms include those shaped as rats, snakes, pigs, as well as devils in the guise of a bear and a donkey. " So rats, snakes, pigs are demons, and bear and donkey are devils. Right?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adoravi tetgrammathon agla: meaning ?
Explained as far as possible. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of The Virgin, can please use the common name even known to non-Christians: Mary, mother of Jesus.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venite benedicti patris mei is Matthew 25:34 (The Sheep and the Goats). Significance missing
  • a lance and crown of thorns, a sponge and nails are Arma Christi. Significance
Well, they were already linked, but now made more explicit. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things not mentioned: [23]
    • On the right end of Peter's bench, Fall of man is carved
    • In the crowd, a pope, a cardinal, an emperor, a king are seen
Mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael: sword, peacock feathers

Though the article has improved, it is not comprehensive still. The paintings are filled with iconography and inscriptions, allusions to the Last Judgement narrative, which needs to be highlighted. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Ceoil (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and disclaimer - I've done a lot of work trying to find sources in regards to the iconography and symbolism, and basically the sources for this painting have been bled dry. In my view it's not necessary to mention each piece of symbolism in the painting because there is so much of it. Although Ceoil wants this to be archived, just wanted to mention, that I can't see what more can be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, I've fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please archive, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question for delegates - although Ceoil has asked for this to be archived, I'd finish the review for him. Would that be that okay? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this one yesterday and saw the archive request, but also your suggestion that it was in fact comprehensive, so decided to wait a bit longer and see whether there were further comments in response. I have to say that given it's been open the best part of a month with one oppose and no declarations of support, I have to lean towards archiving. If your comments are likely to be more in the nature of advice for a subsequent run at FAC, then that should take place on the article talk page, not in this nom (I'm not trying to assume, more querying). Sasata also indicated he would be doing a full review, which might have helped keep this alive, but that doesn't seem to have occurred. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case I'll let it go and let you archive. It is comprehensive though; certainly there's no more in the sources, and at the risk of OR or synth, I think all has been done that can be done. Thanks for the reply. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - completely unclear what you mean in regards to my comments being taken to the talk page. At any rate, I've struck my comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for the FAC to remain open to make further comments, and I indicated (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I was leaning more towards archiving and that any further review comments could be placed on the article's talk page. Given there's been no further input from reviewers, and Ceoil's request still stands, I'll be archiving it shortly. If you and Ceoil would like to work on it further, it can be nominated again at FAC after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I was more or less waiting until Redtigerxyz's considered his concerns resolved, as new information was still being added. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:18, 2 June 2012 [24].

Stones Brewery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to be up to a decent standard. Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done). The references are a total mess, to put it bluntly. Some might not care all that much about the nitpicks of formatting, but in this case the references are formatted so badly and so inconsistently that it makes it impossible to verify any of the article's content. Although it is not required, I strongly recommend using the citation templates in order to make the citations clearer and more consistent. The following list gives some specific concerns, with ref numbers based on this version of the article:

  • All items which are available online should have hyperlinks, even if they are behind paywalls.
  • All books should provide ISBNs.
  • Be consistent in use of "p5" vs. "p. 5" for page numbers. What does the "p. [1]" notation mean?
  • Be consistent in use of commas for large numbers: "12,345" vs. "12345"
  • What makes Ref 2 a reliable source? They specifically state: "We are not professional researchers". Even if they are somehow reliable, the citation is just the link and page title. More information needed!
    It's a transcription of an historical document, not original research, so it's fair game to me.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of publication is Ref 3? Might be a book, but I really have no idea.
    Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 is blatantly incomplete. It doesn't even give a title!
    Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing should have been done before the FAC began, and will need to be addressed before it can continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose same reason as last FAC. Reference cleanup needed version

    • Ref 49, 23: bare link
    • 10: Author, location, title missing. Newspapers' pages change according to the location in some cases
    • 70: Campaign 18 December 1987 New campaigns, what is this??? Book/magazine/news???
    • 33: "William Stones Llimited." [sic] Financial Times [London, England] 24 November 1966: 6. Financial Times. Web. (what does this mean?) 20 August 2011. V/S William Stones Ltd The Financial Times (London, England), Friday, 1 December 1961; p. 4; Edition 22,561: Inconsistent formatting
    • 73: questionable reliabilty

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted the above.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting may not be perfect but I can vouch that they are all accurate in the information that they refer to. Given that the article is entirely my own work I can vouch for this.Farrtj (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, just as Essjay vouched for the material that he contributed. The reader needs to be able to verify the information for themselves, as that is one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. Currently that is impossible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well very little of my material is available freely online. Most of it is behind a paywall.Farrtj (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not strike comments written by reviewers. Instead, leave a note explaining what changes hace been made to address the issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments. In addition to the referencing problems I pointed out above, there are some problems with the prose. In general, the tone feels more like a documentary than an encyclopedia article, and in some places it seems to assume that the reader is familiar with brewery lingo. Here are some specific issues: Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "leaving Stones as the sole partner." By "partner", do you mean "owner"? The current phrasing doesn't make sense to me.
  • "the modestly sized Cannon Brewery on Acorn Street in the Shalesmoor district of Sheffield" This level of detail about the brewery's location isn't necessary, in my opinion. I suggest removing "Acorn Street", as well as the "Rutland Road" that appears later.
  • "In 1880 Stones built two 90 quarter maltings in Worksop" I have no idea what a "90 quarter malting" is.
  • "William Stones became a limited company in 1895 with £275,000 of capital (£30 million in 2011)" The phrasing of the parenthetical is ambiguous. Does it mean that £275,000 would be worth £30 million in 2011? Or that the amount of capital had grown to £30 million in 2011? Assuming it's the first case, it should be made clearer that this is an approximation. Also, a citation should be provided for the conversion immediately afterwards, not at the end of the sentence. Also also, why is this conversion to 2011 values when the rest of the paragraph uses 2010 values? Shouldn't they all be 2012?
  • "best regarded business concerns in Sheffield" What is the difference between a business and a business concern? Also, "best regarded" is a WP:Peacock phrase that doesn't add anything worthwhile to the sentence.
  • "Annual shareholder's meetings were held at the Cutlers' Hall in Sheffield." Is this really important enough to be mentioned?
  • "In 1919 The Crown Inn opposite the brewery" Which brewery? Could be either the Cannon brewery or the Brunswick brewery.
  • "Such stagnation was common throughout the British brewing industry in the 1950s" I oppose the metaphorical use of "stagnation". Also, why did this happen?
  • "William Stones joined the acquisition trail" I have no idea what an "acquisition trail" is.
  • "In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water for £100,000" This phrasing suggests that these dudes bottled beer and water for £100,000. Presumably what you meant to say was "In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water, for £100,000." One little comma can make a big difference.
  • "The Ward bottling plant was superior to Stones' own, and capable of filling and labelling 8,000 bottles an hour." It's not clear to me what "superior" means here. My first guess would have been "more efficient", but the second clause discusses efficiency, so that's not it.
  • "High gravity brewing was introduced by the 1980s" I have no idea what high gravity brewing is. Link? Explanation?
Sorted all the listed prose issues with the exception of the citation positioning for the currency conversions.Farrtj (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Cryptic and Redtigerxyz. I agree with most of their comments. Regardless of whether references are freely avaliable or not, they should be presented in a professional fashion in an FA. Having references like numbers 45 and 46, where the reader cannot tell exactly what is being cited, is no good. Many refs to newspaper articles and such don't have proper titles, just the name of the publication. Also, annoying all caps are all over the place in the cites, and I don't see why word counts are important when some refs don't even have page numbers, which are more vital and should be provided when possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead Comments - As far as company leads go, this is one of the better ones. It sums up the company in a timeline format, by reaching and covering every major point in the company's history, yet still showing a variety in the summary. Bravo for the lead, if nothing else. Oakley77 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 14:47, 2 June 2012 [25].

Pilot (Awake)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets criteria. If there are issues. I will fix them, so that it can be promoted. Thank you. Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oppose: The nominator opened a peer review a couple of hours after nominating at FAC, presumably in response to the above comments. One of the principal contributors has also suggested a peer review, a sensible step as there is no evidence in the edit history that the article has gone through any preparation for featured article nomination. Articles cannot be simultaneously on PR and FAC, so this nomination should be withdrawn and reviewer attention switched to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Brian. The second, messy sentence drew me here: "with two parallel realities; : in one reality, his wife Hannah (Laura Allen) is alive and his son Rex (Dylan Minnette) is dead, ;while in an alternative reality his son is alive while and his wife is deceased." Tony (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2012 (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/June_2012&oldid=499865662"