Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2013

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article passed GAN, and after giving it some more polish, I believe it's FA status-worthy. :) Khanassassin ☪ 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon I mostly did a prose check. I feel that, for a potential FA, there are still quite a few issues with this. After fixing the below issues, I'd recommend a couple copy-edits, as there were a lot of missing words and confused grammar:

  • "In the pursuit of buying jawbreakers and fitting in with the other kids, dimwitted Ed and intellectual Edd aid the self-appointed leader, Eddy, in his plans to scam the other children in their cul-de-sac out of their money during a perpetual summer vacation..." The use of their is ambiguous. Are the Eds scamming the neighborhood kids, or are they scamming themselves.
  • "The other children mostly dislike or show indifference to the Eds..." -> "The other children mostly dislike or show indifference toward the Eds..."
  • "...was bothered by people thinking animation is only for children." I feel the "is" should be was, since the action took place in the past.
  • "In turn, he decided to create edgy adult work..." -> "In turn, he decided to create edgy adult works" (needed an 's')
    • Done.
  • "After Antonucci was dared to produce a children cartoon, he accepted." -> This is in the passivem, so it leaves out who did the daring. Do we know? It probably should be "[Insert name] later dared Antonucci to produce a children cartoon, a challanged he accepted." If no name can be found, the sentence should read: "Antonucci was soon dared to produce a children cartoon, and he later accepted the challenge."
  • "Designing a commercial..." I would say "While he was designing a commercial..."
  • "Antonucci sent a one-page fax..." What kind of fax? A letter? A pitch bible? A concept sheet?
    Antonucci calls it just a "one-page fax", but on it is a drawing of the three Eds with "Puberty is unforgiving" written at the bottom... So, I don't really know how to refer to that. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, maybe you could say "character sheet" or something. I think fax is kind of vague.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Concept sheet, I think would be best. If you agree... Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After they agreed to let Antonucci have control of the show, conversations between Antonucci and the studio continued." Who are 'they'? (I assume Cartoon Network, but you never say). Also, which studio? (Again, I assume CN)
  • "...showed high interested in the series, and..." Minor quibble, but there shouldn't be a comma after 'series', since it doesn't connect with a completel sentence.
  • "A deal was made that Antonucci's studio, a.k.a. Cartoon, would produce Ed, Edd n Eddy the first Cartoon Network original series to be produced by an outside production company rather than Cartoon Network's Hanna-Barbera." I think this is missing a conjuction or comma somewhere in here. Maybe break into two sentences?
  • "As a result, the series was the last to use cel animation..." This is a minor quibble, again, but I think it should be noted that Adventure Time uses hand-drawn animation, so E, E, n E was probably the last for a time.
    • Perhaps AT was hand-drawn in a different way, rather than "cel animation", or "almost" fully hand-drawn. E,EnE was only colored digitally after the fourth season, cel animation being even colored by hand, but other than that, everything was done by hand, there wasn't any use of 3D or anything "non-hand-drawingness"... So, perhaps, if we don't leave it as "the last", maybe we could just say "one of the last"...? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boling line is create by tracing off..." -> The boling line is created by tracing off..." (needs a 'd' in there)
  • "Antonucci based the characters on real people in his life; the personalities of Ed, Edd, and Eddy..." I think this should be broken into two sentences.
  • "the first season did "remarkably well" in ratings ever since its premiere..." This seems to imply (at least to me) that the series is still airing new episodes. Maybe reword to "the first season did "remarkably well" in ratings following its premiere"
  • "Despite giving the Edifying Ed-Ventures DVD a negative review..." Why did he give the DVD a negative review, yet praise the series?
    • Low amount of episodes, lower video quality compared to previous CN DVDs, simple extras... - I don't think this should be pointed out too much in the article, as it's an about of the DVD length/episode amount etc., and not about the series. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A journalist in Tallahassee, Florida, wrote..." There shouldn't be a comma after 'Florida'.
  • "In the April 19 issue of People, in the crossword puzzle, the clue for No. 45 down was "cartoon show, Ed, ___ n Eddy"." This seesm really, really trivial. I'm not sure if it's that important that a one-off crossword puzzle mentioned the series.
  • "...are miffed..." That's kind of a colloquial word to use there.
  • "The Eds are beat after a bird steals their hard-earned quarter when they spot a passing plane towing a sign advertising Joe's Clubhouse, which inspires them to start a clubhouse and charge for membership, but once again the Kanker Sisters ruin the Eds' plans by taking over the clubhouse before the Eds make any profit." What? This sentence makes zero sense to me. It's very run-ony.
    • The Eds find a quarter (of a dollar), but a bird flies by and takes it with its beak (which results in Eddy's hatered of birds throughout the series). An airplane flies by, with a sign saying "Joe's Clubhouse", so Eddy gets the idea of starting a clubhouse and charging for membership. The Eds go to the cul-de-sac children to "advertise" their new clubhouse, but before they come back, the Kankers take over the clubhouse, which of course means "no money for Eds". Understand? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This still needs to be rewritten. Try: "The Eds are beat after a bird steals their hard-earned quarter. They soon spot a passing plane towing a sign advertising Joe's Clubhouse, which inspires them to start a club and charge for membership. Once again, however, the Kanker Sisters ruin the Eds' plans by taking over the clubhouse before the Eds make any profit."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edd has got an early in the morning paper route to save up for an electron microscope." Again, I'm not sure I understand what's going down here.
  • "...which Eddy uses to control the cul-de-sac children with." I don't want to sound like the 60-year old english teacher, but don't end a sentence with a preposition.
  • "Eddy decides to toughen him up, putting through a training program." Missing a word before 'through'
  • Fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and plans mow them for cash." There needs to be a 'to' before 'plans'.
  • "...but they are worthless..." Why?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is this submitted as a Featured Article? To me it seems more appropriate as a Featured List, especially since the Development section focuses on the series itself rather than the season (and should probably be included on the main article rather than this page). Featured Articles are held to a much higher standard and should include more production information. Information about what went into producing these episodes specifically seems non-existant. See Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), or Supernatural (season 2) for examples of featured articles based on seasons, as opposed to a featured list such as Veronica Mars (season 1). Ωphois 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because most of the information about the creation of the series comes from the time of the production of the first season (like the TakeOne article [written during the time of the first season], season 1 DVDs, season 1 reviews etc.), with an exception of the season 2 DVD interview -- but even that interview is pretty much the same as the interview at season 1, just that he reveals a few other details. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: But again, these details pertain to the series and not to the season. Unless episode-specific production information can be added, I have to oppose the nomination because I feel that it is better suited as a featured list. Ωphois 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, taking an even closer look, the entire production section is a just copy/paste from the main article. I might be wrong, but I think there is actually a wiki policy against that. As stated above, I suggest this page either be rewritten in the style of the featured articles mentioned above, or gut what has been copied/pasted and submit it as a featured list if the quality is still maintained. Ωphois 00:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main article's production section is more of a copy-paste of this article's section. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be that as it may, the purpose of having multiple related articles on a subject is to present different information. This page is pretty much a regurgitation of the main article, with the episode summaries thrown in. I agree with the editor above that the popular culture section seems trivial and unnecessary. Even if it is not deleted though, the section seems more appropriate for the main page than here, as that stuff pertains to the series itself and not just this season specifically. There are also two different sections on the DVD release, when everything should just be combined as prose. The episode summaries are also way too short. They need to summarize everything that happens in the episodes, including the conclusions to the storylines. Sorry, but in its current state, I feel there's no real point of having this page exist. Ωphois 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aight, whatever, I withdraw this nominaton. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said before, you may want to try it under Featured List. A lot less production info is required, if you are unable to find it. The season featured articles that I mentioned above were only possible because they released season companions and magazines that gave detailed info of episodic production. Ωphois 03:05, 31 March 2013 (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 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Wario

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a nuisance to me for a while. Not because of the editing up to here. It was once a Featured Article and two years after it was delisted, a user placed the article up on the Bounty Board for $50. It has been up there for five years and is now at $250. So being the person usually updating the Video Games' to do list, I have to look at it everyday since the bounty had no expiration date. While the article reached GA status by some other editor, he/she did not follow through to reach it to FA status. So I decided to take the helm and try to make it gain back the bronze star it once had. So wither there is support or constructive criticism given out I am ready for whatever it takes to making that happen. GamerPro64 00:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bravo for bringing it here! But be warned, there will probably be a lot of improvement needed. The thing I always look at are sentences that do not end with references, that always makes me nervous, and I do see a bunch of them. I don't think it would be a bad idea to make all the sentences end with reference footnotes. Also, does he have any impact on popular culture? Merchandise? Phrases that are popular? That would be good for the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1b, to the extent that the other criteria are moot. To be honest, I think this is even short of the Good Article criterion 3a for breadth of coverage. His list of video game appearances is incomplete, especially concerning titles that did not receive North American releases, such as Mario no Super Picross, Excitebike: Bun Bun Mario Battle Stadium and probably quite a few others. There is a brief mention of the Super Mario Adventures graphic novel, but that is a partial reprint of Mario vs. Wario that does not include all the original comics. Unmentioned are the character's other comic appearances, which at least include several German Club Nintendo comics beginning with "Super Mario: Die Verwandlung", plus the Super Mario-kun manga (at least the Sawada series, and I think the Takase one as well), and the Sawada spinoff Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!!. Also probably worthy of inclusion are his animated appearance in the Japenese edutainment video Mario Kirby Meisaku Video, the Warioland 4 gamebook, and his presence as one of the properties in one of the licensed Nintendo editions of Monopoly (and maybe both, I'm not certain). I'm not sure whether a reliable source can be found for his cameo in "Imaginationland Episode III". There's also been a variety of Wario merchandise, including shirts and stuffed dolls. Some of this, especially the merchandising, would belong with the "Promotion" part of the current "Promotion and Reception" section, which seems far too small regardless for a character that has been as franchise-defining as Wario. If nothing else, Japanese viewpoints would be a welcome edition, especially with the presence of material like Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!! that exists solely in that market. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding further sources for reception and analysis, Jeff Ryan's Super Mario: How Nintendo Conquered America has only a small passage regarding the Wario character, but it is an interesting one, considering him as an analogue to Mr. Hyde or Darth Vader, and that, despite sharing point-scoring systems with Mario, he serves the purpose of keeping Mario's motivations pure in comparison.[3] The gaming magazine GameAxis Unwired has 2007[4] and 2008[5] articles that, although centrally about specific Wario games, offer some broader commentary about the general quality of the character's games ("hovered between mediocre and above average", in the former) and the character in general ("Nintendo's way of presenting scatological humor", in the latter). There's quite a bit more to find, as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for these references. I'll be sure to look over them later. Though I'm going to have to bring GameAxis United to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see if the magazine is a reliable source or not. GamerPro64 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Later, like not at FAC? If so say so, so that the candidacy can be be closed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean like later in the day or soon. Why would you think I mean after the FAC? GamerPro64 04:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just curious! It would not be the first time someone did that. :) Good to know you're in it to win it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think he considered "after the FAC" because I don't think there's any way this can meet the standards within the FAC time frame. I've commented at the Wikiproject about that Singapore periodical (short version: should be good), but the 2 or 3 sources I linked on the quick are not the least of your problems. Sourcing some of the Wario material is going to be hard. The CoroCoro Comics-published Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!! and the HAL Laboratories-produced Mario Kirby Meisaku Video (with voices by Mayumi Tanaka!) are important for comprehensiveness, but will almost certainly require going to Japanese-language sources, as will Japanese reception commentary. But criterion 1b is not your only problem. You've also got problems with the formatting of the references already present; there's a lot of information missing. Several of the web sources missing author and/or publication-date information have that available[6][7]. Other links are mistargeted, probably due to restructuring of the websites. You've got a whole bunch of sources with 2009 retrieval dates, and that's really just not going to work for a 2013 FAC. For example, the WarioWare Snapped! link at GameSpot doesn't take you where it needs to go (which is here -- and is missing author and publication date, which are both available). Book sources ideally would have page numbers for the actual cited content. You've got at least one missing ISBN number, too (the Wessel source). One source includes a publication location; locations are optional, but generally considered all-or-nothing. And even still, you've got unreferenced content -- Chikao Ōtsuka's commercial work is mentioned in the infobox but not in the body, and is entirely unreferenced. Quite a bit of the "concept and creation" section is unsourced (the end of the second paragraph in particular: three sentences about garlic and bombs, no references). I'm happy to help with some of this where I can (although I really have no idea where to start looking for sources for some of the missing content), but I just do not see any way this can all be done in short order, and the end result would be a very different-looking article to boot, which would probably earn a failed FAC on those grounds alone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, and I was curious to see what that financial statement was used to source. The statement about WarioWare D.I.Y. (that it allows user-created minigames) may be true, but it isn't supported by the reference (which provides only a release date). At this point, I'm done with further commentary on this candidacy, because I do not think it meets the GA standard in its current state, much less the exceptional expectations of the FA process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Given the lack of commentary these past three weeks, this review seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take into account the comments you've received here, and also consider working with earlier reviewers from its PRs, to make improvements. Once that's done, the article can be renominated at FAC (provided a minimum of two weeks have passed from the archive date). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2013 (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 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Belle (Disney character)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent a considerable amount of time working on it, gathering numerous sources of reliable information and editing its style and form. Feeling that Belle is one of Disney's most famous and recognizable animated characters, I believe that she deserves to have a featured article.Changedforbetter (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Well written, comprehensive, and surprisingly well sourced. As a complete non-expert on the topic, the article covers everything I can imagine ever wanting to know about the character. Fantastic work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I'm not sure if I'll post a full review, but I have the following comments:

  • Why is the 'Feminist criticism and analysis' section only referenced to online news articles? Presenting an article by a man in the sexist British tabloid The Sun (which still has page 3 girls) as being a significant work of feminist analysis seems questionable. Searching Google scholar shows that several academic articles have discussed this character, and this article is focused solely on her (though unfortunately the article is written in academic-speak!). Please consult these sources.
I am currently in the process of looking for some reputable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be rather a lot of instances of people involved with this character being quoted as saying how good the character is and what a good job Disney did in developing it. This material seems unnecessary as it doesn't add much to the article, and these obviously aren't neutral sources of commentary.
  • Sure: "O'Hara was fairly confident in her audition, which she described as "one of those auditions where I felt like it was my part and I was going to get it.", "Despite the fact that Beauty and the Beast was her first major film role, O'Hara did not feel overwhelmed by the recording process because "[she] knew [she] had the experience to play [Belle]."", ""We didn't have to be alone, and I think that was very important," said O'Hara. "Disney had to spend a lot more money and time to do that, but it consequently developed the film and the relationship with Belle and Beast.", and so on. To the extent that there's useful material here, it can be briefly summarised without the fairly inconsequential quotes. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think I've taken care of most of these.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was O'Hara replaced?
  • The source doesn't say exactly why. It does, however, say this: "They did a one-fell swoop of all the older princesses and decided to replace all of us". It is also the only reliable source I can find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belle is an official member of the Disney Princess line-up" - are there unofficial members? If not, I'd suggest changing this to something like 'Bell is part of the...'
  • "where Belle and the park's guests would act out a popular story" - 'guests' seems like Disney PR gumpf (theme parks have 'visitors', not 'guests'), and what's meant by 'a popular story?'
  • "On 2012, a new location at the Magic Kingdom called Be Our Guest Restaurant, which will include the castle from the film as well as her cottage, village, and Gaston's Tavern." - this sentence is unclear, seems to have a few missing words and covers something which apparently occurred in 2012 in future tense.
  • "is recognized for being the youngest actress to play Belle on Broadway" - what is the significance of this, and who 'recognized' her?
  • "Belle has received predominantly positive reception from critics" - all the critics then quoted are totally positive. What are the negative viewpoints alluded to in this sentence?

Oppose Given that it's been over a week since I suggested that the available academic articles be drawn on (also suggested below) and nothing has been done about this, I'm shifting to oppose this nomination per FA criteria 1b and 1c. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize. I've been overwhelmed by the amount of changes users have been asking me to make to this article that I have forgotten your request. I appreciate your time, and understand your change of opinion.--Changedforbetter (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you be okay with moving this article from Belle (Disney) to Belle (Disney character)? That would more accurately follow the disambiguation rules for article titles. It would also match better with the sister article Beast (Disney character). And if you're amenable to the move, it can wait until after the FAC process has concluded to avoid any logistical problems while the nomination is still open. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Redtigerxyz Most comments are not addressed. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appearances:
    • Add years
    • Seems to cover only film appearances. Possibly a rename is needed
    • I not so sure having 1-2 line/para sections is a new idea.
    • Why are the first two covered in so much detail, but the last 3 hardly any? Is that due to duration of film or importance?

Redtigerxyz Talk 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz Talk 16:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources

  • Source 55 is a Docstoc document, but Docstoc is simply a document hosting site, rather than a publisher in its own right. Looking at the source, I'm not sure what it is meant to be. Is it meant to be a musical programme (playbill) or is it simply created by a fan, and is therefore not a reliable source? To conclude the point: the referencing needs to be more explicit as to what the source actually is, and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source.
  • Source 19, 20 and 42 are from IMDB. I'm not sure if they are reliable sources.
  • Source 40 and 41 are incomplete references.
  • Source 31 and 32 seem to give Wikipedia articles as a source. I understand that this is frowned upon in the Wikipedia community??
  • There seems to be an over-reliance on Disney and its affiliates as a source. In the article as a whole, but also in individual subsections, such as "Background and conception". I added the Newsweek source myself just now, but other than that there are only two non-Disney affiliated sources used in the entire section.
  • You don't need the four references you have at present to back up the statement, "Actress and model Sherri Stoner served as the performance model for Belle, providing live-action reference for the animators as they drew the character."

Content

"Mirror, mirror, who's the most liberated of all?" by Susan Wloszczyna in USA TODAY November 20, 1991 lists her as 18 in the 1991 film, as does Charles Bremner in The Times (of London) of November 25 1991 in "Beauty woos bookish Beast".

Farrtj (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]
  • Oppose 1b: I'm not sure to what extent they should be included, but Disney's Belle is featured in quite a bit of printed media as well. Examples include the 7-issue Marvel Comics series Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the 3rd issue of the Accalim-published Disney's Enchanting Stories comcis ("The Book Crook") and a wide assortment of books, some of which are branded as part of the Disney Princess franchise, and some of which are apparently independently associated with the Beauty and the Beast property. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a couple of scholarly articles that directly address the character. A 1993 Textual Practice article considers Belle's role as a post-feminist heroine and compares here to Clarice Foster from Silence of the Lambs in this regard (no, really, it does).[9] And the Wayne State University Press-published Marvels & Tales includes a 2003 article that compares Disney's Belle to the pre-Disney incarnations of the character, along with an examination of the character's potential ambivalent expression of freedom of imagination.[10] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a 2b concern with the placement of the Broadway play after the "Other appearances" section. That order needs to be reversed such that the "other" category follows anything that is specifically featured. And there's still been no effort to address print-media sources, so I'm making my concerns an official oppose at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your references do not have a uniform date format. See #47 and compare to #1. The date in #6 is missing a comma.
  • You've got this problem with retrieval dates, too. Check the difference between #1 and #22. Also #45. And others.
  • You don't format authors consistently. Look at the referenced movies (#31-33) and compare them to most anything else. Reference #4 is another film, but with a markedly different citation format.
  • Still a problem. Look at 30 (Trousdale) and 31 (Knight) where the directors' names are first last, instead of 4 (Hahn) and 32 (Blaine) where they are last, first. Also you've got the parenthetical "(director)" on 30-32, but not on 4. Was that intentional for some reason? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have publication locations for #1 and #39, but not elsewhere. They're optional, but need to be uniform.
  • Reference #6 (Ansen 1991) needs page numbers, since that's a print issue.
  • Reference #19 (Julie Nathanson Starring Roles) has a double period that needs resolved. So does #39 (Storytime with Belle).
  • Reference #43 is a problem; IMDb is not a reliable source. I thought these had been removed per a comment above.
  • What is reference #55? Why is it a reliable source? Docstoc is not a publisher, it's a hosting site. This either needs real publishing information to demonstrate reliability, or needs to go.
  • Reference #71 is an academic journal article. It's awesome that there's a PDF copy to link to, and you're right to do so, but that doesn't mean this is the proper citation format. Journal articles need proper citations to the print edition (which your linked page helpfully provides for you, in the right hand column), and should include doi where available (as it is in this case). This same complaint is true for all the journal articles you reference (which are still not nearly as many as you could be).

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Reluctant oppose What I'm finding is a bit more than a few prose tweaks that I generally offer at a FAC, in addition, especially towards the bottom of the review. There's a number of issues with proper usage and also the plot descriptions (assuming they are necessary) don't seem to have really been checked through to ensure clarity so the reader is not left puzzled. There is much good writing in the article, but this is not peer review and I shouldn't be finding this many issues in a short article.
Lede
  • " fictional character and the female protagonist " I find the use of and here a bit awkward, because the two facts really aren't independent of each other. Perhaps replace "and" with "who is"?
  • "to whom she shows no interest" Perhaps "in whom she shows no romantic interest".
  • Perhaps you might want to stress that the scenario in the second paragraph of the lede is her situation at the start of Beauty and the Beast.
  • "primeval" a bit fancy. Perhaps "old-fashioned" or "conservative"?
  • Changed. Replaced with "conservative".
  • " Belle is the fifth member of the Disney Princess line-up." No doubt, but does the reader really need to know this now? It seems extraneous to the rest of the paragraph. I would delete, or else move to after the words "Susan Egan".
  • " but developed" "but was developed". I would lose the name of the author of the fairy tale for lede purposes, it slows down the action, especially because of the puzzling name.
  • "with critics" Given your use of "criticism" earlier in the sentence, perhaps "commentators"?
  • "unlike previous Disney princesses" Is this a reference to the Disney Princess line I commented on earlier? If so, it should be capitalized because unless I missed something, Belle is not, in-universe, a princess.
  • Originally, I was simply referencing heroines who have come before Belle, not limiting it to just the franchise. But I see your point, so I have capitalized "Princess". Or would you prefer if I wrote "previous Disney animated heroines"?--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • "failing that" perhaps, "when he was unsuccessful". Failing that does not mean what you seem to think it means.
  • "wasn't" contractions are strongly disfavored in the MoS. Please take this as a reference to any other contractions in the article which are not in quotations.
  • I should mention, at least in passing, that the heroine in the short story is also named Belle.
  • I am aware of this, but I did not want to say "Belle was based on the heroine, Belle, of 'Beauty and the Beast'" or something along the lines of that. I will try to figure out another way of writing it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voice
"Actress and singer Paige O'Hara was thirty-years-old at the time, and had read about" Too long winded. How about "Thirty-year-old actress and singer Paige O'Hara had read about …"
  • "Upon hearing that the studio was holding auditions for the film's female lead and, at the behest of composer Alan Menken and lyricist Howard Ashman,[10] specifically looking for Broadway performers, O'Hara, a Broadway actress who was working in New York at the time, contacted her agent, who got her an audition.[9]" This sentence should be restructured, it takes much too long for the reader to learn what happened "upon hearing etc."
Sentence restructured.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "O'Hara's entire audition process lasted five auditions," Eliminate one of the uses of the word "audition" here.
  • ""recorded [her voice]" for it to be "sent ... back to [Los Angeles]" Both quotes are so short I question their utility. Fold them into prose unless there's a really good reason for keeping it as is.
  • "auditioner" Some hasty Google work tells me that it can mean either the people auditioning, or those judging them. Best to have a word which is not ambiguous.
  • Auditioners removed. Replaced with "judicial panel".
  • I don't think the Show Boat quote works, because the recording has not been previously mentioned. Since you are first mentioning it here, you should say something like "greatly admired her work on a recording of Show Boat. Something like that.
  • "The filmmakers told O'Hara not to raise her pitch because they wanted Belle to sound "very realistic."" This sounds very similar to what the "auditioners" said in the previous paragraph. Unless you feel this is essential, I would omit. We get what Disney wanted, a skilled but ordinary-sounding voice.
  • I've included this information because the first mention specifically talks about what the people auditioning O'Hara wanted, while the second talks about what the filmmakers (directors, Ashman and Menken, Hahn, whoever) wanted once she was cast. In my opinion, both are essential.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they were never included" Perhaps "but none were included".
Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By special request," Whose?
  • "Replacement": This comes on very suddenly, you were just recording the movie and suddenly she's replaced? Perhaps you should mention the works O'Hara voiced Belle in, then say the reason why Disney replaced her (you do not, at present, really, it's sort of implied her voice is deepening with age but you don't come out and say it. I would mention the name of the replacement in the final sentence. Consider moving this subsection to someplace later in the article, it feels out of place here.
Animation
  • I note again, the "Disney princess" If this is an accepted term, then you should probably parenthetically define it at first use with lower case.
  • The O'Hara quotation to The Guardian implies she was also a performance model in some way. Did the animators watch and sketch her as she voiced the role?
Appearances
  • "leaving it" I would change to "leaving her village" and strike the word "village" in the previous sentence.
  • "Lead to a dark" It should be "Led".
  • " Back home in the village" This sentence gets very involved towards the end. I would suggest a restructuring and possibly a split.
  • "The majority of the mob is fended off by the enchanted objects upon arrival" Much of the mob. Also, this is the first mention of enchanted objects. As we say in the law, lay a proper foundation.
  • "realizing how Belle has changed him," I think it is not germane that the Beast realizes his change here. It is sufficient that he has changed.
  • "Just before the last petal falls from the enchanted rose" If the reader has not seen the film, this is about the moment he goes WTF?
  • "his enchanted servants" Presumably this will be cleared up once you explain the castle's non-Bestial inhabitants, but at present this is utterly inexplicable.
  • " one ritual Beast" The Beast, perhaps? You have not mentioned whether he is human or not.
  • "during the winter segment" You could set this up better by mentioning the passage of time during the plot description in the previous section. I will be honest, I'm not thrilled about all the recapitulations of the various plots of the shows Belle appears in and I question whether reciting them helps us understand Belle as a subject.

Delegate comment -- Having been under review for a month, there's clearly no consensus to promote the article, nor do I see the likelihood of one emerging any time soon. You can renominate after addressing outstanding concerns, provided a minimum of two weeks has passed from the date this is archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (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 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Bat'leth

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is as comprehensive as it can be using all possible relevant and reliable sources that could be found and that it would be good to show on the main page as a FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm sorry, but while I admire your ambitions for the article, on the basis of the lead the prose looks to be well below FAC standard. For example:-

  • "widely available online" - delete "online", this is not a sales pitch
  • "they have also been used in crimes with debates on legality differing between countries." More punctuation needed, to clarify meaning
  • "Bat'leths were designed as martial arts style swords and was created..." Were/was mismatch. The sentence then meanders on, with no punctuation up to a redundant "as well" at the end.
  • The last lead sentence, "Bat'leths are also considered part of popular culture, appearing in television programmes outside of the Star Trek franchise as well as teams being set up to practice using bat'leths as part of a martial art" has several grammar issues and needs to be redrafted.
  • A minor point, but you should also link "long-sword". Incidentally, I note that the wikipedia page gives the word unhyphenated.

I have not looked in detail beyond the lead, but further down, my eye caught an "it's" that should be "its", and also "The rise in popularity of the bat'leth have also led...". There are likely to be other similar errors. I can't speak beyond prose issues, but the article needs a full copyedit. I also note that File:Sword of Kahless.JPG is still in the article, despite a warning from Ruhrfisch in the peer review (29 January) that this is a likely copvio. Have you checked the status of this image? Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but...the issues I raised were only a sample. And I'm not overimpressed by some of your fixes; for example, "they have also been used in crimes with debates on legality differing between countries" is still unpunctuated, and we have sentences such as "Martial arts teams have set up to use bat'leths in martial arts". Sadly, I have to concur with Graham's view that the article is not ready for FAC, but that does not mean all is lost; there are things you can do. The first is to get a full copyedit, from an editor familar with FAC prose standards and preferably with knowledge of the Star Trek genre. Such editors exist; there are several Star Trek-related articles listed at WP:FA. Why not approach one or more of the main editors of these, and ask them to work with you? If you are patient, this could be a positive way forward. Leaving the article to its fate here is not likely to get you very far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is poor, and below GA standards in my opinion. I am not going to list examples because my experience has shown that nominators often only address these. The whole article needs radical attention from top to bottom. Although I applaud the nominator for wanting to participate in our FA process, I am sorry to have to say that this is the most poorly prepared candidate I have seen this year. Graham Colm (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly under snow but is there really a need to be so dismissive? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not ready for FAC. Referencing is deeply problematic. You have several citations to IMDb; it is not considered a reliable source. I am also not convinced that reference 23/24 is reliable. Quite a bit of the article is carried on the back of primary sources; that may be unavoidable here, but is certainly not preferable. More pedantically, you do not use a consistent format for publication dates, there is a capitalization error in reference 37 (Politico.Com), and most of your retrieval dates are from May 2012 (which is pushing my personal tolerance threshold for age of retrieval dates at the FA level). Oh, and book sources are not consistent about whether publication location is included. Locations are optional for books, but they are all or nothing. Continuing on that theme, I'm virtually certain that there are more print sources that need to be considered here for comprehensiveness: Star Trek The Next Generation: The Continuing Mission by Reeves-Stevens and Reeves-Stevens (ISBN 978-0671874292) is an obvious oversight that I am certain addresses the topic, for example. Also, I will confirm that this badly wants for a copyedit in addition to its other flaws. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There nothing in the FAC that says anything about retrieval dates. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as such, no. But FAC does have an expectation of high-quality sources, which includes ensuring that web-based references have not been subject to alteration or linkrot since their initial inclusion (a frequent cause of concern at FARC). Thus, I don't think there's anything unreasonable in suggesting that retrieval dates be "relatively" recent (I set my threshold of concern at ~1 year, but it's not a hard demarcation). With web references of that age (or older), I have no problem setting an expectation that the article's editors would have checked the status of the links, and, upon doing so, updated the retrieval date accordingly – or, if they haven't, that they can and should. Regardless, that's far from the most serious problem here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well I suppose I could always hand it to the copyedit guild and I probably think I should withdraw this. I was also thinking of bringing 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA and I think that is probably better than this so I would ask that this be closed for the moment so I can bring that in instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on procedure - I will archive this nomination in a few minutes. Please see the FAC instruction where it says, "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate." Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (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.

This candidate was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Otis Redding

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The excellent copyedits by User:Lecen and the subsequent helpful comments at the article's talk page helped shaping the article into a comprehensive and an interesting page. Redding is a definite individual in soul music, being inofficially crowned a King of that genre. His career and life were very brief, but Otis Redding comprehensively offers all notable information about the perfomer. It begins with a description of how he was born and raised into a poor family in a poor region (the "Hell's View), then the sudden success and finally the sudden death. My respect for everyone who worked on it. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet review
  • My review is very tough because 1) the nominator was warned for trivial renoms back in December and then again in January [13][14], 2) the same nominator started the previous four unsuccessful FACs, 3) the nominator is competing at the WikiCup, and 4) the article has failed many times before, especially on writing style. It really needed a complete rewrite, top to bottom, which it did not get. Somebody other than Tomcat7 should start over with it.
  • Furthermore, I don't understand why your comments should be tough in this case. I don't find them tough, but rather randomly chosen. Next, there are no restrictions on how many times a nomination for one particular article is created. There is no reason to name a fun competition. I pointed out above that it received excellent copyedits. Even twice. So you want to exclude me? For what reasons?--Tomcat (7) 21:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said at Talk:Otis Redding/GA1 that Redding was an exciting performer with sensual and sexual overtones, per Bill Graham. Nobody has yet figured out how to put that sufficiently into the article. Around 1990, more or less, Graham said "By far, Otis Redding was the single most extraordinary talent I had ever seen. There was no comparison. Then or now." Unusually, Graham flew to Atlanta then drove to Memphis to convince Redding to come to San Francisco to play the Fillmore. More Graham: "Six foot three, a black Adonis. He moved like a serpent. A panther stalking his prey... Beautiful and shining, black, sweaty, sensuous, and passionate." And the kicker, while discussing Jimi Hendrix: "It has always amazed me that no rock historian has ever dealt with the most significant aspect of who Jimi Hendrix was. After Otis Redding, he was the first black man in the history of this country who caused the mass of white females in the audience to disregard his race and want his body. They wanted to fuck him as a unit. After Otis, he was the first black sex symbol in White America."[15]
  • I'm including the Graham quotes to give an idea of what Graham thought, not to suggest wording for the article. I'm saying that the article fails to give the reader an idea of how viscerally exciting it was to watch Redding perform live. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's The Fillmore or Fillmore Auditorium, not Fillmore Theatre.
  • What "fadeout rap"? Unclear what is being discussed.
  • It should be made clear that "Moohah" is the nickname of WDIA disk jockey A.C. Williams. His mother did not name him that.
  • The word "correctly" was identified as weaselly by the automatic peer review tool.
  • Two dead links out of 60.
  • Very awkward wording regarding the fact that Redding was popular with a mostly black audience, that he wanted to cross over and attract the larger white audience, which led to the Whisky-A-Go-Go in Los Angeles being selected as a venue. The time frame should be clear: three days in April 1966 including April 8.[17] The fact should be stated that an album was later released of this 40-minute set: In Person at the Whisky a Go Go. "Afro-Americans"? Dang.
  • There was another album, not just that one, and it is already mentioned below. I am not sure about that source, seems to be not very reliable. For example they wrote Whiskey instead of Whisky. Not trustworthy imho.--Tomcat (7) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the awkward wording:

    Since Afro-Americans still formed the majority of fans, Redding chose to perform at Whisky a Go Go on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles. Redding was one of the first soul artists to perform in the western United States. His performance received critical acclaim, including positive press in the Los Angeles Times and he penetrated mainstream popular culture.


    This is very clunky prose, and it completely fails to get the reader excited about one of Redding's most important gigs, a career milestone. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout 1966 Redding's backing band was his own guys, but it is not mentioned. They perform on the Whisky a Go Go date and at the Fillmore in December. The next year, Redding went to Europe with Booker T. and the M.G.'s but this is not mentioned.
  • Still have not incorporated enough of the story about writing "Dock of the Bay" in Sausalito. Music critic Joel Selvin wrote about the composition. Selvin's not referenced in the article yet. I think the writing of the song should come chronologically at the right place, in August 1967 while Redding is still in Northern California working an engagement at San Francisco's Basin Street West following the Monterey Pop gig, not after discussing the Stax recording session.
  • Why are there money figures in British pounds?

Delegate's comment - As this nomination has received no further reviews for several weeks, it looks unlikely that a consensus for promotion will be reached on this occasion. I have decided to archive this FAC.

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.

This article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Norman Selfe

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wittylama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years, I've finally got something to (hopefully) FA standards...
Norman Selfe is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a fascinating character who clearly cared deeply about providing access to practical education to everyone. I'm sure he would have been a Wikipedian if he were alive today! The unusual thing about how this article is that the original content on which it is based comes from an original research essay in the Dictionary of Sydney which I imported as it is CC-By-SA licensed. Therefore, for many of the facts both the source content and the direction of the reference is the same thing - unusual but not against the rules if done correctly (which I've had checked over three prior peer reviews). Wittylama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, attribution present

  • Missing bibliographic info for Selfe 1990
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Suggest putting Freyne 2009 in Bibliography
  • I've undone this, for now. I created the bibliography section at the request of a previous reviewer to highlight the published books that are used as references multiple times - the important physical publications that are accessible (as opposed to unique materials in a reference library or pamphlets). Freyne is certainly used multiple times but is not a book. That means, as far as I thought, she gets a mention in the external links section immediately below (and also in the mini attribution line immediately below that (because of the CC-by-SA content). I think mixing websites into the "bibliography" section is confusing. Is this ok? What do you think? Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN8: formatting
  • For "cited in..." notations, suggest including page numbers, and be consistent in how these are formatted
  • As far as I can see, the "cited in" notes which lack page numbers are all to the online Freyne article which is not paginated. I don't see any format inconsistencies - perhaps you will indicate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20: WriteLight appears to be a self-publisher, so what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Also need page number
  • FN23: formatting
  • FN11: formatting, and given that this was unpublished what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • I've listed "Arthur (2001)... cited in Freyne (2009)" several times (footnotes 11, 17, 22, 26...) because that is what Freyne cites. As Freyne is the Reliable Source here I could simply have cited her each time, but it is more academically honest to make reference back to the source she is using. Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix {{cite}}, {{citation}} and untemplated citations - pick one format and stick with it
  • FN34: don't use all-caps
  • FN35: formatting
  • FN37, 38: page(s)?
  • This is find-able, but requires trekking into the research library to bring up the microfiche of the first volume of this journal. These are editions 4 and 6 of the first volume so they're not particularly large publications. I think, for the purposes of anyone coming after us to find these sources won't have any difficulty tracking the reference even without page numbers. So... yes, I can find the specific page numbers for these essays in the journals when I have the time to go to the research library, but do you think it's a blocker for the purposes of this FA review? Wittylama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN40: publisher?
  • Added, with link to National Library catalogue reference for consolidated publication of this and others. 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • FN41, 43, 47, 51, 57, 58, 60: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • FN55: formatting
  • FN62: formatting
  • I've now removed the publisher (ANU) for the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The ADB, unlike the Dictionary of Sydney is both a physical and digital publication so many references to them in other publications treat them as a book but still link to the URL. I'm now treating it as an online citation only. Wittylama 04:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed most of the above (as indicated) on behalf of the nominator, who needs to deal with the remainder, i.e. refs 8, 11, 20, 37, 38 40 and 62 plus the mixed templates issue and the final point about dictionary publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- with no further comments after more than a month, I'm afraid this review has well and truly stalled, so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (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.

This article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Deadalive

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifteenth episode of eight season of The X-Files, and a big episode for the series; it features the real return of David Duchovny as Fox Mulder. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next big step. It is currently a GA as well as an A-Class article. I implemented much of what I learned from my previous FAN attempt. It has been copyedited, as well as peer-reviewed by three different editors, including Noleander, The Rambling Man, and Ruby 2010/2013. The article reads well, features illustrations (and the non-free images have proper licenses), and the references are properly formatted and of high quality. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

I'm probably not the best qualified to check some of the FA criteria, but I'll do what I can, since this is nearing the bottom of the list without any love at all. So far, all I have checked is the reference formatting and quality. I've got significant concerns there, so I'll hold a bit before looking at the actual article text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date formats are inconsistent in footnotes. Compare the retrieval date on #2 with #8. Footnote #3 has two different date formats. Footnotes #8 and #32 have their publication dates in different formats. I probably missed some; this needs a thorough audit.
    Fixed. Those were just sloppy mistakes on my part.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, when a footnote refers to something in the works cited list, you include the publication date. Sometimes (with the Spotnitz source) you don't. Any reason this shouldn't be consistent, however you decide to do it?
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is iTunes really the best we can do to source the running time? I wouldn't object on this alone, but surely we can find that figure somewhere...
    Why isn't it acceptable? iTunes is a third-party, reliable company. They clearly state the running time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to give this particular topic some more thought. Ideally, what I'd prefer is if some third-party source that actually had significant coverage and commentary on this topic also included the runtime, so that we weren't just citing that data point to a big chart on a web portal of a company trying to sell downloadable copies. I suppose it's too much to hope that Shearman & Pearson includes this? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it necessary to tell us that Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News? You do this with a couple other publications, too, but not all of them. I don't really feel this is the same sort of thing as citing publishers, and I really haven't seen it elsewhere before. Is there a reason for it?
    I do this for all the newspapers, because the publisher publishes the newspaper, and it is the same thing (in fact, it's the definition of publisher). I also do it for all the website that have publishers. I'm being inclusive, not exclusive, so I certainly don't see why this is a problem.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen "publisher" used that way. Yes, Berkshire Hathaway owns The Buffalo News. But that doesn't mean it's the publisher of that newspaper (the newspaper itself is, as is the case for most major market US papers). Similarly, Bertelsmann owns Random House, but that doesn't mean it's the actual publisher of everything put out by Random House. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see this as a problem. Regardless of how it works, Berkshire Hathaway still is the official publisher of The Buffalo News.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cinefantastique sources are from 2002. I may be wrong in remembering this, but wasn't that periodically officially rebranded CFQ by that time?
    You're totes right.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually pretty dubious about the reference in footnote #40. An advertising flyer is a primary source, but those aren't without their uses. But I don't really see anything to give us context for the flyer in the reference; the link is to an image stored on photobucket that isn't immediately identifiable as a flyer -- and likely presents some copyright concerns as well.
    Primary sources aren't issues unless they are non-notable. Furthermore saying this isn't noticeable as a flyer because it is presented as an image is like saying a page scan doesn't look like a book because there is no context. I can remove the image link, for copyright reasons, but I feel the source isn't an issue at all. It was issued by Fox, after all, which makes it notable and reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My problems with the flyer are really twofold. As I've noted, one concern is that we are linking to copyright violation at photobucket. But the other is verifiability. What assurance do we have that the flyer, as hosted at photobucket, is legitimate, and has not been manipulated in any way (in fact, I strongly suspect it has and that the image we're linking to is cropped from a larger document that includes more information, like show times, and possibly publication data)? In part, too, I'm worried about the ability of readers to locate the source from the information we're able to provide, which is almost none. To be clear, I don't doubt that this flyer is actually real, and a real piece of advertising, and a plausibly useful primary source; I do have misgivings about it's use as a "high-quality reliable source" for the FA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concede this one. I just removed it, as it doesn't add that much to the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote #43's link takes me to a University of Kansas login prompt, which is not exactly what I expect (subscription required) to imply. Is that link targeted correctly? And is that source really the best quality to begin with? Here's its self-description: "BtoB, the magazine for marketing strategists, delivers timely editorial on all disciplines of business-to-business marketing. Published 6 times a year by Crain Communications Inc, BtoB provides marketers with the information and analysis they need to develop a winning integrated marketing strategy for their companies." I'm not entirely sure that can be counted on for neutral, factual information. Has this been used in other X-Files FAs, or have you checked with WP:RSN?
    The reason many of the 'sub required' links take you to the University of Kansas page is because they are articles from my university's database, which can only be accessed if you are a student. However, the info is out there, and can be requested (I provide all the necessary information, down to page numbers in some cases). I would argue that it still falls under "subscription required", because you better believe I had to purchase a subscription to get it. As for the 'dubiousness' of BotB: it's owned by Crain Communications publishing. Even though BotB isn't super huge, doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and is a marketing magazine, that doesn't mean it is not neutral. In fact, that's quite a claim to make. It's a published magazine from a notable publisher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the login, I was mostly just wanting to spot-check for link target accuracy there, since I was expected a paywall by the publisher or one of the standard periodicals aggregators. But, sure, university databases should be fine, too. As to the periodical in question, my concern was that, as this is an editorial-driven marketing magazine, claims and analyses published therein might have a realistic expectation of being biased. However, I see you're only using that source as a citation for a hard data point, and I see no reason to doubt the accuracy there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give you the info for the article. It's basically disclosing how much money companies/products pay for ad/air time during TV commercials and the like. For The X-Files, it reads: "The X-Files, Fox Phone: (310) 369-1000 URL: www.fox.com Viewers: 12.4 mil. (April 1 episode) Ad revenues: N/A Ad rates: $225,000 per 30-second spot Comment: IT companies are starting to narrow their focus down to coders and other IT geeks, many of whom get their weekly fix of science fiction from this prime-time show. Notes: Ad revenue for 2000, unless otherwise noted. Revenue figures provided by CMR Business to Business and media properties themselves. TV viewership figures provided by Nielsen Media Research Inc. Some TV ad rates were provided by media buyers."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think there's any problem with that sort of material coming from BotB. I wouldn't use it as a source for any sort of critical or analytic material, but that sort of numeric factual data is fine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, very little of this represents independent sourcing. The article leans heavily on the Spotnitz source, and I can't see any reason that would be considered independent. To say nothing of the booklet, a DVD, the episode itself, Fox-owned websites, and a promotional flyer.
    In the past, DVD commentaries have totally been considered reliable third-party sources. The interview is from a notable, reliable DVD release from a notable, reliable company. Anything released by Fox is also reliable and notable. Primary sources are not bad if they are reliable and notable. In addition, ~26 of the 55 references are completely from third party sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.), whereas, the rest were officially published by (like I mentioned before) reliable sources. All in all, I'm very confused by the amount of criticism these references are receiving, when articles I've worked on in the past have proceeded with similar citations just fine.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern's not about primary sources per se, but about non-independent ones. I know WP:IS is an essay, but I don't really understand how DVD commentaries are independent with that in mind. They most certainly have a vested interest in the topic at hand. I view non-independent sources much like primary ones: they are useful, with caution, so long as the bulk of the article or passages do not depend on them, as seems to be the case for much the Writing section, for example. Now, admittedly, I'm used to working with scientific and historical topics rather than popular culture ones, so it's plausible that I'm simply misreading the expectations and standing consensus of sourcing in this field. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem with this is that the primary sources are largely being used for the production part of the episode. Many, many, many TV series/episode pages use the DVD commentary, mini-documentaries, booklets, etc. to cite this part of the article. Of course there will be a vested interest, because it is intrinsically related to the show and the show's parent network, but I don't see the issue with this. For instance, many of the books I used in my previous FANs—"The Truth", "Triangle", and "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati"—were officially licensed by Fox and feature interviews and other primary sources from the people involved (I also used the DVD commentary, as that's pretty important for those episodes, too). This is a pretty common occurrence when it comes to TV articles (for instance, this (unrelated) FA makes use of DVD commentary and mini-documentaries). For reviews, I totally get that they should be third-party (which I think all of them in this article are), but for production info, there's really no way to get completely independent sources, because Fox owns the rights to all the film, scripts, etc, and thus have to license/release them. Besides, the DVD released are notable and reliable, because Fox as a company has to pass through many hoops before releasing DVDs. I guess what I'm trying to say is that DVD features have long been accepted as citations for an FA, for at least TV articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk)
    Personally, I disagree, but this does appear to be the longstanding consensus take on television sourcing, even at the FA level. Objection withdrawn, and chalked up to the difference in sourcing expectations between this and my normal editing areas. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- After eliciting comments from only one reviewer in six weeks, this nom unfortunately seems more dead than alive; curious given it's had so many reviews beforehand. I will archive it and perhaps you can have another go at some later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2013 (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.

This article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Geographical name changes in Turkey

[edit]
Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well illustrated and well sourced article about a very important government policy in the country of Turkey. The article includes maps, figures, tables, and a comparative analyses section. The article also gives a brief insight into each community that was affected by the policy. It gives great examples of those towns and villages whose names were changed. The maps of each community were of my creation in reflection to various sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the FAC instructions; only one solo nomination at a time, please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pardon me. Please discard my "Confiscated Armenian properties" nomination. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not sure how much time I'll have this week to review, but here are a couple of comments. I will review further if I have time.

  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE the use of the {{cquote}} template is only for pull quotes; please change these to block quotes.
  • The link to population exchange between Greece and Turkey appears three times in a short span. Generally only the first instance should be linked without a particular reason for adding more links; many editors link again in the body if the only prior link is in the lead, for example. I haven't looked for other examples, but please check. It's probably OK to leave every city in the tables/lists linked, even if they have been mentioned before, but I would not link them again if they are mentioned after the table.
  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD for some guidelines on length; I would think a couple of paragraphs is necessary at least.
  • "Potamia" is also spelt "Potamya"; are both acceptable or is one a typo?
  • I see a few grammatical errors; a copyedit is needed. I may have time, but can't promise, so please try to get someone to go over the article. A couple of examples, out of several that I noticed: "Enver Paşa disregarded however, changing ..." -- missing word, presumably; "It is not known how many geographical names have changed due to the ordinance, nevertheless the ultimate objective ..." -- run-on sentence.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for taking your time and reviewing my article. I have fixed much of the concerns you have raised. Just to touch up, Potamya is simply the Turkish way of saying Potamia. Since the source highlighted what the Turkish Prime Minister said about Potamya, I was compelled to write it in the language the source and the speech was made in. All other issues have been fixed. I did request a copy-editor. We will see how that goes. But if you see any other concerns, please address them. I am more than willing to fix them. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've struck most of the comments above, but I'm afraid the article really needs that copyedit, and I feel I have to oppose until then. This is an impressively detailed article on an unusual topic, and I hope you can find someone to improve the prose; I'd love to see this on the main page. I particularly like the maps. A couple more specific points:

  • The use of "Assyrian" in the lead probably requires a link, since to many readers the default meaning of Assyrian is ancient Assyria. I'm not sure what it should go to, though: Eastern Aramaic?
  • Can I ask why there you have up to six references for some quite short sentences? References are there to let readers verify the information in the article; I would suggest picking no more than three of the most authoritative sources and only listing those. The reader doesn't really benefit from having a longer list of reliable sources that support a statement; the only exception might be highly controversial statements which require extensive and detailed sourcing. In many cases it might be that a single reference is enough.
  • Within some of the tables, there is no reference cited for some of the comments. For example, the comments on Colemêrg are not cited. Is this information covered by the references at the top of the table, currently [44] and [45]? If so I would suggest adding a citation for those notes inside the table, at each row.
  • In a couple of places, you say "in September 2012, legislation has been promulgated to restore the names of ...." Is this legislation still pending, or is it now law, or did it fail to pass? I'd phrase this differently depending on the outcome. I'd also suggest saying "was introduced" rather than "has been promulgated" unless I'm missing a shade of meaning.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replaced Assyrian/Syriac with Eastern Aramaic. I already emphasized the specific dialect used by Assyrians in Turkey (particularly the Assyrians that live in Southeastern Turkey).
  • There are many references because this is a controversial subject in Turkey. However, I may remove some of the additional sources if need be.
  • Yes [44] and [45] in fact reference all examples of name changes that I have provided. There are additional sources provided on some for additional verification and details.
  • I have changed the law to "Introduced'. I have yet to find sources whether the law is fully in effect or not. It is fairly recent anyways.
  • I have resquested a CE through the guild of copy editors. I hope they can CE it ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added another link to Assyrian/Syriac people in the lead. Good luck with the guild of copy editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on referencing. Many print sources are lacking page numbers, which are generally required for verifiability and tend to take a while to compile. On a quick look I'm also seeing some bare URLs (see WP:LINKROT), some missing information, citations to books published by vanity presses like Xlibris, and generally inconsistent formatting. I would suggest the nominator withdraw, as these issues will take significant time to adequately address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for raising these concerns. I have fixed the issues regarding referencing. Now almost all Ref's have page numbers in them. I removed the Xlibris ref. I revised bare url refs and even removed some. If you can be more specific regarding the formatting and missing information, I will revise those issues as well. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 2c, at least. I do not believe this article is ready for FAC. Date formatting strikes me as an immediate problem. Between references 2, 6, 7, and 18, I see four different ways of specifying an exact date. Some of your sources have publication locations and some do not. Locations are optional, but generally all-or-nothing. I'm not 100% certain what Wikipedia's MOS best practices are, but I suspect that the use of [u.a.] regarding publication locations is discouraged, and I'm especially doubtful of its use regarding the publisher itself (as in reference 54). Quite a few references are formatted in a way that makes it difficult to determine what you're citing; reference 8, for example, seems to refer to two different editions of the same work? What's important is that you cite what you actually referred to, not whatever other versions of the work may exist. You generally use citation templates, but when you don't, the formatting doesn't match the templated entries, and in some cases makes it impossible to even figure out what sort of material is being referenced (see references 24, 25, 27, 28). And I strongly suspect that you're missing language tags for quite a few sources that aren't in English. I suspect there are other issues with the article itself, but there are enough referencing problems that I stopped there. I will note, separately, that while it wouldn't earn a criterion 3 oppose from me, it would be really nice if the Assyrian map was in the same format as all the other maps, to make it easier to compare them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Mass Effect 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): Niwi3 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. As far as I know, I'm the only editor of the article and have been working on it for the past 8-9 months. The article passed a good article nomination on July 9, 2012, and since then I've further improved and expanded it substantially. I've also created three separate articles, Mass Effect 2: Arrival, Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker and List of Mass Effect 2 downloadable content, to better organize the article. This is the first time I nominate an article for FA Status, so apologies for any inconveniences this nomination may cause. Regards.--Niwi3 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You've picked a poor screenshot, replace it with one which isn't entirely in red. Try and show shooting and the mass effect powers together with your allies if you can. - hahnchen 15:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for taking your time to review the article.--Niwi3 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidinNJ

[edit]
At the current time, the article's content is excellent, its referencing is good, its structure is good, and its prose is mediocre. Here are my suggestions:
(1) Remove the bolded material from the references. For definitions, just define the item in the sentence. For example, I would have "The Citadel Council is an executive committee composed of representatives ..." rather than "Codex - Citadel Council: The Council is an executive committee composed of representatives." For quotes, the person's name should be unbolded, and outside the quotation marks. For example, I would change "Illusive Man: Shepard -- we caught a break to ..." to Illusive Man: "Shepard we caught a break to ..."
Fixed. However, I cannot move the person's name ouside the quotation marks due to the parameter |quote=. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. This is my first time dealing with the videgame citation format. I don't like the idea of the author being inside the same quotation marks as the quote, but if that's the template design then that's what should be used.
(2) I would break the "Gameplay" and "Reception" sections each in 2 subsections. I would break "Development" into 3 rather than 2 subsections. It makes it easier to read.
I've broken the gameplay section in 3 parts. What do you think? Also, any idea on how to break the Development and Reception sections in subsections? Thank you for your comments. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Development". Call it something like "Product design", and have 3 sections - "Planning", "Development", and "Technical issues". "Reception" could be broken into "Awards", "Plot and characters development", and "Technical features". Those are just suggestions. If you have better titles, feel free to use them. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What do you think? Also, I don't think we need more subsections in the Reception section, mainly because I don't know where the PlayStation 3 paragraph would fit better. I'd love more opinions from other reviewers if possible. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3) The biggest issue I see with this article is the writing. It presumes that the person has a substantial knowledge of video gaming and software. I have a decent amount of experience with those topics, and I found myself confused at times. For example in the Gameplay section, the article reads "During conversations with NPCs, Mass Effect 2 employs a radial command menu, called Dialogue Wheel, where dialogue options depend on direction.[4]" The Technical Issues subsection states, "There were also issues with regards to crashes, video hitching and long load times on single core computers but these were later addressed in a patch.[56] Many readers will not understand the concept of dialogue options or video hitching.
Replaced video hitching with temporal freezes, and wikilinked dialogue options to the article interactive storytelling. What do you think? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contact me if you have any questions. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not FA quality, and I see no evidence that it will meet featured article criteria anytime soon. This Wikipedia page has very extensive content, and good structure and referencing, but the writing quality is far below the FA standard. For example, there is a section on characters in the article that is very difficult to read. I substituted a table of characters, but the nominator of this article removed the table, and prefers the prose as-is. Furthermore the article utilizes a lot of jargon that may be difficult for people not versed in video gaming to understand, and is a bit one-sided in that it only cites positive reviews of the game. Overall, this is not a bad article, but it is clearly not among the best of Wikipedia. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table is unnecessary because it wastes a lot of space and contains redundant information (the comment "part of Commander Shepard's squad" appears in almost every entry of the table); I'd love more opinions about this from other reviewers, if possible. As for the Reception section, Mass Effect 2 is a game that received a lot of positive reviews, so I think it's obvious that there are more positive reviews than negative reviews. I might agree with the writing being difficult for people not versed in video gaming to understand, but could you be more specific? Thank you for your time, comments, and interest.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

[edit]

In the gameplay section, The manual (this is the correct manual, right?) doesn't seem to support this statement: "Importing an old character allows several decisions the player made in the original game to impact the story of Mass Effect 2" Page 3 mentions that an old account will get expereince and resource bonuses, but doesn't say anything about the impact on the story.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that it keeps all the details of the character, including history (of the previous game). But I agree, so I replaced the reference with the review of IGN so it's less confusing. Thank you for taking your time to review the article, much appreciated.--Niwi3 (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The manual does not specify that galaxy the game is set in is the Milkyway galaxy. The citation for that part says page 17. However, some of the info referenced about the ship is on page 16, and info about scanning planets for resources is on page 18.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks! --Niwi3 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the manual does talk about Squad points, it doesn't seem to say anything about experience points. Another ref might be needed at the part about experience points.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shepard and the squad members are protected by a health bar"? I don't think this is the right way to word it. Is the health bar actually protecting them?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is confusing wording.anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "if Shepard dies, the player must start the game again from the last saved point" is not supported by the source (at least not that page).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gamepressure.com is not listed at WP:VG/RS. Are you sure this is a reliable source?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a third-party, published source that seems stable. In any case, I can replace it with Mass Effect 2's Prima Official Game Guide if you wish. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, the website is part of Gry OnLine, which is listed as a RS.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anstosa

[edit]

The second intro paragraph is not cohesive. First sentence talks about changes from the original game, the second talks about the soundtrack composer, and last ones talk about DLC. DLC can arguably be a change since it's difference DLC than the original game had, but I think the soundtrack should be omitted from this paragraph at least. anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the soundtrack composer, and added info about how developers approached the story, which is different from the original game. What do you think? Thanks.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better!anstosa (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of Gameplay, I don't think "allows the player to [...] tackle missions" reads like an encyclopedia. Use less emotional verbs like "allows the player to [...] find and complete missions" anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph of Gameplay, I think NPC is a more appropriate description than AI. anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Development > Technical issues "indecipherable" sounds too opinionated. Consider "difficult to read". anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sequel section, "was envisioned as a trilogy from the very start" doesn't sound encyclopedic. Perhaps "from its inception"? anstosa (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks!--Niwi3 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rsmary

[edit]

The article says the game was released for Windows and Xbox on January 26, 2010. I did a little searching and found that some sites list that ME2 Platinum Hits for Xbox was released Jan. 19, 2010[1][2][3]. They don't seem very reputable to me though, but can someone else also take a look into it? It seems weird to me that the Platinum Hits version was released before the original version, but it would be worth looking into. I'm curious where the Jan. 19, 2010 date came from. --Rsmary (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I didn't even know there was a Platinum edition of this game. Here, it says that a "Platinum Collection" was released on June 21, 2012 in Japan. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would ignore the January 19, 2010 release date. It doesn't look like that's accurate, and from what I can tell the Platinum Hits Xbox edition was released around the same time the PS3 version was released (based on all the forum posts I went through). The Platinum Hits edition just came with DLCs and other things. Thanks for looking into it with me! --Rsmary (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, the third sentence "Set within the Milky Way galaxy [...] called the Collectors in a suicide mission" sounds a little awkward. It's a little long, possibly because the "in a suicide mission" part cuts the flow of the sentence. Also, I'm not sure if it's the most accurate representation of the member recruitment. Shepard isn't trying to recruit an already existing team, he/she is trying to recruit individual members to make a team. --Rsmary (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fixed. What do you think? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! --Rsmary (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Plot section, third paragraph, the sentence "Squad members survive or perish along the way depending on their loyalty, upgrades to the Normandy, and selections of specific members to perform certain tasks." doesn't flow well. "Squad members survive or perish along the way depending on their loyalty" doesn't follow the same pattern as "upgrades to the Normandy" and "selections of specific members to perform certain tasks" since the last two listings are things you can do in the game while the first listing is something that happens. It's also a little random because it doesn't sound like a linear part of the plot, thus doesn't follow well with the paragraph itself. What can we do with this to improve it? --Rsmary (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand you clearly. As far as I know, there are mainly 3 factors that determine whether the squad members survive or not, and all these 3 are things you can do in the game. It's not random. It all depends on the player's choices. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusing comment. I totally misunderstood the sentence; the actual meaning was made clear after I read your comment. Maybe we can rephrase it as "Squad members may survive or perish depending on their loyalty to Shepard, the upgrades made to the Normandy, and the tasks assigned for specific members to perform." I'd love your opinion on what phrasing you prefer. Thanks! --Rsmary (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds better and seems more accurate. Thank you for your suggestions, much appreciated! --Niwi3 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar of the article can use a little bit more tweaking. There are areas with misused commas, subject-verb disagreements, and a couple of other tiny misspellings. If they're not changed, I'll probably do a more thorough read and edit those myself when I get the chance. Will strikeout this comment when I'm done. --Rsmary (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made some minor changes to the article: removed a lot of unnecessary and misused commas, changed all the subject-verb disagreements I could find, and rephrased some sentences to improve flow and length. However, I do think there may still be some grammatical improvements to be made that I probably missed. --Rsmary (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your excellent copy-edits, much appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made further improvements, especially in the Gameplay section. I think it sounds better now. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ "Mass Effect 2 Release Dates". Retrieved 28 February 2013.
  2. ^ "Mass Effect 2 Platinum Hits 2013". Retrieved 28 February 2013.
  3. ^ "Mass Effect 2 Platinum Hits by Electronic Arts". Retrieved 28 February 2013.
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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mickey798 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a very significant movie and needs to be honored because it has stood the test of time. It's possible that there are some minor mistakes in there and to make it a featured article, it needs some clean-up if necessary. Mickey798 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed the FAC instructions that say, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."? Graham Colm (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. There is still some work needed before this article is ready for consideration for FA status. Graham Colm (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

KFC

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mo I am nominating this for featured article because I have taken it to GA level and believe it is worthy of FA level. I last nominated this article for review on the 2 February, which it failed. I have changed it a good amount since then, taking on board comments from the last review. Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 Februar16y 2013 (UTC)

File:KFC logo-image.svg is boiler plated, what is it's purpose? 94.197.33.20 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does "boiler plated" me in this context? The KFC logo is fair use.Farrtj (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is a copy and paste from another non-free image, what is special about this image that means it needs to be used in this article? 188.29.78.209 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's self explanatory: "The image is used to identify KFC, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey." There is no free alternative. Farrtj (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be your contention that the average Wikipedia user on seeing an article entitled KFC, would be unable to ascertain it was an article about KFC without the use of non-free content? 188.29.175.15 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The logo as a means of identification is especially important for users for which English is a second language, or those with poor literacy skills. An initialism could stand for anything. The logo gives very quick confirmation that this is in fact, the restaurant chain. Farrtj (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose use of non-free content without valid fair use rationale 188.28.76.41 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
contested. Use of low resolution logo constitutes fair use.Farrtj (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Contested. Use of a logo on an article about the company itself falls so far within the realm of fair use that I'd be tempted to oppose an article that didn't include it. Textbook case of fair use. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Curly Turkey. The use of this image in this article clearly falls well within the boundaries of both the fair use doctrine AND Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose is unwarranted, the logo is appropriate as it shows what is used identify the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my unaddressed comments in the previous FAC. This article remains heavily dependent on news stories for sourcing, and fails to make much use of the academic articles and books which cover this topic. The 'operations' section remains in a poor state - for instance, the 420 stores in Indonesia are accorded a single brief sentence while the 840 stores in the UK and Ireland gets a very detailed three paragraph section (which includes a dubious claim from the company's website which implies that its a well regarded workplace - KFC may well have won these awards, but it's obviously not actually considered a desirable employer by most people). The article's prose also needs work - watch out of past tense being used when it's not needed (many uses of 'would' could be replaced by 'was' or equivalent as an example), and a fair amount of material in the 'Products' section is unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested 1.) The Featured Article Criteria says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I've added a few more book sources from books that mention KFC in passing across a few sentences. I'll point out that your disapproval of news sources seems to imply that I am leaning heavily on tabloid sources, which is simply not the case. A quick scan of the references section shows that my sources lean on upmarket broadsheets such as The Economist, The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, New York Times. And it seems an unfair criticism anyway: a subject such as this is always going to necessitate a degree of dependence on news sources, as books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway. The article conforms to FA criteria: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Furthermore, "it neglects no major facts or details". 2.) I've expanded Indonesia now. Bear in mind that the market there is very similar to the Chinese market, and other Asian KFCs. It's only worth including facts that are interesting and informative, not adding facts that are dull and repetitive. 3.) I've removed the great place to work claim, as I can see where you're coming from. 4.) I'll dispute that the past tense is overused in the article. 5.) As per Wikipedia:When to cite, I don't think it's necessary to cite some pretty uncontentious claims, that I believe fall under "Subject-specific common knowledge".Farrtj (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that those newspapers are not tabloids (I subscribe to the NY Times and buy The Economist most weeks...). My concern is that you still haven't drawn on the full range of high quality sources. Your claim that "books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway" is dubious given that I had no problem finding several useful looking sources in a few minutes of searching in the last FAC (all of which you then dismissed on, to be frank, unconvincing grounds). Adding an extra half a sentence to the section on Indonesia does not address the obvious gross imbalance here. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oh my! I'm just being obtrusive! I'm clearly ignoring the fantastic sources out there because I want this article to fail!* (sarcasm) The UK & Ireland was KFC's first overseas market. Basically it's only European success until very recently. It is still one of KFC's major markets. Plus, there are great sources available for the UK operations, which isn't the case with the Indonesian operations. And where does one draw the line on which countries are commented on in depth anyway? Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand all have as many restaurants as the Indonesian operation. An encylopedia is an overview of a topic, not a detailing of every single aspect of its operation. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback for you, compiled as I was reading your article:

Franchising
'In 1958, Sanders gifted the rights to franchise KFC in Florida to his eldest daughter Margaret, as a wedding present.'

  • I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is, especially as the opening sentence of a new paragraph. I don't doubt it's factually right but cannot see its relevance in the KFC story, as compared to the rest of the paragraph.
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale by Sanders
'In 1966, Sanders' nephew Lee Cummings left the company after the sale to found the Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken chain.'

  • Not sure of the relevance of this sentence, given the first time Lee Cummings is mentioned is when he left the company.
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'According to Sally Denton…'

  • Who is Sally Denton? What is her place in the KFC story?
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In August 1970 Sanders and his grandson Harland Adams resigned from the board of directors.'

  • Since when had Sanders been on the board? What relevance was Harland Adams to the KFC story?
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heublein takeover
'The company, once too large for Sanders to handle, grew too much for John Y. Brown as well. After just a few years on the stock exchange, the company had overreached itself.'

  • Construction of these sentences needs some work.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 1973 Heublein introduced barbecue spare ribs, which sold well, but caused "tremendous" operating problems.'

  • What problems were these?
I don't know.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need to find out. Cannot leave at 'tremendous' without amplification. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you open up the reference at the end of the sentence, it just has the "tremendous" quote, but does not explain what the problems were.Farrtj (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be relevant: 'He tells about KFC's attempt to sell spare ribs. "The ribs were carefully researched," he says. But we ran into the biggest pork shortage in 40 years in 1975. So what was supposed to go out at $1.69 or $1.79 went out at $2.09, and over $2 it did not have a prayer.' It's from Business Week, 1977, Issues 2490-2498; that's all I can see from the Google entry. There is also some discussion in that article about KFC spending too much time on long-term planning noting that the fast-food franchising business is so volatile that it is hard to do any long-term planning (according to a former KFC exec). Sounds like an interesting article just for that bit, let alone the KFC exec's comment about the pernickety ribs. Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added the bit about the price of pork shooting up. But I think the article makes it quite clear: diversifying from what they did best (fried chicken) was a bad move.Farrtj (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale to PepsiCo
'…spicy "Hot Wings", popcorn chicken, and the "Zinger", a spicy chicken fillet burger, for international markets.'

  • Which of these products were introduced to international markets?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Some product launches, such as skinless chicken, designed to appeal to more health-conscious customers were outright failures, increasing overheads and helping operating profits decline by 37 per cent in 1991, after customers failed to accept the unfamiliar texture.'

  • Sentence is too long.
I've changed it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Cranor's proposed contract…'

  • Cranor is mentioned two long paragraphs ago and by the time I had gotten to this mention I'd forgotten who he was.
I'm not sure what to do about that, as I don't want to repeat who he is.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, I think. Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricon/Yum! Brands
'APP argued that mixed tropical hardwood fibre "can be…'

  • Turn the quote into a blockquote. It's too long for an in-line quote.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In April 2010, the Double Down sandwich sandwich was launched.'

  • As an opening sentence of a new paragraph, this sentence doesn't convey what the rest of the paragraph will be about.
Moved it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 2012, Interbrand valued the KFC brand at just under $6 billion. Interbrand lauded KFC's promotional activity on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.'

  • These two sentences bear no relevance to the rest of the paragraph.
Moved them to marketing.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China
'It is the largest Western restaurant chain, with 4,200 branches, and China is one of the only countries in the world where McDonald's is not the dominant fast food chain.'

  • What's the dominant food chain/s in China?
sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The chain has adapted to the market in another way: the average Chinese KFC is twice as large as an American outlet.'

  • How is this an adaptation?
It is.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. Pls check my edit. Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Warren Liu, a former vice-president of Tricon Global Restaurants argues that, "being the first – the pioneer into these remote corners of China – has continued to provide KFC with a substantial competitive advantage." '

  • Hmm. I was going to say, "who are Tricon Global Restaurants"? but then I see they are mentioned several paragraphs ago. Same problem as last time---players are mentioned early on then again several paragraphs later on by which time their relevance is forgotten. I'll think some more about how this could be addressed.
Sorted. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how could it be relevant to go into the remote corners of China---which I question is the case---rather than densely populated urban centres?
sortedFarrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In November 2011, Yum! acquired Little Sheep, a Mongolian restaurant chain specialising in hot pot.'

  • Not sure what the relevance of this statement is?
removed.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other observations

The lead. Please check to see this still matches the content and flow of the main body of the article.

Products
'…typically holding between 6 and 16 pieces of chicken.'

  • Is it 6 to 16, or 5 to 15?
Did a quick Ctrl + F search and couldn't find the 5 to 15 reference.Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Headslap! I meant to say, 'Is it 6 to 16 or 7 to 15? It should probably(?) say, '…typically holding from 6 to 16 pieces of chicken.' Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still a little confused by what you mean. Have a look at what I've done.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorted. Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan. In the first FAC review, mention was made of Japan, where 'KFC is a big deal - Google japanese kfc christmas for instance).' Does anything need to be said about KFC Japan?

It's a big deal at Xmas there. But I'm not sure if that fact justifies an entire subsection. I'd need more than just that to pad out the subsection, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to find it. Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secret recipe. I suspect this is all marketing baloney. Is there no literature questioning the existence of a secret recipe or speculating that it is simply a marketing ploy? If there isn't that's fine but at the moment this section appears non-neutral in its POV.

There isn't. If successive generations of journalists and academics have not seen fit to question its veracity then that's good enough for me. And I'm careful not to say "the secret recipe is great", I just mention what people have said about it. Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH: 'In his book "Big Secrets," William Poundstone revealed a laboratory analysis of Kentucky Fried Chicken: "The sample of coating mix was found to contain four and only four ingredients: flour, salt, monosodium glutamate, and black pepper. There were no eleven herbs and spices — no herbs at all in fact... Nothing was found in the sample that couldn't be identified." So much for the "secret." In fact, the chicken's ingredient statement is available on KFC's Web site. See here. Sandbh (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Poundstone got hold of the breading mix BEFORE the spices were added to it. And the KFC ingredient list just lists "spices". Plus laboratory analysis of the 11 herbs and spices would take months and be very expensive, and at the end of the day, only KFC can market their product as 11 herbs and spices, so what would be the point? Poundstone's claim is a big claim, basically accusing a reputable company of mass fraud and deception. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence, and in the 30 years since Poundstone made his claim, no one else has backed him up. Furthermore, if this lab analysis really is so easy to do, and KFC really were conning everyone, do you not think their competitors would have called them up on it? Also, there is countless anecdotal evidence from people who currently work for KFC that there is a spice mix that is added to the chicken breading. Farrtj (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References. Are the following worth considering, revisiting or citing:

  • Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food, by AF Smith
Looked at it again, just in case, but it only touches on KFC fleetingly. No good. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal, by E Schlosser
There is nothing in this book worth adding. The focus in on the burger chains.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast food: Roadside restaurants in the automobile age, by JA Jakle & KA Sculle
Re-read. Was able to add one thing. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through them all. Articles are very short: nothing worth using.Farrtj (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making fast food: From the frying pan into the fryer, by E Reiter
Not very helpful.Farrtj (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting meat on the American table: Taste, technology, transformation, by R Horowitz. Only one mention of KFC of note, but perhaps it could be worked into the article: 'In 1994 (as a unit of Pepsico), KFC sold the equivalent of eleven pieces of chicken for each American citizen.' (p. 127)
That statistic is a little too promotional and unscientific sounding.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was thinking more from the pov of giving an idea of the scale of US KFC ops. Eleven pieces for each American citizen? Amazing! Huge! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rehashing of something already stated in the Jakle and Sculle Roadside Restaurants book, which I have already added in a more scientific format to the article.Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent source. I've already added a few things from it. I see this is a new source, hence I haven't seen it before.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changing chicken: Chooks, cooks and culinary culture, by Jane Dixon. Briefly discusses what KFC's advertising is promoting, and it's not the chicken (p. 136). Also says that 'Labour process accounts of fast food operations are becoming numerous and the practices of chains, such as KFC, have been described elsewhere. Suffice to say, fast food chains rely on Fordist food production and distribution processes.' (pp. 182–3). Is some content about KFC labor processes warranted?
Not much help. Badly researched as well: she claims that the KFC initialism was adopted in 1993, when it was actually 1991! Farrtj (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford companion to American food and drink, by Andrew F. Smith (Kentucky Fried Chicken entry)
This proved quite helpful.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A random term paper is not a good source.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not cite any sources that could be harvested? Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, it's no good. The freely available pages offer no citations whatsoever. And the rest is behind a paywall. It doesn't look very good anyway.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that would be useful, but I don't have access to that.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no university libraries within reach? The British Library, in London? Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All being well, it would take me 4 and a half hours to reach the British Library. By which time I would have to start making my way back home again!Farrtj (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-library loan? Or what about those nearby university libraries? Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that that resource will be helpful if it just provides a general overview of the company. I already have a great overview of the company. The snippet views available on Google Books do not offer any new information. Farrtj (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations Please fix these in your list of references.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment
Once the above observations are considered I suspect your article will be in range of FA status. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer now. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Hengistbury Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hillbillyholiday talk 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a massive transformation in the last week to make sure the article encompasses and explains the natural, geological and archaeological significance of the site. The article now introduces the reader to a very wide range of curiosities from smoked-out smugglers to purple herons and green hairstreak butterflies, not to mention "double dykes", "doggers" and lithostratigraphy. The new eco-friendly visitor centre is also taken into account. Hillbillyholiday talk 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know we can just view this on WikiMiniAtlas and the other tools, but it would be useful to have an map view of the headland. 149.241.35.153 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded and added an old map from 1759 which gives a rough idea of the layout (and looks sweet) Hillbillyholiday talk 01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Simply not ready for FAC, fails most of the criteria. I didn't evaluate the overall prose quality. However, considerable expansion is needed to meet 1b and 1c. The stubby history and geology sections stand out as visibly incomplete. In part, this is because there don't appear to be any scholarly sources; I'd expect to see some journal publications for an article that includes Upper Paleolithic archaeology and geology of interest. There's a lot of unreferenced text that needs citation ("The Head today" maybe has the longest passages of this, but isn't unique to this issue). Regarding 2a, the lead fails to summarize the article structure, and there's quite a bit of information in the lead (Ancient Monument status, Site of Nature Conservation Interest status, etc.) that isn't mentioned again in the body, including Warren Hill, which appears only in a context-free See Also link list. Criterion 2c is a huge problem; most of the references are bare urls, and I don't think any of them correctly formatted reference entries. I barely looked at what the references actually are, so no opinion about their quality and reliability at this time. And I'm pretty sure the image gallery at the bottom is not really in step with our image use policies, which presents a problem with criterion 3 also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for yr input Squeamish Ossifrage, clearly I was a tad hasty in submitting this article, I'll do what I can to improve it though, (it's tricky to find free scholarly text about the site), I'll remove some of the images too - but I'm a bit unsure when it comes to properly formatting refs. Anyway, I bow to yr great wiki wisdom and withdraw the nomination. Hillbillyholiday talk 10:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal. As per SQ, I am not convinced that this is near FA status. I think the article would benefit from going through GAC, and perhaps peer review, before it is brought here. I'm also wondering whether there are a lot more sources worth citing other than those currently used, which seem to be almost entirely web-based. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Bal maiden

[edit]
Nominator(s):  Mogism (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it says everything about bal maidens (female manual labourers in the mines of south-west Britain) that any general reader could reasonably want to know. A peer review didn't get any responses, but I wasn't really surprised by that as everyone I'm aware of with in interest in the topic had already looked at it by that point. As mentioned at the peer review, this relies very heavily on Lynne Mayers but that's purely because her series is so definitive, it's unlikely anyone will ever write another significant work on the topic. None of this material is disputed or controversial, so there's not an "only giving one point of view" problem. Mogism (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smalljim

[edit]

A great piece of work in a topic that I'm interested in, so I have a few suggestions...

  • Firstly, although I don't have the 2008 edition of Mayers' book, I do have a copy of the Hypatia Trust 1st edition which is A4 sized with 246 pages. The pagination is evidently different, but does Mayers mention any significant changes in the 2nd ed.?
  • The correct term for what the article calls a metal mine or metal mining throughout is metalliferous, as used by Mayers herself.
Lead photo
  • "Bal maidens in traditional protective clothing, 1890" — Are they not wearing their clean white aprons which were exchanged for rough hessian ones for work? There's a similar-looking photo on p.48 of Mayers 1st ed. showing "two Dolcoath balmaidens, wearing their best aprons [...] One has her work apron over her arm".
Mechanisation and the 18th century copper boom
  • "In 1678 Clement Clerke introduced the coal-powered reverberatory furnace, allowing metal to be separated from fine grains of ore which had previously been discarded as waste, greatly increasing the quantity of metal extractable from ore.[35]" — I think this gives the wrong impression both regarding the date and the fate of the "fines" (the older method of smelting tin was the blowing house). Mayers herself seems confused here (at least in the 1st ed.) Since this isn't central to the article, I think something simpler like "The introduction of the coal-powered reverberatory furnace greatly improved the yield" would be better.
Working conditions
  • "Other contemporary observers noted that bal maidens were generally good natured and well behaved,[118] and often devoutly religious,[117] but it is well-documented that bal maidens typically took great pride in their own appearance and clothing.[119]" — should that really be a "but" in there?
Notes
  • Note b. should mention that that first reference is to "ball maidens" [sic]. Out of interest the text (as reported the next day by another newspaper) was apparently as follows:

The disasters which occur from the want of a Breakwater at Padstow prove the expediency of such an erection, by means of which the brig Isabella lately wrecked near that port and her valuable cargo would in all probability have been preserved. The country-people in that neighbourhood have been for some time busily employed in securing articles which belonged to the cargo of this vessel. On Wednesday evening a box of figs was discovered on Saint Miniver Common by a party of females on the look-out for concealed plunder; who were attacked by some ball maidens returning from a mine. After a sharp contest of two hours, victory declared in favour of the ball maidens who bore away the prize.

— Royal Cornwall Gazette, Saturday 6 Feb 1819, page 2. (via British Newspaper Archive)
Not just "rough in speech", eh!
  • Note d. "Streaming was the original means of collecting ore which had eroded from mineral deposits and settled on stream and river beds, by separating the heavy metal from the lighter surrounding mud and gravel." — metal should read ore here, but even with that change this still isn't correct, something like "Streaming involved the collection of ore-bearing pebbles from alluvial deposits in river and stream beds where they had accumulated after being eroded from the ore-bearing lodes." would be more accurate. (That's wrong too - I'll come back on this)

Hope this helps, may have some more later.  —SMALLJIM  18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the preface to the second edition, the most significant changes from the original Hypatia work are "to extend the geographic scope to include Dartmoor and the Teign and Exe valleys; a more extensive use of the 1952 scrapbook compiled by the Troon Women's Institute; use of the "Day and Night Book" of two captains from Dolcoath in 1822-23; a much fuller treatment of 19th century tin streaming; a change to bal maiden rather than balmaiden as a more authentic usage". (Translation for readers unfamiliar with UK geography: 1st ed only covers Cornwall but 2nd ed covers the whole southwest.)
  • I agree, but "metal mine" is repeated so often, for obvious reasons, that I'm reluctant to use the term "metalliferous". I know it's technically the correct term, but there's no risk of "metal mine" misleading readers into thinking a mine was made of metal, as opposed to extracting metals. If people think it's a problem I can change it, obviously.
  • Impossible to say, as the photo isn't high enough quality to tell if the aprons are work aprons that haven't yet got dirty, or clean aprons that they're going to take off as soon as the photographer has finished. I think it would be very confusing to readers to have a long explanation in the caption, since the aprons would have looked the same in either case.
  • Agree and have removed. I think it's worth mentioning the introduction of the furnaces, as it explains why the industry suddenly became efficient enough for large-scale operations to start, but there's no need to go into technical details.
  • I think the "but" is appropriate in the context of "were they spendthrifts who blew all their spare cash on fancy clothes?". In devoutly Methodist 19th century Cornwall, "devoutly religious" and "pride in their own appearance" would have been considered incompatible.
  • Agreed, added.
  • Simplified further to "by collecting ore-bearing pebbles from river and stream beds" - again, readers don't need the technical details.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Mogism (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that, especially the edition differences - looks like I can refer to the first ed. text without too much trouble.
  • Metal mine — well, if the reliable sources use the full term... But I'm happy to see what others think.
  • Aprons — on p.49 of my Meyers it specifically says "The best one ... worn to and from the mine as well as for photographs and special occasions." If not in the caption, a mention of how dirty the hessian aprons got would be useful (we have a brief description from Minnie Andrews, and it's covered in Schwartz's Tin Mines and Miners of Lanner (2001) p. 87 ISBN 1-84114-019-8).
  • Reverb. furnace — the way it's worded leads one to assume that 1678 was the date it was introduced here, which it wasn't: my Mayers only says "at the beginning of the 18th century".
  • Pride in appearance — OK, I see what you're getting at, but to me the phrasing in the text doesn't express that clearly; and is that actually what the sources are implying?
  • Pebbles — no, sorry for the confusion caused by my strike-out. That would have been the very earliest means of collecting ore (before streaming): I'll sleep on this!
 —SMALLJIM  00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, today I've done what I should have done yesterday – I printed out the article and worked through it, pencil in hand. I'm sorry to say that the whole thing ended up covered in adverse comments. Now I'm not an experienced FA reviewer (I didn't even read the instructions about not using semicolon emboldened headings!), nor am I familiar with how the FA criteria are currently being interpreted. I know I can be prone to nitpicking, too, so I think I'd better wait for some other opinions before I consider making further in-depth comment: I don't want to potentially waste your (or my!) time. Using the broad FA criteria, though, I'd say that the section structure is insufficient to support the content – the text often diverges quite widely from the stated section topic. And regarding comprehensiveness, there's no discussion of "clay maidens" or of BMs work in mining for other minerals, to which Mayers (1st ed.) devotes two chapters. I'd like to see, too, more about the disconnect between how the BMs were seen and reported on by (privileged) visitors and the apparent truth revealed by the mine inspections (Mayers' "Myth and Reality" chapter). With apologies,  —SMALLJIM  23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Clay maidens" are an intentional omission. This article is "Bal maiden", not "Female manual labourers", and the only thing a chiuna clay quarry has in common with a metalliferous mine is that both involve a hole in the ground.
  • Regarding other metals, I think anything more than the "bal maidens also worked in lead, zinc, manganese, iron, antimony, wolfram, and uranium mines" which is already in the article would raise WP:UNDUE issues. The 19th century Cornish mining industry was overwhelmingly dominated by tin and copper - to go into detail on arsenic, manganese etc would give these minor industries an undue prominence.
  • I don't grasp what you're asking for as regards "myth and reality", over and above what's already included in the "Working conditions" section. If you're asking for an "in popular culture" section, I'd vehemently oppose that. Mogism (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bal_maidens_at_Dolcoath,_1890_(full_length).jpg/File:Miners_and_bal_maidens_at_Dolcoath,_1890.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:SpallingLge_cropped.jpg: what was the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get back to you on that one - it's widely used so might take a while to work out where it first appeared. If necessary I can certainly make a fair-use justification for this one.
  • Not certain; the user who uploaded this hasn't edited since 2008. (It was uploaded as part of the original version of this article which was cut-and-pasted with permission from a website; this OTRS ticket refers, but because I don't have OTRS I can't confirm if that relates to the images or just the text.) As James Henderson is such a common name among engineers it's hard to confirm which was the one who wrote and illustrated this paper. It certainly appeared in the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1858 so will definitely be PD in the USA, and even if he had been a child prodigy who was publishing long papers in technical journals in his teens, he would have had to have lived well into triple figures for this still to be in copyright in the UK. Mogism (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • With no activity here for about a month, this nomination unfortunately seems to have well and truly stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. If others have indeed expressed an interest in it, you may wish to leave them neutrally worded notes before you renominate for FAC at a later date.
  • As a bit of housekeeping, there are Harv errors appearing under Further reading -- since there shouldn't be citations pointing to these entries anyway, a simple way to eliminate the errors is to use the Cite Book template instead of Citation. N.B. You can use this script to check for such errors in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra

[edit]
Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Priyanka Chopra is a popular and award winning Bollywood actress/dancer and former Miss World, who is now attempting to break into the American/International music scene as a singer. In the last 4 months this article was promoted to GA, received a copy edit from the GOCE, had a peer review, and a thorough source scrubbing. I think it meets the FA criteria now. BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to kickstart this review. The problem is, in the six days since the nomination there have been 60+ edits to the article – before any review comments have been made. This raises the question of whether the article was really ready for FAC when it was nominated; I notice some uncertainty on this point in the peer review discussion. Maybe the main editors can agree not to tinker for a while and let the reviewers get busy on a stable text – it is difficult to review a moving target! For the time being I'll just raise a few minor issues:

  • Why it is necessary to triple-cite in the opening lead paragraph the fact that Priyanka is a leading contemporary actress? Generally, except in the case of direct quotes, citations are unnecessary in the lead since the information should be evidenced and cited in the main text.
  • I notice in the main text a couple of paragraphs (both in the "Early success" section) which end with uncited statements.
  • Long inline lists (see "Endoesements") should be avoided; give two or three examples.
  • Some italics usage is contrary to MOS, e.g. Ahlan Bollywood Concert

These are pretty trivial points. Overall the article looks solid and comprehensive. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead sources and MOS. Un-sourced statements were just to highlight some film special appearances. Is a source really needed? They are in the filmography table also, and can be verified in the film articles. Or does it just look bad that the paragraph ends without a source? I am still deciding which of the 20 or so endorsements are the most important to show (was trying to be comprehensive). BollyJeff | talk 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the other two points as well. BollyJeff | talk 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my specific concerns, which seem to have been adequately addressed. My original purpose (as stated) was to get the review going, and that seems to have worked. Unfortunately it is most unlikely I will find the time to go through this rather long article and give it a full review. I appreciate the effort that's gone into it, and wish it success. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding sources - At Bollyjeff's request, in early December I performed a quite ruthless audit of the references for accuracy and reliability. I did find many non-reliable sources at that time, but they were improved almost immediately and with nary a quibble. Obviously the article is very active and has changed a great deal since December, though, so another source review is needed; I will try to do so soon. In the meantime I concur with Brian: please let's try to let the article rest a bit during FAC, aside from reverting vandalism and making changes agreed on during the FAC itself, so that reviewers are commenting on more or less the same version of the article. Maralia (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do concur with the sentiments expressed by both Brian and Maralia. I had raised this concern at the PR itself. I would say give it one last brush and then stop with the vigorous content changing and sourcing. Especially User:Pks1142's edits which creat more problems. Let the reviewers critic on a stable version of the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check your eyes User:IndianBio. My edits were linked to providing more notable sources. Bollyjeff told me to do so. Please, No one here is interested in your comments. You haven't even contributed to the article. So don't point your fingers to me. Read the discussion first and then, comment.Prashant  ✉  06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the personal attacks, try to understand the points regarding the numerous edits. You might decide for these major edits as beneficial, but ultimately this leads to the article kosing its stability. That is the point everyone is trying to make. And many a times I have seen Bollyjeff having to revert your edit because of this. As I had pointed out in the Peer review, stability is pretty important. Anyhow, continue editing then and fall to deaf ears like you are. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
further comments from Maralia- I have reviewed the sources again, and I am satisfied that meet WP:RS. I did find some other quibbles, though:
  • Appropriate context is necessary: remember the international audience, and consider that the international aspects of Chopra's career make assumption difficult. Here are a few examples where context is crucial to understanding:
    • "Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, which was a major commercial success with worldwide gross earnings of over 56 crore (US$10.19 million), and was the third-highest grossing film of the year." - the clarification needed here is that this was the third-highest grossing film of the year in India. It is particularly necessary to explicitly state this as the early part of the sentence (worldwide gross earnings) would lead to a wrong conclusion. There is at least one other case of similar phrasing within the article that needs clarification.
    • "A survey conducted by AdEx India declared her as the queen of brand endorsements" - in India.
    • The bit we have about her song—"The song was a commercial success, selling more than 130,000 copies in the first week after its release, and was certified triple platinum in India"—implies that it saw success across the board but particularly in India. A check of the source indicates that it sold 130,000 copies in the first week in India, and "had been [slow] to catch on" in the US. This needs more careful phrasing. Further, the portion "was certified triple platinum in India" is cited to an interview in which this assertion is only made by Chopra herself, as a direct quotation; a reliable independent source is needed here.
  • "the song was released to iTunes Store" - the iTunes Store, please.
  • "In 2007, Chopra judged the Miss India pageant" - this rather implies it was a one-[wo]man job; can we say she was a judge of, or one of x judges?
  • Can we have DesiHits either consistently with or consistently without the exclamation mark?
  • "Chopra has often featured on Rediff.com's annual listing of "Bollywood's Best Actress" - surely this is Bollywood's Best Actresses?
  • A quoted phrase (as opposed to a quoted sentence) should not include ending punctuation inside; please fix "shows no promise." so that the full stop is outside the quote.
  • The second paragraph of the Philanthropy section tends toward the hagiographic and needs work. Referring to Chopra as "The star" is not exactly encyclopedic. Further, mentioning that she has supported a zoo by adopting animals would be reasonable—giving the names of said animals and providing the precise amount she donated is entirely trivial.
  • Is there no more recent source for the Endorsements statement ("Chopra has a number of endorsements and in this respect she is one of the highest paid Bollywood actresses"), which is cited to a source fully two years old?
I believe that these points are all now addressed. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a few more source spotchecks done by a reviewer, to ensure that sources are being properly represented (see my comment above about the song, and my earlier review on the article talk page). Altogether this is in pretty good shape. Maralia (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. I'm going to give the article another read-through. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through the Column writing section, and will try to read the rest within a couple of days.

  • "She earned critical appraisal for her portrayal of a seductress...". I'm pretty sure that "appraisal" is meant to be "praise", but I don't know how they term it in India. Seems odd to me, though.
  • Debut and breakthrough: "and a nomination for Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award." Needs "the" before the award name.
  • Similar tweak is needed at the end of this subsection.
  • Critical acclaim: "for which she was being considered for inclusion in the Guinness World Records book for being the first film actress...". I never like to see a prose redundancy like "being" is here, especially when the first one isn't needed and can be removed without doing anything else.
  • "and" is needed before "performing at live shows including the Miss India pageant".
  • General comment: There are a lot of paragraphs that start with "Chopra" or "In xxxx". Some more variety would be nice for the sake of the prose.
  • Recent work: If "box-office" has a hyphen elsewhere, it should in the second paragraph here as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most of the points.Prashant  ✉  03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the rest. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philanthropy: "She also appeared at the launch a of campaign...". "a" and "of" need to be reversed.
  • Public image and personal life: "Chopra was featured on Verve list of most powerful women in 2009 and 2010." "Verve" → "Verve's"?
  • ""is talking about my personal life." and said...". Can't have a period followed like this. For the sake of the sentence, you might consider adjusting the punctuation in the quote; we are allowed to make reasonable style changes like this.
  • All caps in refs 74 and 84 need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk 12:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Just a few initial comments for now; more to come! While I was reading the article, I noticed that there were several prose issues. I'll take a stab at it and see what I can do!

These first two items are done. Checklinks now runs spotless. BollyJeff | talk 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Early life and pageantry" section, it states that Chopra began receiving film offers after she was crowned Miss World. However, in the following section, it goes on to say that she "started getting film offers right after Miss India and before Miss World". This confusion needs to be cleared up! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This has been fixed. BollyJeff | talk 02:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I found the article's fragmentary writing style (She did this ... she did that ... she did the other ...) rather difficult to read. One example of what I'm talking about: "Her personal website, iampriyankachopra.com, was opened in August 2010. Chopra lives with her family and Brando, her dog. Chopra has a tattoo on her wrist that reads "Daddy's lil girl", referring to her loving relationship with her father." Added to which there seems little effort to gather related information together. For instance, that piece of trivia about her tattoo really belongs with the rest of the material on her relationship with her family members. Sorry. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. These were my exact comments (She did this ... she did that) to the copy editor from the WP:GOCE who worked on this at the time; see. The article was a more flowery read prior, but I deferred to their judgement. Seems like you can't please everyone. I will try to address your specific comments as best I can. BollyJeff | talk 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that, but it is indeed interesting that you had the same impression as I did; I'm not sure that the GOCE copyeditor really did you any favours. What's really needed is to get some coherent flow back into the text. I can't make any promises, but I make take a look at one or two of the sections later to see what can be done. I can see that Priyanka Chopra is a significant figure in Indian cinema, and it pains me to have to oppose at this time, but I really can't see how this meets the "engaging, even professional prose" requirement as it stands. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After our edits to the Public image and personal life section, I have gone back over several other sections to try and make it a more engaging read. BollyJeff | talk 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, myself and a couple other editors have now gone through the whole article again to give it a better flow. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - Indeed the article has improved since the nomination, but the prose is still not to the required FA standard. It needs more work, preferably from an uninvolved editor who can bring some strategic distance. This is best done away from the pressure of FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Zaian War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article on and off for the past two and a bit years. I feel it is now as complete as I can make it and a potential FA. It recently passed a MilHist A-class review and was peer-reviewed prior to that. It has been almost four years since my last FAC so I might be a little rusty on the guidelines! I tend to be quite busy during the week but will catch up on any comments here at the weekends. Many thanks, I hope you enjoy reading the article - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, after some tweaks. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • File:General_Lyautey-Pirou-img_3150.jpg: page number? Any idea of date photo was taken?
I didn't upload so I don't know what page number it came from. I have taken a look at the photo and dated it to 1908-9 as Lyautey is wearing the insignia of a grand officier of the Legion of Honour (which he was awarded in 1908) and the photographer died in 1909 - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:030Arab.jpg: source link appears dead. When/where was this first published?
I was not the uploader so cannot be sure. I have been troubled by this image for some time, not knowing the date or place of publication/creation and the multiple licenses makes it hard to defend as definitely PD. As it is only tangential to the article I have removed it - Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN86: page?
Not sure, the Google Books preview does not provide page numbers and I do not own a physical copy of this book - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See his bio here. He is a doctor of history and an associate professor at Santa Clara University with peer reviewed publications and a couple of history books to his name - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Camouflage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article now represents a helpful overview of a large topic of wide interest. The 'Camouflage' navbox shows that this article sits in a tree of articles, of which Military camouflage and Operation Bertram are also good articles, and others such as Countershading and Ship camouflage are now covered in detail. The function of the 'Camouflage' article itself is thus to provide a concise summary and overview of the whole topic. For this reason it covers a wide range of mechanisms, many with subsidiary articles, and both animal and military camouflage. Where mechanisms may be hard to grasp, they are explained graphically in specially drawn diagrams, such as for 'Eliminating shadow', 'Motion camouflage', and 'Counterillumination'. Since the article is referenced for general interest, it summarizes the historical development of camouflage. It does this both by calling out articles on pioneering books such as those of Abbott Thayer and Hugh Cott, and by summarizing the history of military camouflage. Finally, it provides a wide but carefully chosen set of images, nearly all from Commons, illustrating each aspect of this especially visual topic. It has been found necessary to group the images in galleries to keep them conveniently close to the sections that they illustrate. The bibliography is grouped for easy access by readers with different interests. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grandiose

  • I don't understand the need for the rather unusual approach taken to images in the article, particularly in the "History" section (since I can't see a reason to depart from regular principles there). Why so many images? We don't have to have pictures of all these people, and it breaks up the flow in my opinion.

--- all people images removed; other images have been culled.

: Thank you, this does need explaining. The topic is about hiding from view, often in plain sight, so it is necessarily and essentially visual. Accordingly each aspect and mechanism of camouflage is illustrated to show what is done and why. I don't have any special attachment to galleries, so if anyone knows a better way to present the images I'm happy to go with it.

In the History section, your point has more force, I agree. I felt it would be helpful to readers actually to see who did what, to put a face and name to each topic, such as Thayer and countershading. We could remove the people, but that would take away from the history the people who made it happen. Of course that could become a subsidiary article, 'History of camouflage' if you prefer. I've removed the portraits from History.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image has a non-free usage rationale. Mare was French. If the image, or rather the notebook of which it forms part, counts as having been published then its pre-1923 date means it is public domain and it can be moved to Commons. Since it was unclear to me I treated it as non-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have made a mistake in your understanding somewhere. The file does not have a fair use rationale. It merely is somewhat unclear. It can stay on en.wiki if it is correctly licensed for the US, which it is. It should not be moved to Commons without a French rationale and, for FA purposes, this should be clearly indicated so the reader of the file description is not in doubt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry, the description has been updated recently, by bot and human, so my NFUR is now only in the history. I have put a comment on the image description page as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question how many non-free images are used in the article?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 right now. If we remove 3 portraits, 65. 21 could go to Commons (Yehudi lights by US military; Dazzle Ball, 1919), leaving 43. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hchc2009:

  • I'd oppose on the basis of the sheer number of images; in one case, as many as six images for a single paragraph section. The result detracts from the underlying article, which I generally enjoyed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have reduced the no. of images per row, max 5. Have culled images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks very busy indeed on my screen, but that may just be the size of the monitor etc. I'm withdrawing my opposition, but I can't move to a support position because of that. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment — There are too many images. This one in particular is purely decorative. File:Aline Campos 1c.jpg. I cannot see this candidate succeeding without a radical cull. A few carefully chosen images should be enough to illustrate the facts. Graham Colm (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the guidance. Images culled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can the publication dates of books be placed after the books' names in parentheses? For example "the 1909 book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom" → "the book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom (1909)" --- done
  • "He showed by experiment that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds they were reared on as larvae (caterpillars)." → "He showed, by experiment, that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds on which they were reared as larvae (caterpillars)." --- done
  • "British army" → "British Army" --- done
  • "calves die before their first birthday." → "calves die within a year." --- done
  • "influenced Fashion from the time of the first world war onwards." → "influenced fashion for the time from the First World War onwards."
  • "In 1919, Chelsea Arts Club held a "Dazzle Ball". Those attending wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." Why is "Dazzle Ball" in caps? I suggest "In 1919, the attendants of a "dazzle ball", hosted by the Chelsea Arts Club, wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." --- done
  • "Illustrated London News" Italicise. --- done
  • "1885-1932" and "first world war" MOS. --- done
  • "His 1973 screenprint of a leafily-camouflaged tank, Arcadia, 1973" Repetition of 1973. --- done
  • "In the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, military clothing was often worn by anti-war protestors as a symbol of political protest" → "During the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, anti-war protestors often wore military clothing during demonstrations against the American involvement in the Vietnam War." 1) Am I right in assuming that the protesters were against the Vietnam War, or were they demonstrating against wars in general? 2) I don't understand how camouflage clothing was used as a symbol of political protest, wouldn't it make sense to not wear camouflage, since they were anti-war? --- done. Clarified with "ironically".
  • "plastic branches (see illustration)" What illustration? --- done

---Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) --- done, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments Oppose. This article suffers from problems both at the organizational level and the prose level. The article has significantly improved since the start of the FAC. My resolved comments have been moved to the FAC talk page to reduce clutter. There may be issues that I have missed, so I encourage other reviewers to apply a critical eye to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "patterns such as "Berlin camouflage" are sometimes painted on vehicles intended for urban use" - source? --- removed
  • FN1: publisher, access date? --- done
  • FN2: page formatting --- done
  • Bibliography needs cleaning up. Don't mix cited and uncited sources. --- split off 'Further reading' section
  • FN6: publisher? Several sources seem to be missing this
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books --- done
  • FN6: for direct quotes page numbers are essential --- done
  • FN7: page(s)?
  • FN8: formatting
  • FN9: page formatting --- done
  • FN10, 11: publisher?
  • FN12: italics, missing page number
  • Use a consistent page formatting --- done
  • Be consistent in what order information is presented in citations.

Give up and oppose - sorry, but the citations are just too messy for me to keep reviewing them at this point. Please make them consistent and include required information. Also, on a quick look I'm seeing WP:MOS errors in the article text, so that should be something else you look at for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues so far detected have been done.
page refs formatted
bibliography restructured
other ref issues being addressed by reviewer.
Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: okay, I've fixed all issues with citations and MOS that I could find, and have also done some copy-editing of the prose and fixed a few images. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "camouflet, a French term meaning blow smoke in someone's face.": It means "affront" these days, and I'm pretty sure it would have to be a noun no matter how far back you go (and thus couldn't mean "blow smoke"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Indeed it's plainly a noun. Reworded as 'Smoke blown...' We did have 'as a practical joke' in there at one point, which goes with the 'affront'.

  • "Camouflage is a set of methods": Avoid non-falsifiable statements. (How would it not be a set?). I'd go with: any method.

--- reworded as 'the concealment ... by any method...'

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern I'm seeing some rather fundamental problems with organization and POV of the article. The current texts seems to be quite too heavily dominated by military camouflage. For example, far more than half of the illustrations are of soldiers and military equipment. And this is rather difficult to understand, since there is a perfectly fine stand-alone sub-article for military camouflage. This is most obvious by sections like "Dazzle painting" (obvious military application, but sorted independently), "Fashion, art and society" (inspiration by military) and "Non-military camouflage" (the dead giveaway). Peter Isotalo 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Thank you. This is an artefact of this FAC, which has removed a large number of animal images; the article was predominantly zoological, balanced by a mil summary (after all, the term camouflage comes from World War I), with no POV to mil. Similarly the title 'non-military...' is of FAC vintage, have replaced it with 'Civil applications'. 'Dazzle' too covers both Zebra and Dazzle ship, not a mil section; retitling to 'Distraction'. Have replaced ship image with zebra, snow overalls with ptarmigan. On the organization question, please see discussion above, which is ongoing I believe this has now been satisfactorily addressed.

--- Other images and balance: please see "Reorganisation" above

--- Comments by DexDor on Camouflage's talk page. DexDor reports that for technical reasons and the length of this FAC he has had to comment on the Talk page instead. I have responded to his comments there.

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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Greed (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into the article from several editors who all deserve credit for it. I think it is currently in great shape and would be an interesting choice as a Featured Article. I'm willing to work on the page if requested, but may need a little time to re-order my sources from the local library. Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have it shorter by this weekend. Also, you should read the rest at this point. The irony of all this is funny.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its shorter now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck out my potential oppose which was solely based on the length of the plot section. It is shorter now, although may not strictly follow the guideline, but that is not a major problem perhaps. The lead is fascinating. I have not read the rest of the article yet. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More on plot: Do we really need the first paragraph (how McTeague's mother pleads Potter the dentist etc)? This seems not to be related to the actual plot/theme of the film. Cannot we begin with something like, "McTeague is a dentist in San Francisco..."
    It could go, but I'd rather not cut it. In the original cut these scenes took up the first hour of the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket from Maria." Who is Maria?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read that post in the talk page. I agree that it can be left as "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket." Maria, when she is mentioned in the subplot, has a proper introduction (including the fact that she sold the lottery ticket to Trina). And before that subplot, Maria is not mentioned in the plot anymore. So, this sounds good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague can be traced back to January 1920..." What is McTeague. You have not mentioned it is a book. (Yes, you did mention that in the lead, but not in the body of the article yet).
  • This might be fixed simply by changing it from "Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague" to "Von Stroheim's interest in the novel McTeague", but if the body of the article must stand alone from the lead completely, then it needs to be recast by mentioning the novel first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; and the sentence "McTeague was first published in 1899 and was inspired by an October 1893 murder case in which a poor husband with a history of beating his wife finally stole her money and stabbed her to death at her workplace in San Francisco" should be moved from Theme to the beginning of "Background" section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says the film is based on the novel McTeague, but that is not mentioned in the body of the article.
  • "He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s". Why is it important to know that he lived in San Francisco?
    As von Stroheim is so central to the entire tale, I think it's useful to have this small added element of biographical info. It certainly was for me, reading it for the first time as someone who had neither heard of the film nor heard of von Stroheim. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, every source on the film mentions some aspect of this part of von Stroheim's life.
  • , in that case the article should mention why staying in San Francisco was important in his life/career/this film. Did he do something while in SF that led to this film making? I mean, you mention he lived in SF in the initial period, so perhaps he moved somewhere else after that. Why is that not important, too? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Background and writing" in this version has three sentences which seem completely disconnected in their content or theme. Why are these three sentences come in this way?
  • In this version, the first two sentences (Greed is based upon American author Frank Norris's 1899 novel McTeague. Von Stroheim's interest in McTeague can be traced back to January 1920 when he told a journalist that he wanted to film the novel) are fine and flows nice. However, the nest two sentences (He had previously lived in San Francisco shortly after moving to the US in the early 1910s.[6] His firing by Universal's Irving Thalberg on October 6, 1922 while working on Merry-Go-Round was an unprecedented event in Hollywood, bringing in a new era in which the producer and the studio had power over artists and directors) how are they connected to the previous two sentences. A connection should be there. IMO, if the importance of San Francisco (as discussed above in a point) is established, the staying in SF sentence would become ok. But a context/background of the firing would be needed for un-halted reading of this paragraph. Otherwise, the last two sentences appear as two disjointed ideas forcefully placed in that paragraph.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His firing by Thalberg..." Who is Thalberg?
  • "Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality. He will have the co-operation of the department heads of the Culver City studio, but each unit will be separate unto itself." This whole long quote seems completely unnecessary in an article about this film.
  • Suggest cutting it to 'Goldwyn had been run by Abe Lehr since March 1922 and Lehr had publicly promised that "each director will have his own staff and will be given every facility in putting into production his own individuality and personality"' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...have reformed - or surrendered - for it is..." Endash with space, or, emdash.
  • "Before shooting began, von Stroheim told a reporter, "it is possible to tell a great story in motion pictures in such a way that the spectator forgets he is looking at beauteous Gertie Gefelta the producer's pet and discovers himself intensely interested, just as if he were looking out of a window at life itself. He will come to believe that what he is gazing at is real — a cameraman was present in the household and nobody knew it. They went on in their daily life with their joys, fun and tragedies and the camera stole it all, holding it up afterward for all to see" Again, a big quote. Please explicitly establish its connection with the film, or remove/summarize.
  • You dont necessarily need to summarize, but establish the connection. Indeed you have established the connection while replying here. That it reflects his belief as a filmmaker. So, perhaps you can add that bit, that it was his principle/idea of film-making.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also attended society functions in town..." How is this important to the film article?
  • Then you should mention that he was researching the social scenario. It is not unusual that a director would attend social functions etc, and that probably does not need mention. But if he was doing that to do pre-production research, definitely that should be mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he even rented the buildings from the novel's real-life inspirations for the film...". Means there were real people on whom the novel was based?
  • Giving the present-day equivalent of the amount of 5000 dollars would be helpful for the readers.
^Please provide a source how you converted the 5,000 dollars to present-day equivalent.
I can't find a web source that creates a unique url for the calculation. Could I just add a link to the inflation calculator?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Demiurge1000, thanks for taking care of some of these and sorry for not following through on the Maria concern. I will be able to work on this either a little bit every day or all at once on Friday. But most of these concerns should be easy to address so it shouldn't take long....once I find the time and catch up on sleep.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the capacity to judge the article against criterion 1a, as I do not use a professional level English. However, for an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. Nice work, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

God of War (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article with permission from Graham Colm as given here. In the last nomination (also check the Talk page as some comments were moved there), the article received 3 supports and 1 oppose. The opposition was based on prose of the article (as that reviewer is not a "gamer" and some language she did not understand). In her last comment, she said the article was close. I'm hoping that the work that has been done since that comment has appeased her last comment (the nomination was closed before she could respond and she hasn't responded to a request to post on the article's Talk page). JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

[edit]
  • Support with one observation. The lede contains the sentence "As of June 2012, the game has sold more than 4.6 million copies worldwide." I assume this is physical copies? If so the date part is unlikely to change given the PS2 is no longer made, so it seems like you are making extra work for yourself by adding a dated statement that needs to be maintained for something that may never change. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! It is true that the PS2 copy will never be made again. The date is because that's when Sony released the most up-to-date data for its sales (and the other games in the series). --JDC808 ♫ 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. --JDC808 ♫ 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (problem image replaced and fair-use improved)Fair-use rationale of second image needs some work, but not unsolvable (infobox ok).

File:GOW_Gameplay_Kratos_vs_Hydra.jpg - has "To show an example of the game in play." as purpose. WP:NFCC #8 requires an image to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". A mere example image without additional context does not significantly increase readers' understanding. Some suggestions to improve the situation:

  • If the graphics are especially noteworthy (new graphic engine, special graphic style, ...?), note that in the rationale and caption.
  • Use another image instead with more specific features (f.e. the article discusses the QTE feature, which could use some visual help to grasp the concept. Or maybe the Rage function, if you can get a good shot of it.). The current image basically just shows the hero and a monster, the reader doesn't need the image to understand that.
  • Flesh out the caption a bit and point out specific, interesting details of the image.

The videogame template's proposed rationales are too generic and probably only meant as first pointers. WP:NFCC clearly asks for specific, detailed rationales, so you need to adapt and expand them for your current usage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image with one that was being used on the series page and fleshed out the caption. --JDC808 ♫ 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new image is a better choice for fair-use. Tweaked the rationale (you need a second, separate one for each article) and caption a bit more. All OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending the image rationale fixes requested by GermanJoe. I copy edited a few bits just now, and my comments in the previous FAC resolved a few source issues in the development section. I also checked sources in the release and awards sections in that FAC, for a total of 16 sources checked. I just checked the three sources in the soundtrack section, and those all looked fine as well. —Torchiest talkedits 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. --JDC808 ♫ 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. --JDC808 ♫ 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

We still have the acronym issue I mentioned in the last FAC:

  • So, presumably SCE is Sony Computer Entertainment, but that is never stated. Then we have SCEI in an infobox. And we have SCEA. So why don't we define SCE? How about the first sentence as something like this?
  • That would make it clear that all of the "SCE"s in the article refer to Sony Computer Entertainment.
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the second para of the lead. Without reading the article, I can't tell who the "who is responsible" refers to. Is Ares responsible for Kratos murdering his family? Without reading the article, that confuses. After reading the article, I understand, but many people will read only the lead. The sentence needs more clarity.

  • Kratos is tasked by the goddess Athena with killing Ares, the God of War, who is responsible for Kratos' accidental murder of his family.
I'm a bit stumped on this one because I don't know how it's not clear, since "who is responsible" falls right after "Ares, the God of War." Would it help if "the God of War" came before "Ares"? --JDC808 ♫ 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest just did a copy/edit to the sentence. It now reads "The goddess Athena tasks Kratos with killing Ares, the eponymous God of War, who is responsible for Kratos' accidental murder of his family." --JDC808 ♫ 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That helps ... it's just confusing because someone made someone else accidentally kill his family ... not intuitive. Anyway, that's better I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to oppose this time because these video game articles are just too frustrating; I wish an independent, non-gamer would routinely copyedit them, but I don't have time to go through them line-by-line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neil916

[edit]

Oppose on prose and comprehensiveness issues. The article is obviously and naturally written by editors who are intimately familiar with the game. As someone who has never seen the game, however, I as the reader seeking information about the subject am left with many more questions than answers from the article, in particular with the description of the game's plot and interface. The article could be organized better and expanded further. A smattering of examples follows, this list is not comprehensive and it is my opinion that the article needs more work than can be accomplished within the timeframe of a FAC. Neil916 (Talk) 08:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • Consider the lead to be a bird's eye view of the subject matter, such as if I click on a wikilink to this article just to find out what the heck God of War (video game) is. I'll glance at the lead section to get an overview, and click back once I know. Or, I'll get sucked into the article and abandon the first one. Whatever. But the lead section should be very concise and should convey the most relevant information in as short a time as possible. The first paragraph contains information about other games in the series including a prequel in development, before telling the reader anything about the game itself.
Okay, switched around. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph presents as a wall of blue text, with terms like "gameplay", "game controller", "special powers" and "puzzles" wikilinked. It is overlinked in my opinion.
Delinked some. They were linked so that a non-gamer would understand what those terms meant, or what they were referring to. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "eponymous" was used twice in the first two paragraphs of the article. I didn't know what it meant, so I had to look it up. The definition I got was "giving one's name to a tribe, place, etc.: Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome.". I don't understand the use of the word to describe Ares as the eponymous God of War. Perhaps the fancy words could be abandoned in favor of phrases that are easier for the reader to understand (and for the writers to use in the correct context?)
The definition of how it's used is "of, relating to, or being the person or thing for whom or which something is named : of, relating to, or being an eponym."
  • Ares was responsible for Kratos' accidental murder of his family? What does that mean? Back to the dictionary. Murder is "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person." How does one accidentally murder someone?
This is explained in the Plot section. The main character, Kratos, attacked a village and Ares secretly transported his family to its temple. Kratos went on a rampage and blindly killed all in the temple and when the carnage was over, he realized he had killed his family. Ares purposely put them there for that to happen. Kratos did not intend to murder them, that why it says accidental. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest has replaced "murder" with "killing" (..."who is responsible for Kratos' accidental killing of his family.") --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Ares ravages Athens,..." If that fact is important enough to mention in the lead, you should also give a hint of why Ares is ravaging Athens. The only other hint about this in the rest of the article is a brief mention when describing the various battlefields of the game.
Clarified.
  • "Chronologically, God of War is the third chapter in the series, which focuses on vengeance as its central theme.". This is out of place in the second paragraph of the lead, the rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with the chronology of the series.
Moved.
It was moved, but then replaced with two sentences about the series and the chronology series, and I don't see how they belong in a paragraph where the first three sentences are about gameplay. The information is important, and I don't think it belongs in the first or third paragraph, either, See my comments below under the second read-through. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were put together to avoid two small paragraphs. Addressed further in later comments. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the lead is actually quite good and paints a picture of why the game is relevant in the gaming community.
  • Gameplay
  • Before even telling the reader what the game is about, the article launches into a detailed description of the weapons, and treasures that can be found in the game. I think some background is needed before diving into such detail. Probably reorganize so the "synopsis" section is above this one.
This organization is a very common layout for most video game articles (I've only seen maybe one or two that haven't used this) and this is the organization that's been laid out by the WP:VG project. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest has rearranged the sections. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reads much better now. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player guides Kratos through different environments composing of a series of missions to achieve specific goals". Clunky reading. What kind of mission doesn't have a goal? Composing of a series of missions?
Reword and added enemies to accommodate a later issue. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kratos' main weapons are the Blades of Chaos: a pair of blades attached to chains wrapped around Kratos' wrists that can be swung around to attack enemies, similar to a kusarigama." I think "weapons" should be singular, since you refer to is as A pair of blades. In any event, it reads poorly.
Do you have a suggestion of how to reword it so that it does not read poorly? --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know this sentence has been tweaked a couple of times, but it now reads, "Kratos's main weapon is the Blades of Chaos: a pair of blades attached to chains that are wrapped around Kratos's wrists and can be swung around to attack enemies." The "and can be swung around" throws me. How about just breaking it into two, like "Kratos's main weapon is the Blades of Chaos: a pair of blades attached to chains that are wrapped around Kratos's wrists. The blades can be swung around to attack enemies." or something similar? Neil916 (Talk) 11:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The facts though are incorrect, or at the least they are misleading. The chains are not "wrapped around his wrists" they are permanently seared into his forearms. I suggest changing to "Kratos's main weapon is The Blades of Chaos: a pair of blades attached to chains that are seared into the flesh of his forearms. The blades can be swung around to attack enemies." (Having difficulty finding non-wikia sources, but this fact is mentioned in the game itself. I hope this source may suffice: http://www.swordsofmight.com/god-of-war-blades-of-chaos-replica.aspx)
They are still technically wrapped around his wrists. The plot section states that they were bonded to him by Ares. Plus, "wrapped around his wrists" is probably much easier to visualize than "seared into the flesh of his forearms." If it helps, "wrists" could be changed to "forearms." --JDC808 ♫ 21:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of this article continues describing various weapons without attaching much significance to them. Why would I, as the player, want to throw lightning bolts, or breathe underwater? What's a rage meter and how does it get full? Oh, I'll find out later in the article about the rage meter, but not really if the rage meter has any function aside from that one spell.
Did some work. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Some cleanup/copyediting still needs to be done. I'll help with that later. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Kratos can learn to use up to four magical abilities, such as Zeus' Fury that allows him to throw lightning bolts, giving him a variety of ways to attack and kill enemies." I kind of assumed that throwing lightning bolts was so the player could attack enemies, but why would I want to throw a lighting bolt instead of just whacking the monster with my Blades of Chaos? Do they have better range? Stronger hits? Greater chances of a knockout? Better/gorier graphics and sound effects? Faster attacks? That's what I was looking for. Same with the Blade of Artemis. It's a different weapon, but does it have some advantages in certain situations over the Blades of Chaos? Are both weapons armed at the same time? I'm kind of curious how Kratos is able to wield a sword when he has chains welded to his wrists, but I don't think that matters in the article. Neil916 (Talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added "for better range" with the lightning bolt and put the Artemis blade is separate and gave an example. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's magic used for in the game? I see if I find a blue orb, I can replenish it, but why would I want to?
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, the player can find Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers in plain, neutrally colored chests" as opposed to what color chests? Does the color of a chest show what color orb is in it? If so, describe in more detail.
The orb containing chests. Yes. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Eyes and Feathers incrementally increases the health and magic meters, respectively," do you mean increasing the maximum value of the health and magic values, or replenish them? I think the first, but I can't tell.
The second half of that sentence (unquoted here) answered this, but have clarified. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Combat includes a quick time event (QTE) feature, also called context sensitive attacks, that is initiated when the player has weakened a strong foe." What foes? The article to this point forgot to mention who the player is fighing, other than a mention of Ares dying at the end. And a Cyclops.
Fixed as noted above.
  • "Similar in function to the QTE feature, the game includes a quick time sex mini-game in the form of an encounter with female twins, which has become a regular feature throughout the series." This seems odd to mention in a paragraph that appears to be about combat. Is this sex game a prominent part of the plot of the game? An easter egg?
It starts out describing a feature of the combat, which is the QTE feature. The sex mini-game is played exactly the same way as the QTE feature, except there is no damage caused to the character if you fail. In comparison of being a prominent part of the plot, this would fall more to being an easter egg, but it's not a hidden feature, it's a blatantly obvious feature that has become a regular feature in this series, as stated. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player may unlock bonus costumes, behind-the-scenes videos, and art galleries as rewards." What are bonus costumes and art galleries and why would a character engaged in combat in Ancient Greece want to own an art gallery?
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting
  • "With the exception of flashbacks, the game's events are set between Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta." What does this mean?
It means exactly what it says. Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta are two other games in the series. The game this article is about is set between them. I'll clarify that it's set between the games. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section makes a list of six battle settings, then proceeds to go into further detail about each of them in a different order than it was first introduced. In what order do these various settings appear during gameplay? It is important that three sirens roam the Desert of the Lost Souls? Does the player have to kill them and is that hard to do? Same with Cronos. Friend or foe?
The gameplay order starts in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is saying that there are four main locations and the other two aren't as prominent. Fixed sirens. All Cronos does is crawl with the temple on his back.
First paragraph now also shows gameplay order. --JDC808 ♫ 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters
  • What is a supporting role? They appear in cinematic sequences? They help the player fight? They fight against the player? The article identifies the characters without making it clear what role they play in the game.
Fixed.
  • Plot
  • Many of my questions about context are revealed in this section, more than halfway through the article. I think it should come much earlier in the article.
  • More nitpicks about wording and prose in this section, but it's not nearly as confusing and disjointed as the earlier sections.

... and more. I could go on but I'm out of energy. Overall, I think this article still needs some considerable reorganization, and rewriting, possibly by an editor familiar with gaming, but not with this game in particular. Neil916 (Talk) 08:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the grounds for opposition on comprehensiveness are, as far as I can see it contains all the available information about the game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comments, I pointed out several instances of information that was missing and/or unclear. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through, this revision

  • Lead
  • "Highly regarded for its gameplay, God of War focuses on combo-based combat and quick time events that require the successful completion of game controller actions in timed sequences." Lose the "Highly regarded for its gameplay" part, since the article adequately addressed that point in the third paragraph of the lead and it reads awkwardly. When the article says that the quick time events that require the successful completion game controller actions, I think it means that a successful completion of a particular QTE requires a successful execution of a timed sequence, but it might also mean that certain QTE sequences are required to be completed successfully in order to complete the game. That should be clearer to the reader.
Removed "Highly regarded for its gameplay." I believe I've cleared up the QTE part. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "God of War is the first installment in the series of the same name, for which it is the third chronologically, and includes four sequels and a prequel as of 2012. A second prequel is in development." I still have some problems with these two sentences. First, I think they're far off topic in a paragraph where the other three sentences discuss elements of the game's gameplay. Second, I don't quite get the wording. It is the first installment, but the third chronologically, there are four sequels and a prequel as of 2012. Until the second prequel that is in development is actually released, I think that makes this the second cronologically. The information is important enough to include in the lead, but it's misplaced and confusingly worded as it is. I'd consider a fourth paragraph in the lead about the game's placement in the series.
Although I disagree with some points on confusion, I've expanded on the gameplay, made it a separate paragraph, and I expanded the series part as its own paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting
  • "Three sirens roam the desert; their defeat guides warriors through the desert so that they may summon the Titan Cronos and access Pandora's Temple chained to his back." It explains better than before, but is worded badly and wasn't clear enough for me to fix it myself. Is the article trying to say that the defeat of the sirens doesn't kill them, but causes them to guide the player through the desert in order to summon Cronos?
Further clarified. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a little more work. It now reads, "killing them releases their soul, which guides warriors through the desert". Do three sirens have one soul? Is it the soul/ghost of the last siren who acts as a guide across the desert? Neil916 (Talk) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added s to soul. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made other copyedits to this section directly to the article itself.
  • Are the locations listed in the order that the player will encounter each location?
I answered this above with your first comment regarding the locations, but yes, they are in order that player's will encounter them. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that before. Neil916 (Talk) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters
  • Each of the gods and goddesses have their titles capitalized. For example, Athena is listed as the "Goddess of Wisdom", but the Athena article doesn't use that capitalization. I think that each of their titles should be preceeded by "the" as is done with Ares. Athena should be "Athena, the goddess of wisdom", not "Athena, Goddess of Wisdom". I don't think either way is technically correct, it just reads smoother.
It's capitalized because it's their title. I don't fully get why the main articles for the gods don't do it that way, which I find silly. I have gone through and added "the" to each. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that's wrong, perhaps someone else can voice an opinion. Neil916 (Talk) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the body burner (Christopher Corey Smith), who allows Kratos to enter Pandora's Temple..." The article has a list of characters with the names of the characters and the name of the voice actor, then all of a sudden it interjects details about the last two characters.
Because they weren't mentioned in the Plot. Have removed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay
  • "The player guides Kratos through various environments while fighting enemies, such as Gorgons, who come mostly from Greek mythology" According to the Gorgon article, the Gorgons are totally from Greek mythology, I don't understand the "mostly" part.
Mostly as in, not all of the enemies come from Greek mythology. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that the game features platforming elements both in the lead and the gameplay section, but other than a mention that there are platforming elements, it doesn't tell me what they are or what their significance is.
Expanded on platforming. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that there are puzzles. Provide at least one typical example of a puzzle.
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you did, because I had visualized something completely different. Neil916 (Talk) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and more. I've stopped reviewing while in the Gameplay section, I'm out of time this evening, I'll revisit in the next few days. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Development
  • "Game Director David Jaffe confirmed the game would be a cinematic presentation, and said, "we are doing extensive focus tests, and using data compiled from E3, to find and fix the problem areas" of the cameras." I don't get this. What problems were there with the cameras? Were complaints received from trials at E3? Clarify what he's talking about because up to this point there was nothing mentioned about camera/POV problems.
I'll have to recheck the source. I rechecked the source and put all the information that the source has in regards to the cameras. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of the second paragraph appear to have little to do with the last four paragraphs of that same paragraph. Hard returns are cheap, consider splitting into their own paragraphs, perhaps with an expansion of what the camera problems were.
Will work on. Also, generally I've noticed with VG articles, if there's not enough information on a particular subject, paragraphs are combined in a way like this. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I split into separate paragraphs. --JDC808 ♫ 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team designed two systems of combat: a "macro" system, which gives players the choice between normal combat, magical attacks, and/or using mini games to kill a foe" Whoa, some major information appears to be left out of the gameplay section here. Using minigames to kill a foe? What is that about?
The QTE feature. Clarified. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaffe said the 1981 film Raiders of the Lost Ark inspired the development of God of War" This contradicts the statement that the game was inspired by Clash of the Titans. He didn't have to be inspired by only one or the other, but it left me scratching my head when I read it because I'd just read that he was inspired by Clash of the Titans.
It had said "Raiders also inspired", but someone removed it. "Also" added back. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but did not want to put the player in the role of an adventurer, referencing The Legend of Zelda." What does that mean?
Zelda puts players in the role of an adventurer, Jaffe did not want to do that with this game. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the game "is not innovative or unique, and that's intentional." That quote appears to directly contradict his quote in the third paragraph, "Jaffe said the game would be unique because each puzzle is different".
Yeah, Jaffe is a weird guy. But it does elaborate after that. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Our system was so shallow that it forced the team to constantly create new content to trapeze the player from one area of interest to the next ... I understand modular game design, and the value of that, but I was feeling that if we didn't step outside those boundaries, at least for me, I was going to get bored." This makes little sense to me what he's saying. I understand it's a direct quote, but it's so confusing that it would probably be better for the article to paraphrase what he was trying to say in a much more coherent manner rather than a direct quote.
Will work on. I direct quoted because I didn't think I could paraphrase it well, and I felt this had more meaning. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on. --JDC808 ♫ 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release
  • "The game was released on March 22[26] in North America," move citation to after the comma
Will fix. Fixed --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of July, the game was the sixth-best-selling game of 2005" At that point? Or by the end of July the game had already sold enough to cement its place by the end of the year as the sixth-best-selling game of 2005? No, that doesn't make sense. How did it stand at the end of 2005?
Clarified. I've tried finding sources of its sales at that time. This was the only source I could find. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figure of 4.6 million copies being sold is mentioned in the first paragraph. Does that figure include the 2.4 million copies of the collection, or is it 4.6 million stand-alone copies in addition to 2.4 million copies as part of a collection?
4.6 million is God of War only. I thought it was clear since the first paragraph doesn't mention the collection at all. The collection is a separate release so its sales aren't going to be included in that. That's why the second paragraph says the collection sold 2.4 million. --JDC808 ♫ 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...done for now. Neil916 (Talk) 11:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check by FutureTrillionaire

[edit]

Book referencing

There appears to be multiple citations from the "God of War (Instruction manual)" and the book by Stover and Vardeman. The pattern used in the article appears to be that the first citation is stated in the form "SCE Santa Monica Studio, ed. (2005). God of War (Instruction manual). Sony Computer Entertainment. pp. 16-17." while the following are in the form " SCE Santa Monica Studio, ed. (2005), pp. 18–19". I'm not sure if this is the proper way to cite books. I think short citations should be used here.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I will look into this. How it's currently being done is the way I had learned (and was acceptable in my last FAC that was promoted). You may be correct. --JDC808 ♫ 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, Futuretrillionaire, are you saying all the references, including the first one, should be short, with a separate full citation that is not individually referenced, but is pointed to by all the short ones? Check the way the manual is referenced in God of War: Chains of Olympus, which is the same as here, versus Starflight, which I think has what you want? —Torchiest talkedits 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Starflight model is better. I'd like to see in addition to the "references" section a "bibliography" section, where we put the full citation of books without the page numbers. The references section would be where the short citations for the books will be. Again, I'm not sure if the current book citation format is wrong, it just doesn't look good in my opinion.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

The characters section is supported by 2 sources, both placed at the end of the paragraph. all of the voice actors mentioned in the section are listed in the allgame source except Paul Eiding. Am I correct so assume that he is listed in the manual source? Also the entire plot section lacks citation. At the very least, a citation should be added at the end of each paragraph, even if all the citations come from one source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eiding is listed at allgame, they typoed his name as Oaul Eiding, same with Carole Ruggier, should be "ier" not "ler". And yes, he is listed in the manual. As to Plot, it's generally accepted that they're uncited, at least for video game articles (maybe film too). I can try to locate a source. --JDC808 ♫ 00:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think you're right. I checked several other featured VG articles, and some of them do not have citations, and some of the ones that do use primary sources (the game itself). Considering this, I suppose citing sources in that section is not necessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think the main reason is that unless you cite the game itself, you'd have to use a strategy and unless you own it, you'd have to find one online that can't be edited freely. I think Mahalo is one of the few that can only be edited by site administrators. --JDC808 ♫ 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games, when citing the VG itself, we need to "provide transcripts wherever possible, and enable readers to check the facts themselves by noting which area, level or episode is cited." This seems to imply that we need to add citations for parts relying on primary sources. Also, I think this is helpful, reliable source for the plot summary:[31].(Note: the section links don't appear to be working, but you still access pages with the arrows and manipulating the url)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --JDC808 ♫ 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Release" section, the "June 21 in Europe" is not mentioned in the source. Also, isn't the UK in Europe. This should be clarified, especially for non-gamers. Also, in the "Development" section, shouldn't "macro system" and "micro system" have quotation marks around them? They are terms invented by the developers.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

Yes, the UK is in Europe, but in the gaming world (at least), it sometimes has a different release from the rest of Europe. I thought we had a source for Europe's release. Removed until then. You may be right on the terms. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more problems in the "Release section". The date "November 17, 2009" is not mentioned in the source. Also, there's no source for "It was released in Japan on March 18, 2010". The citation placed later in the sentence only refers to Australia.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One minor issue I'd like to add is that in the awards section, the source calls the award "Best Action Game", not "Action Game of the Year". --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack section contains 2 sources, neither of which mentions "Winnie Waldron" nor "Marcello De Francisci". The sources also don't mention "Sony Computer Entertainment".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one last thing. In the film section, I couldn't find the quote "huge-name director" in any of the web sources cited in that paragraph. That leaves only the documentary source. If the quote did come from the doc source, then a citation of the doc should be placed at the end of that sentence containing the quote. If not, either that part needs to be removed, or a source needs to be found for it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the "huge-name director" came from a source that was broken by the time I started working on the page. I've removed the information and put another source. --JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JDC808 ♫ 04:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

[edit]

Leaning to oppose: Prose needs some more work, but you're getting there. I can't quibble on too much since I do not scrutinize video game articles too often (I just read them for fun and curiosity). From the lead:

  • You need commas after month-day-year dates, such as in here: "The game was first released on March 22, 2005 for the PlayStation 2 (PS2) console."
Fixed. Seems odd to put that slight pause with that example sentence, but if it's the correct way then okay. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's correct styling. It's used for [city], [country/state] phrases too. But not date-month-year dates. Thanks for the fix. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I'd seen this rule as well, but WP:DATE states, "When a date in mdy format appears in the middle of text, include a comma after the year (The weather on September 11, 2001, was clear and warm)." What an odd rule. Neil916 (Talk) 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is loosely based on Greek mythology, and is set in Ancient Greece with vengeance as its central theme." – that's more of a motif than a theme.
Okay, I think the developers had said it was the theme at some point, but changed theme to motif. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player controls the protagonist Kratos, a Spartan warrior in the service of the Olympian Gods." – "in the service of" → "who serves"?
Changed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The goddess Athena tasks Kratos with killing Ares, the God of War for which the game is named and who is responsible for Kratos' accidental killing of his family." – why is "for which the game is named" necessary? It's obvious (and should be "after whom").
There was a shorter phrase being used, but it had caused confusion so it was replaced with that, which I just removed it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest has left a response below, expanding on this. --JDC808 ♫ 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fused participle: "... God of War focuses on combo-based combat and quick time events requiring the successful completion of timed sequences of game controller actions." – ambiguous what the subject of "requiring" is: God of War or quick time events. If the latter, write "quick time events that require". Same number of syllables, just more grammatically correct. Furthermore, the repetition of "of" is a little unpleasant.
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid additive adverb transitions such as "additionally" that do not add anything (that's four "ad" sounds!).
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, the player can use magical attacks and special powers for alternative combat options." – Should be "as alternative combat options", not "for".
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't saying either "magical attacks" or "special powers" be enough? Are magical attacks not special powers?
Not exactly, there's four magical attacks and a special power (which inreases attack power and makes the character invincible for a short period). Reworded. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancies, like "an array of" here: "Players also solve an array of puzzles and the game features platforming elements." Also avoid vague adjectives of quanity, such as "multiple": "Multiple reviewers have said God of War is one of the best action-adventure games on the PlayStation 2." (Multiple is anything from 2 to, well, a lot.)
I'm not sure what you mean by the redundancy for "an array of". I'm not sure what to replace "multiple" with. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "an array of" and "multiple". The meaning is still the same. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "over a dozen" does not sound very encyclopedic here: "...and it has won over a dozen "Game of the Year" awards." Just go with a simple "several".
Changed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear: "In addition to its gameplay, God of War has been highly regarded for its graphics, sound, production, presentation, and story." – what do you mean by regarded for its production? Can something be praised for its development stage? In popular music, the word refers to the beat and instrumentation, but not sure about video games. And I'm wondering about the usefulness of this sentence; doesn't that cover pretty much every aspect of a video game? So it was widely regarded for all aspects?
One of the reviewers made a list of everything he thought was excellent and production was on that list. Removed production. To answer the last question, pretty much. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a quick sample of what's below the lead: "With the exception of flashbacks, the game's events are set between the games, Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta." – second comma just chops the sentence up; there's no pause there, so remove.
Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped there. Consider another once-over, as there seems to be some odd sentences here and there that need rephrasing. But in general, not bad at all. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to reply to this item: '"The goddess Athena tasks Kratos with killing Ares, the God of War for which the game is named and who is responsible for Kratos' accidental killing of his family." – why is "for which the game is named" necessary? It's obvious (and should be "after whom").'
That sentence has been changed a few times now. The version before the current one said, "The goddess Athena tasks Kratos with killing Ares, the eponymous God of War, who is responsible for Kratos' accidental killing of his family." An editor did not like the word eponymous, finding it too obscure, so the longer phrase was added to explicate the definition. Before that, the sentence said, "Kratos is tasked by the goddess Athena with killing Ares, the God of War, who is responsible for Kratos' accidental murder of his family." An editor did not like the sentence structure, finding the apposition confused how many people were being referred to in the sentence. That was corrected with an active voice and the addition of eponymous to make it clear that "Ares" and "the God of War" are the same person. So I would submit that things that some readers find obvious need more explanation for other editors. I'm certain many readers would not recognize the name Ares. —Torchiest talkedits 05:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think with the current wording it is clear who Ares is, but I guess we can use dashes or parentheses to make it even clearer. Yes, I think eponymous is a bit odd, but it is also clear that God of War is named after the God of War without having to mention that. I can see why the sentence would cause so much concern, but it seems good now (but like I said, there're always dashes or parentheses if you want). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]
All points have been addresses so far. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not quite confident I can withdraw my oppose.

  • For example, this is six locations: "There are five locations explored in the game: the Aegean Sea, the ancient city of Athens, the Desert of Lost Souls, the Temple of Pandora, the Underworld, and a brief scene on Mount Olympus."
It had said five main locations, then a brief scene in the last. Neil916, copyedited and changed it to this. Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be tightened: "The Aegean Sea setting includes a mass of shipwrecked vessels; undead soldiers, harpies, and the Hydra are attacking what remains of the [remaining] living soldiers."
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "sirens": " Three sirens roam the desert; killing the sirens releases their soul, which guides warriors through the desert so that they may summon the Titan Cronos and gain access to Pandora's Temple." – don't see why one can't be converted to "them".
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like plot, not setting: "Zeus chained the temple to Cronos' back as punishment for his role in the Great War."
Yeah, it just seemed unnecessary to put in the Plot and better served here. If you think it would be better served in the Plot, I will move it accordingly. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the subsection name could renamed "Background", because it isn't just setting. There're some events that happen before the story that don't fall under setting (time/place/situation).
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Are you saying rename "Setting" to "Background"? There are events that happen before the story, but they are all scene through cutscenes. Everything in "Setting" is what the player actually explores during gameplay. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was confused because of the Zeus chaining detail, which seemed out of place. It would fit better into the plot section. By setting, we're only talking about the backdrop and environment. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moved Zeus part to Plot. --JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancies remain: "The massive temple, constructed by the architect Pathos Verdes III, is full of deadly traps and a variety of enemies"; "Other characters that appear include a host of Greek gods"
Variety was to imply that there are lots of different enemies, but have fixed both. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of these concerns tell me that there is a little bit of work needed to be done throughout before this can be promoted to FA status. I'm in the midst of doing a thorough peer review that I've been committed to for about a month now and don't have time to go through this entire article. When some more copy editing has been done in the article, let me know and I'll be glad to revisit. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some improvements have been made. They do not seem enough unfortunately. Understanding that the article has already gone through independent copy editing, I'll try to tweak the prose around a bit myself, and you can see if my edits appear OK. There are quite a few glitches (pun not intended) dispersed, and they need to be fixed before the prose can be considered "brilliant". Best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've messed around a bit with the lead and have tried to remove redundancies and improve sentence structure. The lead does need to be trimmed. The article is close, but not quite 30 KB in prose length. So three paragraphs should only be necessary, per WP:LEAD. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was three paragraphs, but Neil916 had some issues with what-was-where which made me break it into four paragraphs. The second and third paragraphs didn't contain as much information and were together as one paragraph, before it was split. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point! I'm fine with this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Eyes and Feathers incrementally increases the length of the health and magic meters, respectively, and the player must find a total of eighteen Eyes or Feathers to maximize the length of each meter, thus maximizing the player's power."—is "The Eyes and Featers" one item? I ask this because you say "increases". To someone not familiar with the topic, this comes off as awkward grammar. It should be clarified that they are one item somehow, if they are, that is. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are two items. The Eyes increase the health meter, Feather the magic. "Respectively" was put there to try and indicate that. --JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Increases" is now "increase". --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is a bit wordy. I know it's been worked over a few times, but maybe it could just say: "The Eyes and Feathers increase the size of the health and magic meters, respectively; finding eighteen of an item maximizes a meter and thus, the player's power." —Torchiest talkedits 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Maybe just swap "size" with "length." --JDC808 ♫ 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this suggestion. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 17:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the development section, we have "the developer" and "The developers", which has left me confused.
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was released on March 22[26] in North America, July 8 in the United Kingdom, and November 17 in Japan."—that's odd citation placement. Is it because the IGN link does not say anything about North America?
The first IGN link (ref 26) only has March 22, the rest are in the other IGN link (ref 27). --JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the 2006 Interactive Achievement Awards, the game won several awards, including 'Overall Game of the Year', 'Console Game of the Year', 'Outstanding Achievement for Animation', 'Outstanding Achievement for Original Music Composition', 'Outstanding Achievement for Sound Design', 'Outstanding Character Performance for a Male' (TC Carson as Kratos), and 'Action/Adventure Game of the Year'."—"including" implies that these are just some of the many awards it won at the show, but considering the length of list, that doesn't seem to be true. Is this list exhaustive? If so, get to the point (i.e. "...the game won 'Overall Game of the Year'..."). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Will trim. Trimmed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They said they were hired to rework Self's screenplay, but since it was written before Clash of the Titans (2010), Wrath of the Titans, 300, and Immortals, which they said had borrowed ideas from the God of War stories, they considered Self's script outdated, and they want to differentiate God of War from other films of the same genre. Dunstan said the first step is to humanize Kratos."—"They...they...they...they" seems repetitive. Also, towards the end, there's some awkward tense; it may be correct, but it doesn't sound nice.
Okay, two of the "they"s have been removed. Can you elaborate on the tense issue? --JDC808 ♫ 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sudden change of tense starting from "they want to differentiate" is awkward. "They wanted" sounds better, IMO. And for the last one, future tense sounds more suitable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 'wanted". As per "the last one", keep the rest as is? --JDC808 ♫ 17:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US. Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through my oppose and would like to read through the article once more before supporting. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second look:

  • "God of War is a third person action-adventure video game published by Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) and developed by SCE Santa Monica Studio."—I'd preferably write by whom it was developed before by whom it was published. Chronologically makes more sense and the developer is usually more important.
I agree. The reason it's written that way is because SandyGeorgia had suggested it because of the "SCE" acronym. I've switched it back and just removed "SCE" from in front of Santa Monica Studio. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game features quick time events that require the player to complete various game controller actions in a timed sequence to defeat stronger enemies and boss fights."—"to defeat ... boss fights"? Please correct.
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Players also solve puzzles and the game features platforming elements."—awkward. Suggest something like "The game also features puzzles and platforming elements."
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To date, the series includes four sequels, God of War II (2007), God of War: Betrayal (2007), God of War III (2010), and God of War: Ghost of Sparta (2010), and a prequel, God of War: Chains of Olympus (2008)."—I don't think the list of sequels is necessary.
Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since removing the list of sequels shrunk the paragraph and made it a bit small IMO for the lead, I've incorporated the "first installment" and "second chronologically" into the first paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second prequel is in development, God of War: Ascension, which will be a prequel to the entire series, and will be released in March 2013."—tighten to "God of War: Ascension will be released as a prequel to the entire series in March 2013."
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, this is no longer there. --JDC808 ♫ 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of June 2012, the game had sold more than 4.6 million copies worldwide."—"has sold" probably.
Someone had switched it to "had". Changed to has. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 2012 was in the past so we use the past tense. --John (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the exception of flashbacks, the game's events are set between the games Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta."—remove "the game's". Less repetitive.
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come once these have been resolved. I add any FACs I review to my watchlist, BTW. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While a group of harpies take the Box to Ares, Kratos falls into the Underworld."—subject–verb agreement error?
Um, not sure. I thought it was correct? --JDC808 ♫ 21:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just remove "a group of"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've seen "the group" used with plural and singular conjugations, but I support the tweak to be safe. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and you're welcome. --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do. --JDC808 ♫ 21:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enlarged some. What do you think? --JDC808 ♫ 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The size is right. I've done it a bit differently per WP:IMGSIZE, see what you think. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --JDC808 ♫ 23:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and art galleries from the game's development as rewards."—unclear.
Did some rewording, but wasn't exactly sure what was unclear. --JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puzzles were implemented, including self-contained ones that span one to three rooms of the game, and global puzzles that spread across four or five areas."—unclear what is meant by "span".
Couldn't think of another word because I thought "span" was clear. I put "incorporate". I don't know if that's clearer. --JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaffe said the game would be unique because each puzzle is different, and that while each puzzle in the Prince of Persia series was a slight variation of the last, 'each puzzle in God of War is its own beast.'"—what is the relevance to Prince of Persia? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison essentially. --JDC808 ♫ 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's too out-of-place. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I do any alterations, would it help if I removed ""the game would be unique because each puzzle is different, and"? It would make the sentence, "Jaffe said that while each puzzle in the Prince of Persia series is a slight variation of the last, "each puzzle in God of War is its own beast."" Could even remove the quoted bit and just say they're different. --JDC808 ♫ 16:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the redundancy would certainly improve the sentence, and you can keep the quote. But there's still the problem of the reference to Prince of Persia coming out of nowhere. Maybe, try to put the series into context. For example, was Prince of Persia a popular series at the time? Why would the interviewer even raise the topic of PoP? Perhaps that can give you ideas. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Did some work. --JDC808 ♫ 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has repetition of "game", and there's a tense inconsistency here—"By the end of July, the game was the sixth-best-selling game of 2005 up to that point,[29] and by June 2012, it had sold more than 4.6 million copies worldwide."
Removed first "game". Wasn't sure where the tense issue was. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first clause has simple past, but the second has past perfect, even though both have "by [month]". Maybe change the latter to "as of June 2012". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "as of June 2012" --JDC808 ♫ 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose in the Release section is a bit repetitive; there's too much of "was released".
Swapped a couple for different words/phrases. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The God of War Collection was released as a digital download on the PlayStation Store on November 2, 2010; it was the first product containing PlayStation 2 software available via download."—you could remove the semicolon and just say "...2010, as the first product...".
Done, but instead of "2010, as the first", made it "2010, and was the first" --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game has been highly regarded for its gameplay, graphics, sound, production, presentation, and story."—that's pretty much everything. Saying "in all aspects" would raise WP:OR and WP:POV concerns, so just removing this sentence is the way to go.
Okay, that list was from a review who said all of those were great, and other reviews said multiple areas in that list were great. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of "Critical reception", I counted eight instances of "game", "gameplay" or "GameRankings". This is a bit excessive for a paragraph this small.
Now there's 4 with 2 being direct quoted. A 3rd is also in a quote but not direct quoted. Can't change GameRankings. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ungainly as well—"Raymond Padilla of GameSpy said the gameplay is excellent and that the game has".
Can't help the publisher titles. Removed the third instance of "game". --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, using words such as "excellent" and "great" without quotation marks raises the question of tone.
I believe I had originally quoted them, but a copy-editor removed the quotes since it was one word. Put quotes. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely in fear of scare quotes. This I think is a acceptable exception. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lane said the game's story is..."—here's a nice opportunity to remove "the game".
In addition to that, I've went through and removed "game", where I felt it wasn't needed. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sell complimented the graphics, stating that they are "quite possibly the best on the PS2" and rival games on the Xbox."—wordy. "Sell complimented [stated that] the graphics, stating that they are "quite possibly the best on the PS2" and rival games on the Xbox."
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. I don't want to think that I withdrew my "leaning to oppose" prematurely but there are issues here that worry me about the prose quality, such as repetition, tone and redundancy. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised copy-editors didn't see at least some of these issues. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an interview for Play (UK) magazine..."—the parenthetical notation here is awkward. Perhaps somethinglike "In an interview for the British Play magazine...". Or just remove this phrase altogether.
Removed parenthetical part. --JDC808 ♫ 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said giving the readers a solid plot foundation was necessary and the novel required extra material so it did not simply follow the action of the game."—awkward. Add a "that" after "so".
Added. --JDC808 ♫ 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artemis is convinced for the fact that Ares' minions are destroying the wilderness and its wildlife."—this is just confusing. What is trying to be said?
I believe I cleared this up. --JDC808 ♫ 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I may have fixed this. --JDC808 ♫ 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful note: I'm not sure what to say. This is my third pass through the article, and it still does not have the brilliant and professional prose it should. It's not far, but the language still does not flow well. There's a bit of clumsy and ungainly wording, some odd flow, and some grammatical inconsistencies. The prose also does not seem naturally written to me. These are altogether making me reluctant to support this nomination. Yes, prose reviewing can a subjective process, but it's hard to approve of a FAC you can't read without finding odd bumps along the way. My final piece of advice is for you to try to find a copy editor who is unfamiliar with the article and its topic, and kindly get them to run an eye over the prose. But with that said, it has been a pleasure reviewing this article. I've learned a lot about this fine game's history (haven't played it a lot, though) and appreciate your cooperation JDC808. I'm not sure how this FAC will turn out (you have plenty of support it seems, but a couple of opposes) but wish you good luck for the best. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit disappointing, but thanks for all of the comments to help improve the article. The tricky part is actually finding said copy-editor. --JDC808 ♫ 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A copy-editor unfamiliar with this article and topic just finished going through the article and fixed what he saw, and said it looked excellent. I believe another copy-editor who is also unfamiliar with this is going to have a look as well. --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will surely take a look once the second copy editor has reviewed the article. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

Oppose on prose based on a preliminary sample. --John (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions to help improve the prose? I'm assuming you're referring to Neil916's comments. Work has been done to improve the prose he had issues with (also waiting on responses from him here, although he did post on my Talk saying it has improved). I'm assuming here, but did you actually read the article or just read what Neil916 said? If it was the latter, please read the article, improvements have been made. Citing examples would be more helpful too. --JDC808 ♫ 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose without having read, as I said just above, a preliminary sample of the article. I will provide a longer and more detailed rationale when I have time. --John (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for assuming, it just sounded that way. For future reference, just saying "based on a preliminary sample" is not helpful as we don't know what that preliminary sample is. --JDC808 ♫ 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting
    • "...which guides warriors through the desert so that they may summon the Titan Cronos and gain access to Pandora's Temple chained to his back." Is the temple chained to Cronos's back? Or are the warriors to be chained there? What's going on here? Rewrite to avoid ambiguity.
Not sure how you got confused with that and not sure how someone would assume warriors are to be chained there. Clarified. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cerberi"? It's a Greek word, not a Latin one, so I am unsure why this would be the plural. I would prefer "cerberuses" or "three-headed dogs"
Cerberuses sounds wrong, but okay. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cerebrus is a proper noun; it is the given name of an individual creature/character in Greek mythology. I think Cerebruses is like saying there are multiple Athenas in the room. I suggest that three-headed dogs would be better. Neil916 (Talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as the developers said, they gave themselves lots of freedom to modify the myths, and as such, cerberus is the name they used for the three-headed dogs (similarly, there is only one Minotaur in the mythology, but there are lots in this game). --JDC808 ♫ 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters
    • "a host of Greek gods"; why "a host"?
As per the first definition here. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot
    • "...Kratos called to the God of War..." Prayed to? Called on? his doesn't look right to me.
Changed to "called on". --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All with the exception of Ares are now 's. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The possessives issue also threw me the first time I saw it; it's not the way I learned to write possessives. But the MOS rule #2 under "For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s", an allowable use is "Add just an apostrophe", as long as it is consistent throughout the article, so I didn't bring it up. With JDC808's recent edit, it's not consistent any more, so I'd cast my vote to go back to the way it was or propose a change to the MOS. Neil916 (Talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused on what to do. --JDC808 ♫ 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the MoS won't change how ugly this looks. How do the sources treat this issue? --John (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the sources use Kratos', not Kratos's. I'd have to recheck on the others. --JDC808 ♫ 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did some checking, couldn't find the others in the sources (and if they were, they were singular form), so I checked the Wikipedia pages and Cronos is Cronos' (albeit the technical spelling is Cronus, but the developers changed it for this series). --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay
    • "..a pair of blades attached to chains that are wrapped around Kratos' wrists and can be swung around to attack enemies, similar to a kusarigama." Who says it's similar to a kusarigama? This needs a ref.
It's been removed. It wasn't said by anyone that could be sourced. It was an attempt to try and make readers understand how they are used. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...a large sword that offers alternative combat options." This looks clumsy; can a sword really offer something?
A previous reviewer had issues and wanted me to clarify why the character would gain another weapon or magic. To answer the question, in a video game, yes. If it's used in a completely different manner than the other weapon(s), then yes, it's offering alternative combat options. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...chests colored either green, blue, or red,..." Either normally relates to two items.
Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "—allowing new and more powerful attacks—" New and more powerful? Or just one?
Upgrading allows new attacks that are more powerful. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "and", because it seemed to indicate there were both new attacks and upgrades for existing attacks, rather than just new attacks that are more powerful. —Torchiest talkedits 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the plural is biclops. Ba-dum-tish. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development
    • "He said he has the confidence that the team will fix the problems before the game's release." Tense again.
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He made point that..." What does that mean?
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: based on my looks so far, I still think the article fails on Criterion 1a: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", because its prose isn't brilliant or close to a professional standard. On the contrary I keep finding basic errors of grammar and clunky wording. It would take a complete copyedit to bring this one around. --John (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. With the number of copyedits this article has already received and everything fixed up to this point, the article does not need a complete copyedit, and I doubt it's far off from being "brilliant, and of a professional standard," but this is your opinion. --JDC808 ♫ 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JDC808 here. Can you point to any specific examples of clunky wording, and/or provide an example of a way to make the prose you take issue with 'brilliant and of a professional standard?'Domcarlo (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

FIFA Club World Cup

[edit]
Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it deals with important, specific and detailed information to the best title a football club can achieve.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that this nomination is only your eighth total edit, and that you've made only five edits to the article. Usually nominations are made by the principal editor of an article; the instructions at the top of the FAC page require someone who is not a principal editor to consult with them before nominating. I'm also worried that as a new editor you might not be familiar with things like the featured article criteria or the Manual of Style (unless you've had an account before?). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had an account before but that was years ago (2005 I think when Tevez joined Corinthians). And I have forgotten my password and username so I just made a new one. I read the FA criteria and it seems I met everyone of them. This article deserves to be given the FA push for its quality. Shortly, I will start revamping Corinthians' article. But for now, I want to finish this. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, when I looked at the article again a few days ago, a lot of info another user put was omitted so I looked it over. Since the principal editor was banned, it is impossible to consult him/her. I did take a few of his/her pieces of work and made a section that deals exactly with the obstacles that were preventing a club world cup to be created instead of giving a history of other competitions. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must not make jokes about Corinthians... While the article is undeniably well-done, maybe you should seek Good status before jumping straight to here. igordebraga ≠ 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing that until I read that getting an article become GA is not necessary for a FA label. Plus, as you have said...it is good enough to be considered a FA.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the FA process is more demanding. Anyway, if it gets shot down, use the 2 week pause to get to GA status. (will wait for more input here before supporting and stuff, but the sentence "where Manchester United gained the sole right to wear the badge by winning the trophy." needs a ref, unless it's the one that precedes it.) igordebraga ≠ 13:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The link was in the wrong place. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Can you provide a reference as to the legal status of 3D artworks in the location where the piture File:Trofeu_SPFC_-_Mundial2005_01.jpg was taken?

Oppose

94.197.33.20 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:FLAG, international competitions are exempted from the having the need to have country information with flags.
  • I have taken off the flags off the Sponsorship table.
  • I have created a key for the Performance table in accordance to WP:FLAG.
  • They are the official trophies for the competition and the NFU license allows such items to be viewed in the main page of the topic.
  • I replaced the image with another one containing an appropriate license.
  • I replaced the image with another one containing an appropriate license.
EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – From talk page discussions, I noticed that there was an edit war a couple of months back over a background history section in a different format. Do the non-banned editors consider this new format acceptable, or will there continue to be efforts to remove the content? Stability is part of the FA criteria, and I am reluctant to commit myself to reviewing an article when parts of it may not be there in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the reason I went ahead with this. It seems that things have calmed down a whole lot. I wasn't going to put in a bunch of work just to have it reverse, altered or simply messed with. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Barcelona have the record of appearing in the most finals with three appearances." Quite redundant to have "appearing" and "appearances" so close to each other like this.
  • Genesis: "The idea that FIFA itself should organize international club competitions date from the beginning of the 1950s." "date" → "dates".
  • Score ranges in the second paragraph of this section need en dashes. This is something that needs checking throughout the rest of the article.
  • "Barassi also helped the organized the competition in 1952." Should be "helped organize the competition" instead.
  • "'to the extent of almost giving it an official FIFA stamp'. and as a competition...". Shouldn't be a period after the quote, but a comma.
  • "and as a competition that inspired the creation of the European Champions Cup from which it derives International Cup." I don't understand the meaning of the latter part of the sentence. Is it meant to be "from which the International Cup is derived."?
  • Obstacles to the creation of the Club World Cup: "as it was Real Madrid's first international competition, as European champions that they did not manage to win." The comma doesn't need to be there.
  • "FIFA stated that they would prohibit the 1961 edition to be played out unless the organizers regard the competition as a friendly or private match between two organizations." Surely "regard" should be "regarded" for past tense?
  • L'Equipe should be italicized as a printed publication.
  • "To protect itself against the possibility of European withdrawals, Toyota, UEFA and every European Cup participant...". "itself" → "themselves". This is unless "itself" is referring to UEFA, in which case a deeper rewrite is needed to avoid confusing readers such as myself.
Sorry, but I'm going to oppose at this time. I've only gone through a couple sections of the article and am finding issue after issue. I just don't think the writing meets criterion 1a at the moment. The article sorely needs a copy-edit or two from native English speakers to have a chance here. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike out a reviewer's comments or opposition. It's not good form and is misleading to other reviewers. Let the reviewer decide if comments have been adequately addressed. While the individual comments are taken care of, and I struck those, I still feel that the article needs outside copy-editing. I only reviewed a small portion, and there could be plenty of issues lurking in what's left. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator asked me to look at the article again, in the belief that all of the article's problems had been solved. I'm happy to see that Jayron did some copy-editing, but I'm not convinced that everything has been found and I'm not comfortable striking my oppose. Here are some examples of issues from the Birth section:
  • "stated that the Club World Championship is "a fantastic chance of becoming the first genuine world champions." This shouldn't say "is", since that is present tense and the event took place 13 years ago. I think that "provided" or "offered" work work best in this particular sentence as replacements.
  • The space between US$ and 28,000,000 should be removed.
  • In the same area, there shouldn't be two U.S. dollar links in a single sentence. I see more of them later in the section; is there a template that may be causing this?
  • "The FIFA Organizing Committee approved the procedure for the final draw on October 19, 1999 which was held at the Copacabana Palace Hotel in Rio de Janeiro." Confusing wording. Was the procedure process done in Brazil, or the draw itself?
  • "Real Madrid went on to defeat Al-Nassr 3–1 on that same match." Everything after the score is redundant phrasing that can be removed without affecting the meaning.
  • "due to combination of factors" needs an "a" before "combination".
  • The long list of potential host nations for 2003 is an unwiedly list. Why doesn't it just say that 17 countries sought to be the host? If readers want to know which countries, they can read the source.
  • "In the final, I Rossoneri made short work of Boca Juniors". First, non-football fans aren't going to know that I Rossoneri represents Milan's nickname. Second, "made short work" is a bit informal for FA-level writing. This sentence needs a rewrite to address both aspects.
  • "The saw off Ecadorian club LDU Quito 1–0 to become world champions in 2008." "The" → "They". If you're going to tell me that an article has been improved enough for me to strike an oppose, I shouldn't see issues as blatant as this.
  • "The next two FIFA Club World Cups, 2013 and 2014, will be hosted in Morocco, the first time the tournament will be held in Africa." This is unsourced, and it's odd to have "first time" for something describing two occasions.
Sorry, but I still don't think the prose is there based on this sample, which is not extensive. At this point, the fastest route to FA would be to withdraw this from FAC and open a peer review in which the article's issues can be ironed out without the time crunch inherent at FAC. Also, soccer writers can offer opinions about what elements should be covered to take care of that issue for next time. Unfortunately, I can't see this passing at FAC in this condition. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished fixing the above issues.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I haven't read the article in detail; this oppose is based on criterion 1a. The prose is not strong enough at the moment. Most paragraphs I looked at had either clumsy phrasing or straightforward errors such as "There has been two trophies handed out to the world champions". On the basis of the limited review I did, it does seem like a detailed article and I would like to see this come back after a thorough copyedit, but at the moment the article is not ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an administrator do a copyedit of the article. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The tone used in the writing of this article is not neutral and full of useless information, mainly in the "history" section (for example, is clearly an attempt to give the tournament a longer tradition than actually has to relate it with unofficial competitions like Lipton Trophy, Little World Cup et al) without any specific reason as not being mentioned by FIFA in this section. The tournament's history is relatively short (it was proposed by FIFA Executive Committee in 1993, approved in 1996, ratified in 1998 at the FIFA Congress of Paris, held for the first time in 2000 and, finally, held every year since 2005, ie, the tournament is less than a decade of disputed), so, its main chapter ("History") should reflect this, regardless if in the 19th century were held tournaments today nobody remember or during the post-war some "friendly" competitions were really pitched battle due for describe this exist each corresponding article and, in fact, only have anecdotal relationship with this tournament. This tournament, objectively, was not free from objections and refusal to be created by the media and mainly, clubs (for example, G-14), UEFA and the CSF confederations (one of the reasons why it was "suspended" until 2005) also the first edition was pyrrhic value to the world press, however, omitted to explain that part of the history of the competition, while interestingly discussed in detail -although not for this article-, 'how poor were the others, so it simply does not deserve to be featured.

Additionally, this article is full of opinion articles (which are potentially POV) and pay-per-view articles to prevent any reader can verify what is stated in Wikipedia.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about your opposition was constructive in the least. As a matter of fact, it looks far more like a deliberate disruption. How you managed to bring the 19th century into the FIFA Club World Cup is beyond me. Some of your sentences make no sense at all. I welcome criticisms because I improve whatever I am doing and I get to see things clearly. But please refrain from giving any more irrelevant rants, especially in a FA nomination page, just so you can derail the purpose and nature of the regulations. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "hidden" template that you used to hide these comments. The delegate will decide whether or not the oppose is actionable or not; you're free to comment, as you have, but hiding comments isn't a good idea. Just let the delegate review and decide. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more thorough inspections of the article:

  • All the references have been changed to follow a similar format (mdy)
  • All foreign references carry English translations
  • All foreign references have links linking them to their respective languages
  • All images have ALT text
  • An administrator has copyedited the page himself and fixed the few errors left. He also changed the wording of certain parts to make it flow better.
  • Got rid of references appearing more than once
  • Per the copyeditor, I did yet another copyedit, reworded and simplified a lot of the sentences, and eliminated the overuse of a single reference in a paragraph unless it had vital information.

I have to say that I really see nothing else that could be done to this article. We have even done things that weren't in the FAC list. This is definitely FA quality now. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same admin copyedited the article again and I went through each reference one by one and fixed all double links and dead links. I also added authors, editors, reference format, original published dates and page numbers to each reference that provided/needed that information.EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Jainism

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rahul Jain (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has addressed all the concerns raised in its previous nomination and meets the Featured Article Criteria. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't mandatory for an article to be a Wikipedia:Good Article before being eligible for becoming a Featured Article, as far as I know. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it not mandatory, it's not even suggested anywhere as far as I know of. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – No, it's not mandatory for a candidate to pass GAR before coming here. I have been meaning to review this for some time now, but couldn't find the time for it. On a cursory glance, the connection between Jainism and Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) appears to be undue, if not fringe. Other than cults of goddess and fertility worship, religious practices of IVC have not been established with certainty. None of the popular textbooks of Indian history (Singh,Stein,Tripathi) or other encyclopedic entries on Jainism ([35], [36], [37], [38]) push back the dates to IVC or make any reference to Jainism within the civilization. Yet the article devotes half of the history section to Indus Valley Civilization, while it glosses over the origins of Jainism within the skeptical, ascetic tradition that arose out of increasing urbanization of India in 7th and 6th centuries BCE. This to me is a serious NPOV issue. The article is otherwise well written, I might come back with a detailed review. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed some lines regarding the connection between Jainism and IVC to avoid undue weight. However, the fact regarding meditative postures (standing/sitting) bears close resemblance to Jain practices is substantiated with reliable resources. Just two lines regarding it and a quote from the Ram Prasad Chandra should present the point neutrally I suppose. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [39].[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, since the previous nomination, this article has undergone an independent copyedit by Guild of Copy Editors member Lfstevens. I believe that all of the concerns raised in the previous nomination have been addressed and the article now meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick reference comment Some references are missing some information. For example, reference 43 needs more information (e.g. the page, body, maybe volume, publisher, etc). Carefully check all references and complete them if something is missing. Also, remember that only newspapers and magazines should be italicized; I am seeing a television network italicized when it shouldn't. I will give you a full review today or this weekend. Regards. — ṘΛΧΣ21 21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the references and filled out the information for reference 43 and others. I have also unitalicized the citations for sources other than newspapers and magazines. Thank you for offering to do a full review. Neelix (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I will go back here soon. Sorry for the wait. — ΛΧΣ21 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Unfortunately this particular nom seems to have been a non-starter, so I'll be archiving it. Given so little comment, Neelix, I'd have no problem with you renominating in less than the usual two weeks, but my recommendation is to go through GAN and Peer Review first, which aside from anything else could help build up more interest in it before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Edward Coke

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it's great? I'm not sure what to write here, except that I'm very proud of the article and look forward to the review :). Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from George Ponderevo

  • "It was not a common surname, being limited to one family, but the family itself was relatively respected". I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here. If the surname had been common the family would have been respected automatically?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The origins of the name prior to that are uncertain". That a few people before before Coke had the same surname in no way explains the origins of the surname. And are the origins not still uncertain?
  • "... theories are that it signified a river among early Britons". The river was among early Britons?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Francis Bacon, his main competitor, was noted as a philosopher and man of learning, but Coke had no interest in such concepts." Was it really the concept he had no interest in, as opposed to the subjects?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Third Amendment, on the other hand, takes influence from the Petition of Right." Strangely unidiomatic. Why not "is/was influenced by"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Coke argued that the judges of the common law were those most suited to making law, followed by Parliament, and that the monarch was bound to follow any legal rules. This was because a judge, through his professional training, internalised what Alan Cromartie referred to as 'an infinity of wisdom' ...". What exactly is the "this" at the start of that second sentence referring to?
    That the judges were most suited to making law. As with the tears comment (see below) I'm struggling to understand the confusion, but I appreciate I'm probably more familiar with the text and the subject than most. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "This" could refer to Coke's argument about the judges, the comment about the position of the monarch, or why he put forward the argument in the first place. Beginning a sentence with "this" almost always leads to ambiguity. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Gotcha; fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from George Ponderevo

I still don't think this is quite there yet:

  • "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case." I don't think that's saying what you intended it to. The phrase "that invalidated Cromwell's case" is modifying the immediately preceding pleadings, in other words the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case as opposed to some other pleadings. Probably what you meant to write was "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings, which invalidated Cromwell's case."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke retired to his estates, where he revised and finished his Reports and the Institutes of the Lawes of England before dying on 3 September 1634." As opposed to revising and finishing them after dying?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... her sister Audrey was married to Thomas Gawdy, a lawyer and Justice of the Court of King's Bench with links to the Earl of Arundel, a connection that later served Edward well. Winifred's father later married Agnes, the sister of Nicholas Hare." Later than what?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being called to the Bar on 20 April 1578 Coke immediately began practising as a barrister. His first case was in the Court of King's Bench in 1581". Handling his first case three years after being called to the bar doesn't seem like "immediately" to me.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morice was placed under house arrest, and seven Members of Parliament were later arrested". How much later? Is the word "later" even necessary?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In reaction, Coke decided to bring charges of treason against Devereux". In reaction to what?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Cokes immediately began ingratiating themselves with the new monarch and his family. Elizabeth Hatton, Coke's wife, travelled to Scotland to meet Anne of Denmark". It seems odd to start talking about the Cokes before we've been told that Coke had married.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke's behaviour during the trial has been repeatedly criticised; on this weak evidence, he called Raleigh a 'notorious traitor' ...". what weak evidence? Evidence of Coke's behaviour, which is what it looks like?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The conspirators were all sentenced to death and died through various means." All eight were hanged, drawn and quartered, so what are these "various means"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not entirely convinced. Would you trust me to make a few changes myself rather than my keep adding to this review? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Convinced of what? And, sure, although you picked a pretty odd time to ask ;p. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Convinced that this is a plausible FA. But I'll leave it to Wehwalt, sorry for bothering you. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me leave you with one last thought Ironholds. Do you seriously believe that "James VI of Scotland set out to claim the English throne as James I of England" makes any sense at all? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now fixed. I appreciate that communications standards can be...flexible, on-wiki, but can I ask you to (in future) point out flaws with the article clearly rather than with unnecessarily passive-aggressive edit summaries? I'm perfectly willing to fix the article up when people politely bring me concerns: it's worth noting that this article contains prose I wrote a good four years ago, and copyediting has never been my forte. Your attitude here has been completely unnecessary. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that it's your attitude here that needs to be corrected, not mine. I have simply pointed out examples of where I believe the prose falls short of what ought to be expected of an FA, and I have even offered to help with the copyediting, but given your aggressiveness I will not be offering again. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if I misunderstood, then. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A conditional apology is no apology at all. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. I'm apologising for stating that your comments were unduly rude, conditional on your comments not actually being rude. I'm sorry if this is 'no apology at all', but it'd be somewhat nullifying to insist I apologise for stating your comments were unduly rude even if they were unduly rude :). Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments from Sarnold17

Sarnold17 comments collapsed here

Hello; I find this to be an excellent and interesting article on a very important Elizabethan-era Englishman. I look forward to giving this my support. I'm working my way through, and will likely have a boatload of comments, primarily dealing with prose. Some of the comments likely spring from my incomplete understanding of English as used by the English, so please help me learn.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • My impression is that almost all readers will see his name and pronounce it like the common soft drink. Also, my feeling is that most readers don't know how to interpret phonetic symbology, even though it looks fancy and scholarly. For these reasons, it would be good to let the reader know right off the bat how to pronounce this guy's name, and therefore I would write "(/ˈkʊk/ ("cook"), formerly /ˈkuːk/" The old pronunciation is a bit more problematical; see later discussion.
    awesome! Thanks so much for IPA-ing it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was used to justify the voiding of the Stamp Act 1765 and writs of assistance, which led to the American War of Independence," This is unclear. Do you mean voiding both the Stamp Act and also writs of assistance? Or do you mean justifying writs of assistance, but also justifying the voiding of the Stamp Act? In other words, I don't understand his influence on writs of assistance. Would it be easier (or correct) to instead use the Navigation Acts in place of writs of assistance?
    Voiding the both of them; fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family background and early life

  • "of South Greenhoe, now Swaffham in around 1150" Recommend "now the Norfolk town of Swaffham", since we don't know from what part of England the family originated.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend "Norwich" be wikilinked, since it is introduced for the first time.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in paragraph two "The name "Coke" itself was pronounced "kuke" during the..." should be moved to the previous paragraph, since this is where you are discussing the family name, and that is a more suitable place to discuss the pronunciation. As for the pronunciation, "kuke" to me would be pronounced as in the word "cuckoo". This may be an Americanism, but the word "cuke", which is short for cucumber, would be more suitable. Is this not used by the English? If this doesn't work, then you could say it begins like the word "queue".
    Over here I'd pronounce it 'kook', I guess, which is closer to the original; will tweak. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would totally eliminate the discussion on the order of the children because (1) it is not important and (2) it is basically speculation. The reader doesn't need to know that the order of the children is not known.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winifred remarried to Robert Bozoun" Recommend "his widow married Robert Bozoun" since the reader may not remember who Winifred is, and also because he had a daughter named Winifred.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education and call to the Bar

  • "by the age of 18 the students have learnt" Is "learnt" proper English? My American spell checker balks at the word. Is the word "endight" the correct word, and not "enlight"? If it is a valid word, could it be linked to wictionary? I haven't seen the word before.
    Learnt is acceptable over here, at least (I am informed it is the "past participle, past tense of learn (Verb)"). On endight, I've done a bit of etymological searching (after verifying that it's not a typo on my part). What I suspect is that it's a form of 'endite', which is an ancient form of wd:indite; I've linked that in the text :). Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "matriculated to" a proper construction? I like to think of matriculate as being akin to enroll, and I've always said "matriculated at". Thoughts?
    Pokes at goggle suggest it can be used (or is commonly used) either way; I tend to go for 'matriculated to', in the same sense as someone is 'returned to' Parliament. Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little is known of his time at Trinity – he certainly studied rhetoric and dialectics under a program instituted in 1559, but although he is considered to have had all the intelligence to be a good student little is known of his academic achievements there." This is a very long sentence and I find "but although" to be an awkward construction. Recommend: "Little is known of his time at Trinity, though he certainly studied rhetoric and dialectics under a program instituted in 1559. His biographers felt he had all the intelligence to be a good student, though a record of his academic achievements has not been found."
    Excellent suggestion! Fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was here he first drew notice, arguing well in an Inner Temple moot and asserting that the Inner Temple cook had failed to prepare edible food." He first drew notice? Does this mean he was noticed? If so, then by whom, and with what outcome?
    Hmn; there's a rather nice quote in Boyer about him, but it's unattributed; I'm loathe to provide a quotation that is uncited, or cited to the quoter rather than author. Sentence removed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polson suggests..." We haven't been introduced to Polson, so you might mention that he was a historian/biographer/critic or whatever, and include his first name for this first encounter.
    Fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practice as a barrister

  • "and his reputation was such that when he retired to his house after an outbreak of the plague, "nine Benchers, forty barristers, and others of the Inn accompanied him a considerable distance on his journey". I can sense that these folks wanted to spend time learning from him, but I don't quite understand why they accompanied him en route to his house. Did they come to stay with him, or just travel with him? Can this be clarified?
    Just travelled; is it clearer now? Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and during the 1580s Coke was employed by the Howards to see off lawyers employed by the crown who argued that the Howards' lands were forfeit due to the treason of the 4th Duke of Norfolk." "to see off lawyers" sounds a bit awkward. Recommend "to counter the lawyers employed..." Also, shouldn't it read "were forfeited"?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke's argument in the case formed the first definition of consideration." You've run several cases together here, so the question is--which case? Perhaps say "Coke's argument in this last case formed..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break and will return with more comments later.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my next round of comments (will try to finish on 29 Jan).Sarnold17 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • Opening paragraph: the word "secured" used twice in one sentence. Perhaps change one to "obtained". Also, I'm accustomed to "on their behalf" instead of "in their behalf" but don't know the customary way to say it in England. The construction "was returned for Aldeburgh" doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean "returned to Aldeburgh"?
    Fixed! And no, it's not customary, just a stupid typo by me :). Re 'returned', someone being elected to Parliament is returned for a Parliamentary constituency - I'm not sure the origins. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitor General and Speaker

  • "It is implied that this was a narrow victory..." Generally, avoid using passive voice. Who made the implication? Perhaps: "This was likely a narrow victory, due in part to Coke's defence..."
    Fixed! Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney General

  • "The charges were never brought, as on 8 February 1601 Devereux ordered his followers to meet at Essex House" doesn't make sense. What do Devereaux's actions have to do with the charges not being made? I think you need to say something like: "The charges were never brought because of an incident that soon transpired. Devereaux ordered his followers to meet at Essex House on 8 February 1601, but when emissaries led by Thomas Egerton and John Popham were sent to him the following day, they were taken hostage."
    Good suggestion; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Pleas

Court of High Commission

  • "...amongst both common lawyers and Members of Parliament..." Is "amongst" as suitable as "among"? The former sounds folksy and not encyclopedic to my American ear; is this good high English in England?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is P.B. Waite, and why is he an authority?
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as Fuller's Case after the defending barrister" should read "named Fuller's Case after the..."
    Strictly speaking, Fuller's Case wouldn't be the actual name, however. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group were dismissed..." group is singular; should read "group was..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke challenged this, saying "the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case, either criminal – as treason, felony etc, or betwixt party and party; but this ought to be determined and adjudged in some court of justice, according to the Law and Custom of England"." This quote needs a citation. Also, it has an opening dash but no closing dash. Is this accurately quoted? It should have a dash following "etc"
    Fixed; Coke's failure rather than mine (see this, for example). Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bonham's Case

King's Bench

Return to politics

  • "It was reported, Sir Edward "aunswered him somewhat short, that Sir Thomas needed not to trouble himself so much about it, for that he belonged to neither universitie." " this is awkward, and difficult to decipher; perhaps summarise without a quote.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monopolies

  • "Coke was then imprisoned in the Tower of London from 27 December before being released nine months later" needs rewording, perhaps: "...in the Tower of London in December 16__, but released nine months later."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of Right

Following are the last of my comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

  • "his desire to complete his writings and advanced age" to complete his advanced age? To avoid possible confusion or stumbling by the reader, I recommend: "his desire to complete his writings coupled with his advanced age..."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coke was still in good health, despite his advanced age, and took daily exercise." "advanced" is redundant. Recommend: "Despite his age, Coke remained in good health, and exercised daily."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As he was on his deathbed the Privy Council ordered that his house and chambers be searched, seizing 50 manuscripts, which were later restored – his will, however, was permanently lost" Recommend: "While he was on his deathbed the Privy Council had his house and chambers searched, seizing... which were later restored, though his will was permanently lost."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "Paston was noted by Woolrych as an "incomparable" woman..." Since much attention is given to the father named Paston, I would call her "Bridget" and not "Paston" in this sentence, to avoid confusion, because I immediately thought you were talking about the father, not the daughter.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the marriage Coke was not buried next to Hatton, but instead next to Bridget Paston, who his daughter Anne declared was Coke's "first and best wife" " Recommend: "Coke was buried beside his first wife, who was called his "first and best wife" by his daughter Anne." You don't need to qualify this with "Despite the marriage..." because it is not unusual for a person who remarries to be buried beside their first spouse, particularly if that spouse is the parent of most of the children.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reports

  • "during his career, Coke would note down earlier cases he had heard of..." "note down" is awkward. Recommend either "jot down" or else "Coke took note of earlier cases..." Ditto in the next sentence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although lent to friends and family, and therefore in slight public circulation, Coke never formally published his entire Reports during his lifetime" Coke wasn't loaned to friends and family. This should read "Although loaned to friends and family, and ..., Coke's Reports were never formally published during his lifetime."
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 1634, officials acting on order of the King had seized Coke's papers, and between then and a 1641 motion in the House of Commons restoring those papers that could be found to Coke's eldest son,..." This doesn't make sense; break up into two sentences for coherence.
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institutes

Jurisprudence

General

  • While this isn't a show stopper, I was disappointed to find no mention about Coke's influence on Roger Williams in this substantial article. Since Williams was mentored by Coke, and then became one of the great religious figures in American history, this is really a pretty big deal. A recent book (2012) on Williams discusses the relationship between the two men, though I have not yet read the book. A commentary by the author concerning a review in the NY Times can be found here.
    I wasn't aware of the link; I'll add that commentary that I can. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Quite good and engaging, but I have my usual list of quibbles:


  • Lede
Consider including in parentheses the alternate name of the ex officio oath, simply because the Star Chamber is well-known.
  • Family background
"The name "Coke" itself ..." Consider putting this sentence in a footnote.
"something that later served Edward well" Perhaps "a connection that later served Edward well" ? It's not quite certain whether the something is the connection to the Earl, or the marriage.
" and daughters second" I'd cut this as unneeded.
"Winifred remarried to Robert Bozoun" Which Winifred?
"A property trader, Bozoun ..." this sentence gets between the influence and the evidence thereof, and I suggest it be moved slightly. Perhaps, "Robert Bozoun, a property trader and a member of an old family. Noted for his piety and strong business acumen (he had once forced Nicholas Bacon to pay an exorbitant amount for a piece of property), Bozoun had a tremendous influence on the Coke children." You could even consider cutting the new parenthetical ...
"little is known" Three times in three sentences. I suggest you vary one phrase diversely.
"the Inns of Chancery, including Clifford's Inn, served as a place of initial legal education" On balance, I think a plural form is better ("a place") although granted, I can see a case for the other. Consider rephrasing to avoid.
"other pieces of high culture at the Inns" This sounds a bit odd to me, but perhaps it is just me.
  • Practice as a barrister
If he began is practice immediately in 1578, how was it his first case was not until 1581?
Making yourself available for work is not the same as getting it, particularly for new barristers. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing them to start the case anew.[38] Cromwell brought the case again, " a bit repetitive.
  • "paid off any royal clerks" Paid off? As in bribed?
  • "see off" seems a bit informal. Perhaps "oppose" or "defeat"?
  • Why the Third Duke but the 4th Duke? And a link to the treacherous one?
  • " his third was Slade's Case," His third what? Famous case?
  • "Coke's argument in the case formed the first definition of consideration." Wouldn't it have been the judgment, which presumably incorporated his argument?
Politics
  • "Coke had earned the favour of the Dukes of Norfolk ... With their support, " Were there several Dukes of Norfolk at a time?
  • "and thanks to the influence of the Cecil family" As this is the first you've mentioned them, it's not clear why they should exert themselves on behalf of Coke.
  • "Although confirmed on 28 January 1593, he did not take up his post until the state opening of Parliament on 19 February 1593, a position he held at the same time as that of Solicitor General." Problem with this sentence.
  • "The idea of a peaceful, swift Parliament" given that the purpose was to impose taxes for war, "peaceful"'s a bit jarring. Quiet?
  • "due to religious problems." Perhaps, "due to religious conflict"?
  • "as Speaker of the House of Commons (whose job was to introduce any bills)" If his job was to introduce bills, how is it the bills which caused all the trouble were introduced?
  • "a day of respite". Perhaps "a day's delay"?
  • "opened up" somewhat informal phrases such as this are slightly jarring, perhaps because of the 16th century subject matter.
  • " A day later a group of emissaries led by Thomas Egerton and John Popham were sent to him and taken hostage." Huh?
  • The material concerning Devereaux perhaps can be cut a bit?
James I
  • The phrasing used implies there was doubt that James would be able to successfully claim the throne, but this isn't backed up in the article.
  • "the new royals." Surely James was royal from birth?
Judicial work
  • " known as Fuller's Case after the defending barrister, Nicholas Fuller." This can be read to say that the case was named after the barrister who had the defense in it.
  • "Coke's first case of note was Peacham's Case" I'd insert a "there" somewhere in this phrase.
  • " which saw the King's actions as him tampering with justice." I would omit "him"
Return to politics
  • James's action in ordering Coke's re-election seems so surprising (especially in light of subsequent events) that it almost begs for further explanation as to motivation.
  • Again with the link to Cecil! And title! I think he appears often enough that he need only be linked on first appearance
  • I would mention the term "letters patent" much higher in the paragraph. People may think of "patents" in a rather different sense.
  • In the sense of patent law? People would be right to think of letters patent in the sense of "patents". As that paragraph explains, the letters patent are the source of the patents system. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to me to be inconsistent in your capitalisation of "crown".
  • " Coke was briefly restrained from acting in Parliament by Charles;" I would cut this phrase, it is implied in the rest of the sentence.
  • "the person, for all others are accessory to it" I don't see how this fits the rest of the quoted matter.
  • "eventually rejected the Resolutions formally" I would boil this down to "rejected the Resolutions"
  • "Coke then undertook the central role" Strike "then" I would, especially since the last action was Charles' rejection
  • "The resulting debate led to some MPs being unable to speak due to their tears, fearing that the King was threatening them with the destruction of Parliament. " In modern parlance this sounds a bit hysterical. I suggest quoting from some contemporary description, if you have one.
  • "eventually affirmed". As the timespan referred to is between April and 17 May, suggest "eventually" can be dispensed with. I would give the year, it's a significant date.
Retirement
  • "effectively retired" Perhaps just "retired"?
Personal life
  • "through which" picky, but there's nothing that this refers to.
  • I gather Elizabeth predeceased Coke, but probably you should be clearer about this. (the infobox confirms this)
Writings
  • I'm not thrilled about the firstly and secondly; it looks odd and I wonder why one firstly and the other secondly? Is there a ranking?
  • Should Institutes and also Reports be italicised in the Gest quote?
  • "His Law Reports, known as Coke's Reports, were an archive of law reports" perhaps one "reports" can be massaged out. This sentence can profitably be divided.
  • "four of which are still lost" strike "still", I would.
  • " by copying out and repeating cases found in earlier law reports, " This sounds like verbatim copying, how is it original work?
  • The fragment of the sentence you miss is "started out by". It would be an impressive temporal achievement for Coke to report his own cases using reports written before he came to the bar. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although lent to friends and family," slight disconnect in this sentence, the initial phrase should refer to the subject, which in this case is Coke, not his reports.
  • "While the Reports were intended " this sentence could also advantageously be split.
  • "There are also factual inaccuracies;" I suggest you buy a Coke for this sentence and place it somewhere therein.
Jurisprudence
  • " Alan Cromartie referred to as "an infinity of wisdom"" I would think something from Coke would be better suited here, since it is an important point we should hear from him.
  • "John Selden" I would either remind the reader of who he is or else link again. It's been a while.
  • Bacon has played a major part in this article and need not be linked again.
  • "play with it". I do not find this a pleasing phrase, as it implies arbitrariness (or perhaps capriciousness).
Legacy
  • It might be worth mentioning that Casement was found guilty. A "1916" tossed somewhere in there might be helpful to the reader, who has been wandering among the Jacobeans.
Character
  • The description of Coke as something of a poor courtroom lawyer seems rather different than what I had pictured based on the biographical sections. Possibly he worked best from a script.
General

Comments from Aa77zz

Delegates' comments - The nominator has been slow to respond to the comments and reviews, and it would be a shame to see this nomination archived because of this. We are all overcome by real life issues at times, and this might be the case here. I would be grateful if the nominator could indicate when progress is expected. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my timing you posted this after I'd made fixes today ;p. I hope to finish the existing reviews tomorrow. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've indicated to the nominator that I am unlikely to have time to re-examine the article until at least late next week, as due to the delay, I'd have to start from scratch. No opinion on the present state of the article, which I have not examined.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Wehwalt can commit to reviewing shortly, I'd agree that this review still has some life in it, otherwise I think we'd have to say that after remaining open almost six weeks without consensus to promote, it'd need to be archived and another attempt made some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support This is a well-researched, well-structured, and well-written piece about a very important Englishman whose influence continues to be felt well beyond the British Isles.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems that the nominator has neither the time nor the inclination to address the work that still needs to be done for this article to meet the FA criteria, and in particular criterion 1a. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused; all the fixes you asked me to fix, I've made, promptly. When you've come in at 11 in the evening my time with a niggle, I've fixed it hours later. Where do I lack time or inclination? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Promptly? You've been missing for most of this FAC, and have yet to address my fundamental concern, the quality of your prose. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; work has been hectic, and I have apologised for that. You'll note that I have made myself very available over the last week and a half, occupying almost all of my editing time with getting the article up to scratch. I am happy to address your 'fundamental concern' - the quality of my prose - when you bring up specific issues, as I have demonstrated by fixing the queries and quibbles you have raised. To be blunt, I'm finding this oppose very hard to take seriously coming from an editor who barely 24 hours ago described his state as "Convinced that this is a plausible FA" and, citing his own lack of time, asked Wehwalt to serve as his proxy vote - only to turn up now, after I objected to your tone, to not only vote directly but express some skepticism that the article is even fundamentally workable as a candidate. It smells a lot like sour grapes. As I've said, and as I've demonstrated, if you raise specific issues with the prose I am happy to correct them. Simply stating that the quality is insufficient is unhelpful for our readers, our editors, and our collaborative processes. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have consistently objected to the quality of prose in this article, for more than a month now, and you have consistently proven yourself unable to meet the challenge. I have even offered to help, only to be insulted by postings such as the one above. Where on Earth did you get that "sour grapes" idea from anyway? Are you suggesting that I'm incapable of getting an article through FAC? If you are, then you need to think again. This FAC ought now to be archived, and brought back when cooler heads than yours can prevail. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm suggesting that your rather vehement oppose came primarily because I objected to your tone. You have consistently raised individual issues with the prose, and I have consistently fixed them - in what way is that not meeting the challenge? Should I have instead focused on issues you had not brought up? And yes, you offered to help, and I was very grateful for that. I disagree that the FAC should be archived; I agree I'm probably not in the least-possibly-stressed mood right now, but I would suggest the same is true of you. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You may of course suggest whatever you like, but I'm not the nominator here, you are. And you have failed to address my prose concerns and have spurned my offer of help. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I've addressed every individual concern you've raised, and again, your offer of help was most welcome. But we're clearly not getting anywhere here; I'm going to go write some code for a few hours. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could give you a laundry list of problems with this article, and maybe you could go through that list and fix everything, and then I'd more than likely come up with another list, because your fixes weren't fixes at all. Articles brought to FAC ought to meet, or be close to meeting, the FA criteria, and this one isn't IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably could. Or you could simply point out where my fixes weren't fixes (or suggest fixes you are comfortable with). Again, I find your oppose unconvincing, being as it is a total reversal of your tone barely a day ago. But it's no skin off my nose if this is failed; I'm comfortable with the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - After six weeks there is no consensus to promote this candidate and I have decided to archive the nomination. Long reviews can deter new reviewers and a fresh start might benefit the article's prospects. Graham Colm (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [41].[reply]

Theodora Cormontan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dictioneer (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because its subject is classical pianist, composer, and pioneering publisher who struggled with the setbacks and barriers common to her era -- I hope a useful addition to the encyclopedia's collection of articles relevant to Women's History Month. I have read as many of the FA guidelines as I could handle without being overwhelmed, I am braced to accept criticism, and I will work diligently to improve the article to FA-quality by month's end. Dictioneer (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I applaud your choice of subject and understand your reasons for wanting to see this as a featured article. But...this is a brand new article which has received no prior review or assessment at all before being brought here. FAC is the final stage on an article's journey to featured status, it should not be the community's first opportunity to look at the article. I have brought a number of articles to FAC in the past, including several composer biographies (Gustav Mahler, Bedrich Smetana, George Bizet etc) and every one of them has been through a detailed review first. I strongly advise that you withdraw this nomination and send it to WP:Peer review, where I will be very happy to review it and to help you if possible to achieve your goal. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the above user's comment and interpret it to mean the nomination is therefore "unprepared". This process is a little confusing, but if I understand correctly, my agreement means that Raul or one of Raul's delegates can now archive this nomination. Once I see that it's disappeared from here, I'll update its talk page with the Peer Review template, and flag the talk pages of Brianboulton and Nikkimaria to pick up the PR request and run with it (if I read the volunteers page correctly, they seem like the best two candidates at this point). If I've got the process wrong and need to do something else, please let me know on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page further. I hope the article will emerge better from the process. Dictioneer (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first and best tip would be to add references to all paragraphs. Geschichte (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: Welcome to FAC, Dictioneer. A quick glance at the article suggests that it has plenty of potential to reach Featured status, but that it is indeed under-prepared at this time. Aside from additional citations (at least one covering each paragraph, as Geschichte notes), the lead needs to adequately summarise the article, which generally means it should be at least a couple of decent-sized paragraphs. As well as Peer Review, which Brian has recommended, you might also consider taking it through a Good Article Nomination prior to returning to FAC. As you're in effect asking to withdraw the nomination, I'll archive it and you can pursue enhancements and other reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

83rd Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): occono (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it very well referenced, readable and informative. occono (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Wicca (etymology)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I have recently undertaken a lot of work to improve it and pull it up to what I hope is FA quality; but I leave others to be the judge of that. Because it deals with a relatively minor, obscure subject, I have been able to use all of the academic, peer-reviewed publications that have ever been published on this issue in order to put together this article. I therefore consider it to be as comprehensive as possible, and can see little space for improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Apologies, an editor had moved the cited sources into the Further Reading after I had initiated this FA nomination; I have corrected this. I have also corrected Heselton to 2004. Field is a newspaper article, long out of print, so I am unsure that we would be able to obtain the page number in this instance, although I shall look into it. Similar problem with Wilson, in that the article is in an obscure and long out of print magazine, but I shall look into it Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have discovered and added the page numbers of Wilson's article to the references. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A scan of the Field article can be found online here. Unfortunately, the page numbers are not visible. Considering that the Doyle White paper doesn't carry them either, I suspect that it will be beyond possibility for us to obtain them, and therefore this particular criteria should be waived in this particular instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what you mean by "FN33?". Could you please explain this for me ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe Nikki is referring to Footnote 33 (Janus-Mithras, Nuit-Hilaria and Mer-Amun 1981). Ruby 2010/2013 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated Ruby! Footnote 33 refers to the entire book, and not any particular page within it, so naturally there is no need for page numbers there! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point that you have made Reywas92. When I founded this article, I followed the example set by Witch (etymology) when naming it, although am not averse to making a change if others agree that it is the correct course of action. However, would a better title be Etymology of "Wicca", reflecting that the article deals with the word itself, not the religious movement that it refers to ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that article probably ought to be moved too. Quotation marks are generally discouraged in article names, and etymology implies the word itself; here are other etymology articles on WP. Reywas92Talk 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, your reasoning and argument seems sound; I have moved "Wicca (etymology)" to "Etymology of Wicca". Thanks for the advice! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Open almost six weeks without any consensus to promote, and no comments for almost a month, this nom has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd suggest that putting it through GAN and Peer Review may be beneficial in generating more interest before another renomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [44].[reply]

G. Wayne Clough

[edit]
Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria, and covers a rather notable subject in detail. I took a good deal of time in Feb 2012 to dramatically improve the article, but I'm just now nominating it. I look forward to reviewer comments. Disavian (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least until the prose is cleaned up. Afew examples of what I'm talking about:

  • "The students of Georgia Tech affectionately dubbed him "Funk Masta G. Wayne" during his presidency in accordance with the expansion and growth he encouraged in urban Atlanta ...". Accordance is clearly not the right word there.
  • "... Clough believed it detracted from the entirety of the exhibition, in which he believed 'to be a powerful exhibit about the contributions of gay and lesbian artists'".
  • "Clough has earned numerous awards and honors during his career ... Dr. Clough has also earned a George Westinghouse Award from the American Society for Engineering Education". Why do we suddenly start calling him Dr. Clough?
  • " Clough's decision was widely criticized, but Clough responded that he was protecting the Smithsonian's larger educational mission." Rather awkward and unnecessary repetition of "Clough".
  • " In 2011, Georgia Tech opened the G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons building to honor his commitment to undergraduate students". I'm quite certain that's not at all the reason they opened it, but it may be the reason they named it as they did.
  • "They have had two children, Eliza and Matthew." Don't they still have two children?
  • "There Clough met his wife, Anne Olivia Robinson, while he was in middle school." No, he didn't meet his wife, he met his future wife.
  • The Early life section recounts events up until 1994, when Clough was almost 53. Can't really consider that to be "early life". Also, much of the section isn't about either Clough's early life or education, it's about his academic career before becoming President of Georgia Tech. Overall, I think that there's undue emphasis on Clough's time at Georgia Tech compared to his time at Virginia Tech, for instance.
  • "Clough's tenure was especially focused on a dramatic expansion of the Institute; over $1 billion was spent on expanding or improving the campus. These projects included the completion of several west campus dorms ...". What projects? The previous sentence was talking about tenure, not projects. Where did the money come from anyway?
    • Projects as in specific buildings, or collections thereof. A great deal of campus construction happened while he was president, and one of the largest responsibilities of the president is fundraising for whatever they want to build next. And it would be more accurate to ask where the money didn't come from - many of the buildings were funded by alumni donations along with funds specially procured from the state. I don't know how to encapsulate those facts into the article, though. Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clough's father died in February 1988, and his mother died in August 1994." Is that really relevant? And again, what does it have to do with either Clough's early life or his education?
    • They're biographical facts. The sentence has been somewhat adjusted, I believe, and the section has been renamed to "research". Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Which makes it doubly incomprehensible why the deaths of Clough's parents should be tagged on to the end of that section. Let's remind ourselves that this a biography of Clough, not his parents. Did their deaths affect him in any significant way for instance? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The timing of the deaths of his parents is significant since they both died shortly before Clough became President of Georgia Tech, which provides relevant biographical information. In other words, Clough was not able to share his increasing success and greater accomplishments with his parents due to the timing of their deaths. I recommend moving the information regarding his parents' deaths to another section of the article to resolve the concerns described above. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress again that these are just a few examples, not a list of issues that if addressed will automatically switch my vote to support. My overall impression is that the prose is generally rather clunky, particulary the final Honors and awards section. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have been absolutely slammed with work this week, but I have had a couple people come in and copyedit the article. If I get some more time - possibly on Friday - I will look to see what of your suggestions has been resolved. Disavian (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, had a look through them, good suggestions. I replied to the ones I could. Thanks for taking the time to copyedit and review the article. Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (edit conflict!) I was the GA reviewer. Here are some issues:
    • "A graduate of Georgia Tech, in civil engineering, he was the first Georgia Tech alumnus to be the president of Georgia Tech." - too many occasions of Georgia Tech. Perhaps remove the second mention, and replaced the third with "that university"
      • That has since been changed to "A graduate of Georgia Tech, in civil engineering, he was the first alumnus to serve as President of the Institute." - any thoughts on that phrasing? I think we might need to uncapitalize president and institute. Disavian (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during which time" - I think should be "during when"
    • "Daniel Clough, the youngest of three children.[4][5]" - I think as it currently reads it may rather mean that his father was the youngest of three children
    • "after which the family moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee." - I don't understand this phrase (after which is referring to what?)
    • "while he was in middle school" - remove while
    • The following two sentences are disconnected and too short
      • "The faculty encouraged him to earn a graduate degree, and he received his master's in 1965.[7]" - also disconnected
      • "and his mother died in " - remove "died"?
    • Will continue later--Tomcat (7) 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed several of the issues described above, in addition to edits previously made by User:Elsceetaria. I will continue to help with this process until all issues have been addressed. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Print publications should be italicized
  • What makes FindAGrave a high-quality reliable source?
    • I typically avoid FindAGrave as well, but used it to cite his parents' death dates as 1) that information is not contained in any other source I could find 2) it is noncontroversial information 3) a picture of the grave is included. So yes, I would prefer another source, but that seems like reasonably important uncontroversial information to me. Definitely a grey area as far as RS goes, though. I wouldn't be opposed to commenting out that sentence, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Disavian (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27, 58: publisher?
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: not duplicating cited sources, I compare the two external links to the official links in Barack Obama.

Addressed several more issues. If possible, please provide feedback regarding changes made so far. Thanks Mistercontributer (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- After remaining open almost six weeks with no consensus to promote, and no activity for almost three weeks, this nom seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Since its Peer Review was over two years ago, that may be a useful route to go before renominating for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [45].[reply]

Airbnb

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kimsophiabrown (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after reading it, I feel that it meets many, if not all, of the criteria an article must meet to be a featured article. It possesses good organization, is well-written, and covers a substantial scope. Additionally, Airbnb is an interesting topic to feature because it is an innovative company that is rapidly expanding. Additionally, it is rapidly changing the way people search and find places to stay. The article manages to stay neutral in describing the company and is clearly written by a contributor who is both knowledgeable and neutral on this subject.

Comments. Hi Kim, welcome to FAC. I see you haven't edited the article, have you notified any of the people who have that this is at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments In it's current form, this article's referencing is excellent, its structure is good, its content is good, and its prose is mediocre. A couple of suggestions: (1) Discuss how many employees the company has, and mention if there are other locations outside of San Francisco; (2) Add a few pictures to the article; (3) Make the paragraphs a bit longer. Currently most of the paragraph are only 1 or 2 sentences. Contact me if you have any questions. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Nominator did not contact any of the major contributors. Also, the article hasn't even reached Good Article status yet. I suggest that this be withdrawn.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per above, the fact that the article has not achieved GA status is not of itself grounds for procedural close, though the lack of contact with the major contributors might be. Regardless of procedure, however, this article is in no sense ready for promotion to FA. There are fundamental prose issues to be addressed, including: too many very short (sometimes a single sentence) sections; too many very short paragraphs which prevent any prose flow; frequent intrusion of a redundant "of" as in, for example, "June of 2011"; simple prose errors, e.g. "including a man who's home had been rented", and "In June 2012, Airbnb launched a wish list feature offering users the ability to create curated catalog of desired listing they would like to visit"; "mid 2011" and others. There are also numerous format issues in the citations. The article has never been subjected to any formal review process; perhaps peer review is the forum in which the article should be crafted into FAC-worthiness. Bringing it here at present is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Concur that based simply on prose and formatting issues (title case in section headings is just one glaring example) the article has been prematurely nominated, regardless of the procedural issue re. not contacting main contributors. Kim, I recommend both GAN and Peer Review -- in consultation with the main contributors -- before considering renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2013 (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/March_2013&oldid=866005628"