Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2015

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

God of War: Ascension

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I've tried to edit and model this off of the recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808 ♫ 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments by David Fuchs

[edit]
  • I'm not sure about the NFCC rationales for File:GOWAscension MP.jpg, File:GoWAscension Kratos vs Charybdis.jpg, and File:God-of-War-Ascension-Collectors-Edition-Kratos-Statue-002.jpg. The Ascension map seems mostly to be background dressing; it doesn't demonstrate gameplay, and doesn't seem necessary to explain multiplayer or critics' response to it. The Kratos statue is really just illustrative, and the Charybdis image doesn't seem essential either, especially as you're illustrating a part of the game that didn't make it to the finished product. I would suggest removing the above images and looking for a gameplay image that touches on the specific aspects called out in the gameplay and reception sections (also noting: the reviewers mention a color-coding system that doesn't seem to be discussed in the gameplay section.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced the MP image with one that shows the color-coding system, and added its information to the section. Replaced the Charybdis one with concept art of the sequence. Does the statue one need removed? --JDC808 ♫ 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The gameplay image seems better, but I'm still not sold on the statue or now the concept art image. The sequence was cut from the game; why is our understanding of the topic significantly hurt by not having visualizations of a cut sequence discussed in a paragraph? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)
        • For one, it gives more visual appeal. Two, which is more important, it gives insight into what could have happened, as for someone who is interested in the history of the development of the game, that's intriguing to be able to see that. A good example would be a character. Not all characters appear in a game as they were originally designed. Having concept art of the original design and having a screenshot of how the character actually appeared in the game is really nice to have from a developmental stand point. --JDC808 ♫ 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the delay, but the points you're arguing don't jive with WP:NFCC. Obviously it's nice to have images, but when they're non-free that's not a standard we follow. Removing images of a portion of the game that didn't actually end up in the final product isn't significantly harming reader understanding of the topic, hence it's not defensible per the criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

[edit]
  • It's "SCE Santa Monica Studio", or "Sony Santa Monica", not just "Santa Monica Studio"
    It can be stated without "SCE" or "Sony".
  • "In the lead up to the game's release on GodofWar.com" - the game was released on godofwar.com? Or just the graphic novel? Also, there's no hyphen in "graphic-novel". The whole sentence is feeling a bit unwieldy with the long aside as well- try something like "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes, featuring social challenges to unlock bonus content, was launched as Rise of the Warrior on GodofWar.com in the lead up to the game's release."
    Done.
  • Tense shift- the graphics "are true" to prior games, but the story "was not" as compelling as prior games
  • GOCE copy-editor mistake.
  • Why do the publisher, director, and multiplayer mode get a special citation callout in the infobox?
    It's from back when the article was first being developed and citations were put where confirmed. I never removed them from there because I never saw it as an issue.
  • odd and unintentional redirects kicking off the gameplay section- the see also link, multiplayer, third-person, gorgons, harpies, centaurs. Also, why does Gorgon get a capital letter, but not Sirens, Cerberus, or Talos, which are also specific, named creatures usually capitalized?
    What's wrong with the "see also" link and the others in general? They link to where they're supposed to. As for capitalization, I admittedly missed the capitalization of Sirens, but the rest are how each one's respective Wikipedia article treats them in regards to capitalization (they don't). The only exception is "cerberuses". The "cerberuses" in these games are not the one-and-only Cerberus of Greek mythology. In the God of War universe, there are many cerberuses.
  • A wiktionary link to wraith? I'm not sure I would even regular link that, much less external link it.
    Covered in response two points down.
  • "The game features a variety of puzzles, some simple while other may be more complex." - not only should it be "others", but this sentence hedges itself- "may be". Just say "The game features a variety of puzzles, ranging from simple to complex."
    Done.
  • This whole paragraph is a bit off, actually. Why list every monster in the game? "The game features several creatures from Greek mythology as enemies, such as A, B, C." There's no need to list a dozen monsters to pad out the paragraph. Your first paragraph to God of War III is more readable.
    God of War III also lists all of the mythological monsters that appear in it. Looking at it from a perspective of someone who has no knowledge about this series, I would find that interesting to know what mythological monsters are actually in these games. I cut back on the game specific monsters.
  • "wrapped around the character's wrists" - just say "his wrists", no need to use a longer term for a specific character.
    Okay.
  • "A new weapons mechanic" - mention that it's new to the series, not just "new"
    Is it not understood that it's new to the series?
  • "These include a sword" - These are a sword- include implies that your only listing some, not the whole list
    Done.
  • "Kratos may punch or kick foes as part of the new combat system." - drop "as part of the new combat system", this whole section is about the combat system.
    Yes, this whole section is about the combat system, but this is a new mechanic to the combat system.
  • "because several components of the game are based in this environment" - wordy, "because several sections of the game are submerged."
    I didn't really like that rewording, but I changed it to "a necessary ability as substantial time is spent here."
  • What fills the Rage meter?
    Accidentally cut that part when I did some condensing.
  • "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed depending on the goal" - can you only do one or the other, based on what's going on? Or can you construct a bridge, then deconstruct it again even if that's not helpful? Either way, I don't think "depending on the goal" is a useful addition to the sentence.
    Removed.
  • "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to be bi-located, creating a "shadow" version" -> "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to create a "shadow" duplicate"
    Some of these are what the GOCE copy-editor did and "bi-located" is one example.
  • "player takes control of the warrior and aligns with one of the four deities" - does it really take 6 different citations to handle this sentence, or are some of these meant for the earlier parts of the paragraph?
    The citations following each name are trailers demonstrating some of each god's abilities for choosing them. The last is a reference to the instruction manual. I don't remember the reason for the other one without checking the link, but I removed it.
  • Spartan and Trojan are both linking to disambiguation pages
    Fixed, though the very first part of those pages explained the terms' usage here.
  • Okay, I'm going to stop here. This whole section is just... way too long. It's a combination of two things- you go into too much detail in explaining exactly how every mechanic works instead of just saying "there is an X mechanic that lets Kratos do Y", and your writing style is really wordy. There's a lot of roundabout sentence construction, add-on phrases that don't add anything substantive to the sentence, etc. God of War III got the idea across in 5 paragraphs (4.5, really), while this takes 9 big ones- even the addition of multiplayer shouldn't have doubled the length. It's just a bit much; I get tired just getting through the section, and I see that the rest of the article is going to keep up that pace- that 11-paragraph release section is making my eye twitch just looking at it, as it's long enough to be its own sub-article. You really need to substantially cut down on the length of this article. I'll return to review the rest of the article soon.
  • --PresN 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly disagree with needing to substantially cut down the length. God of War III's gameplay section was actually two or three paragraphs longer when it passed FAC. After it passed FAC, I decided to cut out a lot of the similar gameplay elements and just put a link that covers all of that (I actually decided that was something I wanted to do during the FAC review, but didn't do it during the review process as to not mess up anything for the reviewers). You're leaving out that there are subsections, which are there so that it's not an 11-paragraph release section that you're making it out to be (By that, I mean it's not 11 straight paragraphs, there are subsections that break that up. It's like reading a book; if the main section is the book, the subsections are the chapters.). --JDC808 ♫ 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by hahnchen

[edit]

I've not really reviewed the article, just bits of it. I probably won't have time to do a deep a dive as I did for GOW3, but here are some thoughts nonetheless.

    • I thought the cyclops multiplayer image was better because it gave you a sense of scale and showed a unique environmental danger that you wouldn't find in other games.
      Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs didn't seem to like it which is why I changed it. I'll change it back because you're right.
    • I would still include a gameplay image showing standard single player gameplay.
      Will look for one. Put one in the Plot section. --JDC808 ♫ 15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd just pick a straight gameplay image with Kratos swinging his blades about - that's typical gameplay, rather than the QTE that you've picked out. - hahnchen 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I'll see what I can find.
    • I'd prefer the sales data in the reception section rather than the release section. This is where it's most expected.
      I've always put it there in release.
    • "free for players who obtained the Season Pass from the Collector's Edition." It isn't free if you've already paid for it.
      Fixed. I guess I was thinking with like PS Plus or XBL where you get "free" games every month.
    • Your Gamerankings scores do not line up, consider whether you need it at all given the audience find Metacritic sufficient to show the consensus.
      Fixed. I forgot to change the one in the prose when I updated the score about a week ago.
    • I'm not sure that Bros before Hos needs mention at all, it seems weird having its own little subsection.
      Okay, I'll think about what to do with it.
    • Consider your use of quotes carefully. You pick out a lot of tiny quotes such as 'Edge also said the fixed camera system is an "asset"', this reads to me as though the word "asset" is in scare quotes which gives the opposite meaning. It also looks clumsy and throws off the readers' inner voice.
      Okay, I'll look at it.
    • "In 2014, Ascension received nominations from two prestigious annual awards." Remove this, you don't need a summary sentence for two nominations, and "prestigious" is fluff.
      Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a better development section. A lot of it isn't even development, but just meaningless marketing milestones.
    • The rumours of the game (some of which are wrong) are trivial and unencyclopedic.
      • Removed and just put a one liner saying a bunch of sources claimed a 2012 release.
    • I don't need David Jaffe to tell me Asmussen is doing "cool stuff". Just say Papy is the director and Asmussen did not work on the game.
      • Removed the "cool stuff"; replaced with "working on another project".
    • "Sony stated the game would offer" - you go on to reprint a meaningless marketing nothing. Consider cutting this down, this is not an exhaustive list.
      • Ended up cutting the whole paragraph.
    • When Papy revealed plot points is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your plot.
      • Goes with above point.
    • When Simon revealed circle button changes is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your gameplay.
      • Cut this down.
    • I don't know see how Jaffe's hypothetical game has any bearing on the actual game.
      • Since he created this series and was the first game's director, I find it interesting to see what his perspective is and I thought other readers might as well.
    • Why are you citing Game Rant when it just quotes the significantly more reliable IGN?
      • It was the article I had read.
    • More trivial stuff in the Multiplayer section, such as what PAX attendees get.
      • Trimmed some.
    • Yet you miss a development postmortem at Gamasutra which dives into the difficulties Santa Monica had working on their first ever multiplayer game.[2]

Comments from Freikorp

[edit]
  • It wouldn't hurt to specify which country the cover art in the infobox is from, and the image needs ALT text.
    • It did state North America, but someone said it was not only North America's.
  • Ref 138 is dead. Check links also finds a fair few redirects.
    • Couldn't find a working link, so removed.
  • It's nice to see many of your sources are archived, but there are plenty that are not. It's not required for FAC, but in my experience the more online references you archive the less likely this article is to appear at FAR. Otherwise your references formatting is consistent and up to standards.
  • "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed." I don't understand how something that is already broken can be 'deconstructed'. Can you explain to me what this means in game? Accordingly consider providing a better explanation to the reader.
    • During the construction, you can also reverse what you've done if needed. Will try to explain better.
  • "The Prison of the Damned is a massive prison built upon the imprisoned Hecatonchires Aegaeon..." "Aegaeon" hasn't been introduced at this stage. Googling allowed me to familiarise myself with the term, but it may be worth briefly explaining exactly what this is to the reader; I don't think it would make sense to people not familiar with the game or mythology as is.
    • Linked his name.
  • "He is attacked by all three Furies and severs Megaera's arm". It's already been established in the plot that Megaera has been killed. How is she alive again?
    • It's in the past. The narrative of this game shifts between the present and past (stated in the Setting section). The preceding paragraph states that it's 3 weeks before the present time, and this paragraph is a week after the previous paragraphs events.
  • One instance of "Charybdis"does not have a capital.
    • That was actually done on purpose. Charybdis is the name of a sea monster in Greek mythology. In the Plot section where it states that Alecto transforms into a charybdis, I'm using "charybdis" to mean a type of sea monster rather than the sea monster named Charybdis. That may not have been the best way to do it. I'm going to make this easy and just replace "charybdis" in the Plot with sea monster.
  • Nine instances of "he said" in the reception section gets a bit painful.
    • Cut it back to four.
  • Lead states that it won no awards, but the accolades section does not explicitly state this. As the lead should summarise the article, consider either removing this information from the lead or adding it to the accolades section.
    • Fixed.

Overall a very well written article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This review seems to have pretty well stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

2011 White House shooting

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk), Freikorp (talk 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On on November 11, 2011, bullets struck the second floor near the first family's formal living room of the White House, but It took four days for the Secret Service to realize it. "The shit really hit the fan" when President Barack Obama returned from his travels five days later, and by October 2014, the services of two directors of the United States Secret Service were no longer required. Please enjoy reading this Social sciences and society good article, which we believe is ready to be a featured article. Please let us know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Feel free to revert, but I separated the images of Sullivan and Pierson. I don't think they need to be attached and the one of Sullivan is of much poorer quality and should be reduced in size from the previous revision (imo). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I undid my edit per a request on my talk page by one of the nominators. I don't feel strongly either way, which I expressed here and on my talk page, so I am fine to undo and respect the author's preference. Carry on! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry. I don't think this is at FA quality, and that's not so much a criticism of the writing as a reflection of the fact that for a topic of this kind, getting it to FA is pretty much impossible due the absence of strong (non-news) sources and the inherent "newsiness" of it all. Also, the prose would need a good do-over:
  • "President Obama, his wife Michelle, and their oldest daughter Malia were not home at the time of the shooting, although their younger daughter Sasha"
  • I'm not picking up what you're putting down here. What's the problem? Freikorp (talk)
  • Agents who thought the building had been fired upon "were largely ignored" - where is this quote from?
  • Why are gang-fight and gun-shop hyphenated?
  • "The first lady was said to be furious" - said by whom?
  • "during which she was reported to have raised her voice so loudly she could be heard through the closed door" - reported by whom?
  • "President Obama was also said to be furious over the flawed response" - said by whom?
  • "A former agent stated that the Secret Service needed to change its ways in order to prevent "complacency" and stop future attacks" - is this unnamed further agent a credible critic?
  • I don't see why not, but feel free to ask for other opinions. Freikorp (talk)
  • Pierson "got an earful" from Committee Chairman Darrell Issa - whose quotes are these?
  • "a release date of October 24, 2033". Is this definite? Any possibility of parole?
  • I don't know. I can't find any coverage on him after he was sentenced. That date is just from the Federal Bureau of Prisons website. Freikorp (talk)
I think a lot of the above examples are indicative of the journalistic approach to reporting creeping into the Wikipedia article, which is perhaps close to unavoidable in an article of this kind, but isn't consistent with FA standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. It's the first one so i'll have to wait for more to get a consensus regarding the article not being suitable for FA. In the meantime i've attempted to address the specific concerns raised. Freikorp (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata, can you be more specific about how the "newsiness" of this article is problematic and/or in violation of FA criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It manifests itself in two ways, so far as the FA criteria go. First, the article universally uses contemporaneous news sources or primary sources (FBI). That doesn't amount to the high-quality sourcing required by 1c. Second, the over-reliance on news sources has crept into the prose of the article, examples of which are above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong, I just didn't know 'contemporaneous news sources' = low quality... Thanks for responding and I look forward to seeing what other reviewers also say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this incident has been extensively covered by scholarly books or peer-reviewed journals, then yes, newspapers are relatively low quality. (and you should preferentially use the scholarly sources) If that isn't the case, you make do with what you get—newspapers, especially NYT, WaPo etc, as is the case here, are fine.—indopug (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the WaPo piece that forms the backbone of this article is a detailed investigative article, written three years after the event. It is much more authoritative than a mere "contemporaneous news source".—indopug (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see you clarify that because I certainly agree with that statement. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review doesn't really seem to be progressing so I'm going to archive it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean it should be nominated again in the near future or does a lack of review participation mean something in particular? It's been a while, but I've written three FAs and I don't recall any of them stalling out like this. Any feedback/recommendation would be helpful, I'm sure to the two nominators as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them stall. Next time let's not kick off the FAC with a strange comment followed by an apology. Prhartcom (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Only Girl (In the World)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Rihanna's single "Only Girl (In the World)". It is one of her most successful singles, reaching either number-one or number-two in pretty much every country. It has also been certified platinum or multi-platinum everywhere too. It has broken and set multiple chart records in the U.S. and the UK. I've followed the criteria and also used other FA's for guidance and inspiration as to how to write and structure the article. Hopefully other editors will think so too. (I am aware that the link checker will say that the 7 Digital sources are dead; they aren't. I only added them two days ago. Same problem was found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)/archive1.)  — ₳aron 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, sorry. The prose seems to be under-prepared for the FA level. There are simple copyediting issues ("Rihanna first performed "Only Girl (In the World)" on Saturday Night Live in the New York City" / "the songs instrumental was recorded by Eriksen and Miles" / "Rihanna has previously worked with Stargate on previous singles"). But there are also more fundamental things, such as an overuse of the passive voice, some quite clunky sentences (what does "the most in both categories" mean?) and numerous unattributed quotes (eg "frolicking in a red field and lying in a bed of flowers."). And who says that the song "garnered a generally positive response from music critics" - is this original research? I'm afraid that I just don't think this is at FA standard or is capable of being brought to that standard within the period of an FA candidature. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I've removed 'the' from 'the New York City', apostrophised 'songs' and removed reputation of 'previously/previous'. Could you be more specific with what you mean by an overuse of passive voice? The 'the most in both categories' means that she had the most number-ones and the most debuts, which I say in the previous clause ("becoming her eighth to reach the peak and her sixth to debut atop the chart"). Not sure what you mean by 'numerous unattributed quotes', either. With regard to you saying that 'garnered a generally positive response from music critics' is original research, may I ask if you are familiar with how song articles are written? Because we don't source that; it is used as an intro as to how the majority of critics viewed the song, followed by specific examples from critics. "S&M" is an FA, and that doesn't have that line sourced, as don't other FAs. I used "S&M" as a guide for this article, so I do believe that "Only Girl (In the World)" is FA worthy. I look forward to your responses.  — ₳aron 11:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, to expand a bit more:
  • I don't think an FA should contain quotes that are not attributed to their source in the actual text. So when you say "frolicking in a red field and lying in a bed of flowers", it should be "According to X".
  • "garnered a generally positive response from music critics" plainly is original research and the fact that other articles do it doesn't make it better. How did you judge "generally positive"? A raw headcount of reviewers? Was the headcount weighted for reliability? How?
  • "Additional vocal recording was carried out by Inaam Haq, Dane Liska and Brad Shea." is one example of unnecessary use of the passive voice. Why not "Inaam Haq, Dane Liska and Brad Shea carried out additional vocal recording."? In this sentence, the difference is not great and is no big deal. But when you get to a sentence with multiple parts, the passive voice really screws it up. Example: "Rihanna was criticized [by whom?] for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine on The X Factor, branded as "disgusting" [by whom? and what's disgusting? the routine or The X Factor?], before the watershed [what?], a system [the watershed?] in the United Kingdom which does not allow adult content to be broadcast before 9 pm." --Mkativerata (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But to be honest, you're pointing out things which were deemed as acceptable for FA in another article I promoted. That's why I'm a bit confused by your comments. I'll try and work on these points a bit later, but if they are good enough for another article which was successfully promoted, I don't see why they wouldn't be here.  — ₳aron 11:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the change about the vocal recording, but I don't think bit about The X Factor and the watershed needs changing. Unless others specifically say this is not okay, then I take it as fine considering it was okay for "S&M" which is an FA. You don't have to say "According to X" for everything, and you'll be hard pushed to find an FA which has "received a generally positive response" or similar sourced; I'm yet to see it that. Apart from that, I've done everything else.  — ₳aron 18:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just driving by here, not at the moment doing any formal comment on the nomination, but although this is clearly a good article, so kudos there, I personally think you should take the above points seriously in terms of it being brilliant prose and FA standard. The whole sentence "Rihanna was criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine on The X Factor, branded as "disgusting", before the watershed, a system in the United Kingdom which does not allow adult content to be broadcast before 9 pm" reads clunkily in several ways to me. There are two WP:WEASELs in there ("Rihanna was criticized" and "branded as disgusting"), and the sentence itself doesn't scan too well - it's too long, with too many short little bits of prose separated by commas, with about three levels of indirection. I don't know what the situation was in other FAs that you mention, but personally if I was doing a full review I'd probably make the same points as Mkativerata, and I suggest a full copy edit is in order. Enlist the WP:GOCE if necessary, they usually do a pretty good job! Thanks, and keep up the good work  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I understand what you're saying, but "S&M" was copyedited before FAC and no one had any issue with the phrasing exemplified above. So that is why I'm questioning it, because if it was good enough for lots of other editors in another article, why isn't it so here?  — ₳aron 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have an answer to that I'm afraid... I guess there are two possibilities, either my thoughts are inaccurate or overly harsh (and I'll happily admit that may be the case, as I'm not a professional writer or copyeditor!), or these issues were relevant but somehow slipped through the net when the S&M FA was going through. Out of interest, let me ping Miniapolis who kindly did the copyedit of my article recently. Miniapolis, if you have a spare moment to comment on this, as a copyeditor, what is your opinion of the sentence "Rihanna was criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine on The X Factor, branded as "disgusting", before the watershed, a system in the United Kingdom which does not allow adult content to be broadcast before 9 pm"? Is it FA standard prose, with or without the unattributed bits, or would you improve it? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't laugh, but "S&M" had 10 nominations and passed on its tenth, it early broke a record for most failed nominations. Tens and tens of editors got involved on nominations!  — ₳aron 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Many of the chart in the table do not use the {{singlechart}} template, hence comes across as inconsistent in their references, and many of the certifications in the {{Certification Table Entry}} template lack accessdate parameters. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for commenting. We don't have to use the single template, and I've only used the manual way for Canada, UK and U.S. Also, the certifications do use the template; I'm not sure if manually added an access date will cause the reference to not work properly?  — ₳aron 10:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quick scan (recusing from coord duties) -- aside from prose concerns mentioned above, this article really does need a going over to fix what appear to be careless errors, particularly the last couple I noticed:

  • If you use quotes in the lead, you should cite/attribute them there, even if you do so in the main body, and the term "heavy" (re. the bass) is not so attributed. OTOH I ask myself if it even needs to be a quote, when it's just an adjective -- can we not think of a similar term?
  • The word "simplistic" caught my eye. This is generally a pejorative term, whereas here it seems to be praise. I suspected that the word "simple" was meant, but when I checked the cited source (FN57) I found that it had nothing to do with the information it was supposedly supporting.
  • The sentence "Jason Lipshutz described the tree with flashing lights as "surreal imagery."[59]" appears twice in the same section (Music video).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks I've done everything suggested above.  — ₳aron 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but I still see "simplistic" in the main body, and the ref that's supposed to support this is still incorrect. It's claimed in the text to be Tanner Stransky, but the citation links to a review by Soraya Roberts. Furthermore, these are just things I found on a cursory look at the article. Based on this, I believe it needs someone -- probably an independent editor -- to walk through it top to bottom, checking that there are no similar issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully oppose at this time. I appreciate your careful referencing, but I see many issues with this article. In addition to the concerns from the three editors above, I notice quite a few additional prose issues (for example, "Wearing "a black-and-white bra top and boy shorts," Mawuse Ziegbe of MTV News noted that the singer "kicked up the island theme" as drummers wearing tribal outfits circled Rihanna." Who was wearing the black and white bra? The sentence indicates it was Mawuse Ziegbe of MTV, when I suspect it was actually Rianna). And a quick glance at the References section shows that a good portion of the references were last accessed in 2010/2011. Why is that?
There is also quite a bit of inconsistency with the references. Ref #92 says "Note: insert 201052 into search." Ref #151 says "Enter Only Girl (In the World) in the field Keywords. Select Title in the field Search by. Select single in the field By Format. Select Platinum in the field By Award. Click Search". Why do some of the references with notes say "Note:" while others do not? Some of the notes use punctuation, while others do not.
Also, why is the "See also" section so huge? There are 30 'see also' wikilinks. Per WP:SEEALSO, editors are advised not to link to articles already linked in the text. If these are all already linked in the text, they should not appear in the "See also" section. If they are not already linked in the text, I wonder if they're all really relevant to the article. And if they are all relevant to the article, it seems the article could use some expanding to include them in the prose.
Despite my opposition to the promotion of this article, I appreciate your efforts, Aaron. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments Firsfron. I will apply them.  — ₳aron 11:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth

[edit]
Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been rated as an Arts Good Article for some time, and was previously nominated for featured article status. I think it addressed all of the concerns of the previous reviewers and is a comprehensive, well-sourced article. The lorax (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Looking exclusively at reference formatting and selection. I've made no effort to evaluate the prose or judge POV reference weighting at this time.

  • Date formats. I see MDY (June 20, 2010), ISO 8601 (2007-03-06), DMY (10 December 2009), and stuff that's just wrong (11.10.07).
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three references are throwing visible errors.
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should be given as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s (use this converter).
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books need to be titled in title case.
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher locations are optional and you mostly don't use them (which is fine, and even my personal preference) ... except when you do.
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titling. There's some art to figuring out what should be used as the title for some webpages. But you shouldn't include the website in the title when that's not how the page itself is styled (I see a NYT source with this problem and OnTheIssues.org). I don't see "On a Bender:" in this title either.
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a (common) problem with web source formatting in terms of what you list as the website and what you list as the publisher. This is important because the website field is italicized and the publisher field is not. There's some room for editorial discretion, especially when they are the same or very similar (and you rarely are required to include both regardless), but things that are clearly the styling of the website (like RealClimate, Movie City News, AltFilmGuide) are clearly websites, not publishers. Also, sometimes, the citations just get these wrong entirely. I see a cite to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science (good), but then 3 references later, another cite that's just styled "OSCAR.com".
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some references that are just not formatted correctly, or even just not formatted. At the time I write this: 51, 74, 123...

Looking at the referencing in general, this is almost entirely sourced to news outlets and the like. There are two print books in the entire reference list, and both are used merely to cite things said during the film. This was an influential documentary and the source of no small amount of controversy; has there been no coverage in the works of respected publishers? Are there more scholarly discussions of the work than the three articles you cite from GeoJournal (I see widely-cited papers in Quarterly Journal of Speech, Environment and Behavior, and Journal of Environmental Economics and Management that look promising, and I haven't looked very far). At this point, my inclination is: lean oppose : 1b, 2c. I think there is a lot of work to be done here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mkativerata

[edit]
  • Oppose, sorry. There are quite a few issues with this article, some of which are raised above. The prose is not at FA standard - from minor issues such as the use of contractions ("didn't") and lack of copyediting ("filed a petition to have New Zealand schoolchildren be protected from political indoctrination") to more significant ones such as overly long quotations and vague weasel-words ("An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising international public awareness of climate change"). As for sourcing, I spot-checked the claim that "All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.". The source says the movie "mostly got the science right" and that the 19 scientists were "who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press". There's quite a lot of subtlety lost in translation to the Wikipedia article there. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's weasely to mention when there's a whole chapter in the article about countries/governments that made the film available for schools and various studies showing that people who watched the film were influenced to believe in climate change--do you think there's a more NPOV way to put it? I'll fix the AP reference.--The lorax (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also oppose on the basis of prose, and think that it could really do with a thorough prose edit, perhaps via peer review. Just reading the lede I can see a variety of problems. I would also suggest that the nominator (or someone else) ensure that every website reference is archived, lest they begin to deteriorate due to link rot. I would also suggest that the article include academic sources; I think it very likely that many academics specialising in environmentalism and its public impact would have written about the film, and their voices should be articulated in this article; try searching on Google Scholar, JSTOR, or Project Muse perhaps ? If these issues are dealt with then I'd welcome this article back to FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've walked these halls, but let's give it a whirl. My main area of concern with this article is how accessible it is to the layperson. The GA review, which was a while ago, was carried out by another editor with good knowledge of cricket. I think I at least have provided sufficient wikilinks to help with this, but I'll let you judge for yourselves. This is a potential WikiCup nomination. Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

On first read through, this looks comprehensive and well written. Some comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I've addressed the (easy) two, and will have a look at the others later, when I've got a bit more time! Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, it will give me time to find more nitpicks (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, so I've changed to support above. Nice to see an article about women's sport, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick first run-through comments from TRM

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: If these are the "quick first run-through" comments, I'm worried about the "thorough read-through" comments! Harrias talk 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry. I know my cricket, and yet even I find some of the sentences and paragraphs impenetrable. The causes of the impenetrability are generally too much use of numbers, especially within the same sentence. Also, and this is fundamental, as it concerns comprehensiveness, which is more important than ptose: there are five paragraphs of prose about preliminary matters and only two on the match. Yet it is the latter that purports to be the subject of the article. Is there not more that can be said about the match? Do the FA criteria not require a greater degree of comprehensiveness? Venue? Crowd? Time of day? Weather? Umpires? [Yes, I know some of these are in the infobox and scorecard but a comprehensive overview would require details in the prose]. Some examples of prose/sourcing issues:
  • "In response, New Zealand began positively, and were boosted by a half-century from their captain, Tiffen, but the spin bowling of Edwards, Marsh and Colvin controlled the run rate, and New Zealand were eventually bowled out for 170, Edwards taking four wickets." - That's quite an amount of work for one sentence to do.
  • "New Zealand were drawn in Group A of the competition, along with the West Indies, South Africa and their "traditional rivals" Australia." - Where are these quotes from?
  • "Prior to the start of the competition, Jenny Roesler of Cricinfo suggested England and New Zealand, along with Australia, as the favourites to win the competition. The final was a repeat of the 1993 final, when England won at Lord's." - We jump here from a pre-tournament prediction to the tournament final, which is a huge leap for the reader. Should the former sentence be earlier in the article?
  • "New Zealand set a record partnership for the second wicket in women's ODIs in their final match" - the reader immediately wants to know, "against whom?" yet doesn't find out for another three sentences.
  • Are live ball-by-ball commentaries reliable sources for FA standards? ([7])? Look at the work that footnote 25 is being asked to perform; it is surely too much.
Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Mkativerata. I always thought that comprehensiveness could be an issue, but until an article comes to FA itself, this is often hard to discern for sure. I can work on any prose issues, and integrate a bit more of the information presented in the infobox and scorecard into the prose, but the unfortunate fact is, women's cricket is no subject to much coverage, even for a World Cup final! Without adding irrelevant "padding", I can't really see any way of significantly extended the match summary, and in fact, if the reliability of the ball-by-ball coverage is questioned for FA, then it would have to be shortened. I am more than willing to put in work if you think the article can eventually reach FA standards within those confines, but if you feel that will permanently prevent it from achieving the required standard, then I can accept that. Harrias talk 11:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think this is one of those articles that is pretty much incapable of ever being an FA. There are only some articles that are capable of meeting both criteria 1b and 1c; for others, the high-quality sources just aren't there or are there in insufficient quantity to make the article fully comprehensive. You're probably 98% there in terms of making the article as good as it can be, but even 100% would fall short. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's no reason why an article of this length and comprehensiveness, using quality sources like Cricinfo should be prevented from becoming an FA. Unless, of course, we really want to start reinforcing the idea that minority sports or sports for women are automatically precluded because the coverage isn't as thorough as that of the men's game. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason. The criteria tell us that the article must "neglect no major facts or details". This one does: the account of a six or seven hour match is very brief, and there is no information in the prose about the venue, crowd, weather, umpires, etc. The criteria also tell us that the artcle is to have "high-quality reliable sources". A Cricinfo article may well meet that description; ball-by-ball coverage is a different matter. I'm well aware that my views on the capacity of this article to meet the FA criteria are an indirect consequence of bias in the coverage of women's cricket. But so it must be. We can't turn a blind eye to our generally applicable FA criteria to account for that bias. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is no reason. Discussing a six or seven hour match or even a five day match in the "comprehensiveness" you seem to be seeking would become a turgid and unreadable morass of text. If the key points are highlighted, and in particular with cricket, that's never ever going to be down to a ball-by-ball-by-blow account, an article shouldn't be summarily dismissed as never being able to achieve featured status. I am, however, interested by the fact that there seems a clear indicator here that minority and women's sports events such as this are being described as impossible to hit FA. Probably worthy of wider discussion. Do you know what the shortest FA is? I'd be fascinated to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Tropical Depression Ten (2005). Harrias talk 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: I've added some more detail on the venue and similar as requested. I haven't addressed the other concerns as yet, but with these additions, are some of your concerns regarding comprehensiveness alleviated? Harrias talk 12:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll re-visit my oppose over the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I note Mkativerata's offer to revisit the oppose but even then we would not have the level of support required to keep this review open after running more than six weeks. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Giant mouse lemur

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser known group of nocturnal lemurs, closely related to the fork-marked lemurs that recently passed FAC. Everything should be in order, and I plan to do additional proofreads over the coming days. I am also trying to acquire more photos from experts in the field, but I may not be able to acquire anything new until March. – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

[edit]

Seems like you're still doing some tweaks, so I'll come back in a few days for a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks are now done. I just had to do a second proofread and copy edit (to the best of my abilities). I also added new material from an older source that initially I thought had been sufficiently summarized by other (newer) sources. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images are user created and CC-licensed, apart form one, whose author died in 1905. No problems, but potential additional images will have to be checked later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comments: (Of these seven specimens, the lectotype was selected in 1939 as MNHN 1867–603, an adult skull and skin.)" Why does this have to be in parenthesis? It is not within another sentence.
I think when I started writing it, it started inside a sentence. Since, it's had the feel of a footnote, and I've wavered on how to handle it. Parentheses have been removed. If you feel it belongs in a footnote, just let me know. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not too fond of footnotes, so keeping it in the article is ok for me. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similarities with fork-marked lemurs (Phaner), which he considered to also be a member of Cheirogaleus." Fork-marked lemurs is plural, so shouldn't be "also be members of"?
Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nd coincidentally gave it the same specific name, coquereli" Why was this name so popular? Who is Coquerel? Would normally be relegated to the species page, but since you mention this fact here, the reader would be curious to know.
It refers to Charles Coquerel. As you said, I was going to go into it more on the species page, but that gets tricky when discussing a genus that until very recently included only one species. I'll attempt to clarify briefly. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giant mouse lemurs were first described by" Could you make it clearer early on that only one species was known? I thought both species were known early on until I reached the fourth paragraph of taxonomy.
Good point. I've tweaked the opening sentence to clarify. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They noted a significant difference in coloration between Coquerel's giant mouse lemur" What about comparison with the other new species?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just saying that this possible new species has different coloration patterns from the other two species. I saved discussing the details for the "Description" section (3rd paragraph), where it was most appropriate to go into details. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You only mention its difference with Coquerel's, not zaza, in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The sentence in "Taxonomy" says the coloration of the undescribed population differs from neighboring M. coquereli, and under "Description" it tells how this undescribed population differs in appearance from what the other two species look like (in general). I have some details on the coloration for the two known species, but they are only slightly different. For that reason, I only included a general description of their coloration, and was saving the extra detail for the species articles. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was just expecting something like "They noted a significant difference in coloration between the two known species and the new specimen they observed" or something like that, but not if the source doesn't say to, and only mentions coquereli. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source says: "according to the researcher Charlie Gardner exhibits 'significant differences in the coloration of its coat from the other two species. The specimen that we observed appears to have a lighter dorsal coloration than is noted for M. coquereli, and has conspicuous reddish or rusty patches on the dorsal surface of the distal ends of both fore- and hind-limbs. The ventral pelage is also conspicuously light in color, and the animal possesses a strikingly red tail, also becoming darker at the end.'" So, yes, it says that it differs in appearance from both known species, but only gives direct comparison to M. coquereli. Basically it differs by having a lighter belly, reddish patches on its back, and a red tail. Sorry—I had forgotten that they mentioned both species and only remembered that they directly compared it to its closest neighbor. I've made the change you suggested. – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of the illustration does not mention what species is shown. Would of course be obvious from reading the article thoroughly, but not at a glance.
Actually, that's kind of deliberate. The illustration comes from Schlegel and Pollen, who described their M. coquereli based on the northern species. Therefore the illustration is supposed to be M. coquereli, but is actually M. zaza if they drew it based on their specimens. That's a little complicated to explain in a caption, so I was just making a general statement about giant mouse lemurs and their original description using art from around that time to illustrate. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd explain that fact in the caption (rather than repeating what's already in the article), as it has historical significance in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that it would be original research. I may have sources noting that Schlegel & Pollen described specimens from the north, but I have nothing saying what the lithograph was drawn from. Most likely it's a drawing of M. zaza, but I don't have a source. Thoughts? – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps note that it was not noted which locality the illustrated specimen was from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a new caption, but it was difficult to explain so succinctly. I didn't really have room to discuss the ambiguity over the specimen's identity, but I feel the statement is ambiguous (though supported) enough to get the same idea across. Agree? – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had it been suspected prior to 2005 that there were multiple species?
No, the genera was poorly studied. Even Tattersall and Groves didn't speculate at other species. For a long time, it was just considered to be another type of mouse lemur... though considerably larger. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on when the two species diverged?
Thanks for asking! I went back and looked, only to realize that I had overlooked some divergence dates. Added! – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "young males begin to exhibit early sexual behaviors." What is implied by this?
Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a mating system best described as scramble competition polygyny" Perhaps briefly explain?
Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the original descriptions under external links have additional images or info that could be added to the article?
No addition images, and the details were covered elsewhere. If anything, extra details belong in the species article. I provided the links in the "External links" section in case people wanted to see/read the original descriptions for themselves. These original descriptions used to be inaccessible to the general public, and I feel the digital libraries offer a wonderful service to the public. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but with no commentary for three weeks this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Master of Puppets

[edit]
Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, considered an artistic pinnacle of thrash metal. The band would experience increased popularity afterwards, becoming heavy metal's leading act in the 1990s. This record is subject of many musical analysis about the roots of extreme metal and its further development.--Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm not much of a music guy, but I recall being impressed by this article when I first encountered it (at DYK?) and it's only got better since then. I made two entirely trivial edits. The prose is wonderful; like the last time I read it, makes me actually want to listen to a metal album. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nergaal

  • I think the intro should mention some of the most notable tracks
  • "in 2006 by playing it in its entirety." → where? during a single concert?
  • "musicianship" is this a real word?
  • "on signing Metallica" mention year
    • You mean when Alago signed the band? 1984, mentioned in the background.
  • "The original artwork was sold at Rockefeller Plaza, New York City for $28,000" when?
    • In 2008, added.
  • "The album was recorded with the following equipment:" if you use ":" why is everything after it split by "."s?
    • Corrected, used semicolon instead.
  • "in the sense of "assault and battery"." says who?
  • "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot?
    • Compared to today's mainstream music, incomparably faster.
  • "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean?
    • Off–kilter means unbalanced or awry. Bar measures a small amount of time in written music.
  • " two-and-a-helf "
    • Corrected.
  • in "Music and lyrics" why did you have each paragraph cover 2 songs instead of 1? also, this section should have linkers like "the first/second/third/nth song"
    • Largely because the songs are not equally covered. You have "Disposable Heroes" in three sentences and "Battery" in five, so I tried each paragraph to contain similar quantum of information.
  • "1986 is" never start with a number
    • You mean the sentence shouldn't begin with a year? I've seen many FAs with sentence structures such as this.
  • accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together
    • The publishing dates are visible in the reference templates. I think mentioning them in the prose is going to make the text tedious.
  • "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo
    • I decided to omit receptions such as "favorable/unfavorable" because they seem variable from reader to reader. Spin, Rolling Stone, and BBC Music don't feature ratings, and that's why they are omitted from the table.
  • the last part of the 2nd para in "Commercial performance" should probably be moved into the accolades/critics section
    • Could fit there, but since it discusses the impact of "thrash metal's first platinum album", it's per se connected to the commercial performance.
  • this section could perhaps list the countries where the album ranked
    • The countries are listed in 'Charts'. It would seem repetitive listing them on two places.
  • "Metallica Through the Never" mention year pls
    • Year added.
  • "crosses were rising from the stage during the song" → add reminsicent of the album's cover art
    • Done.
  • "after having been retired for a number of years" why? I thought that MoP is by far one of the most popular of their songs
    • "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired, "Master of Puppets" was performed in shortened version.
  • charts list seems a bit surprisingly short imo. any year-end charts?
    • You have the positions per year in this diff. The album wasn't a notable commercial success in its initial years, but gained recognition after 1991.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets cover.jpg has an acceptable non-free media rationale. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets.ogg and File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg seem acceptable as well; I think that 3 is a bit borderline with the "minimal use", but acceptable. File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg has an acceptable licence in Flickr, which has been already reviewed in Commons. Article check will follow. Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments by Cambalachero: I will check section by section, and leave the intro for the end (as it must be a summary of everything else)
    • Background and recording section: I don't think that "musicianship" is the right word for that context. If it is the technical quality of the music, then it can not be "aggressive"; that's the style, not the quality (thrash metal, as any other genre, has good quality and bad quality performers). All the sentences with maintenance tags must be fixed. "Metallica was motivated" is a bit wordy, and lacks a reason: I would expect a sentence using that word to clarify why or what motivated someone to do something (if they wanted to make a well-received album just for the heck of it, then you may use the verb "want"). "Hetfield and Ulrich described the songwriting process as starting with "guitar riffs, assembled and reassembled until they start to sound like a song".": all quotations must have a footnote immediately afterwards. Question: did Mustaine tried to sue Metallica for the rights of "Leper Messiah", the logical consequence of his claim, or did it stay confined to things said to the press? (if it's the later, then it's fine as it's written). "and decided to record" is wordy. "Hammett recalled that the group was "just making another album" at the time and "had no idea that the record would have such a range of influence that it went on to have".": again, immediate reference after quotation. "The cover was designed by Metallica and Peter Mensch [add a comma] and painted by Don Brautigam" Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, thanks for the suggestions. I think Mustaine has not sued Metallica for using ideas of his own because those things are legally hard to prove. He hadn't done that with "The Four Horsemen" vs "The Mechanix", which is a more obvious copyright violation than this one. Summa summarum, it's just a speculation. I understand "musicianship" as a style of playing/performing, in our case, "aggressive" performance. I'm little puzzled by the "cn" tags because every information is sourced. For example, the first two sentences are sourced with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame biography, including the "aggressive musicianship and vitriolic lyricism". Instead of repeating the cite at two places, I used it at the end of the second. Other notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mustaine couldn't have sued over the earlier songs, because he's credited for them and thus gets royalties (he couldn't legally block them from using the songs). With "Leper Messiah", assuming his claims are true, he'd have to have some kind of proof—a demo recording or something. If he doesn't, then all he can do is bitch in the press, which he sure loves to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I know that he's credited and receives royalties for his first songs with Metallica, so there's nothing to complain about (he's not the first guy who left a band and left behind songs written for it). That's why I asked about Leper Messiah, as being the uncredited author of a song sounds like something that could start a legal battle, if it could be proved; and if such a battle took place the article should have talked about it (featured articles must be comprehensive). But, as said, if it didn't go beyond the press, the current coverage is fine. As for the tags, I really don't understand what does "Metallica hired Q Prime's Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch" mean. What is Q Prime? It is not clear from the context, and I don't think it has anything to do with Star Trek... Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music and lyrics" section. Comments such as "were considered" or "were praised" must detail who thinks those things. ""Battery" is about anger and refers to "battery" in the sense of "assault and battery"", can we rewrite that sentence without using the same word three times? It may be better to link Cocaine dependence than just cocaine, as it's more precise for the context. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brock Helander is the one who praised the lyricism for its honesty. I could credit him in the prose, but it will sound trite. A search on Google Books will offer you many critics who spoke positively on the lyrics. I could mention the author if you insist, but that would hardly be of any interest to the reader.
  • "Critical reception" main section, I did not notice any problem. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that, but the credit there goes to Dan56.
  • "Accolades and legacy" section: you mentioned Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax, and then said "these bands were being called the "Big Four" of thrash metal". Perhaps it is evident from context, but you should clarify that the fourth one is Metallica. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified, mentioned Metallica along with the rest of the big four.
  • "Commercial performance" section: "Master of Puppets became thrash metal's first platinum album and by the early 1990s it successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal." Are we talking about Master of Puppets, or about Metallica? As for the early 1990s (not the mid-1980s), if I remember well the bands that "successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal" were bands like Pantera and Biohazzard, which redefined thrash metal even further; Metallica's black album was a huge success, but not one that redefined the whole of heavy metal as "Master of Pupets" did. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected. The author meant that thrash metal as a genre redefined mainstream heavy metal in the early 1990s, not solely this album or Metallica.
  • "Touring" section: There is a contradiction with the article about Cliff Burton. Here, it says that the driver was charged with manslaughter, there, it says that the driver was determined not at fault for the accident and no charges were brought against him. Which one was it? Besides, you may add File:Clifford Burton Memorial Stone At Crash Site.jpg to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The driver was accused for the accident, but the court found him not guilty.
  • "Live performances" section: add a reference for the claim that "Master of Puppets" is the most played Metallica song (does someone keep the track of those details?) Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the band's website counts as an appropriate source? I know it's primary, but it's the best one I could found on Google.
  • Lead section: "Many bands from all genres of heavy metal have covered the album's songs, including tribute albums." This seems something interesting to talk about, but it not mentioned later in the article. Perhaps you should add a new paragraph at the "Accolades and legacy" section, talking about this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is likely based on the 2006 edition of Kerrang! ('Accolades and legacy') in which the album was covered by a variety of bands.

Comments by Cptnono (Might take a day or two, putting this in my own queue and asking the coords not to archive this just yet juust in case it looks like its becoming stagnant..Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a clarification needed tag in the first paragraph of the body. I can't tell why but it needs to be addressed or removed.
    • Addressed. It was whether Burnstein and Mensch were managers, which I thought was obvious from the context, but clarified anyway.
  • "El Cerrito" should be clarified with California. People outside of the area probably don't know where it is and he article doesn't mention the state beforehand.
    • Done, wrote the state within it.
  • "The recording took longer than the last album because Metallica developed a perfectionist sense and had higher ambitions.for this one" or some other change?
    • For this album, mentioned at the end of the sentence.
  • I wanted a little more about the cover while reading the article. I always assumed the art was more related to Disposable Heroes than Master of Puppets but could be wrong. Regardless, I would still like more info on the background of the art if a source can fill that hole.
    • Will search for more info. Sorry, but major Metallica biographies don't offer larger information on the cover (such as inspiration, creation, etc.) What is in the article is all I can provide.
      • I had a hit on my first try: "Rock and Roll Always Forgets: A Quarter Century of Music Criticism" pg101. Surely there is more out there.
  • "The album was recorded with the following equipment:..." could be its own paragraph. This could maybe be expanded if you felt like it and found sources but is not necessary to reach FA.
    • The equipment information was provided by Curly Turkey (big thanks for that). I don't have the magazines, so this is the best the article can offer.
  • "...who had his arm severed in a car accident." should this read "recently had" or "after he had"? It comes across as trivia otherwise.
    • Time adverbs such as recently are not allowed per WP:RECENTISM. In my opinion, this is less verbose than going with "after he had".
      • I don't think I properly expressed my concern and RECENTISM doesn't apply in the sense that I am getting at. The line needs to be reworked in some way.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, got you point. Already fixed.
  • The sentence with "both open with a fast thrasher with an acoustic intro" is hard to follow. Can you edit it to make it clearer (I believe that if I stumbled on it someone who doesn't enjoy the genre will have a harder time).
    • Agree, "thrasher" sounds like a fancruft a bit.
  • There are a couple tags in the "Music and lyrics" section.
    • Addressed, credited the author.
  • ""Battery" is about anger and refers to 'battery' in the sense of 'assault and battery'." Should "the term" be used somewhere in that line?
    • Done, thanks for the advice.
  • I can't read the source but "The theme is cocaine addiction, a topic considered taboo at the time." jumped out. If that is hat the source says then keep it.
    • Yes, that is the exact sentence I used from King's book.
  • Several of the thoughts in the review section look like they need to be in quotes. Maybe the following section, as well.
    • These are largely paraphrased, that's the main reason why they are not in quotes.
  • I don't understand "and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered". Was it on special order through the magazine?
    • The CD was part of the magazine's issue. It was kind of a gift to the readers.
  • "The driver maintained that he hit the patch of black ice, but Hetfield disputed that." What did Hetfield and the charging officers believe? What was the result?
  • I also think that the article could be a little overkill with nonfree content. Not enough to withhold support but throwing it out there. Speaking of nonfree, some of the writing read like something I would see in a professionally published book instead of a volunteer project like Wikipedia. I could not find any blatant copyright vios from what I could check so I trust that you just did a really nice job. I'm not too worried but do a quick run through to double check close paraphrasing.
    • Thanks for the kind words.
  • Speaking of links, #12 is a dead link.
    • You need to have username on Classic Rock to be able to read their articles. I don't have and that's why I can't access the page on their website. Luckily, I managed to read the article before the staff introduced the new rules.
  • Ref #3 and #5 (I'll let you check the rest) notes pages but instead lists chapters.

Nice overall. I like that it doesn't get too wiki genre warish. Good style. Good writing. I believe most of the above is reletively easy to address. Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I see no consensus to promote developing after nearly six weeks, nor much recent activity, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Enthiran

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kailash29792; Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highest grossing Tamil film (at present) and is also the first Rajinikanth film to be nominated for FAC. This article received an extensive peer review, especially by Skr15081997, Bede735 and SchroCat and an "informal review" by Prhartcom. The article was copyedited by Onel5969. We are nominating this article for featured article because in our opinion, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and the peer review. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

I peer reviewed the article, and find nothing to object to at FAC. I am not well enough informed about the subject to feel confident about offering support, but I do not oppose the promotion of the article and I have no outstanding queries. Tim riley talk 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you, Tim. You can as well torrent download the film with subtitles or buy it in a shop which sells Tamil films if you want to. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the tip, Crisco. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:, are you watchlisting this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, having said all I have to say on the matter. (There is not, btw, the smallest chance of my following the above suggestion: watching foreign films is not my thing.) Tim riley talk 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Aishwarya Rai Robot1.jpg - I can't see anywhere in the source that the image was taken by a Bollywood Hungama staff member. Also, the version used in the article is not the version on BH's site.
I have nominated it for deletion as BH seems to have used a different site's image, albeit a cropped version of the image. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support: Looks good! Many congratulations to all involved. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks, Krimuk. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good work! --FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frank. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]

@Crisco 1492: The reason there are spaces is because I did not want the links to be redirects. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: They are mentioned in casting. Will add references. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping ahead...

    • Why release the soundtrack in Malaysia if this is a Tamil/Indian film? I mean, I know a lot of Malaysia's Indians are Tamil, but I'd expect something closer to home.
    • After the second day of release, the album reached number one on the Top 10 World Albums chart on iTunes in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, making it the first Tamil album to do so - Be explicit that you're referring to the Enthiran album in this sentence, and not the Robo or Robot albums.
    • The soundtrack session feels like it jumps around a lot.
    • Despite Shankar's claim that Enthiran was a purely original idea, - might be worth noting this before you discuss Terminator and Star Wars.
    • What's with the YouTube links? You'll need to verify that none of those are copyright violations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why they went from Enthiram to Enthiran?
  • In an interview with The Hindu, Shankar said that the script was his own idea and that he "worked hard on every shot so that it doesn't bear even an iota of resemblance to anything you've ever watched before." - This paragraph has been focusing on the filming rights, not the script writing. Thus, this comes across as a non-sequitur.
  • the night before each day of filming - feels somewhat odd to me
  • Denzongpa's voice was dubbed by dubbing artist Kadhir. - More of the repetition Sandy was concerned about (dub - dubbed)
  • Television personality Raaghav played the role of Sana's neighbourhood bully. - Is this really worth mentioning? Don't recall the character being included in the plot summary.
  • Standardize your approach to false titles
  • the interpreter between Bohra and the international terrorist organisation - I believe "Interpreter" is not the correct term here
  • A lot of your sections are quite short. Consider merging them.
  • Filming began on 15 February 2008 at AVM Studios in Chennai, when portfolio photographer Venket Ram did a photo shoot with Rajinikanth. - Is a portfolio photo shoot really considered "filming"? See principal photography
  • The scene also featured Rai, Santhanam and Karunas. - Relevance?
  • Hein - who is he?
  • Aluminium Composite Panel - what's with the caps?
  • reported to have cost ₹50 million - which, the panels or the glass buildings? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: All of your comments have been resolved. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • Oppose, based on review of this version.

    The prose is plodding, uninformative, and repetitive, and many MOS and citation issues need to be addressed.

    On citations, please review all authors-- the format varies on author name-- sometimes incomplete, sometimes last name first, sometimes first name first (sample S. Shankar ... what is that?) Could you please explain the use of one-word names? How do we know who those authors are and what makes them reliable (sample Sangeeta-- I am unable to find "about" pages describing the author credentials on one-word author names.) What is the format on Inian; Bhavanishankar, Jyothsna? On authors like H. Ramakrishnan, Deepa, is H part of the last name, or the middle initial? If double last names are used in India (as in Hispanic naming conventions), I've nonetheless not encountered such inconsistency in earlier Indian film articles I've reviewed.

    On See also, I can't see any reason that the List of highest-grossing films, and science fiction films, can't be covered and linked in the text.

    The "Cast" section is a list, and adds nothing that couldn't be better covered in the "Casting" section.

    WP:MOSNUM, consider switching 166–177 to 166–77.

    WP:NBSP and WP:PUNC issues abound.

    Why the hyphen in "top-205 films"? Why the hyphen in "the company's fourth-quarter in 2010"?

    That is only a starter list on MOS items that might be easily addressed; the repetitive, uninformative, and plodding prose is a bigger concern, but I am out of time this morning to list my concerns. I suggest that an independent copyedit from an editor not previously involved might help vary the prose and spark up the numerous sections that say ... nothing. Back later ... although maybe I will luck out, and some of the editors who gave premature or implicit support to this nomination will have addressed some of the copyedit needs before my revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I am having a hard time understanding. Will writing "166-77" minutes convince readers that the film is not 77 minutes long? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your post to chronological order: please do not chop posts from other editors. See WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's common in India, especially Tamil cinema for directors and crew to be known by their initials. S. Shankar I believe is correct professionally. Imdb and reliable sources like this use S Shankar, so I think we should too. It might look odd to a lot of readers familiar with the industry with his full name.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Dr B. regarding this point; when the common name is the individual's family name and initial(s), that's what we should use. If we force American/European standards on such subjects, we end up with delightful situations as writing "Suharto Suharto" (something that actually happens with passports at the US embassy here) because there must be a family name and a given name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither answer above addresses the issue of citation consistency in author names (I am familiar with alternate naming conventions in Hispanic doble apellido). This article does not use a standard author naming convention. And there are still single author names on Rediff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite agree that the article is uninformative Sandy, but it might benefit from another copyedit or two and perking up a bit to make it seem less "rambling" as you say. My original primary concern was the length, and although it has since been shortened the prose might be difficult to digest and seem bland and plodding in places as you indicate. I did see FA potential in this in terms of comprehension at an earlier stage though. Perhaps Eric Corbett could take a look at it. Sometimes some of the minor MoS glitches are not so easy to spot. I'll give it a full read tomorrow and see what I can do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw mention in the peer review that it needed a copyedit, with the nominator indicating that would be done after the peer review ... but then I also saw mention that the article was too long and needed to be pruned. It might be, then, that the pruning left the article saying nothing, but the copyedit, if done, was inadequate. The prose is flat, and frequently repetitive. I am loathe to take what little time I have online to go through and give examples, which would be easier done after a copyedit is performed. But as a few samples for now,
  • Repetitive:
    • "Enthiran received generally positive reviews from critics in India ... " and
    • "Enthiran received generally positive response from critics abroad."
    • In the Plagiarism section, everyone "demanding". Please try to vary the prose!
  • Prose that says nothing:
    • Awards and nominations is pretty much a list, giving us little in the way of commentary.
    • Home media ... same ... it doesn't say anything.
  • Basic prose issues:
    • praised Enthiran for being very "original". Very original is original.
    • The "Distribution" section is just a jumble of symbols, notes, and footnotes ... is there no way to make it flow more professionally?
    • Four separate allegations of plagiarism were made against the film
That's a short list of much more that I saw when I read through this morning. Samples only: I do not engage FAC or FAR as in the current trend where reviewer gives a list, the nominator fixes them, reveiewer gives another list ... that is not the purpose of FAC. I will re-evaluate once someone independent does a complete copyedit and addresses all MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree received on the "generally positive reviews" repetition thing, it's a problem I find in most of the Indian articles! Ssven in the awards section I always think a summary of the most important awards is a good idea, otherwise as Sandy says it's not much use. Perhaps a sourced table of the notable award wins, or if it can be done in prose without seeming repetitive go for that. Also the music section, what happened? It should provide a decent summary, including some reviews. As it stands it doesn't tell the reader much. I've not looked at this since the PR, sorry about that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is meant by "was shelved due to scheduling conflicts for former" -the former, meaning Haasan or what?
Corrected. It's Haasan. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mankatha (DVD). 1st clip from 45:12 to 45:27; 2nd clip from 2:17:26 to 2:17:50. to Dookudu (DVD): clip from 1:43:02 to 1:43:15. You need to add the distributors of the DVDs and the years, those are not formal citations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: I have added the distributors' names as a footnote with sources and changed the citations. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a full copyedit. It would still benefit from a few pairs of eyes looking at it but it reads a bit better now I think. If you compare it to how it was a few weeks back at 166kb, it is far more digestible and readable, especially the box office info. I'll be willing to support once the prose is polished off a little more, you mention how the soundtrack was received and a few reviews, and you expand the awards section to let us know the awards it actually won. One thing I find highly dubious is the idea that Beyonce would have plagiarised that from a Tamil film, with due respect.. There'd be plenty of more plausible sources of inspiration I'm sure. It would really benefit from some more images too I think to help perk it up. Are there no images of the cast and crew, even if not on set which could be added, or premiere photos/advertising boards etc?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look; an independent copyedit is still needed. I looked at one sample section in the middle of the article, and found still meaningless trivia (or at least, no apparent reason for why certain items are mentioned) and garbled prose. Saying that a film received "generally positive reviews" without citation is original research. We still have prose redundancy: "Four separate allegations of plagiarism were made against the film. "After its usage in the film's production stages, the mannequin was returned to the Stan Winston Studio in February 2011. Munich-based film technical company, Panther, were responsible for the crane shots." Samples only: why does the reader care that a mannequin was returned wherever whatever whenever? What is the link between that sentence and the next? The MOS trivials have not been addressed (PUNC, NBSP, MOSNUM, hyphens, sentences starting with numbers, etc.) Sold-out. Hyphens joining two authors of books (Stephen Hawking-Leonard Mlodinow book A Briefer History of Time). I suggest withdrawal of this nomination for re-working off FAC; alternately, pls ping me is a previously uninvolved editor (fresh eyes!) goes through and reworks the article prose, content and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: I'm currently going over this article, and I will fix any grammar and MOS-compliancy issues I come across. I'll continue my copyedit and read-through when I get some time later today. I'd suggest it be withdrawn for now, but perhaps the two week waiting period could be lifted, assuming the article is brought up to snuff before that time?-RHM22 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RHM22-- I will unwatch for now then. Please ping me if/when a copyedit has been completed and my feedback is needed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RHM22

[edit]

This definitely needs some work from some good copyeditors. I went over it, but here are some things that I don't want to change unilaterally:

  • Some statements seem out of place where they are. For example: "In an interview with The Hindu, Shankar stated that the script and the story featuring a robot as the titular character was his own idea." This seems to be placed somewhat haphazardly in the "Origin" section. I would personally just remove that, since I'm not sure what relevance it has to anything in this section. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in the section dealing with plagiarism. Another statement that seems somewhat randomly placed is this one: "Keeping the actor Rajinikanth in mind, Shankar rewrote the original script to suit his acting style." Could this go in the casting section?
I have done as you have suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Ranguski", the name of a mosquito encountered by Chitti, was also the childhood pet name of Sujatha Rangarajan." What? This is going to confuse people, since it isn't mention in the plot. Besides that, it seems quite trivial and not important enough for a mention in the article.
I have done as you have suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have more comments, which I will add later when I get some more time. If you'd like to withdraw the nomination and open up a peer review, I can add some more in-depth comments and suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cast and crew "The film's soundtrack album and background score was composed by A. R. Rahman..." Are the soundtrack album and background score one item? If not, it should use "were."
I have done as you have suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to alternate back and forth between using the serial comma and not using it.

@RHM22: Can you list some of the places where it is so? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples:
"...female lead included Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Shriya Saran and Rai..."
"...Amitabh Bachchan, J. D. Chakravarthy, Narain, Arjun Sarja, Sathyaraj and British actor Ben Kingsley were..."
And the serial comma:
"...three different sets were used: one of copper, one of gold, and one in silver."
"...They visited Austria, Germany, Peru, Brazil, and Argentina..."
I believe there are others, but that's what I see at a glance. It needs to be standardized throughout the article.-RHM22 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the above examples as you suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2: Please be sure to check through to make sure there aren't others, in case I missed any. Standardization is one very important facet which is often overlooked.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast and crew "while Legacy Effects, a visual effects studio based in the United States, formed after Stan Winston's death in 2008, were in charge of the prosthetic make-up and animatronics in the film." I would suggest removing the part stricken in my above quote.
I have done as you have suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could probably be eliminated as trivia: "Shankar stated that Rajinikanth waited patiently for two to three hours each day to put on the make-up."
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "negative robot" mean, and who said it? It should be attributed in-text if it's a direct quote from someone, or else reworded.

@RHM22: Reworded to bad robot. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; I'm still going over the article, and I'm sure I will have more points. I'm correcting things that are easily fixable, but some things will need attention from the author(s).-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above by SandyGeorgia, this should be removed as trivial: "After its usage in the film's production stages, the mannequin was returned to the Stan Winston Studio in February 2011."-RHM22 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RHM22: Removed as you suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd probably remove this as well, for the same reason: "Vaseegaran also calls one of the robots R2, referring to R2-D2." Either that, or work it into the sentence a bit better so it doesn't just plop out like a little factoid blob, if that makes sense. Something like "..., which is referenced in the film when Vaseegaran refers to one robot as "R2."" might be appropriate.-RHM22 (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the sentence as you suggested. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I will be back later today to address this and other points.-RHM22 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2 Thanks for looking at the R2-D2 bit, but what I actually meant was to join the two sentences, rather than delete the first one. As it is, the sentence is out of place and a bit of a non-sequitur. Let me work with it and see if I can improve it a bit.-RHM22 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really familiar with Bollywood-type movies, but this (and some of the surrounding material) is slightly confusing to me: "Filming of the song took place in April 2009 for 22 days." Does this refer to a certain musical number performed in the movie, or to a standalone music video created for songs performed in the movie? I will copyedit that section once I understand its meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, obviously a song sequence that is part of the narrative. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not quite so obvious to me, as someone with no experience in Hindu films.-RHM22 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exasperates you when you listen for the first time. But as you listen again, you realize that though Rahman gives this album a crisp metallic touch in keeping with the theme of the story, he still remains faithful to his Carnatic roots in a touching way." This quote needs a direct citation immediately afterward, not after the next sentence.-RHM22 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This strikes me as unnecessary: "The title of the song "Kadhal Anukkal" literally means "love atoms", where the scientist asks his girlfriend the amount of love atoms she has for him." If it isn't important it, I'd trim it off.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, I would probably cut this whole paragraph:

"The title of the song "Kadhal Anukkal" literally means "love atoms", where the scientist asks his girlfriend the amount of love atoms she has for him.[101] Asimov and the scientists Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are mentioned in the song "Boom Boom Robo Da" in the line "Issac Asimovim velaiyo robo, Issac [sic] Newtonin leelaiyo robo, Albert Einstein moolaiyo robo".[102] In the song "Irumbile Oru Irudhaiyam", the line "Google-Kal Kanadha Thedalgal Ennodu" references the search engine Google, while the line "En Neela Pallale Unnodu Siripen" translates to "I will smile at you with my blue tooth", alluding to the wireless technology bluetooth."

I can't see anything in it besides trivia and cultural references, which seem quite out of place here.-RHM22 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but was postponed to 1 October 2010 due to the court verdict regarding the Babri Masjid demolition case." Why did this delay the film?-RHM22 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Department earned ₹225,000 from their promotional activities." I would remove this, as it seems trivial to me.-RHM22 (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 153 is inadmissible, as the web page cited states the source as "Wiki" (presumably either Wikipedia or some other Wiki-type website). Also, the "fact" it supports is likely to be controversial (all claims were proven false).-RHM22 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aniruddha Guha of Daily News and Analysis believed it had the "best special effects ever seen in a Tamil film", and that it was "one of the most entertaining Tamil films – across all languages – ever made"." needs a direct citation.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Indian cinema's pinnacle of evolution"." needs a direct citation.-RHM22 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lisa Tsering from The Hollywood Reporter began her review by saying that "Rajinikanth is such a badass that Chuck Norris is afraid of him"." This also needs a direct citation.-RHM22 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RHM22: Resolved your comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with my (rather extensive) copyedit. I believe I've corrected the bulk of the outstanding problems (except those I've noted above). If there are any other considerations, they would best be directed toward the nominator(s). All that said, I believe there may be reference issues, which I am not qualified to handle, so that will have to be left to someone else to SP/SR. This article has the material for success, but it still requires some polishing to be considered the 'best of the best,' in my opinion. SandyGeorgia: My above concerns haven't been addressed, but they will presumably be resolved when the nominator(s) return. If you have any questions for me, please don't hesitate to ping me or address me on my talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RHM22, would it look good if the "Music" section contained info only about the composition, writing, etc. of the songs, and not about their filming? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an issue with that being there, but you could move it to the 'Principal photography' section if you'd prefer. I don't really have a preference either way.-RHM22 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually moved it from the principal photography during my copyedit in the first place as I felt it rambled a bit and paid too much attention to the lyrics to be included in production!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Nominator has requested withdrawal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Some Kind of Bliss

[edit]
Nominator(s): GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian pop singer Kylie Minogue's first single from her sixth studio album, "Some Kind of Bliss". The single was released in September 1997 as the lead single from the studio album but was met with harsh criticism and was not commercially successful. The article has been reviewed several times by myself with crucial references from books, magazines, spoken-word recordings, etc to make it comprehensive. and have all been referenced clearly. The article has been checked to have made sense in all aspects, been clear about the prose and other content and all previous visits (example) have been re-arranged, removed, corrected and place perfectly so it can been read comprehensively. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose: Drive-by nomination. The article has not been previously reviewed. The prose is raw in places (example: "During the era, Minogue denounced her release of "Some Kind of Bliss" in the same week release as Elton John's "Candle in the Wind", which claimed up to 75% percent of the sales in that month") There are a number of uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs, which is usually a sign of under-preparation. The nominator has not edited the article or apparently sought the opinions of its main authors. Suggest withdrawal, peer review and thorough copyedit before any renomination here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

[edit]
Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life moves pretty fast, and thus I am submitting Ferris Bueller's Day Off, one of the most iconic movies of the 80s, for your appraisal, believing it meets all the featured article criteria. The article has grown quite a bit since it was awarded Good Article status several years ago. It is extremely comprehensive, with extensive notes about casting, production, reception and containing photos of the filming locations and "the car." It is so choice, if you have the means, I highly recommend you feature this article.--The lorax (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, regretfully. Dearly love this movie, and the article was really interesting, but I don't think it's ready for FA yet. There are prose niggles throughout (I've listed a few examples), and I'm concerned that there's too much trivia and too many quotes. That makes it feel more like a fan article than an encyclopedia article.

  • There's no critical commentary of the poster - doesn't that violate the fair use guidelines?
  • Plot -> There are some minor prose issues here.
    • " Ferris was also nearly spotted at a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field (where they are almost spotted on TV by Rooney)," if he's only almost spotted by Rooney, then we don't need to mention it twice
    • "Also looking for Ferris, Jeanie returns home, and she mistakes Rooney for an intruder." is awkward
    • This implies that Jeanie did not see Ferris on the way home, but she did and tries to race him home
✔Revised plot, excised redundancies.--The lorax (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoy the information in the casting and filming and car sections, but so much of it is quotes. Is that the right balance between quotes and paraphrasing the important bits?
  • The paragraph on Ruck's analysis of Hughes' film treatment of teens seems out of place here, at least in this section.
✔Revised the plots addressing these concerns.--The lorax (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no citation for a lot of the film locations (2nd paragraph of filming). Where did that info come from?
✔Filming locations cited.--The lorax (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the Grace the secretary section really belongs. Feels like trivia. The economic lecture stuff, as well, probably ought to be pared down to a sentence inserted elswhere.
✔Removed Grace section, but I thought the economic lecture part was important as its one of the scenes most memorable about the film i.e. "Anyone? Bueller?"--The lorax (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of art is too detailed - that's definitely trivia. I'd rewrite the first paragraph without the quotes and put it with the locations paragraph.
✔Removed list of artwork. Moved section to locations paragraph.--The lorax (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fan club soundtrack section is also trivia
Isn't it unusual for a film not to release an official soundtrack, especially for one as high profile as this one? I thought that was worth noting.--The lorax (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we really call Ben Stein a "co-star"?
✔ Removed.--The lorax (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film opened in 1,330 theaters in the United States and had a total weekend gross of $6,275,647, opening at #2." - repetitive. There are also two sentences in this four-sentence paragraph that say the movie was a big success.
  • The information on which notable people call this their favorite movie is trivia and doesn't need to be here.
  • I'd move the info about Twist and Shout recharting down to the Music subsection of Cultural impact
✔Moved info to Music subsection.--The lorax (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars have identified different aspects of how the film depicts or does not depict teachers and the role of these depictions in popular culture" - This is an awkward sentence that doesn't say much of anything
✔Reworded this.

Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, unfortunately. I agree with all Karanacs' points, especially regarding the trivia. There's quite a lot of really unnecessary information here. Some sections could use more citations, and there are even a few direct quotes without inline citations, which is a big problem. The prose also needs a lot of work; in addition to what Karanacs has already noted, slang terms and unencyclopedic language are used throughout. For example, "Ferrari-crashing-through-the-garage-window sequence" is really not acceptable wording. I also like the film and it's evident that you've put a lot of work into the article, but it just doesn't meet the standards presently, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Currently looking exclusively at references and reference formatting:

  • All web sources should have retrieval dates.
  • The AMC Movie Blog source (@ ref#2), which does appear to meet RS despite the titling, has a publication date (it's at the bottom of the article, on the right).
  • The Rolling Stone source (@ ref#3) is not at all formatted correctly.
  • The Gora book title should have a colon afer Tried instead of a period.
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. This converter is your new best friend. Additionally, there are book sources missing ISBNs entirely.
  • Book titles should be in title case (see: the McGrath source @ ref#6).
  • The left single quote within the title of the Barrett source is improperly rendered using a grave accent/backquote.

Skimming ahead at this point...

  • Not all authors are formatted in the same way: you mostly use Last, First but there are some First Last occurances throughout.
  • You are mostly using yyyy-mm-dd dates (which is my personal preference), but there's at least one (ref#41) with another date format; I didn't audit for these carefully.
  • Reference 52 should be citing the original website, rather than naming archive.org as if it were the publisher.
  • The Bush commencement address reference is not properly formatted.
  • Reference 58 is throwing a formatting error.
  • You need to audit for missing bibliographical data in general. I noted the missing date on ref#2, and spotchecked one of the other websources with no author credit listed, more or less at random (AdWeek, @ ref#60). That one's by Tim Nudd. Strongly suggest you go through all the web references carefully to see if there's more information to provide.

There's a lot of work to be done down in the reference section. This was not a comprehensive review by any means. While many of the problems there are comparatively quick fixes, in light of above reviewers also raising concerns about prose quality, I must regretfully oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

The comments above suggest the article is under-prepared for FAC, so I'd like to see the improvements take place away from the this process. I gather this would be the nominator's first potential FA, so we'd also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing even after the above concerns were addressed. You're free to re-nominate here after the issues are addressed (in a minimum of two weeks, per FAC instructions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

2008 UEFA Champions League Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final. I believe it should be featured because it represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article, as it is extremely well-written, it covers the subject comprehensively, all facts are adequately sourced, it's written in a neutral tone and the article is stable. The style of the article meets all criteria regarding the lead, the section hierarchy and the format of the citations. The article also contains sufficient images and other media, all of which are licensed correctly. Finally, the article is of a good length and doesn't go into unnecessary detail. – PeeJay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at present: Peejay has done the right things: having obtained GA status he (presumably) put the article through a peer review before bringing it here. Nevertheless, from a reading of the lead and background sections I'm not convinced that the article yet meets the standards required for FA promotion

Lead
  • Overall, the lead does not comply with the expectations of WP:LEAD. It should summarise the content of the whole article; at present it over-concentrates on incidents in the match
  • Is the time of the kick-off so important that it should appear in the first line of the article, and in two different time zones?
  • "It was also Chelsea's first European Cup final in their history." Clumsy and tautologous.
    • Agreed. I'll work on re-jigging the lead to better express the historical significance of the match, both in relation to the past and the future. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background

There are several prose issues:

  • First sentence far too long (50+ words), and has "including" twice in quick succession.
  • "Their cup record was equally good, winning 10 of their 18 cup meetings..." Poor syntax, and in addition the same pronoun (their) is used in the sentence with two different meanings. In the first instance it refers to Man Utd, in the second it refers to both sides.
  • Non-encyclopedic language: "honours were even" is just about OK, but "got their own back" definitely not.
  • There's a lot of overdetailing in the second and third paragraphs. All that stuff about how the two sides fared historically in Europe against other English sides is worth a short sentence, no more. Likewise, you don't illustrate Chelsea's European credentials by referring to their non-appearance in the first European tournament sixty years ago. And the details (casualties etc) of the Munich disaster are extraneous to this article.
    • I've cut down the info about past meetings between English opposition, but retained the detail in the form of footnotes. Is this acceptable? Also, I've cut down some of the Munich info, but I left in the bit about eight players being killed and Busby almost dying as I feel it lends necessary context to Busby rebuilding the team over the next 10 years prior to their first European Cup win in 1968. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably further copyediting is needed, but I'd like to see the above issues addressed before proceeding with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

I appreciate that Brianboulton has found ways that the prose can approve and agree that nothing is ever complete. I have gone over the article multiple times during review and while trying to improve the articles on my prefered team. My only concern with supporting this article is that it sets too high of a standard in the topic area/(and I dislike both teams). Full-on support.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that the nominator will give a more considered and sensible response to the points that I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cptnono that nothing is ever perfect and that FA status is not a badge that nothing in the article needs changing, and I believe that the article could be given FA status as it stands. However, I am biased. I am a perfectionist and I thank Brianboulton for his review of the article, which I am currently using to help the article come as close to perfection as possible. I look forward to a more comprehensive review from Brianboulton so we can give the article the little gold star it deserves. – PeeJay 16:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was not meant as a slight on your review, Brianboulton. I think it is great that you are so thorough!Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; EddieHugh

There is a vast amount of trivia in this article that appears to have been included just because the information is available. As the opening phrase puts it, "The 2008 UEFA Champions League Final was a football match"; there's no need to tell the reader the personal history of the referee, how the ball was unveiled, how many flights were required to get supporters to Russia, visa arrangements, which people handed over the trophy before the match, the 50-year history of the stadium, great detail of the clubs' 50-year European history, team predictions, etc., etc. Without cutting perhaps 20%, this should fail, based on criterion 4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." EddieHugh (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- No response or activity of any kind on the article/review since Eddie's post so I'm going to archive this now. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before renominating, taking that time to consider and act upon the comments made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Diego Costa

[edit]
Nominator(s): '''tAD'''

This article is about Diego Costa, a contemporary footballer for Chelsea and Spain. The article recently passed GA status. It has wide content, ranging from his childhood, to his professional career, to praise and criticism of his style of play. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at FAC on 21 February.[15] And now moved to the correct place in the FAC queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

  • Consider expanding the lead just a little. It may not be 100% needed.
  • Ref #7 is used extensively in the "Early life" section. I don't see any copyright issues but consider how many times the ref needs to be linked.
  • "His first European adventure..." may not be appropriate under "Early career".
  • Wikilinking "relegation" might be useful to those unfamiliar with the sport. "Aggregate" or "tie" wcould also help since the concept is brought up a few times.
  • If possible and if you feel that it would benefit the reader, consider expanding the two single sentence paragraphs in the "Early career" section. This is also noticed later in the article.
  • Under "2013-2014", "...he celebrated this a few days later in the first match of the new season, scoring a brace in a 3–1 win at Sevilla." might benefit from a different term.
  • "...Atlético sought to cure this injury for before the upcoming..." The entire line should also be broken up since it is a little long.
  • "Costa scored 8 goals during the Champions League campaign..." I believe "8" should be eight per MoS but could be wrong in this instance.
  • "... Chelsea announced on 1 July 2014 that they 'can confirm an agreement has been reached with Atletico Madrid for the transfer of Diego Costa' after they had agreed to meet the £32 million buy-out clause in Costa's contract". Can you rewrite that without the quote. It makes the line unnecessarily clumsy.
  • In regards to the request to change national teams, can you clarify FIFA's decision? It is not entirely clear and I thought (maybe incorrectly) that something like that was usually blocked.
    • Done. There are more complex regulations than the one I've included (for example, Mikel Arteta was not allowed to play for England because he was not a British citizen when he played for Spain Under-16, while Costa never played youth international at all) '''tAD''' (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Playing style", it is mentioned that he refutes allegations that he deliberately aims to injure opponents. Can you add a line about these allegations?
  • Italics for certain publishers in the references (UEFA, FIFA) are not consistent with some being italicized and others not.
    • I'll come on to this soon. I think such matters come from "edit creep", different editors' modus operandi over the years '''tAD''' (talk)
  • I made a couple minor edits related to voice and dashes. Feel free to change the first if you deem it necessary.
  • Are "BDFutbol profile" and "Diego Costa at National-Football-Teams.com" common external links in the topic area? No worries if they are.
  • Images:
    • Can we use "Costa on loan at Rayo Vallecano..." with CarlosRM marked at the bottom? I could have sworn there was a line about this in the MoS or tutorial. Can't find it, though. If you want to go above and beyond, add some alttext (no longer appears to be a requirment for FAC but help people out)
    • "Costa executing an overhead kick..." and "Costa in action with Atletico..." pinch the text. One of the needs to be moved.
    • "Costa in action with Atletico..." should use the "upright" parameter.
  • Multiple deadlinks: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Diego_Costa

Most of the above are minor or meant as suggestions. The image and ref formatting and dead links are my primary concerns. Overall, I expect to support this after you address my comments and with a little cleanup since it jumps out as a fantastic article. I had no idea that the guy was scoring so often.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, I will make edits soon. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: you seem to have forgotten to list this at WP:FAC! Maralia (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of think it was funny that it was listed at FOOTY and not FAC :P I inserted the template at FAC in the correct place chronologically.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready for a massive heave-ho of the references very soon. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still sourcing issues. For verifiability, see WP:NONENG-- en.wiki prefers English-language sources when they are available. As one example, this source could be replaced by this source. All Portuguese and Spanish-language sources should be converted to English-language sources when they are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unlike TAD from what little I know of him. He has been pretty quick since I started bumping into him a month ago while both improving and reviewing GAs and FAs. @The Almightey Drill: PING! Cptnono (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with withdrawal. Sourcing should have been in order before I came here. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Turkey

[edit]
Nominator(s): kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the country named Turkey. This article was a FA, now a GA, and i have completed all the things that has been stated in peer review. kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Only examining references and reference formatting so far:

  • There is a consistent problem where websites are cited by their URL and not their name (or the name of the publishing entity). This is true of nearly all cited websites and needs to be corrected across the board (for a counterexample, the IMF source correctly identifies it as the International Monetary Fund rather than merely www.imf.org).
  • Sources that are not in English need to have their language (generally Turkish, I assume) indicated.
  • Author formatting is not consistent. In the first dozen sources, I see both Last, First and First Last presentations.
  • At least five separate references are to various elements of The World Factbook (reference #2, 5, 193, 201, 250 at this time); all FIVE are formatted differently.
  • Reference 6 (2014 Human Development Report) has insufficient bibliographic information.
  • All ISBN numbers should ideally be correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13 (reference 7 has an ISBN-10). Happily, this is easy to fix. No Wikipedia editor should leave home without the official ISBN converter! At least one book (Steadman and McMahon) is missing an ISBN entirely.
  • Reference 8 ("Turkey in the Balkans") is incorrectly formatted, needs the website indicated properly, and is missing the available publication date.
  • Book sources are not consistent about whether they provide publication year (as with National Geographic Atlas of the World) or precise publication date (Steadman and McMahon). Howard's The History of Turkey has no publication date given whatsoever.
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Reference 15 (Köprülü and Leiser) is incorrectly formatted and missing a host of essential bibliographic information.
  • Reference 16 (and others like it) are functionally bare URLs. In this case, that's doubly inappropriate, as it is a Google Books presentation of a print source, and should be correctly cited as such.
  • Reference 17 (Journal of Genocide Research) is not formatted in the same manner as other journal references.
  • Same goes for 18 (Slavic Review).
  • Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and generally not preferred as a reference at the FA level; if retained, reference 19 is incomplete and improperly formatted.

...and I'm stopping here. There are 317 references. I'm not even 10% of the way in, and I'm struggling to find any that are bibliographically complete and properly formatted. Additionally, browsing over the cited material in general, I feel this article is built primarily upon relative weak sourcing: tertiary sources, government publications, news reports. There are mountains of literature on nearly every aspect of Turkey: scholarly articles and books published by major, respected publishing houses. The FA criteria require that articles represent a comprehensive survey of the literature, and even overlooking the state of the reference formatting, I simply do not see the results of a truly comprehensive survey here. Regrettably (and without comment whatsoever on prose issues), I must oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Alt text is not a FA requirement. It is a matter for individual preference (you could always add the text yourself). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required, but it is something all FAs should have. It tells those without images enabled on their browsers and the visually impaired what the image shows. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Hatoful Boyfriend

[edit]
Nominator(s): SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a quirky dating sim visual novel involving pigeons as the objects of your infatuation. Originally produced as an indie title in Japan with a hastily made English patch slapped on top of it, the game obtained an online cult following rapidly, which eventually led to it being officially published by a major games publishing company. A real rags to riches story. Involving pigeon love interests. SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At a first glance, it looks like the vast majority of references are either from the game itself, its creator Moa Hato's blogs or the websites of its developers PigeoNation, Devolver Digital and Frontier Works. Indeed I count only around 30 of the 140 references to be from sources that aren't self-published or primary. Even among those I'm not sure of the reliability of clickbait like "The 6 Most Insane Video Games About Dating", or unvetted, user-contributed content like this or Game Skinny.

Further, the prose is often difficult to read. It is at times overlinked ("severed", "pandemic", "Japan") and interrupted by Japanese-language text. There's also no need of a table for just one item. I'm puzzled why the story for the Bad Boys Love alternative game is ten times as long as that for the main game itself.—indopug (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that most of the self-published references is for content that is excruciatingly detailed and uninteresting to read. So you could kill two birds in one stone by severely trimming the Bad Boys Love story, Release history, English localization and Adaptations.—indopug (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I have removed the Cracked reference and the Game Skinny reference. Daniel Nye Griffiths is a games writer for Wired UK, he is a reliable source on games regardless of if he's publishing in Forbes. I have removed a number of wikilinks, including duplicated links, though i've kept pandemic, since I don't think that would automatically be a known term for readers. Removed the graphic novel table as well. The Bad Boys Love section is the canon plotline that only gets unlocked after doing each route. It tie together all the character's, explaining their true backstory, including the backstory of the game's universe as well. It is basically the main plot. SilverserenC 04:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently waiting for a response in this RSN section in order to determine if Technology Tell is a reliable source. If confirmed, I can use it to fill in a lot of the article since they've written a lot about the game. SilverserenC 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that reference #62 points to Tumblr. Is that really a credible source? Singora (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Singora: The Tumblr sources are from the author's own Tumblr (so a self-published source about themselves). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I only got about halfway through, but I'm concerned with what I've read so far.

  • There is information in the lead (attributed to the creator, current ref 5) that is not in the body of the article. I recommend you pull the info out of the lead.
  • The prose in the gameplay section is a little verbose. A lot of this can be simplified (for example: "As the game follows a branching plot line with multiple endings, at various points during gameplay the player is allowed to make choices that determine which character's romance route the player will encounter. " could lose the first clause and just be "The player makes various choices that determine which plot line the game will follow.")
    • I have no idea what "on in-game elective days" means
    • What exactly is "Bad Boys Love"? Is that the name for the scenario with the best friend? [I see that this is explained in the lead, but it needs to be explicit in the body too]
    • I don't like that interpretation "in a departure from the generally lighthearted romantic routes" is sourced to the creator.
  • The plot section is much too long - that should be cut down by at least half.
  • As noted above, a great deal of the text seems to be cited to non-third-party sources or blogs (which will need to be demonstrated to be reliable sources). I can't evaluate whether the Japanese-language sources are third-party reliable source or not.
  • I don't understand why there is a table in the webcomic section when there is only one row.
  • There is no need for subsections in the Adaptations section. Each of those is just one small paragraph - these could be combined easily into a single section.

Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Irataba

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Irataba (also known as Yara tav, from eecheeyara tav; c. 1814 – 1874), the last independent head chief of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans. He was the first Native from the Southwestern United States to meet a US president; Abraham Lincoln gave him a fancy cane. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Should use upright for the lead image as well, if possible
Two days ago, another user suggested that I remove the upright parameter from all images, so I'm not sure what to do with the conflicting advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the picture tutorial explains, omitting upright from an image that is taller than it is wide has the potential to create display problems; it suggests using upright=1.0 to obtain the default thumbnail width, which would accomplish what that other user appears to want. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did this edit fix the problem? I don't know how to add the upright parameter for the infobox image. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this. To clarify, upright should be used when the image is meant to be taller than it is wide; in other cases omitting the parameter and using default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to that, but I did add the US PD tag as requested. If this image's PD status is questionable, I'd be happy to replace it, but I'll retain it until you explicitly tell me it should be removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is likely PD, but the tag you have added does not appear to be correct — the image description gives a date of 1886, but your tag states that "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Can you explain why you selected that particular tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'm not up on all the different tags, so I picked the wrong one. Can you please point me to the right one? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one will work — you might consider removing the life+70 tag since we can't demonstrate that it's correct, and it isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [19] Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

I will have to spread this review over several days. I'll copyedit while reviewing, please treat those as any other edit.

  • Infobox
    • artist's rendering jarred. We don't normally use that phrase for a portrait and this was published during his lifetime. Is there any reason why you have described it so?
      I think the source that I got it from said that. I'll remove it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. The file source does indeed say that (linked in the file description). It would be good to check the original in Harper's Weekly Magazine, but I have not found it online. Perhaps I was wrong to moan about this... --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and vision
    • [nb 1] is misplaced (talking about "goose grease insead of mud").
      Thanks. I fixed it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to historian...: It looks as if some content has gone awol, since this sentence talks about dreams or visions with no previous mention (apart from in the title of the section).
      That's correct. I removed lots of content after a talk page discussion suggested that Frank Waters isn't a good source for encyclopedic writing. I just wanted to at least mention the importance of visions to Mohave, so the article wasn't completely sanitized by Western standards. What should I do? 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      I agree with RHM22 below that the information about dreams does not really belong here. Perhaps you could try moving it to the next section, Adulthood, which in fact is talking about the Mohave tribe rather than Irataba himself. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Mirokado: Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like to point out that Rationalobserver has removed the bit about dreams for now, until and unless the reference he/she ordered includes information which might suggest that it's relevant to Irataba.-RHM22 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah yes, I see that now. I think I had forgotten to refresh a browser tab. You are welcome to comment if you think it will help! --Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Beale's Wagon Road began at Fort Smith...: I imagine it was only called this subsequently? Perhaps: "His journey began at Fort Smith and continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California. (ref) This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.(ref)"
Those are awesome suggestions. Thanks and done! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later, run out of time tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments about the images. The first, which is what started me looking at them, is arguably stylistic choice, but others are more substantial issues, so I end with a suggestion for changes:

  • The color images, particularly the first, dominate the article visually and detract from the black-and-white ones.
  • The fist and third color images are generic as opposed to those in black-and-white which illustrate specific points made in the article content.
  • A bit fussy, but since I am mentioning problems: the second color image View from Mohave Point of the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon is probably showing air pollution haze which would not have been present in Irataba's time. Also: the caption mentions Mohave Point but the file description says Pina Point. Looking here I see the two are two miles apart.
  • The image Mohave woman by a ramada, or open thatch-covered shelter, c. 1900 belongs to the Early life section where ramadas are mentioned
  • The image A Mohave funeral pyre, c. 1902 belongs to the Disgrace and death section which mentions the tradition of burning body, hut, and belongings.

For these reasons, I suggest removing the color images and moving the two black-and-white images mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great suggestions, thanks! Completed here Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to you for the quick response. The left/right disposition may need a bit of tweaking, that is best done after looking at the article several times, thinking a bit and fine-tuning at leisure. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trip to Washington D.C.
    • Perhaps the current note 8 about previous trips could move to the end of the previous section, after "... suggested they bring Irataba to Washington so that he could see firsthand the United States' military might.(ref)"
  • Notes: here I also raise what might be a stylistic issue in the absence of substantial points:
    • The notes contain callouts to references which appear earlier in the article, whereas we are used to looking down to find the references
    • The notes are sandwiched between the references and the citations to which they refer, resulting in more scrolling than necessary.
    For these reasons I recommend moving the Notes section in front of the References section. This is also the order in the numbered list of contents in WP:FNNR which is very commonly used.

I've now read through the article once. You are currently making quite a lot of changes, so please could you ping me when you are ready for me to go through it again? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated your above suggestions with these edits. I got a new source today, so I added a couple of points from it, but I don't see any significant issues with stability, and I don't foresee adding much more. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad you have now got that new source. No more tonight but I will get back here in a day or two. --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • It is not necessary to repeat the birth year in the lead text after it has appeared in parentheses. (It is quite OK to repeat it in the Early life section though).
  • Early life
    • semi-subterranean: is clumsy. I think "half-buried" might be better? Any other synonym?
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Do we know anything more of that "traditional game played with a hoop and pole"? Is it still played in traditional communities or as a performance piece?

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first two; thanks for those suggestions. The hoop and ball game is often mentioned, and Kroeber talks about it at length (here). But I'm not sure if it's still played or displayed. I'll look into it. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Why is the current note 1 a note? It looks as if it is directly relevant to the subject and another activity which can be mentioned in the body of the article.

I've read through until the Fort Mohave section with no further comments at this stage. Please respond to RHM22's "Speaking of images" comment above, which has become sandwiched by strikeouts. I'm sorry to do this in such little bits (I'm nursing a broken ankle while back at work part-time), but I'm reasonably satisfied that I will support in the end! --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the note to the article body and changed the lead image's caption as suggested ([20]). Don't worry about the pace; it's perfectly fine. I'm just grateful for your input! I hope your ankle feels better, I broke mine during my basketball playing days, and it was a doozy! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RHM22

[edit]

I learned quite a bit from this article! It's well done overall, but I do have a few comments and suggestions, organized by section.

Lede: "This elicited a stern response from the US War Department, who in..." I think that the War Department should probably not be referenced as a person. In other words, "...from the US War Department, which in..." would probably be preferable.

Early life: "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav, meaning "beautiful bird"..." Maybe you could include "meaning "beautiful bird"" inside parentheses rather than between commas? I think it would help make the sentence a little easier to digest.

Early life: Another point that I must bring up is the quote about dreams here. I know you've addressed it above, but I think it should probably be removed for now, since it has no clear relevance to the subject. If you had some information about how Irataba had some significant dream or vision, then such a quote would be useful in the context of that. However, as it is, it doesn't really belong in this article, regrettably.

Adulthood: Do you think that you could include a sentence or two about Irataba's involvement in these war parties? As it stands now, this section suffers a similar problem as the quote in the previous section. I know that Irataba was a Mohave and that the Mohaves were warlike, but how does that relate specifically to Irataba?

Contact with European Americans: Is J.C. Ives the same person as Joseph Christmas Ives? Some of the chronology of the latter seems to conflict, so maybe not. If it is, he could be linked.

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: "Around 2 p.m. on August 30, the emigrants working near the river were attacked by approximately three hundred Mohave warriors, who let out terrifying "war whoops" as they sent arrows flying into the camp." Where does the phrase "war whoops" come from? Was that a quote from someone involved? If so, could you add something along the lines of "...who according to X, let out terrifying "war whoops"..."?

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: Do you think that the bit about the comet is relevant here? I was thinking that maybe it should be relegated to the notes, since it doesn't really seem pertinent to Irataba or the attack on the party.

Fort Mohave: "...the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing..." how about "...the US War Department established a military fort at Beale's Crossing..."? I just think that reads a bit nicer.

Fort Mohave: "vice versa" probably doesn't need to be italicized, as an expression quite common to English.

That's it from me! The writing is very nice overall, so I don't really have any other suggestions besides the above. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, RHM22. I've made an edit that adopts your great suggestions! Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything else you think I should do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, it looks good enough for me. I'd like to see something in there about how Irataba was involved in the war parties described, but if there's nothing available, then it's acceptable as-is, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RHM22. I'm not aware of any sources other than Waters that put Irataba in the context of war parties, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this, which speaks indirectly to the point. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver: It looks good. Since you don't know of any precise information relating to Irataba as a warrior, I think that what do you have helps to avoid that non-sequitur effect, which sometimes removes the reader from the narrative and makes them wonder why it's relevant. It would still be better if there were some sort of direct correlation, but since you don't have the information to state that explicitly, I'd say it's just fine as it is. Thank you for considering my suggestions and working them into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today I ordered a copy of a 1970 doctoral dissertation by Fulsom Charles Scrivner that includes a chapter about Cairook and Irataba, so hopefully that source will allow me to tie-in this point and others, such as the importance of dreams to Mohave. Thanks a lot for your review and encouragement! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! More good information is always better. I hope you will be able to expand a bit upon his early tribal life. Please ping me whenever you'd like me to come and take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking my support for now, as the article is currently undergoing considerable alteration, per Mirokado's statement above. I will revisit later.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John

[edit]

On first look it's going to be an oppose from me, just on prose. That's without getting past the lead yet. What is a "principle chief"? --John (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so it should be "principal chief" then. "Principle" and "principal" are different words with different meanings. I think there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article. --John (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm dyslexic, so I sometimes do silly stuff like that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was misspelled even in your comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it."(original emphasis) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. If you don't your oppose is meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The article should not have been submitted to FAC in this state. I recommend a rewrite and a resubmission after this is done. FAC is not the place to have your article improved. --John (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it the place to enact revenge for your buddies! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone please keep this sort of nonsense out of here? John is correct that FAC isn't meant as a forum for general article improvement, although almost all submissions do require touchups before passing. The FAC coordinators will decide how much weight to give reviews and comments, so there's no need for accusations and other claptrap that is better reserved for other sections of this website.-RHM22 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Boson

[edit]
The following text could do with rewriting. It's hard to follow who is doing what and why, but it might be easier to prune it rather than clarify details that may not be that important.

In March 1865, he helped defeat the Chemehuevi in response to their allies, the Paiutes, having killed two Mohave women in retaliation for the Mohave's killing of a Paiute medicine man after he failed to heal nine Mohave people afflicted with smallpox. Irataba attacked the Chemehuevi first because they had disrespected the Mohave, and to avoid "a fire in the rear" when he turned his attention to the Paiutes, who were planning an attack on the Mohave farm and granary on Cottonwood Island.

--Boson (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that's a twister! Did this edit fix the problem? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some things still seem a little unclear:
  • Why "helped defeat the Chemehuevi? Since he was the chief of the Mohave, this seems to suggest that there was another tribe involved on the side of the Mohave.
  • I think "in response to their allies, the Paiutes, killing two Mohave women" would be better expressed using finite verbs rather than nouns/gerunds ("response", "killing") and it took me a while before I was sure whose allies the Paiutes were.
  • The reason for attacking the Chemehuevi first seems a little unclear. The logical reason for the timing/order would seem to be 'to avoid "a fire in the rear"', but "because they had disrespected the Mohave" is mentioned first; that might be a reason to attack them, but not necessarily to attack them first.
--Boson (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the input! I've looked at this so many times it's getting harder for me to spot the problems or find solution to the problems I do see. Did this edit fix it? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's much clearer now. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [21].[reply]

I Ching

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this article on one of China's most difficult and storied classic texts. A top priority article in the China, Philosophy, and East Asia WikiProjects. Would be pleased to hear all comments. Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from Gaff

There is a problem with citation to Marshall 2001: Marshall 2001, p. 50-66. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMarshall2001 doesn't point to any citation. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this, thank you Shii (tock) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get expert input, I've requested and received some comments on this article via email from S. Marshall, author of [Marshall 2001]. I've already edited the page to respond to his points, except for three:

  • He insists that Zhouyi is one word and not Zhou yi (other sources seem to disagree)
  • He has some complaint with the description of changeable lines; I've asked for more details on this (He has now written back and confirmed that there is no WP:RS that would back up this specific complaint.)
  • He thinks more space should be devoted to how completely modern scholarship has overturned earlier views. I will have to look into this. Attempted to address this here.

Shii (tock) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just now saw that this is an FAC, excuse my tardiness.
I'm not sure why we are paying any attention to what Marshall has to say on this article... He's certainly not an expert on the subject in the eyes of anyone but himself, and I don't think any serious sinologist would cite his work. I'm concerned that Shii has been citing his 2001 work, which I don't think is a wise choice (see David Pankenier's review of this book). I know sinology isn't your main field, Shii, so please feel free to get input on sinological works' validity and reliability from editors like User:Kanguole and myself who are more familiar with that area.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him simply because his email was readily available. As you can see from the resulting edits, he had a number of simple, factual criticisms to make which I generally found were backed up by sources, and I believe the article is better for it. Looking forward to your own comments. Shii (tock) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shii (talk · contribs), I've got some down time at work today and am going through the article making some revisions and comments. I'll post them here when I'm finished, probably just in a large bulleted list.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Textual Review by WhiteWhirlwind
I'm going to do these in bullet form, I hope it's not too difficult to follow along.
  • "The I Ching"
    • at some point in the future this will be needed to be changed to Yi jing, I know a lot of sources still use the Wade-Giles spelling, but no reputable publication would do so in 2015.
  • "/ˈiː ˈdʒɪŋ/"
    • I've never understood why we consider Random House Webster's to be an acceptable source for (often crappy) pronunciation of non-native English terms. In any case, this should be changed to standard Mandarin "/ˈiː ˈtɕiŋ/".
  • 1st paragraph of lead
    • I know I rewrote part of this, but I just want to say this is an excellent paragraph.
  • Section headings
    • I'm on the record as against section headings where editors try to get cute and finesse things, like "The divination text: Zhou yi". I try to stick to simple ones like "History", "Content", "Influences", etc. Not a deal breaker, just my opinion.
      • I agree that the section heading might be changed, but FWIW I provided a list of 8 sources that distinguish between Zhou yi and Yijing -- basically all of the sources used in the article. Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Changes of Zhou or Zhou yi.(Chinese: 周易; pinyin: Zhōuyì)."
    • This is a bit of a mess here. I recommend "Changes of Zhou (Zhou yi 周易)", which is standard in sinology but has traditionally been less common in WP articles. Either adopt my suggestion or just clean up the periods/parentheses a bit.
  • "The name Zhou yi means a book of "changes" (Chinese: 易; pinyin: Yì) used during the Zhou dynasty"
  • " Feng Youlan proposed that the word for "changes" originally meant "easy""
    • Two things here: 1) check and see which is more common, this form or "Fung Yu-lan", I seem to see the latter more often and I think it's the one Feng used in his lifetime. 2) You have no source for this sentence, so if you're not quoting anything either consider adding that this may be influenced by the modern meaning of yi 易 as "easy", which is common in most dialects. If you're going to say something like "there is little evidence for this", you should probably have a reliable citation.
  • "The Zhou yi is attributed to the legendary world ruler Fu Xi."
    • This phrasing makes it sound like a present day situation. I'd rephrase to something like "The Changes were traditionally attributed to the legendary..."
  • "The basic unit of the Zhou yi is the hexagram (六十四卦 liùshísì guà),"
  • "(彖 tuàn),[note 1]", "The word tuan (彖) refers to a four-legged animal similar to a pig. It is not known why this word was used, and it is possible that it is a homonym for an unknown word. The modern word for a hexagram statement is guàcí (卦辭). (Rutt 1996, pp. 122–3)"
    • I have no idea why Rutt would write this and not mention that tuan is usually glossed as a loan for duan 斷 "decision". (Knechtges 2014: 1881 notes this, I'm surprised you missed it). I haven't found any mainstream reviews of this book, and I've never heard any scholar mention or appraise it as a good work. Not sure I would cite from it.
      • Changed. Rutt is cited as the single best translation by Redmond & Hon 2014, part of a series published by Oxford University Press and the American Academy of Religion. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I see. I'm not sure how I feel about that attribution... Hon and Redmond (the latter I've never even heard of, and he doesn't seem to be a great expert on the subject) aren't what I would call Yi experts, and this wouldn't be the first time a major press published a dud. Unfortunately, this Hon and Redmond book only came out in October 2014, and so there aren't any reviews of it out yet. I'm curious to see how the expert reviewers appraise it. My local university library doesn't have this book yet, and I have no quasi-legal e-version of it like I do for many Chinese topics (doesn't leave the room, Shii).  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of the need to be cautious with these books, but Hon is the author of The Yijing and Chinese Politics: classical commentary and literati activism in the northern Song Period (SUNY Press) which was widely reviewed and cited. The book has received several positive blurbs from Sinologists, here. Shii (tock) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I saw those reviews on the OUP site. Those are the standard blurbs from author friends, I'm more interested in seeing the published reviews in major journals. Those tend to be more honest.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", but in five cases (2, 9, 26, 61, and 63) an unrelated character of unclear purpose."
  • "The Zuo zhuan and Guoyu contain the oldest descriptions of divination using the Zhou yi."
  • "In the Zuo zhuan stories..."
    • I think this entire paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
      • I added it because of the long descriptions of "changeable lines" in previous revisions of the page, making me think this was an important topic. You can delete it if you want Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 136 BC, Emperor Wu of Han named the Zhou yi "the first among the classics","
  • "and the Shuogua attributes to the symbolic function of the hexagrams the ability to understand self, world, and destiny."
    • This is the first and only time you mention the Shuogua – you'd need to introduce it if you intend to keep this clause in the article.
  • "The Japanese word for "metaphysics", keijijōgaku (形而上学; pinyin: xíng ér shàng xué) is derived from a statement found in the Great Commentary that "what is above form [xíng ér shàng] is called Dao; what is under form is called a tool".[44] The word has also been borrowed into Korean and re-borrowed back into Chinese."
    • This probably isn't necessary and can be deleted. I'm not sure that source is reliable, in any case.
  • "The I Ching was not included in the burning of the Confucian classics, and textual evidence strongly suggests that Confucius did not consider the Zhou yi a "classic"."
  • "During the Eastern Han, I Ching interpretation divided into two schools...."
  • "One was the yili xue (義理學, "principle study") approach, which was based on literalistic and moralistic principles. The other approach, taken by Shao Yong, was the xiangshu xue (象數學, "image-number study") approach, "
    • You need to italicize foreign terms like yili xue. I'd actually rearrange like this: "..."principle study" (yílǐ xué 義理學) approach..." The last sentence of this paragraph needs a citation, too.
  • Early European
    • This is a nicely written section. Good job.
  • "as described in China's most ancient histories, in the 300 BC Great Commentary, and later in the Huainanzi and the Lunheng."
    • "most ancient histories" is a bit awkward here, since that term is debatable in and of itself.
  • "In East Asia, besides its widespread use in divination, "
    • I believe I mentioned this previously, but Yijing divination is actually not at all common in East Asia anymore, and hasn't been for quite a long time.
  • " Richard Rutt's 1996 translation incorporated much of the new archaeological and philological discoveries of the 20th century, and it is considered the most accurate available in English."
  • Translations
    • How did you determine which were "the most notable English translations"? I have an MA in Classical Chinese language and literature and have never heard of a number of these, such as Pearson's weird "feminist translation" and the Wu translation.
  • Marshall (2001)
    • I'd recommend deleting this as a source and any references thereunto. I can't find any serious sinological studies that cite it, and David Pankenier's review of it is pretty damning.
      • It doesn't really matter and the source can certainly be removed if the claims attributed to it are unusual, but it is cited in both Redmond & Hon 2014 and in Rutt 1996. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that those two works' citation of Marshall (2001) necessarily carries any weight. There are random Daoist blogs that cite them, too. The fact that Knechtges and Shaughnessy (two vastly more well known scholars than Hon) don't mention it is telling. I'd like to get a look at this Hon & Redmond book so I can form some kind of appraisal of it. I have a basic knowledge of Hon, and the problem is that his specialty is not classical works or philology, it's modern and late Imperial stuff, and that gives me a bit of pause in giving weight to his works on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, we can put this off until you get a look at the Redmond book -- I think you'll find it fairly discriminate, and I expect positive reviews in academic journals when they do come out. Marshall 2001 is currently used only for the very vague statement about dating the events being referenced to. I'm not sure where to go for an alternate source for that, but I'm sure one can be located. Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I very much doubt there's an alternative source for that, since it refers to Marshall's own hypothesis that hexagram 55 refers to an eclipse observed at the Zhou city of Feng, that this eclipse occurred in the year of the conquest of the Shang, and that this was an eclipse known from astronomical calculations to have occurred on 20 June 1070 BC. No-one else seems to take this seriously. Pankenier's review demolishes the argument, and most authors now favour a date of 1046 or 1045 for the conquest. Kanguole 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kanguole (talk · contribs), White whirlwind (talk · contribs): I've removed all references to Marshall, replacing them with Shaughnessy where appropriate. Hope this resolves the certainly legitimate concerns you've raised. Shii (tock) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've kept The Zhou yi itself shares some of its features with even older Shang dynasty analysis of oracle bones. I didn't see this in Shaughnessy 2014. He does mention that some oracle bones associated with the predynastic Zhou include groups of 3 or 6 numerals, which several scholars link to the trigrams and hexagrams, but I see no justification for a link with Shang divination. Thus illustrating the section with an image of a Shang divination is also misleading. Kanguole 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was basing this off of the following specific statement: "although there were numerous developments in the conduct of divination, certain features remained constant throughout ancient Chinese history and the various media used to divine." Shii (tock) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The quoted statement is quite vague, but from the discussion in that chapter, it appears that it refers to the religious context and purpose of divination. (Though I'm not sure whether his claim that the Shang oracle bones were prayers rather than questions is the consensus view.) I don't think it supports this sentence, which appears to suggest a connection between the Zhou yi and the procedure of Shang divination. In any case, we shouldn't be citing broad statements like this without context. Kanguole 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think it would be fair to include absolutely nothng about Shang oracle bones when Shaughnessy spends 4 pages at the very beginning of his book describing the various links with the Zhou yi and why the oracle bones are useful for Zhou yi studies. Feel free to change the wording if you think something else would be more appropriate. Shii (tock) 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose>Comment

My objections mainly because the "Influence" section is too short, I understand there's a main article I Ching's influence, but that article aloso had same problem, far from what it's should be, and lot sentence without source. Also I have some concern about the selection, I mean why Carl Jung listed, according to the article I Ching's influence, "Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a forward to the Wilhelm–Baynes translation of the I Ching", also no source to follow, I just feel that wrote a forward to some translation doesn't count for "notable impact", we don't know what he wrote, and how's I Ching really impact his life, his professional or personal opinion.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jarodalien: Please note that this is not an FAC for I Ching's influence but for I Ching. I have expanded the "Influence" section and added a quote from Jung, is this what you wanted? If not, please be more specific. Shii (tock) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this is not FAC for I Ching's influence, so just like I said before, "mainly because the "Influence" section is too short". Meanwhile, normally sections with {{main}} template, means this section is only an epitome for that article, just like lead section. But even when I consider this, this section are still too short. For example, I think it should mention the influence for divination, at mainland China, there's been a long history for people using I Ching to predict their future, choosing graveyard, homestead, (influence with Feng shui), even their spouse (with influence of "Bazi", calculate by people's birthday and exactly time), those influence also effect other country or continent. For as far as I know, there's still least tens of thousands people practicing Hexagram or Bagua for living (for a street that 3 blocks from my home, there's least 15 blind people do this, because some people lives here believe, when people lost their eyesight - normally born that way, cause by accident doesn't count. - for somehow they could open "another eye" to look into your future). My English is very poor, hope doesn't cause any misunderstanding.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Between you and White_whirlwind, who says the I Ching is no longer widely used in China, opinion is evenly divided. I have found it best to remain silent when the sources have so little to say about modern use of the I Ching. Sorry this makes you reject my work entirely. I wish I could find something better to say in that section. Shii (tock) 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my opinion makes you feel that I "reject" your "work entirely", so I switch to Comment, hope that helps. Maybe I Ching "is no longer widely used in China" like used to be, but their influence still strong, especially places less developed. Maybe I feel this way mainly because I live here, like we had a old saying "当局者迷", means when someone get involved, there's big chance they couldn't seen the whole picture. So, this is just my opinion, you already done a excellent job to writing this article, I only feel there's some place could been better.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think your anecdotal evidence makes perfect sense. In Japan, blind people have similar social roles. I just can't find a good source to attest to it. I will keep looking... Shii (tock) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

This is done, except for the hexagrams, for which I'm not sure alt text is possible Shii (tock) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC, and the nomination has not attracted any support after more than 3 weeks. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2015&oldid=654332369"