Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 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) 10:18, 31 May 2015 [1].

MediEvil (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's your general over-rated, under-appreciated "hack n' slash" video game that came out in 1998. I brought this up to GA last month and using all the online sources I could find, I managed to use all the hard to reach information I could find in order to produce this article, in particular the development section. In comparison to most other VG FAs, this article is compact and the prose is straight to the point, although I have reached the point where I can't expand it any more without it repeating itself. Since this is a quiet and under-appreciated game, there were few reliable/mainstream reviews I could use, though if need be I'll have to make do with what there is. I look forward to any comments given and will do anything to address them. JAGUAR  21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Internet publications did not have the reach and influence in 1998 as they do now. This over-reliance, indeed, sole-reliance on internet sources suggests it fails 1c. Other minor points - consider a "legacy" paragraph at the end of the reception section noting MediEvil 2 and MediEvil: Resurrection, the Mean Machines source is actually a Retro Gamer scan. - hahnchen 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. I agree that this article could do with more references, although I'm not sure where to start on looking for offline/print sources. The Mean Machines scan was the only one I could find, but I'll keep looking. I'll add a legacy section before I re-nominate as MediEvil's only legacy is its sequel JAGUAR  19:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To find some printed sources, I would look into visiting a brick and mortar library that would have magazines on file. The article I referenced below has ISBN of the magazines they used. Wikipedia shows where you can find these titles. If there isn't a library near you that carries it ask the reference desk if they have an inter library loan program. In some cases the other library will copy them and mail them to you. Depending on your library, it might even come at no cost. On a side note, I wrote an article that I wanted to be a GA and used printed sources. One of the editors didn't seem to like the sources I got because he couldn't easily verify my claims and wanted them all to be internet sources. I thought that changing my sources to make it a GA because he was lazy was kind of odd. --Pink Fae (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • I believe this does need more references, especially outside of internet sources. If you look at the article Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, which is a featured article of a game that came out a year after this title, there are references from printed sources such as magazines and books.
    • The fair use of the image File:MediEvil team.jpg is questionable. The images File:Medievil cover.jpg and File:MediEvil gameplay 001.jpg are also both being used as fair use (WP:FU) with the same rational as the development team. I think the image of the team should be removed the article is chiefly about the game and not the team that created.
    • There needs to be a section in the article about marketing. The infobox shows that the game was released eight months later in Japan and then re-released in 2006-2007 for the PlayStation Network. This needs to be explained and elaborated on in the article itself. Is there any differences in these releases?
  • Thanks for the helpful points. I'll ask for some offline sources and will search for more scans online if I can. About the MediEvil team image, I think it's relevant as the Development section sort of centres around the Cambridge studio team who made it, and most of the section is from Chris Sorrell's interview, but if necessary I will remove it if people think it's best. I'm in the middle of writing a new 'Release' and 'Marketing' section now, and as a matter of fact, there were a lot of changes made to the Japanese release! I was going to mention that before I nominated this for FA but I didn't see it necessary as I didn't think a Release section would be broad enough. Anyway, I'll write up a draft and will implement it before I re-nominate JAGUAR  19:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point of view about the photo. It isn't something that is making me oppose this article as an FA. If you add more sources and talk about the other releases, I would change this to a support. The article is very well written! --Pink Fae (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Jaguar, I note that you said "before I re-nominate" above. I take it this means you are open to archiving this nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Andy -- since I'm walking through the list now I think we might take it as such... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 31 May 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) 10:16, 31 May 2015 [2].

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a riot involving football hooliganism in Copenhagen around the 2000 UEFA Cup Final between fans of Arsenal F.C. and Galatasaray S.K.. I believe it should be featured because I believe it fulfills all the criteria, goes into detail about it, is sourced well and is balanced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose based on a thorough read. I have concerns about the sourcing, the adherence to NPOV and the quality of the writing. --John (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give me some details? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, I will post a fuller review here later today. --John (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-exhaustive list of problems:
        • Sourcing: Don't use tabloids. I see Daily Record, Daily Mirror X3 and Daily Mail. None of these can be used in an article like this which concerns living people.
        • NPOV: "...it was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners,[9]" (another bad source there as well), "In Turkey, the media portrayed Galatasaray fans as acting in self-defence, with criticism directed at the British fans for allegedly attacking members of the press.[12] However, there were conflicting reports, with claims that some Galatasaray fans were instigating some of the violence.[39] Later on, British media blame also transferred towards Galatasaray fans.[40]" All over the place. The Aftermath section is the worst and really needs a complete rewrite. Quotes should be summarised.
        • Prose: "Leeds fans had been drinking in bars reportedly taunting local people and Turkish police intervened to stop fights breaking out." What is wrong with that sentence? There are probably twenty sentences like that in the article. It will need a major rewrite to meet FA standard. Don't be disheartened; get better sources, deal with the NPOV and then polish the prose. There's no point in doing it any other way. I also endorse Brianboulton's comments below. --John (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On sources, you might start by looking at Ref 9, where the source page has disappeared – and I would question anyway this source's credentials as a high-quality reliable source. Ref 38 looks equally dubious on reliablity grounds. The prose reads rather raggedly throughout – just a few examples:

  • "Arsenal made it to the final" is tabloid journalese rather than encyclopaedic
  • The relative pronoun "which" should not occur twice in a single sentence ("Galatasaray fans entered the area shortly afterwards which precipitated a fight between the two sets of supporters, which led to the two Leeds fans being stabbed")
  • The sentence "The stabbings caused anger throughout the United Kingdom, and subsequently it was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners, wanted to avenge their deaths, and telephoned other British hooligan firms, inviting them to join them in Copenhagen to attack Galatasaray fans" is clunky, vague ("it was reported") and ungrammatical ("their deaths" appears to refer to the hooligan firms)
  • Use of numerics for small numbers, even to start sentences.

These are, I stress, are examples; the whole text needs to be polished up to meet FA standards. It seems you have made some effort to improve the prose since the last significant peer review in July 2013, but it really needs the input of a fresh pair of knowledgeable eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- We aren't really making progress towards consensus to promote here and I think it'd be best if the improvements suggested above are undertaken away from the pressures of the FAC process, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 31 May 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) 10:10, 31 May 2015 [3].

Pavel Nedvěd

[edit]
Nominator(s): C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pavel Nedvěd, a Czech footballer who won the coveted Ballon d'Or in 2003. The article has gone through a good article review, two peer reviews and a copy edit from WP:GOCE. C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think this has a little way to go. I notice that the 2015 peer review got no comments at all; you may be better approaching some copy-editors or FA regulars to have a look and get some quality feedback. PR can be a graveyard. The more eyes on this the better. Here are some comments on the lead, to get you started. I will not oppose at the moment, but I think this needs a lot of work to be FA quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Described as one of the best footballers of his generation, he is also regarded as one of the most successful players to emerge from the Czech Republic,": Described by who, regarded by who? My confidence in these statements is lessened further by their reference to a BBC article from 2000 which has no publisher, author or date information.
  • "winning domestic and European accolades": What sort of accolades? Trophies? Awards? Praise?
  • "during which he attracted international attention": This is quite vague.
  • "He also captained the national team at Euro 2004, where they were defeated in the semi-final to eventual champions Greece, and Nedvěd was named as part of the Team of the Tournament.": This could be tightened up considerably. For example: "During the 2004 European Championship [this should be written in full here], he captained the national team to the semi finals, where they were defeated by the eventual champions Greece, and he was named in the Team of the Tournament."
  • "Furthermore, Nedvěd helped his team qualify for the World Cup for the first time since the breakup of Czechoslovakia." Furthermore does not really work here; and which World Cup are we talking about? The last date given was 2004, when there was no World Cup and the qualifiers had only just begun.
  • "Winning the Ballon d'Or as European Footballer of the Year in 2003, Nedvěd was the second Czech player to receive the honour and the first since the breakup of Czechoslovakia. ": Second time we've mentioned the breakup of Czechoslovakia in a short space; such repetition is best avoided. Maybe better phrased, for example, "In 2003, Nedvěd became just the second Czech player to win the Balloon d'Or"
  • Quite a few sentences begin "Nedved" or "He"; more variety is needed, particularly in the lead.
  • The lead should summarise the whole article, and there are areas missing: for example, his early life, his playing style, and many of his achievements at club level. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query - Cloudz679, what is the status here? Are you intending to address Sarastro1's comments or continue participation in this nomination? If not, I will archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 27 May 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) 10:02, 31 May 2015 [4].

Master of Puppets

[edit]
Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, often cited as their musical peak. I think it is well researched and hope it satisfies the FA criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK
  • Additionally, this song sample has a second problem with "minimal usage", as the song is already extensively covered in a second article. Multiple usages for the same purpose in separate articles are generally discouraged (WP:NFC). Suggestion: could you use a different song as sample of the album's style to avoid this issue?
I removed it from the song article, and added a more specific rationale for its use.
OK thanks. Not really a big fan of this strict rule myself (for all cases), but it's the current handling within WP:NFC. GJ
  • File:Metallica_(1986)_Welcome_Home_(Sanitarium)_sample.ogg - length OK, needs a more specific "purpose of use", see point 2.
  • File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg - I suggest to replace this one with a different image: 1) the original Flickr link is no longer available 2) the original uploader, while uploading in good faith, had several of their uploads removed for copyright reasons. Considering the image looks somewhat professional and has Photoshop changes in its EXIF, it would be better to use a different image. It's not an outright copyvio, but the image's history is unclear.
I could not find other images showing the band performing something from this album, so if it's not a flagrant copyright violation, I'd prefer to keep it.
After reasonable research, let's keep the image then (I couldn't find a similar version as well, thanks for double-checking). GJ
  • Bonus question: probably obvious and just my lack of knowledge, but how do you know that Hammett is performing "Master of Puppets" (and not a different song) here, as stated in the caption?
I've seen this show on YouTube, and this is an angle from "Master of Puppets".
I knew it was something obvious :) - have updated the description to include that detail. GJ

(ec) Some clarification and cleanup needed, but nothing unsolvable. GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added a more specific explanation for the use of the "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, have updated the header status (all OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tomica
  • The pictures have alt, good
Ok, noted.
  • There are no redirects
Noted, tnx.
Yes, this was a case at the GA review. You need to be a user on Classic Rock in order to enter their website.
  • Okay, the lead it's kinda confusing. Although it's grammatically totally fine, usually we follow the format; general info, composition, critical reception, commercial performance, singles, tour... Do you think you can re-arrange it?
Now it is background–composition–critical reception–commercial performance–touring
  • Metallica embarked on a five-month tour of the US in support of Ozzy Osbourne. → This got me confused... do you mean with a support from Ozzy Ozbourne? And does the tour have a name?
They were supporting Ozzy. The tour was called Damage, Inc. Tour, mentioned in the 'Touring' section.
  • Background and recording:
    • already entitled Master of Puppets ---> already is redundant
The word "already" implies to the reader that the album title was given before the songs were completed.
Ah, you've thought of Hammett's statement. Done.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from  — ₳aron
  • You could use a flat list for the producers in the Info box so that they are bulleted.
Flat list added.
  • album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
I used only released because it is finished action. To be released would indicate that the album is about to be released.
  • Master of Puppets is the band's → Master of Puppets was the band's
Corrected.
I think it's safe to assume that an album would chart on an album chart.
  • and became → and it became
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
  • and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums → and is has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
the meaning of both alternatives is the same, the second one is just a bit wordier.
  • The cover was designed → The album's artwork was designed
Artwork and cover art are synonyms. I opted to use a more diverse vocabulary, although both term are used throughout the article.
  • What was Ozzy Osbourne doing? Solo tour, group tour? If so, what tour?
Ozzy was touring with a band of his own (not with Black Sabbath). The sources I looked in doesn't mention the name of his tour, just the name of Metallica's— Damage, Inc. Tour.
  • Metallica honored the album's twentieth anniversary in 2006 by playing it in its entirety. → Where?
The tour is explained in detail in the 'Live performances'. I don't think listing various countries in the lead would make it read as a summary of the entire article.
Saying in a world tour or something similar won't hurt. It's not a complete sentence.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, world tour can be added.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are just things I picked up on from the Lead alone. Also, neither the Commercial performance section nor the Chart table mention of or includes it's peaked of number 19 on the Billboard Hard Rock album chart. There's a lot of white space once you get to the Personnel, Charts and Certifications. I'd make Personnel two columns, and move the Certifications table up into the Charts section, re-naming it Charts and certifications, with both as sub-sections. 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

These suggestions are a mere case of editorial preference. Another editor might suggest bringing the sections back to the older state based on WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate your overall input and time, but the points above were addressed by a two copyeditors and reverting the prose back to its "verbose" character might hurt the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because two copyeditors did it one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way. As such, I believe how it is right now is hurting it. It's not about personal editorial style, it's about the management of content and structure, and it's nothing that hasn't been suggested to me before.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Earthh
  • album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
Doesn't "to be released" suggests that the album is about to be released? The album was released 30 years ago (finished action), and released only is grammatically correct, I believe.
In this instance no, it doesn't.
  • album to be certified platinum. It was certified 6× platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2003 for shipping six million copies in the United States. → album to be certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It has since been certified six-times platinum denoting shipments of over six million copies in the United States.
Don't you think it is more appropriate to feature the year (2003) instead of the undetermined "since"?
Since we're talking about the lead, details like year of certification goes in the article's body.
  • and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums. → and has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
Done.
  • I would split Personnel in two columns and rename it Credits and personnel.
There are three sub-sections there, which one should go where?
I would remove them, anything like this is good.
  • I would also move Certifications to Charts, renaming the section Charts and certifications.
WP:ALBUM/CERT suggests these information to be placed in independent sections.
In case the album has achieved multiple certifications. Here the info relating charts and certifications can be put together.
  • There's a very inconsistent use of publishers; either use them for all or none.
The book citation should necessary feature its publisher, as for the other links (websites, online magazines/news) I've omitted the publisher and kept only the author and work fields.
I see at FN46 Billboard (Nielsen Business Media), and then in the following source the publisher is omitted. According to {{cite web}}, the publisher parameter should not be used for magazines and newspapers.
  • Per the verifiability policy, you should cite sources clearly and precisely, specifying page or section (see Help:References and page numbers). I suggest that you use shortened footnotes that link to a shortened reference in a list with a separate reference list with full citations (WP:SRF).

It's a fairly strong article, Retrohead, but isn't FA-worthy yet. Best of luck improving the article.--Earthh (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 31 May 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) 09:55, 31 May 2015 [5].

Avianca Flight 52

[edit]
Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Boeing 707 flight between Colombia and New York City that crashed on January 25, 1990 due to fuel starvation. Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of this accident, which is odd considering the date. This is superb article and totally fascinating.

  • I found the intro statement somewhat difficult to read. The information is all good, but it's sort of randomly placed and repetitive. There's also some examples of connecting statements being used to connect things that aren't really related (talking to traffic control did not cause the aircraft to run out of fuel) How about something to the effect of...
Avianca Flight 52, a Boeing 707, ran out of fuel and crashed while on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport on January 25, 1990. Eight of the nine crew members and 65 of the 149 passengers on board were killed. Hundreds of emergency personnel responded to the crash site and helped save victims. Many of those who survived were severely injured and required months or years to physically recover.
Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín. The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns while approaching New York and became critically low on fuel. The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, [really?] forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt. The airplane crashed approximately 20 miles (32 km) from JFK, striking a hillside in the small village of Cove Neck, New York, on the north shore of Long Island.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation. Weather, air traffic controller performance, and FAA traffic management were also cited as contributing to the events that led to the accident. This conclusion was controversial, with disagreement between investigators, passengers, and Avianca as to who was ultimately responsible. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
I'm not perfectly happy with this either, but I think its somewhat better?
  • Could you say more about what's inadequate or being repeated about the intro?
  • link to hush kit, remove quotes around second instance.
Done.
  • B-707, or simply 707? I've always seen the later.
Changed it to 707
  • "At least six bodies were found outside the fuselage" This statement seems out of place, should it not be in the previous section? Or is there some detail I'm missing here? And does this total include the deck crew, or is this passengers only?
I moved it to a better spot.
  • "evacuated to hospitals" suggest para break here, but I'll leave this one to you.
  • "At least one emergency responder" I think this should be the first statement, priests after.
Done.
  • "At least one flight crew member was airlifted" Cockpit crew or flight crew? If the later, this should be moved down.
Flight crew is the cockpit crew. The flight attendants and maître d' are called cabin crew.
  • "Two surviving male passengers " definitely should be a separate para.
I moved them to a better section
  • "The investigation of Flight 52 began immediately after the crash" I'm not sure this requires mentioning, it always does.
Deleted it.
  • "FDR foil was found to have been taped down at some point" What does "taped down" mean?
The report doesn't elaborate on "taped down." The foil is much like a roll of aluminum foil. If you tape the edge of the foil to the roll, you won't be able to extract it. But that's my interpretation.
  • "they were being treated routinely and not given any emergency priority" I'd like to see an explanation as to why this is.
I'm not sure how to explain this. I'm just citing the report, not giving what I think is my opinion. I assume the ATC would simply give them a straight vector to their final approach, not have them do loops in the air. Again, my interpretation.
  • "The report cited recurring maintenance problems with the airplane's autopilot" this is not mentioned in the section on the aircraft, and it seems it should be.
I mentioned it in the aircraft section as suggested.
  • "The same summer" suggest making this its own para.
Done. Thank you, @Maury Markowitz: for your input. -- Veggies (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Coord note -- @Veggies: I've seen no response to any of the comments above in almost two weeks, if you don't have the time or inclination to continue with the review then it will have to be archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , Ian, I haven't found the time to make a comprehensive post here, but I suggest this be archived for a serious miss at comprehensiveness. Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel. The cultural and linguistic issues that contributed to the crash have been the subject of scholarly research that is not dealt with here. The nominator needs to spend more time on research ... I could list all of the missing sources if needed, but I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it. It is obvious to anyone who understands Spanish and the hispanic culture what happened here, and that issue is covered by scholarly sources, and it is significant because of the changes in procedures that resulted. In other words, these people did not die in vain, and this article is a miss. See google scholar and plain old google on Avianca 52 and the language and cultural issues that led to the crash. The miss here is by focusing on FAA sources and leaving out other types of scholarly research and sourcing ... pls deal with the cultural aspects of how this crash happened, and how that then made it significant in changes that occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to respond to this. If there's a major study on Avianca 52 regarding linguistics and the changes it brought about in the US airline ATC industry, I've yet to hear about it. I surveyed Google Scholar and didn't find much of interest (74 results—mostly 0-2 citations each). Also, I don't understand what you mean by "I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it." Did you "do" that work on Wikipedia, on your sandbox,—what? -- Veggies (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did the google searches on another device (from which it is hard to type), late at night. If you really aren't able to find the sources (it should not be that hard), I will do the work again and post them here tomorrow. Out of time for now ... I'm sorry I didn't save those results somewhere, and it was Ian's post hitting my watchlist that jogged my memory of my late-night reading that I hadn't followed up on. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The post is non-specific but I will assume SG is referring to Malcolm Gladwell's comments, which I trust just as much as anything else the man says (i.e., zero). As was quickly pointed out, there is a earlier example of precisely the same thing happening to a US crew.
SG states that "Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel.". Oh yes they do. All the time. And why? Because the cockpit crew doesn't clearly and specifically report the problem to the person that needs to know about it. In this case the engineer repeatedly stated he had declared an emergency when he had done no such thing. In the case of UA173, the cockpit crew repeatedly made non-specific remarks about the problem and never clearly stated what was going on.
Reading over the sources, and this article is a pretty faithful representation IMHO, it's "obvious" to me that they had bad cockpit communications. And by "obvious" I mean "obvious to someone that took their commercial pilot recs and had this drilled into them over and over and over." There is a cultural issue involved, but that's the one that's always existed, the PIC who doesn't listen. This is DRILLED into you these days, specifically because of events like this.
But don't take my word for it, we have the word of the NTSB report, which the airline agreed to. I looked for sources that said otherwise, but apparently your google-fu is better than mine. In the meantime I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar produces (at least):

  • Ulijn J & Strother JB (2012). The Influence of Culture on Information Overload
  • Cultural issues — SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below
Abstract does not mention Avianca and the text-access is restricted. I see no evidence that it is directly about the subject per the reliable source guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
  • doi:10.1016/0363-8111(91)90005-6
Ditto.
What does this article say about the subject that has not been covered?
Looks like a primary source to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
I already saw this article before I rewrote the Avianca page. It is restricted-access, like the rest, but from what I gleaned, it only mentioned the crash obliquely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
What does this say that the article does not cover?
I see nothing about Avianca in the abstracts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
Per 1c, you should not be accessing abstracts; you should be accessing the articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the articles, then?—You linked to the abstracts. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly here. [6] Graham Beards (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions Avianca twice—neither in any way that would add anything significant to the article.
Source is not about Avianca.
The Avianca article cites the lack of brace-position instructions as contributing to severity of injuries. What else does this (restricted-access) article add?
Not about Avianca—and I'll use this as proof that you didn't read any of the articles you Googled. "Avianca" is cited as an "uptake loop"—that's it. If you don't want to support FA-nomination, @SandyGeorgia:, fine. Just don't expect me to play fetch with every Google link you throw at me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the followup. You (and the coords) may use it as you like, because my post is a week old, and I will be traveling now and unable to respond further. (I am unconvinced that because Maury M doesn't like Malcolm Gladwell, that info can be excluded, there is a helpful analysis there of the language issues, but you may convince the Coords that Gladwell is not a good source.)

However. I can say the same for your feedback here, because I did not find the text access restricted on Uljin & Struther, and it is about Avianca 52. I do not have journal access for the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, would you please not interrupt my posts, and particularly without signing each entry? If makes followup and tracking much harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the nomination would seem to be failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined (there are more-- samples only).

My google scholar search did not cough up the Malcolm Gladwell mentioned by Maury Markowitz, although he does show up on regular google searches. I'm not sure a case can be made for excluding that source based on you (Maury) not liking the man, though. He does seem to have a handle on the cultural deference that contributed.

Also, no I am not discussing "precisely the same thing" as in the US crew: I am saying the article does not examine the specific language and cultural issues. The US crew was dealing with a separate emergency (and I presume they spoke English, although I didn't delve all the way into that article). — SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below

And you want me to do what with those articles? Firstly,
Whose comment is this it is unsigned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mine, from an abandoned attempt to untangle this mess. Struck. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this version, I also noted 1a (prose) issues-- samples only:
  1. Repetitive and unnecessarily laborious prose, resulting in ... resulted from ... resulting in ... three times in two sentences
    ... ran out of fuel on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), resulting in the aircraft crashing onto a hillside ... the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation.
    How about trying simple English like "ran out of fuel ... and crashed ... More words is not always better than less.
  2. More of same:
    The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns.
    Why can't we simplify ? The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel, but was placed in three holding patterns while en route to JFK.
  3. Due to poor communication between the air crew and the air traffic controllers
    Not phrased quite correctly ... there were communication problems among the crew and between the crew and controllers ... this needs rephrasing based on sources I present later (here).
  4. ... well as an inadequate management of the fuel load by the pilots ...
    ?????
  5. This dire situation was not recognized as an emergency by the controllers.
    Again, not quite correct on the phrasing for the same reason ... the controllers didn't have info to even suspect a fuel emergency.
  6. More laborious prose:
    The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt.
    Do flights attempt landings or do aircraft attempt landings? Inadequate management twice in two sentences.
    Why not something along the lines of ... The first landing attempt at JFK was aborted because of bad weather and <whatever>; during a go-around to attempt a second landing, the flight ran out of fuel.
  7. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims.
    settle damages due to victims?????
  8. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
    Says nothing.
These are samples only from the lead; I could continue on with the rest of the article, but I do not believe that FAC is the best place for extensively rewriting articles. Also:
  • There are MOS:LQ issues-- please review.
  • I find the mention of cocaine to be gratuitous and off-topic (just because the news highlights sensational aspects doesn't mean we have to), but if you must include such, perhaps this is a source that could be examined?
  • Surely we can find a way to refer to cockpit and crew personnel without saying the flight was manned (gender neutral language pls).
This is debatable: the root of the word is possibly latin for "hand" as in "manage", "manual", "maintenance" and others; ( see also "man the decks" "all hands on decks"). Graham Beards (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing concerns are addressed, and an independent copyeditor (someone not familiar with the topic or involved with it so far) goes through and cleans up prose and jargon (the middle of the article gets unnecessarily jargony), I'll be happy to re-engage. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined
I have examined them, and only one of them even mentions the issue you're talking about. The majority of the papers have to do with language issues, which I believe the article covers with reasonable depth already. Among the links are papers on the use of English in ATC comms and cabin briefings, using cross-cultural icons in automation systems, the use of synthesized voices to clarify language issues due to accents, etc. I could address them paper by paper if you wish. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Don't bother. He made a bad-faith attempt to oppose nomination for some reason. I looked at all the articles he Googled. Some have nothing to do with the flight. He simply cited them because Google recognized the words "Avianca Flight 52". He didn't bother to actually read any of the articles and, instead, threw them all on here as "evidence" that the article was lacking in...something. -- Veggies (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the majority do have to do with language issues (they all do, I believe): that is my point about the relevance of them (that pilots don't just fly around and not pay attention to fuel, killing lots of people-- there was a cultural and language issue here that was significant, and led to changes in procedures). Anyway, see my response above, where you and Veggies seem to be differing about what is in those articles. I'm unable to followup for several weeks due to travel, and trust the coords will discount my commentary if need be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mind telling me why you deleted my signed comment? -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Still here, travel delay.) Naturally, I was unaware of having deleted anything, do not know how that may have happened, and apologize if I did! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SG you are not addressing the issue I am raising. In your original post you spoke of "obvious" "hispanic culture" issues that resulted in "changes in procedures". The citations you added earlier did not address this. Are you talking solely about language issues now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if you think the cultural issues are a load of bunk, in this case I believe that they are significant enough to not be a "fringe" line of thought on the crash. If nothing else, the article is currently misrepresenting Gladwell a tad - from the linked review, he focuses on the cultural issues, but the blurb doesn't indicate that, blandly saying he references the crash. This is fine if the reference is just a straight-up factual retelling (e.g. the Mayday episode, presumably), but if the author is trying to make a point or is focusing on one aspect in particular, I think it's worth the space to explain what that point is (again, even if you think Gladwell is a flake). Of course, if there's a cultural explanations section/paragraph added, it should ideally be sourced to something a little more scholarly than Gladwell, of course.
The article is pretty good overall though, it's just weird from a layperson's perspective how the article underplays one of the more famous elements of the crash. Again, this is fine, especially if sourced to someone ("according to Bob Smith, the pilots just done goofed, it's a mistake, language/culture had nothing to do with it"), but I'd rather the article explicitly address (and then perhaps dismiss) the issue rather than just not talk about it. SnowFire (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom has generated plenty of healthy discussion but after a month is still not progressing towards consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I hope to see further collaboration take place on the talk page and perhaps at a Peer Review, before a return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 31 May 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.

SSX 3

[edit]
Nominator(s): BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SSX 3 is a game I hold pretty dearly to my heart. I grew up playing it, and felt like a suitable way to show my admiration of it would be to get its article up to featured status. The article has already been promoted to GA class, and has also just been through a relatively unsuccessful peer review where I was trying to find any ways to improve it, but I have added some more development info after said GA review. After making some comparisons with another FA class snowboard video game article, 1080° Snowboarding, I'm going to be bold and submit it for a featured article review. Thanks in advance to anyone planning on reviewing this, as your constructive criticism will give me much needed ideas for making this the best article I can possibly achieve. BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: This was incorrectly filed as an FAR on May 4, and has been moved here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to be a non-starter so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls note also that a couple of paragraphs appear to be uncited in parts; pls ensure that all paragraphs end with a citation to a reliable source before renominating the article at FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:59, 27 May 2015 [7].

Cyclone Anne

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Severe Tropical Cyclone Anne which affected the island nations of Tuvalu, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands back in January 1988. I have worked on this article for several months now and feel that now is the time for me to obtain some feedback on it from the community and that its worthy of being an FA.Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Comments on prose and presentation
  • It seems weird to mention Roy in the first two lines of the article, since—as far as I can tell—the storms had nothing to do with each other.
  • "Before" and "after" are collectively used ~17 times in the lead and MH. There's nothing inherently wrong with the words, but the sentence structure they lend itself to do get monotonous.
  • "Category" should be capitalized to be more in line with the thousand+ other TC articles.
  • During January 12 after the cyclone had turned and started to move towards the south, Cyclone Anne became the most powerful tropical cyclone to affect New Caledonia in 12 years as it made landfall on the French Overseas Territory. - this could simply be "After turning toward the south on January 12, Anne struck New Caledonia, becoming the strongest tropical cyclone to affect the FOT in 12 years."
  • After the cyclone had moved back into the Coral Sea - you never said it was there in the first place...
  • "Within" is used 19 times in the relatively short article (including at the beginnings of three sentences in the second impact of preps/impact). Try to find some different words... in, on, over, throughout, across.
  • torrential rain, flooding and storm surge caused damage to houses, crops, and property - either use the Oxford comma or don't but really, do :P
  • Extensive damage was also recorded on the islands of Vanua Lava and Gaua. Extensive damage was also reported on New Caledonia...

This is all to say that the article needs a fairly extensive copyediting session (though I haven't gone beyond the lead yet, so I could be making assumptions). The content seems good at first glance. I'll try to go through the page in the near future, but I can't make any promises, so you might want to enlist another editor in the meantime. Shouldn't be too hard to get this in shape. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I made some basic copyediting, per JC. If you disagree, please let me know. Here are some other comments.

  • No need to link Roy in the See also, considering it's linked already. Find another link. Ditto Agi. Link Agi in the article when you first mention it. Then, you should find other, similar storms to link in see also.
  • You say it was the strongest New Caledonia landfall, but you don't say the winds. Why?
  • Why no links for the various islands in the lead?
  • I think you should put a note in, along the lines of what I did in Typhoon Maemi, saying what the FMS is. That way, the reader knows instantly that it is an important meteorological service, and not just some weather office for Fiji. Ditto with "United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center".
  • "Over the next two days the Southern Hemisphere system developed further as it was steered towards the south-southwest along an area of high pressure, before it became equivalent to a tropical storm while passing through the Tuvaluan Islands." - this should be split up, but I'm not sure *when* it became a TS
  • "the cyclone passed through Temotu Province and about 55 km (35 mi)* to the northwest of Anuta Island" - why no mention of the country?
  • "After the cyclone re-emerged into the Coral Sea" - when was it first in the Coral Sea?
  • Do you have a better way of saying "as it was caught up in the upper westerly flow"? It could use a bit more explanation.
  • "where strong gale force winds of 70 km/h (45 mph)* were recorded" - as it was a gust, does the mph need to be rounded to the nearest 5? Typically we don't if it's an exact gust.
  • You might want to add a note about "10-minute sustained". As 10-minute is the standard, you could add a note saying all wind values are 10-minute unless otherwise stated.
  • "Anuta, Utupua, the Duff Islands and the Reef Islands all reported extensive damage to property and crops with at least 25 houses and 5 classrooms damaged." - this directly contradicts the previous sentences about the province escaping the strong winds. Or, was there heavy damage due to lighter winds? Something isn't right.
  • "Vanuatuan" isn't correct. The denonym is "Ni-Vanuatu", but I don't think that's any better for such a general term. Are you ok with "Northern Vanuatu Islands"?
  • "Within Vanuatu, over 1600 people were made homeless while wind gusts of up to 225 km/h (140 mph)* were recorded." - neither are related aside from general impact. You should have met stats separate from actual impacts
  • "Torrential rain, flooding and storm surge caused damage to houses, crops, and property while triggering a landslide on the island of Epi." - did all of this happen on Epi? Also, what distinguishes property from houses?
  • "The hardest hit area was Torba Province with severe damage recorded on the islands of Ureparapara and the Torres Islands, while extensive damage was recorded on the islands of Vanua Lava and Gaua." - I have no idea what's going on here. You already said "During January 10, the cyclone directly passed over the Torres Islands and came within 65 km (40 mi) of the Banks Islands". This sort of info should be together. Or, is all of this in Torba Province? That means little for people who don't know the provinces of Vanuatu.
  • "There were reports of 4–5 m (13–16 ft) tidal waves" - so, most people think of tidal waves as tsunamis, or something of the sort. I assume this refers to just storm-generated waves?
  • "while significant wave heights of over 11 m (36 ft) were recorded" - where? On land?
  • "Some areas reported crop damage between 90 and 100%" - which areas? Was it just one farm? That sentence is kinda wishy-washy?
  • You mention winds "up to 150 km/h (95 mph)*" in Noumea. That's useless, as technically 1 km/h is within the range of 0 up to 150. Do you know the exact figure?
  • "The last wooden Royal Navy boat was scheduled to be sunk on January 12, but was moved to January 19 due to the cyclones." - this needs context
  • How are there references to Euros? They didn't come out until 7 years after the storm
    • There are references to Euros in the articles because the references for the aftermath are from the EU and use the "fictional" European Currency Unit. When this was abolished it was apparently determined that 1 ECU = 1 Euro and as a result I felt it better to use the non-fictional currency rather than the fictional.Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope none of these are too troublesome to deal with. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query - Jason Rees, I see that you have been active, but not on this article. Do you intend to continue with this nomination? If not, I will archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 02:19, 27 May 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) 21:04, 27 May 2015 [9].

2015 Milan – San Remo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 Milan - San Remo cycling race, one of the most important one-day races in the cycling calendar. The race has had a controversial few years with several changes to the classic route, but this year's race was successful enough that future events will use the route again. I successfully took it to Good Article status a couple of weeks ago. This is my first attempt at nominating an article for Featured Article status and I'm doing so with some nervousness: I hope I've got the process right! Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is the best and most complete cycling article I've read about a race. The references are varied and pertinent. The prose is top-notch. The race is notable too: it is one of the five Cycling Monuments, the most important races on the calendar besides the Grand Tours. It deserves to be on the front page. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not asking you to add "race" to the page title ... I consider WP:TITLE and WP:RM to be above my paygrade ... but I'm uncomfortable enough with the page title that it stopped me from copyediting and supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dank, thanks for your comment. Could you clarify your concern? The race is universally known as Milan – San Remo (or Milano–Sanremo), by the race organisers, by the cycling media, by cycling fans. It is never referred to as "Milan – San Remo race". The current title (a) matches every single cycling race article and (b) complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Relentlessly (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually you're right. My problem isn't with the page title, it's with the first sentence. Here are the first 3 "Milan – San Remo" ghits to websites not dedicated to cycling:
  • Each of these treats "Milan – San Remo" as the proper noun, so they all support the current page title, but an adjective rather than a noun, except in headlines, which aren't expected to be grammatical. I'd like to see more research on this, but if a wide variety of sources use "Milan – San Remo" as an adjective, then it probably shouldn't be a page title, since page titles are nouns or noun phrases. [added 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)]
  • Also, none of them starts off "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was the 106th edition of the Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic", which is redundant. (I don't personally care whose rules we follow, but "avoid redundancy" is one of the rules FAC reviewers tend to follow.) Instead, one says "Milan-San Remo one-day race", and the other two say "the Milan-San Remo one-day race, the first of the season’s five 'Monument' classics". Also see WP:REDUNDANCY, which redirects to LEAD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying. I've modified the lead to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was a one-day cycling classic that took place in Italy on 22 March." It could be modified further to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic took place in Italy on 22 March." This seems less good to me, though I will happily concede expertise to you! Hopefully what I've done has improved it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank, just wondering if you might be able to take another look? I'm really keen to get your comments on prose. Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing soon. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in caffeine withdrawal, so I'm going to hand a few problems off to other reviewers. It would be a good idea to reduce or eliminate the use of "Milan – San Remo" as a noun, per the links I gave above.
  • "(150.2 mi))": Avoid )) per MOS.
  • " was extremely technical"?
  • "9 kilometres (5.6 mi) section": needs a fix, but VisualEditor isn't cooperating
  • " With Cavendish not in perfect form, his Etixx-Quick Step also had Zdeněk Štybar and 2014 world champion Michał Kwiatkowski able to attempt an attack in the final part of the race.": ?
  • " A group therefore came together into the finishing straight.": I don't get "therefore" here. In general, try to avoid cause-and-effect words if they're not necessary.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for you review, Dank; I'm grateful for your comments and your copyedits. I've fixed all the specific points you raise and I'll have a look through to clean up the others, the therefores and the meants, etc. I'm still not convinced about a problem with "Milan – San Remo" being used as a noun: it is universal in the specialist media and not unknown in general media (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13]). I'm reluctant to change this one, though I won't go to the wall over it. Relentlessly (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The larger issue of what might be called jargon is probably the copyediting issue that causes me the most trouble, because of how Wikipedia works and because of the expectations that go with my wiki-jobs. I can't be considered neutral. Also, page titles are a whole thing unto themselves, and I haven't invested the time to learn them well. I'm willing to leave it alone for now, while noting that none of the links that either of us have given use "Milan – San Remo" in the text (headlines don't count) without first using something else as the implied noun ... race, classic, whatever. Another example: "400-meter" is used as an adjective, not a noun, in copyedited text ... you can tell from the hyphen and lack of an "s" ... but that doesn't mean that journalists don't write about the "400-meter" (as well as the "400 meters"), they do ... after they've mentioned a suitable noun phrase somewhere, so that you know what "400-meter" is supposed to modify. Standing alone doesn't stop a phrase from being adjectival. Lots of adjectives don't sit in front of the noun they modify. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: I'm not asking you to change the page title, because there's a lot more to page titles than just good copyediting principles, but I'm hoping that you (or someone) will go through the text making sure that "race" or "classic" or something occurs either before (and nearby) or immediately after every occurrence of "Milan – San Remo" (similarly to the way this is handled in all the links you and I have cited). - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but with no commentary for three weeks this nom appears to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:04, 27 May 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) 02:46, 27 May 2015 [14].

Joss Whedon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cognissonance (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American screenwriter, director and producer Joss Whedon. I'm not the creator but the primary author of the page itself. It has gone through a successful good article nomination and now has been improved and fine combed in such a way that warrants a featured article nomination. Cognissonance (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – the article is excessively long and suffers from what I believe to be fundamental plagiarism issues. I copied the "Marvel Studios" subsection into my sandbox and removed all text within quotation marks; readable prose in the excerpt fell from 1099 words to a mere 395. Further eliminating text that leads-in to a quote (eg. "he spoke of x, saying," or "he continued," yields just 273 words of actual information. The rest of the article seems equally overinflated with irrelevant quotations. Take these two examples:
    • "They didn’t actually want me to make it. It’s like, ‘Uh, Joss, we really wanted you to do [Age of Ultron]. Instead you created a TV show, you moron.’ ‘I thought you wanted me to!’ ‘No, we just wanted you to make a movie.’ ‘Oh. My bad.’ ... It went from being absolutely 100% the driving force and totally hands-on to ‘That sounds great, Jed! You should do that!’"
    • "It is pretty dark and it's all me. So people will pretty much know what that means if they look at my body of work. But it's a new universe set in the present day with a new concept for me and a new bunch of characters. It's been a long time since I got to do that, so that's really fun"
  • Near as I can tell, they contribute nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject's career, and are borderline incomprehensible to anybody who isn't a fanatical follower of Whedon's. I've yet to find the most basic idea or fact in the article that isn't then dwarfed by lines and lines of copy-and-pasted follow-up material. Further to that, almost none of the 330 web references are academic in nature, instead linking chiefly to blogs, sketchy review sites, and sources like BuzzFeed. I hate to be so blunt, as it seems that you spent quite a lot of time on the article, but it needs to be completely restructured and overhauled to appeal to a more general audience and take on a more factual form. I'm not sure why it passed GA, to be honest. With apologies, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, thanks for the review. Your arguments make the nomination seem redundant now. What's to be done with it? Archive? Cognissonance (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish to withdraw it. Thanks Laser brain. Cognissonance (talk) 02:39, 27 May 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) 02:09, 27 May 2015 [15].

God of War: Ascension

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 15:07, 27 April 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 somewhat recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808 ♫ 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a month and has not attracted any interest or support for promotion, unfortunately. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 27 May 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) 02:10, 27 May 2015 [16].

Only Girl (In the World)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Rihanna's highly successful (and one of her most in her entire singles discography) singles, "Only Girl (In the World)", which hit either number-one or number-two is nearly every country that it was released it, and achieved platinum or multi-platinum status. Second nomination. I believe that I have addressed concerns in the previous nomination to the best of my capability.  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

I'll kickstart this and get a checking done first:

As for relevance and captioning, the pics of Mariah, Beyoncé, and Gaga don't exactly benefit the article. It also is overkill to have three images all in the same spot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lyrics it contains are "Like I'm the only one that you'll ever love, Like I'm the only one who knows your heart, Only girl in the world, Like I'm the only one that's in command, 'Cause I'm the only one who understands, How to make you feel like a man". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner, Calvin, let's review other aspects.....

Lead
  • "is a song by Barbadian singer Rihanna included on her fifth studio album, Loud"..... from
    • Not done. Personal preference. (I've done it the same as "S&M" which is FA and went through 10 nominations)  — Calvin999
  • No need to include Crystal Johnson's nationality, and she should link to Crystal Nicole
    • Not done. Personal preference. (I've done it the same as "S&M" which is FA and went through 10 nominations)  — Calvin999
  • Something doesn't feel right about using "lively" in "create lively, up-tempo music"
  • Remove the hyphen from "number-one"
    • Removed all instances of hyphenating number one. (But everything in the See also section has hyphenated article titles?)  — Calvin999
Concept and development
  • See above note for Crystal Johnson linking
    • Not done. The others aren't referred to by their actual name, either.  — Calvin999
      • I meant to have [[Crystal Nicole|Crystal Johnson]]
        • Her bio name must have been changed recently, because it was "Cristyle". But still, she is credited in the loud booklet as Crystal Johnson.  — Calvin999 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not how she is credited though.
  • "the then untitled project" → "the song"
  • "Tour" is not part of the title for Last Girl on Earth, and there should be a period after this bit instead of a colon
Composition
Critical response
  • ""Only Girl (In the World)" garnered a generally positive response from music critics" needs a reference, even if most reviews included are positive.
    • It doesn't, because I go on to include the reviews. Other FAs don't do this.  — Calvin999
      • Given that citations are used for the sort of thing on album articles, I figured it would also apply to song articles, but it could be worth consulting the Songs WikiProject on the matter Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it was, then I'm sure FAs would have it.  — Calvin999
  • "a 'comeback,' despite noting that it was not a comeback single" isn't really needed; I'd include commentary on specific aspects of the song
    • Not really, because other critics say how it's a departure from her previous album's tone, so him saying it's a comeback and the comparisons to "Don't Stop the Music" is all relevant to this comment.  — Calvin999
  • Something tells me that the "accolades" should be in prose rather than table form, and I would include who it lost nominations to
    • It's acceptable to use a table without prose or prose without a table. I chose to use a table.  — Calvin999
Commercial performance
  • This is going to need to include more than just North America and the UK
    • It will be too long to include Europe, too. Also, the song hit number one in pretty much every European country, and was certified platinum everything, so it would just be repetition.  — Calvin999
      • While you don't necessarily have to go into as much detail as other nations, other nations should at least be mentioned within prose. Otherwise, it seems incomplete, especially since the lead lists nations that aren't included here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you're saying, but the the other countries in the lead is summary of what's in the rest of the article because the table is there. Commercial performance section is essentially the chart table just in prose form, so it's not as if sourced info isn't in the article.  — Calvin999 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for Cheryl Cole's nationality
Music video
  • CBS shouldn't be italicized
    • Removed italics.
  • Include that Jason Lipshutz is a Billboard reviewer; it doesn't give readers much context on him otherwise
Live performances and covers
  • Again, no need for nationalities
  • It might help to include commentary on the covers
    • Googled it and couldn't find anything.  — Calvin999
References

At this point, I'm going to oppose, sorry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've addressed Snuggums' issues, but he doesn't want to continue participation in this nomination per his response to my talkback on his talk page.  — Calvin999 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month and has not attracted any support for promotion, unfortunately. --Laser brain (talk) 02:10, 27 May 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) 11:07, 21 May 2015 [17].

I Ching

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I nominated this article for FA and made a number of suggested tweaks. The only remaining issue at the end of that FAC was that one of the sources used, Redmond & Hon 2014 (published by Oxford University Press), had not yet been the subject of any academic reviews. There now is at least one academic review, here. I hope this article is now clear of anything that might stand in the way of FA. Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article is looking good, but I can't help feeling that it is a little thin; both the "Divination" and "Influence" sections are for instance each only a paragraph long. I'm really no expert in this subject but on those grounds I fear that it might not be as comprehensive as it could be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support, since most of the problems have already been addressed in the previous FAC. The only remaining issue is the length of the "Divination" and "Influence" sections. The influence of the text is already partially covered in the "Interpretation" section, so would it be possible to merge the two as "Interpretation and influence"? For example, the Carl Jung quote could be moved next to the line: The psychologist Carl Jung took interest in the possible universal nature of the imagery of the I Ching, and he introduced an influential German translation by Richard Wilhelm by discussing his theories of archetypes and synchronicity.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 18:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review has been open well over a month and despite being listed among the FAC "urgents", it seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 21 May 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) 10:57, 21 May 2015 [18].

Fremantle Prison

[edit]
Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison – built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. Unlike my other FA, GA, and A-class articles, the challenge was generally not in finding in finding reliably sourced information, but in distilling a vast quantity into an encyclopaedic article (and various sub-articles). This article has improved considerably since the 2006 nomination (old revision), and I believe it now meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:DoNoMurder_2005_SeanMcClean.jpg: I think this is a photo of a 2D work? If so, the photographer does not hold copyright, the original is likely simple enough to be public domain
  • File:FremantlePrisonMainCellBlockMap.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? What do the different colours/lines represent?
  • File:EdmundHenderson.jpg: any more details about this image...first publication, author, date?
  • File:Fremantle_Prison_inmates_and_main_front_Iwel.tif: what is the difference between the two pages?
  • File:Fenians_escape_Fremantle.jpg: the Sketcher is the publisher not the author - any idea who the original author was?
  • File:FremantlePrisonWalsh1.JPG: again, representation of 2D work - license tags should reflect status of original image, not reproduction. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fenians_escape_Fremantle.jpg – source page doesn't indicate an author, so I have changed it to Unknown author
  • FremantlePrisonWalsh1.JPG – adjusted to use {{PD-art}}
  • I'll have to look into FremantlePrisonMainCellBlockMap.jpg – the author is inactive and hasn't contributed to wikipedia or commons for ages, so we're not likely to find out the original source used (though they were a tour guide at the prison, according to the wikipedia user page). I'll have to look through the sources I used in the article to see if I can find one to verify that layout. - Evad37 [talk] 04:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source that verifies the layout, and have noted it at the Commons file description page. As for colours, it appears that yellow is used for limestone walls, and black for everything else, so I have added that to the Commons description. @Nikkimaria: that should be all the fixes for the images. - Evad37 [talk] 06:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The six-hectare (15-acre) site includes the prison cellblocks, gatehouse, perimeter walls, cottages, tunnels, and prisoner art. - this sounds weird - all are solid bits of building.....and then there's the art (??). I think I'd take off the art and describe it separately.
Done - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convicts were initially of good character, as potential future colonists, but eventually less desirable convicts were sent, until the end of transportation in 1868. - this sentence is clunky and ends abruptly
Do you have any suggestions? Would it work better split into two sentences? - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and few changes to mark the passing of time. - I don't know what this means (actually I think I'd remove this sentence as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really)
Meals were an important part of the day, breaking up the monotony, eaten in the cells, throughout the operational life of the prison. - I think I'd remove this as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really
Punishments for misbehaviour at various points in the prison's history included flogging, solitary confinement, a restricted diet of bread and water, time in irons, lengthening of a sentence, and restriction from visitors or entertainment. - again...don't these happen at all prisons? I'd ditch it....
The above three sentences are meant to summarise the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections of the articles. They might be obvious and nonspecfic, but I feel something is needed in the lead (and per MOS:INTRO, the relative emphasis of content should be the same in the lead and the body of the article). - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about whether these particular sentences are kept or removed, just that the topics should be mentioned in some form in the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sigh - yeah I see your point but I don't think it's essential, especially when the article is so big. Happy to leave it and see what the consensus is when more folks comment here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
which contains two chapels - are they still chapels now? If not --> "contained" (also check tense here of other facilities not still in use)
Yes, they are still chapels, per [19] - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjacent to the gatehouse are numbers 10 and 12 to the north, and numbers 14 and 16 to the south. - I'd maybe ditch this sentence and add "north" or "south" to the house numbers as they are discussed in the sentences immediately following
Done - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prison's workshops provided activities and training for the prisoners. They also reduced the cost of maintenance, repairs, and construction by providing an in-house service. - am tempted to remove both these sentences as generic....do they tell us anything unique?
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prison life at Fremantle was highly regulated with a strict routine. Each day was very similar, without any changes to mark the passing of time. - isn't this true of all prisons? I'd delete these two and let the following sentences speak for themselves
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....to check if anyone was missing - isn't this implied by "muster"?
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meals were an important part of a prisoner's day, breaking up the monotony of prison life - again, generic. recommend removing
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on Moondyne Joe and the Fenians are quite large. I reckon the former could be trimmed a bit
I've trimmed both sections - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of the damage was in the order of £200 to £300. - err, we had decimal currency after 1966...?
Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fremantle Prison is a substantial tourism precinct, enticing international and domestic visitors - I'd trim to "Fremantle Prison receives international and domestic tourists" - let facts speak for themselves in following sentences
Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read more later. Overall the prose is okay but I think could do with more trimming. The article is very long and has 64 kB readable prose (10435 words)..think we should get this to under 50 kb really... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I'll start working to resolve the issues - Evad37 [talk] 06:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Fixes mostly done (see replies above). By splitting most of the riots section off to a sub-article, and with trimming per the above comments, the size is now down to 59968 characters (9506 words) - Evad37 [talk] 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - down to 59kb prose as of now. The lead is really long still and any other content we could relegate to daughter articles would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Open close to a month and unfortunately not enough commentary to come close to consensus to promote, plus it sounds like restructuring may be in order, so I'll archive this shortly and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2015 [20].

Taj Mahal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Atsme and -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the famed white marble mausoleum in Agra, India. The article is good in all aspects and literally its a GA. Finely cited and broad in its coverage and well illustrated. Thanks..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Lead is not an adequate standalone summary of the rest of the article as is required even for GA status. Also still seems to rely primarily on news media sources, and not much engagement with the academic literature. Also the engagement with the well known context of the love story that inspired its building is cursory, and extremely dry. There is a large literature on this topic alone which is not being engaged. Definitely more historical and cultural background seems to be needed, if the love story is a myth then at least that myth needs to be mentioned and debunked. If it is not a myth then a lot more of it needs to be included. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The are numerous unsourced statements throughout the article. Graham Beards (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - I appreciate the hard work that has been put into this thus far, but it is quite clearly not up to FA standards and I will be archiving this nomination shortly. Aside from basic problems such as uncited text and MOS issues, important scholarly sources about the subject have not been used as Maunus pointed out. I would urge you engage subject matter experts to ensure you are using the proper sources. After building out and polishing the article, I would urge you to open a peer review in which you invite comment from other Wikipedia editors who have written FAs in similar areas. --Laser brain (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 [21].

Syro

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth studio album by electronic musician Richard D. James under his Aphex Twin pseudonym. I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a well-written article that I feel is worthy of becoming a featured article. I believe that it fits all of the FA criteria. The article was recently promoted to good article status on February 27, as well. Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is a good start, but the article falls short in a few fundamental areas:

  • 1a: It is not well-written at this time. Random examples:
  • Basic grammar: "He noted that by rearranging equipment—and often keeping the same setup for around just five minutes—it allowed him to explore more writing possibilities"
  • Lack of clarity and detail: "Describing the overall process as 'brutal', James referred to the in-studio technical issues as the catalyst for writing new music that would be featured on Syro." This makes no sense as stated. Why would technical issues cause someone to write new music?
  • Clunky, non-parallel sentences: "Syro (pronounced /saɪroʊ/) is a neologism that was coined by one of James' children and a shortened version of 'Syrobonkus', a 'nonsense word one of his sons blurted out while listening to [the album].'"
  • General overuse of quotations. Quotations should be used only when something is important to state precisely as written in the source, or when paraphrasing is impossible. You have used quotations throughout the article where paraphrasing would produce a much better result. Example: "then [the engineer] realized [sic] he was doing it all wrong and had to start again". There's nothing profound here that shouldn't just be paraphrased.
  • The Reception section in general is overstocked with quotations, most of which say nothing that can't be paraphrased. This is a growing practice in album articles, and not a positive one.
  • 1b: After reviewing some of the sources on this album, I feel that you have left out information about the musical themes on the album, and writing about EDM as a genre.
  • At least 3 sources describe EDM aspects of the album, yet you don't mention it. On the other hand, you provide a list of subgenres sourced to the Staples review—he really only mentions them in passing and not as major themes of the album.
  • On a similar note, I think it's a bit of a stretch to list "glitch" as a subgenre based on Staples writing "his utilization of familiar glitch-hop melodies".
  • 1c: A brief library search revealed 2-3 prominent articles about the album that you didn't use, and that could be used to expand the coverage of themes. For example, the Gary Suarez Billboard review, and the Simon Vozick-Levinson Rolling Stone review (on 9/25, later than the one you have here).
  • 2a: The lead doesn't reflect the key points of the article very well. It should be expanded to put due weight on the major ideas and less weight on minor ones. For example, you have a phrase dedicated describing the subgenres, an idea which is discussed in only one sentence in the article. It would be better to devote 1-2 full sentences in the lead describing the primary genre.

These are representative issues—the whole article should be examined for similar. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing cmt -- Tks Andy, I think it'd be best if the article was gone over for these sorts of issues away from the FAC process so I'll archive this shortly. Per FAC instructions, the article can be re-nominated when that's done or two weeks from today, whichever is the longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 9 May 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) 14:51, 9 May 2015 [22].

Mercedes-Benz CLR

[edit]
Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. After supposedly being destroyed or abandoned since the accidents, one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to have been a non-starter. Given the complete lack of feedback you can re-nominate without the usual two-week waiting period, perhaps it might attract some eyes at the top of the FAC list (I note it's been through GAN and you've already tried Peer Review). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 9 May 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) 14:14, 9 May 2015 [23].

George Pickingill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an alleged "cunning man", or vocational folk magician, who lived in the Eastern English county of Essex during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A curious figure, local folk tales grew up around him and his alleged magical powers, which included the ability to command both animals and imps to do his bidding. The article has been massively expanded by myself over the past year or so, and has successfully passed GAN and also received a peer review. Those editors with an interest in the eccentric and the odd might enjoy reading this one, as will those with a more specific interest in the history of magic, witchcraft, and esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support (with a caveat). I had my say at PR, and, having just read through the article again, I can say with confidence that it is of a very high quality. Midnightblueowl should be commended. I have made some final tweaks, and there are a last few comments below.

  • "by threatening to set white mice on them, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune" As written, the "rodent" being described is the "them" (that is, the victim of the mouse attack). This needs to be reworked a little, but I'm not sure I can see any easy way to do it.
    • I've changed this to "threatening to set upon them white mice, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune". It is not necessarily ideal, so if any other editors had further suggestions, then they would be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ward suggested that many of the stories regarding Pickingill's magical activities were adopted from those of a genuine Essex cunning man, James Murrell." Do you mean adapted or adopted, here?
  • "In this, his claims fitted within the historical framework of the witch-cult hypothesis as propagated in the works of Margaret Murray." Is it worth noting that the witch-cult hypothesis is discredited?

My one remaining concern is with the reliability of a particular source, but I am willing to defer if others do not share my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make any mistakes.

  • "local people were inventing claims to please Maple, many of which were based on older tales": suggest rephrasing to place "claims" next to "many of which".
  • "By 1851, he is recorded as lodging in the household of David Clemens in Little Wakering, Essex, and described himself as a farm labourer by profession": "lodging" and "described" should be in the same tense; I'd also suggest "In 1851" instead of "By".
  • "according to the marriage rites of the Church of England" is a little long-winded; can we just say "at St. George's Church, an Anglican church in Gravesend, Kent"?
  • 'Described on the record as a "spinster" ': the marriage certificates always described the women as spinsters or widows; I would just say she was unmarried when they wed -- or perhaps don't mention it at all. The way you have it makes it sound to someone unfamiliar with these records as if it's significant they said she was a spinster.
  • "Mary Ann Pickingill": is this a typo for "Sarah Ann Pickingill"?
  • Just checking: is Rochdale the correct location for Taylor's trial? It's quite a way from Essex, where the crime took place. Should this be Rochford, which seems to be the local market town?
  • Why "namely horses", when the rest of the sentence describes his control over game animals?
    • I think the meaning here (which is conveyed from the original source) is that he could exert full control over horses to do his bidding, but that he could also make game animals run out of a hedgerow, while not necessarily being able to control them any further than that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      How about "particularly" rather than "namely" in that case? "Namely" implies that horses are all that the sentence refers to; "particularly" avoids that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "According to Maple" has "the village of Canewdon" and "the agricultural village of Canewdon"; can we just say "Canewdon"?
  • Suggest putting quotes around "senial decay and cardiac failure", since it appears to be quoting the death certificate.
  • "his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before": suggest either "fell into disrepair" or "became dilapidated".
  • A minor MoS issue: you have unspaced em dashes in the text, but in at least one quote I see spaced en dashes instead. I think you should be consistent.
  • "Pagan" is inconsistently capitalized.
  • "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders were thus "purposely creating a phony history in order to throw researchers off the trail" which would have revealed that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." I don't follow the second half; what would have revealed this? The trail? I think this needs to be rephrased.
    • I've gone with "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders had purposely created a "phony history" in order to hide the fact that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes deadfamilies.com, geraldgardner.com and pickingill.com reliable sources?
    • Pickingill.com is only being used to cite the views of its author/co-author, Bill Liddell, whose beliefs certainly constitute a "significant minority view" (and as evidence for that I would point to the fact that Liddell's statements have been cited in the work of academics like Ronald Hutton, Owen Davies, and Ethan Doyle White). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation to Geraldgardner.com features an article authored by Julia Philips, a prominent Wiccan who has published books on esoteric history (we cite one of her books extensively over at the FA-rated article on Madeline Montalban, for instance). She might not be an academic, but she is surely reliable enough for use in this single citation ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deadfamilies.com is a website that is used extensively in this article, and is invaluable to it at present. It has published the researches of William Wallworth, in which he extensively quotes from other primary and secondary sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK on the first two. For deadfamilies.com, I can see it's been very useful to the article, but can you provide any information about the editorial control exercised over the site? WP:NOTRELIABLE is fairly explicit about self-published websites, which I'm afraid is what this appears to be.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm doubtful that deadfamlies.com can be shown to be reliable, so I feel I have to oppose. Sorry, Midnightblueowl. I think this is a fine article and would undoubtedly be featured quality (though shorter) without that source, though of course the best outcome would be if you're able to demonstrate that it meets the definition of an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I have sympathy for Mike's view (delegates- this concern was my "caveat"). I think there are three ways this source could be shown to be a good one. First, we could find that there is some significant editorial control over deadfamilies.com. Second, we could find that the author of that piece is someone who has published their work on this topic (or a closely related topic) in a source we know to be reliable- a book from a decent publisher, an academic journal, something like that. Third, we could find some other source (a book from a good publisher or a peer reviewed article, say) which cites the page in question as reliable. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comments, Mike and Josh. Sadly, I fear that this is going to be a serious brick wall at present, and that as such this article will fail its current GAN. Hopefully future published research from academic sources might resolve this situation in the future, at which this article could be re-nominated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing cmt -- I'll take Midnightblueowl's final comment as a withdrawal and archive this nom; good luck with resolving down the track! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 9 May 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) 10:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Adventure Time

[edit]
Nominator(s): Adventuretimer1 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Cartoon Network series, Adventure Time. Known for its wacky characters and intricate stories, the series has become a global phenomenon and won the 2014 Peabody Award for being "Purely and wonderfully imaginative in the manner of classic theatrical cartoons past, it entertains even as it subtly teaches lessons about growing up, accepting responsibility, and becoming who you’re meant to be."[25]. In its 5 year existence, Adventure Time has been nominated for a total of 39 awards and has won 10, including Primetime Emmy Awards and Annie Awards. I believe that it is time for this show to be featured because of its cultural influence and overall popularity. Adventuretimer1 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Although I'd love to see this article promoted, I don't feel that it is quite ready. It hasn't had a comprehensive peer-review or copyedit, and there is a lot of information from The Art of Ooo that could probably really, really expand this article. On a related note, I also would've loved a ping or something telling me you planned on nominating this, considering that I've pretty much single-handedly revamped the page from this to this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close -- apart from not discussing with main editor(s) per FAC instructions, doesn't look like the nominator has made any edits to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 2 May 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/May_2015&oldid=664841008"