Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2017

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2017 [1].

The Seventh Victim

[edit]
Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1943 film noir-horror film The Seventh Victim, directed by Mark Robson. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I don't edit or review that many film articles but I'm a sucker for the Val Lewton productions. Oddly enough this is one of the few I haven't seen, so I guess I can be pretty objective here... So far I've done a fairly quick copyedit for prose -- pls feel free to discuss any concerns. I plan to come back later to look at structure, detail and referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drown Soda, I was considering returning to look over other aspects of the article but I'd like to see you address Sarah's points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, I just looked over Sarah's points and made some edits/addressed her concerns. Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I hadn't received a notification and hadn't checked the review archive. Let me know if you see anything outstanding still and I'll try to rework it. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

[edit]

Hi Drown Soda, I've done a copy edit, but please revert anything you don't like (except the names; that did need to be changed). Some feedback:

  • The men were all surnames and the women first names (except for one sentence where all are first names). This isn't only because Mary and Jacqueline share a surname; Natalie Cortez was first name too until I changed it: "Judd [male surname] makes a second visit to Natalie." Even on first reference, Mary and Jacqueline's surnames were left out, while the men were introduced in full. I've changed some of it, but because you have to use first names for Mary and Jacqueline, you might consider using first names for everyone after the first reference.
  • The plot summary was written before you began editing the article, and it isn't that clear. Why did she marry secretly? It says she is suicidal but also that she's refusing to kill herself. Then suddenly she does. The IMDb summary is a little clearer.
  • You describe Mary as naive and mature.
  • What is the "double suicide that ends the film"?
  • "Purportedly Lewton was warned not to make a film with a message, and he replied that this film did have a message: 'Death is good.'" This is the source. It isn't clear to me that the message discussion was about this film.
  • Can you unpack what you mean about it violating the Motion Picture Production Code, and do you have a source?

SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: my suggestion to use first names, I'm not sure this would work with Dr. Judd.
  • Is the school called Miss Highcliffe's? Edmund Bansak calls it Highcliffe Academy.
  • The article doesn't mention the opening line from John Donne: "I run to death, and death meets me as fast / and all my pleasures are like yesterday." It used to include it (e.g. here), but it was removed at some point. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin:, I believe I have addressed most of these concerns; specifically, the Val Lewton quote about the film's message being "death is good" had to be removed—you are correct, it does not apply to the film. I believe this was in the article before I started working on it. Per the Harvard Film Archive, that message was one Lewton had attributed to I Walk With a Zombie. Let me know if you notice other outstanding issues. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drown Soda: apologies for the delay in responding. Regarding the double suicide, is the second one seen at the end, and if not how is it stated or implied? SarahSV (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin:, I will add this to the file pages for clarification, but I have searched the 1971 Copyright Entries database at UPenn which would apply for copyrights from 1943–44 and found nothing under searches in "commercial prints" or "artwork" for the title or for RKO, who published the poster(s). As far as the trailer screenshots goes, my understanding is that trailers published in the U.S. prior to 1964 were not copyrighted (per [2] and [3]) Let me know if you see anything else and thank you for looking this over--I apologize for taking awhile to address any of these things. I didn't get a notification to check the review archive until today. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open now for over six weeks with only one support, not least because it has struggled to attract attention. Therefore, we don't have a consensus to support and this review seems to have stalled with little recent substantial comment. Therefore, I think we are better to archive this and renominate it after the usual 2-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 [4].

Habits (Stay High)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)" and its remixed version, "Stay High", both tracks were successful in 2014 and made the artist Tove Lo a famous singer. I nominated the article before but it was not promoted because there were not enough reviews. It is currently a GA. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Should the first sentence read “from her debut extended play” rather than “for her debut extended play”?
  • Would it be useful to provide a link for extended play in the first sentence?
  • I am not certain about the phrasing of the second half of the second sentence (starting with “while produced by”). It just doesn’t seem to mesh back to the original subject so I would suggest inserting “while it was produced by” to make it a little cleaner in my opinion.
  • I do not think the “However” in the lead’s first paragraph is necessary as the phrase about Lo being signed to record label is enough of a transition to stand on its own.
  • Is the image of Tov Lo really necessary in the “Background and release” section? It really doesn’t add that much to the article and the reader’s understanding of the song, and the single covers already show the artist, as well as the later images.
  • In this section, I would recommend splitting the first paragraph in two as it is rather long. May with the sentence starting with “11 December 2012” as it is moving to a different topic. It may be helpful to better guide a reader’s attention throughout the material.
  • I am not certain about the name of the “Composition and inspiration” section. I have seen a majority of song-related articles be “Composition” section. Just food for thought.
  • I think you do an excellent job with quotes in this article, but there are a few stray ones that I think would be better paraphrased (i.e. “weaker songs” in the “Critical Reception” section and “most intense” in the “Composition and inspiration” section). I would just look over quotes with one or two words and see if paraphrasing would make it stronger. I do this a lot so I just want to give you food for thought on this.
  • More as a note, I have a lot of respect for you for putting the antifeminist reviews in here. It is good to be as comprehensive as possible, even though I personally hate those reviews and the reviewer’s points of views (it is sad to still these types of things written about women).
  • You should have a citation for the quote in the caption of the first music video screenshot. Same for the other screenshot.
@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, and thank you so much for your collaboration (you were the only one who commented on the past nomination, so thank you a lot for that). Regarding the antifeminist review, I included it on the article due to the lack of negative reviews for the song (the three Billboard reviews from the second paragraph come from the same source). Like you, I do not, in any way, agree with what that man thinks and says about women and the singer, I just wanted to make the article as neutral as possible. However, I was thinking about removing the review, since it feels more like an attack to the singer rather than a critical analysis of the song. But I want to have a second opinion about it. Again, thank you so much for all the support you've been giving me all this time. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome job with this article; it was a very interesting read. I think that the review fits with the article in terms of neutrality and comprehensiveness, but I would definitely look into getting more feedback on whether or not it is appropriate for this article. I can definitely support this nomination, and I hope that it goes more attention this time around. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. Hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]
  • I miss a bit of background of the artist. It jumps straight into the song background.  Done Added
  • odd to have a semicolon here "In an interview with Coup de Main Magazine, Lo said that; " A few other cases as well later on. MOS:QUOTEMARKS suggests use of colon for multisentence quotations  Done
  • not sure if the 2 commas in this long sentence are correctly positioned: "Subsequently, the recording was re-released under the title "Habits (Stay High)" on 6 December 2013 through Universal Music,[2] as the second single from Lo's debut extended play Truth Serum as well as the lead single from her debut studio album Queen of the Clouds." I would not have one before "as the second single" and I would have one before "as well as"  Done
  • also per MOS:QUOTEMARKS the full stop is sometimes in the wrong position, e.g., here: --> in actually saying". Done
  • not sure if the link to Chorus effect is intended. I guess the first use of chorus should link to refrain.  Done
  • break up as a noun is one word "breakup", which you once already in a quotation  Done
  • "a woman with low self-esteem that" -> who instead of that, perhaps?  Done
  • "number six". Given a bit further you have "number 23", I think as per MOS:NUM about consistency in comparable numbers, it should be 6  Not done According to MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."
True, but if you read a bit further it says: "There were 3 winners and 206 losers, even though 3 would normally be given as three; or Three won and two hundred six lost (or two hundred and six in British English), even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206); but not There were three winners and 206 losers."  Done --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second most-streamed song -> or the second-most-streamed song?  Done
  • It spent one week on the Euro Digital Songs, where it peaked at number 19 -> it's a weekly chart, so peaked is a little odd  Comment: Why? the word is used when talking about weekly charts, I don't know why it sounds odd
  • in that region -> country? or maybe just drop it altogether  Done changed to country

I'll stop here for now. More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I have addressed your comments. If I missed something, let me know. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, continuing from roughly halfway:

  • "for her first UK show" and then a bit further on you spell out the UK. I think consistency is better  Done spelled it out
  • The choice of countries for both the running text and the tables is a bit odd. I assume this is because it is all the countries? I.e., not released in say the Netherlands?  Comment: I used the sources that were available at the time. I started writing this article around November 2015, almost three years after this song was originally released, so many of the links supporting its release in other countries were dead.
  • Not sure I follow this: a free digital download. However, it was later made unavailable for purchase. So was it free or not?  Comment: That means that the song was available as a free digital download for a short time through SoundCloud
  • I don't understand why some reviews are in Composition section. Miles Raymer of Entertainment Weekly doesn't really say anything about the composition. Likewise there are 2 reviews from Raver Rafting, one in Composition and one in next.  Comment: The comment of Miles is there because he expresses that the remix is "least honest" than the original version because of the omission of some lyrics, while Raver Rafting describes the remix.
  • The reviewers of Blushing Panda -> this doesn't strike me as a source we should use, sounds like crowd sourced opinion. Hard to tell because all links to sources are broken  Comment: There is the archived link
  • The Guardian's official website -> I don't think they have an unofficial website, so I'd remove official  Done
  • as "unforgettable" and wrote that: -> I'm not sure you need "that"  Done

I'll do a source spot check later. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source spot check:

  • #18 ok
  • #52 ok
  • #60 ok
  • #63 ok
  • #156 ok
  • #265 ok
  • #292 ok

I'm not sure about some of the sources. Not sure if what appears to be a former music blog like Blushing Panda (ref #223) or music blog Free Your Music Sole (#156) satisfy FA criteria. Maybe other reviewers more experienced in this area could decide. As an aside, in general, I would like to see more sources archived before they disappear. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the source spot check. Almost all the sources are archived, though I haven't included the archived links to every single one... right now I'm just verifying they are archived. Regarding the situation about websites like Blushing Panda and Free Your Music Soul, I agree that a more experienced user in this area decide. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over six weeks with only one support, so I don't think we have a consensus to promote, not least as this has struggled for attention. Additionally, the most recent comments show that sourcing still needs some work, I don't think we can address everything in a reasonable time frame (for what it's worth, music blogs are not a RS and a better source would be needed). Therefore we would be better closing this and starting again after the usual 2-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 [5].

CMLL World Lightweight Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship known under various names over the years.I brought this to GA level last year and put more work into it, making updates based on successful FA Nominations of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship, CMLL World Middleweight Championship and CMLL World Heavyweight Championship articles. This is also currently part of a Featured Topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships/archive1. I hope you will find this a high quality article and know that I am always open to suggestions and modifications to make this an even better article. Thank you in advance for your participation.  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose

  • MPJ-DK, I recommend finding a co-nominator. I'm glad you're bringing Lucha Libre articles to FAC, I'm glad you've had a lot of success with that, but there are too many big, obvious problems here. We don't want to burn out reviewers, forcing them to do work that you could have done and should have done before FAC. A few examples:
  • "During Máscara Dorada reign with the title": In normal speech, informal writing, and formal writing, no one says "Dorada reign". (Everyone makes typos of course, but you have to check for typos before you nominate at FAC, it's not our job to fix those.)
  • "the name was changed to be": No one says "the light was changed to be green" or "he changed the name of his hair style to be a mohawk".
  • "native Japanese wrestlers On February 27, 1999, they held a one night tournament": ?
  • "making the first time in the history of CMLL": Did you mean "making it the first time in the history of CMLL"?
  • "Mexican Ricky Marvin ... exchanged the title": Leaving the "the" off is just wrong. After the "the" is added, then people can argue over the best ways to present nationalities.
  • "Jr..": No..
  • Like I say ... I'd like to see more of these articles. The first or second time someone comes to FAC, if they're having a hard time, I hold off on criticizing. You've been here often enough that I don't think I'm out of line asking you to either do the work yourself before FAC, or if you don't want to or are having problems, find a co-nominator who is interested in Lucha Libre and is willing to get these articles up to FAC standards before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: If anyone thinks I'm being too hard-nosed here, I'm always open to input. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank from my perspective you are fine, pointing out legitimate issues and a firm, but not unfair kick in my complacency ;-) and looking at the article again I see it and the need to tighten up a few things in my approach to FA. I would like to put a couple of hours of work into this and tue ask for your honest opinion on where it is at Quality wise. So no worries about harshness, I did not in any way take offense to your comments. Side note, I also appreciate the input on burning out reviewers - I wonder if that is part of the reasons my FACs don't always attract reviewers? I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I would not be pushed to improve, which is the whole reason for me doung the FAC thing.  MPJ-DK  18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, I just handle the straightforward stuff. So I can't really tell you how close you are to the finish line. Several people have given you extensive reviews for past FACs. Ask them ... and if they don't see much work to do, then fine. If they do see work to do, ask them if they'd like to co-nominate Lucha Libre articles at FAC so they can get some recognition for all the time they're putting in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I have taken a much needed pass at the article again, there were several embarrassing issues in it that really should not have been present in a FAC. Dank I would like your honest opinion on the level now, not necessarily a detailed feedback more of your take on if it's even worth pursuing FAC for this article right now.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I finished this up, and I can support it on prose now. I might or might not oppose future articles, depending on how much work there is to do when they hit FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that Dank and thank you even more for your edits to the article - it has really helped bring up the quality of the writing. I've already decided that I need to either co-nominate or at least have a second/third set of eyes on the article prior to even nominating for FAC, I want to deliver a higher level of quality right off the bat and I have some work to do on my own.  MPJ-DK  02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is over-all hyphenated under the infobox image?
... series of very well-received matches... - is the "very" necessary here?
(Havana Brother I, Havana Brother II and Havana Brother I) - should that be I, II and III?
In the subsequent year the championship was not defended, nor referred to by CMLL. - either "following year" or "subsequent years"
The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); --> "The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is for competitors' between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); " (also needed in the sentence following)

Otherwise...reads alright,a fun little read :) I don't see any glaring omissions, though I am not familiar with the subject matter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ-DK there is one query still left above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
casliber - That is a great catch, I read it three times before I saw the issue. Fixed it.  MPJ-DK  01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok....ok then all good. Can't see any glaring prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Máscara-Dorada.jpg: Free image on Commons. Uploader had some uploads removed for copyvio and while the EXIF is clean unlike the previous ones, the image appears at higher resolution on the web, but I am not sure if it's simply scaled up.
  • File:Ricky Marvin.jpg: Free Flickr image, good EXIF. Pertinent to the section.
  • File:Rocky Romero.jpg: Free Flickr image with only basilar EXIF. Pertinent to the section.

Basic but OK Alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

  • Background: "the title change was only made public when they promoted a rematch between Williams and Romero." Who is "they"? I can't tell whether it's CMLL or some previously unnamed independent circuit.
  • Clarified that it was the local promotion, it was so obsure I could not even find an official name for it.
  • In one of the notes for Vacated in the table, shouldn't "moves up to the middleweight division" be "moved up to the middleweight division"?
  • FIxed
  • List of combined reigns: You use the color for Ricky Marvin, but not Virus, when both wrestlers had reigns of uncertain duration. Consider adding the color for Virus as well.
  • Good catch, I added the color
  • The all-caps "JAPAN" in ref 2 needs fixing.
  • Fixed
  • Yes Ref 2 is one page, ref 8 is the range that covers all CMLL/EMLL championships.

Coordinator comment: I think, unless I've missed it, we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sarastro1 - Unfortunately no you have not missed it, I posted the request in early April at the top of the WT:FAC page. Perhaps it is the Spanish language sources that are discouraging people. Note to potential reviewer - I have tried to apply all comments made by Laser Brain when he did the source review for my previous FAC so hopefully that will mean les issues this time round?  MPJ-DK  23:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review (part)

[edit]

I can't vouch for the validity of the Spanish and Japanese sources, although on the face of it they seem to be from established and reputable publications (with one exception).

The chief problem is that many, indeed most, of the online links are broken and return "page not found" or similar message. Please check the links in refs 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18.

Also, can you please clarify what source ref 16 is citing from?

I don't think there is a problem with formatting, which is consistent and correct. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused, some of those citations you mention do not have links at all? and the ones that do have links work for me
  • With 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 I get "page not found" on the ISSN links to the WorldCat site. I've re-tested this morning with the same result – what are you getting from these links? For 17 asnd 18 the main links to the source are OK, but again I find a "page not found" problem with the archive links. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not look at the ISBN, I see it now. I'll have to dig out my old magazines to see if I typed it in wrong or what happened. If I could only remember where I paked them. I'll work it and see about 17/18 archives too.  MPJ-DK  11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianboulton I checked the ISSN on the magazines and it is correct, I even found a PDF version of a magazine to show it, front page, above the barcode, I zoomed it to verify that it is indeed the same ISSN - SuperLuchas 475, I am not sure what to do since the worldcat website is not finding the magazine.  MPJ-DK  21:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 is a picture of the current champion wearing the belt - to cite the fact that CMLL never bothered to update the name it is still "Campeon Superligero Japan", despite it being renamed twice. It is the first picture I've seen where the nameplate can actually be read.  MPJ-DK  23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does an individual's twitter account qualify as a reliable source by FA standards? I don't know the answer to that, and will let someone else judge. Subject to that, and the removal of the deadlinks, I'm prepared to accept the sources as they stand bearing in mind my initial reservation that I haven't checked the content of the foreign language sources. I understand that another reviewer is doing that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Siuenti

[edit]

A bit of an unusual request from a reviewer, but if a silver platter is what's needed to get the source review done so be it. Note - I am marking them with the source number and if repeated the letter it uses in the citation. Note 2: I am using Google translator, I am not fixing the quotes for grammatical correctness or anything else. Web based citations only. These mainly cover uncontentious facts so they should be easy enough to check - veifying that "Guy X" won the championship on "day Y" etc.

  • 1A/B/C/D/E/F - Friday 4 March 2016 - Semi Final match - Taking their rivalry to unsuspected levels and surprising those who have followed their meteoric career in the CMLL, KAMAITACHI and DRAGON LEE were involved in a duel for the World Lightweight Championship that until tonight was in the waist of the Japanese rudo. The actions were developed in the field of technique and with their reckless executions, both gladiators managed to enter a public 100%, but this brilliant exhibition came to an end when the native of Tala, Jalisco applied a powerful superplex to KAMAITACHI to Recover the scepter and put an end to an ephemeral reign of the native of the Far East.
  • 6A/B/C/D/E- Virus new CMLL Lightweight Champion - report of June 7, 2011 show
  • 7A/B/C/D- SEMIFINAL FIGHT - FOR THE WORLD CMLL LIGHT WEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP - The immeasurable passion with which DRAGON LEE has arrived at each of his duels since he had the greatest triumph of his career in Tribute to Two Legends continues to bear fruit, because this afternoon, he arrived as a challenger to the World Lightweight Championship of the CMLL And retired as the new Champion leaving his face to the lamps to VIRUS, shattering him placidly in the third fall with a spectacular Spear from the corner.
  • 16 (No text just a picture of the belt)
  • 17- Lightweight - 61.235 kilos, Super Lightweight - 63.503 kilos
  • 18- 76 Kilos
  • 19A/B/C/D/E- NJPW PRESENTS CMLL FANTASTICA MANIA 2016 2016/01/24 - In the sixth game, Takahashi Hiroyuki Kamaitachi challenged Dragon Lee's CMLL World Light throne which is struggling with CMLL. This game was very speedy and it was a reward for advanced technique, and lastly crabs Lee by Kamaitachi with Canadian Destroyer. It was crowned with a beloved belt.
  • Siuenti - There you go the facts for your review.  MPJ-DK  14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um it doesn't look like any specialist knowledge is required to check those things but I'll take a look I guess. What about the non-web-based sources, are they chopped liver or something? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely correct, it does not require specialist knowledge and that was never the request, it needs a review by someone not involved in the article (i.e. I cannot do it myself) so it needs someone like yourself to check if the cited sources matches the claims made in the article so it is not just the claim of an involved editor.  MPJ-DK  20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for printed material, as I pointed out on the talk page, printed sources fall under Assume Good Faith, which is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. So while it is not "chopped liver" they are taken on Good Faith to actually cover what they are used for. That is also a standard practice for Feature Article Candidate review, which I am sure the regular FAC reviewers can attest to.  MPJ-DK  20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone wanted to insert false information into featured articles, it would be a piece of cake. Similarly if someone was merely incompetent at translating Japanese into English, there would be no defence against errors. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Moved off-topic discussion to talk page. There has been a little too much off-topic back and forth here, and we are better focussing on the article and issues at hand. A spot-check is not essential here, although there is nothing to stop a reviewer performing one. Print sources ARE explicitly allowed, and if a reviewer wishes to check them, they are free to do so by locating them on their own, or if the nominator is willing to send a scan/picture of the print source by email, checking what the nominator can provide. This latter course has been followed on many FACs over the years to verify print materials. But I would recommend that the interested parties check out Ealdgyth's comments on WT:FAC. No-one knows more about source reviewing than she does. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the Japanese source is online, but yes I spend my money buying Mexican Lucha mags on eBay instead of buying a scanner I have no use for, and? But can we please stick to the topic? I have provided you with three totally independent sources that will back up 90% or more of the claims made in the print sources also make. The fact that all three sources agree and also agree with the print sources should hopefully go some way to prove that I am working in good faith here, instead of asking you to assume that I am working in good faith.  MPJ-DK  01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please do remember "Good Faith", that would be nice. Side note - I work extensively in Lucha Libre, I have slews of GAs and some FA/FLCs all about Lucha Libre with a ton of Spanish sources, could we perhaps Assume Good Faith in the fact that I've translated a Spanish text or seventy in my time?  MPJ-DK  11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And back to the topic at hand, of the multitude of online sources provided for you to review have you found any that disagree with the content of this article?  MPJ-DK  11:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - if there is any doubts about the Spanish, I speak it fluently - just let me know which ref you'd like me to spot-check (not all of them, please). BTW, ref 19 is currently throwing up an error:"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Kamaitachi1" defined multiple times with different content." All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off-topic to talk Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interestingly, the article says "The exact date Ricky Marvin lost the championship has not been verified, which means the title reign lasted between 1 day and 113 days." but at the same time it appears "Being professional wrestling it could also be that CMLL decided to announce a title change but no match ever happened. " Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm so Súper Luchas is published by Impresos Camsam or maybe Camsan. What hits do you get when you google Impresos Camsam? Also try with -Wikipedia. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice that at least of things have come out of the box at last. As I understand it ""In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero." is supported by " Luchador del sur de California Tommy Williams fue anunciado como el campeón en octubre, así que él debe haber derrotado Rocky Romero el 15 de septiembre". I would translate the Spanish as "South California Tommy Williams was announced as champion in October, so he must have defeated Rocky Romero on the 15th of September". Seems to be a little bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. Perhaps quoting the Spanish along with the translation for each statement will clarify what's happening. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHICHBIT of http://www.njpw.co.jp/result?e=1078 are we supposed to be looking at? There seems to be like 10 pages. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tisquesusa

[edit]

The issue of the offline sources aside, but I find this very short for a FA, and see that even the middle weight championship has FA status, with just 19 refs (and including a typo). That is a much bigger issue than the sources, if this is the "best of the best" to be extracted from so "many" (21 is not much at all, certainly not for a FA) sources, it's quite poor and that other FA just pushed far too easily. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • refs in the last table are not ordered
  • intro is marginal
  • how come those dates or locations are not known, these fights are not secret, are they?
21 references for a championship that spans 18 years, don't you find that a bit on the low side yourself? It's not only the number, it's the amount of available information versus what the article is about. A FA should contain every possible reference to be found. But I have seen many of these wrestling articles passed easily to ridiculous GA, FA and FL statuses, so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too. My standards clearly are way beyond what's considered "Featured" in this subset of articles and lists. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 13 and 14 are just the same, so listed twice which puts the total to 20
  • date format of the refs is inconsistent
  • Volume is no indicator of quality. And please can we have some civility? I am going to walk way from such an overt display of hostility against me to let it speak for itself.  MPJ-DK  23:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volume in a FA definitely is a measure of quality. An FA is allegedly "the best of the best" in quality class on Wikipedia. That means that every FA should have the vast majority, if not all, of the available reliable sources listed and used. Not just for 1 or 2 words, but more explanation. I've added two tags now of things that are not at all explained in detail. You can try to use emotional blackmailing, but this is not a personal thing, it's about objectively measurable qualities and in that sense this article is far far away from an FA. The "standards" of the other wrestling FA articles is a false reference, because those are already too short too. Every reviewer has the right to formulate an opinion and if you're not happy with that, bad luck. Check my work done to see what standards I use, this article is way below that. All the best, Tisquesusa (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to opinions, I deal with those every day - I object to attitude and accusing me of having "friends push it to GA or FA" sure sounds personal. And I repeat quantity is not quality.  MPJ-DK  23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different people, different reviewers, different standards. Those other articles would not pass my criteria for FA and I am sure of many other reviewers also not. The people reviewing the wrestling articles may have different standards, so it gets approved to FA, that clearly happened. You can keep repeating your point and I can keep repeating that an FA should be so complete that no other source than this Wikipedia article should be needed in order to get a complete overview of what the topic is. Imho this article doesn't do that and volume of information imho is a criterion of quality. But as said, I am sure you'll find enough others who approve it right away, no matter the ref problems. The middle weight article has a typo in one of the refs (maybe more) and was approved to FA too, so I guess the reviewers didn't take a close look at it at all. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is missing from the article? Yes I could put 3 sources for each claim, but that's excessive - now if there is information out there that's not in the article that's a totally different matter but I am not aware of anything other than perhaps a few trivial factoids at most. Having 40 sources does not ensure "complete overview", that is just a number - the focus should be content IMO. Are there sources missing? Sure especially since lucha libre often gets reported on in mainstream Mexican news and sports coverage, so I could probably stack the sources like cordwood 10 high if I wanted to but that doesn't make the content any better.  MPJ-DK  23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I gotta ask since I've been staring myself blind looking at the references, where is the date format difference in the sources for this article? I don't see it.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the missing date and location for one title change - cannot put in what is not found in sources, none of the sources I've read has a specific date or location for the championship. This supposedly took place in Japan and the Mexican sources basically just reportd "Virus won the championship" and I have not found a good Japanese language source from around the year 2000 that nails down a specific date. I cannot put something in the article that the sources do not cover, so I put in all the known information. Being professional wrestling it could also be that CMLL decided to announce a title change but no match ever happened. That has happened before, but I have never seen a source to support that claim - cannot make an unsourced claim in a GA of FA. So I'm stuck with adding in what we know without speculations.  MPJ-DK  00:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine for those points. To me it's strange, but I am not into it, the Japan argument makes sense. Knowing Mexico a bit, I know this lucha libre is very popular (almost went to a fight myself but other plans that day). What I don't agree with is "excessive". A FA is the highest rank possible on Wikipedia. There is nothing better here. So the article should reflect that status, be the "champion" let's say. Now, it's ironical that these articles are about show wrestling; entertainment. This is not a sport. Sport is a competition where the best, strongest, fastest, most scoring, etc. wins. This lucha libre is not like that, as is mentioned with a few words only; "the fight is not legitimate [imho the wrong word; legis, lawful is not the right wording], because it is predetermined based on promoters". And that's it. No more information. HOW do promoters influence the result of these "matches" entertainment events? How many shouts does Lucho the Luchador have to make, how many tattoos, does the mask he wears have influence, are the promoters of influence, nothing is explained. And that's why this article fails for FA according to my standards. The sloppy referencing, with errors, I mean, I wouldn't even START to bring it on for review if it is so sloppy to start with. I expect 98% quality for an FA, others maybe are satisfied with 90%. But that's the range an FA is in; A+, 90/100+, "top notch", "the best we can produce". Not "well yes, including more refs would be 'excessive', it is actually 'good enough'". "Good enough" is not FA and not even GA. If you write about "Lucho the Luchador" who 'won' the championship, then write about his background, who is he, etc. Not just assume that people click through, because an FA stands by itself, introduces the concepts and may refer to further articles that go deeper, but the task of an FA is to give the reader the feeling "now I've read everything I wanted to know about this subject". That is not the case here, or that FL with 10 refs that I commented on. That this FAC is not up to my standards, soit, but it's not even up to Wikipedia standards. You keep going on in defensive mode, and refuse to address the issues or see the points I am making. Others will pass this, like I said it happened with your other wrestling articles, but it's not me who is personal here. I stick to the quality guidelines, especially about referencing, completeness, a "satisfied feeling" after reading the article, etc. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 is the odd one out.
What is a "torneo cibernetico"? I don't need to click through to that page (with issues!), I need to be informed what it is in this article. And so on. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me start out by thanking you for getting down to a content discussion. Side note - hard to not be defensive when I have "so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too" - that is directly aimed at me and assumes bad faith that I am gaming the system somehow. So please don't act like it's weird that I get defensive (and also look up how many of my FLC of FACs have failed for lack of participation, then come back and tell me I have friends pushing these through easily).
  • I will discuss and adjust content day in and day out, I am more than willing to improve quality every day in every way. However an arbitrary number of sources is not a discussion I can see a point it. So let me ask you, what is that "magic number"? since it's not 20 what is it?
  • FA is not a directory of external articles, I will never agree that there is a magic number or a requirement to include "all sources" published on the matter when they basically state the same thing, if there are sources that have new or different information by all means I am up for adding it - I am trying to figure out what sort of information you're looking for.
  • are not won legitimately; their holders are determined by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition - quoted for fullness. it states clearly that the matches are not competitive in nature. What more do you need to know? does the 2017 World Snooker Championship article spend time on what the snooker rules are?
  • How do they "influence" who wins? You mean other than telling the guy "you're winning"? Due to the carney nature of wrestling the actual thoughts behind a championship change is not made public, it's only known to an official or a group of officials - but in all cases it boils down to "can we make money"? it's a business, that's what goes into it - there are no sources that can state exactly WHY someone is made champion, they can speculate on it, guess and so on - but guessing and speculation is not encyclopedic content and there is certainly no reliable sources to support such content.
  • The article needs to have focus - it is about the championship, providing a bio of each champion is excessive and will bloat the article and make it unfocused. So I am not "writing about Lucho the Luchador" I am writing about the championship.
  • Thank you for the date, it was driving me nuts - I had fixed the other two dates in the citation already but missed that one.
  • All you really need to know about a torneo cibernetico for the purposes of this article is that it's an elimination match, yeah I can give you the rules of one - but that's really going off topic.
  • I'm still not seeing the article missing something that's actually factual/verifiable and about the championship?? Call it defensive if you want, but I cannot put something in that has no sources.  MPJ-DK  01:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people might argue that
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary.

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More review
  1. another example of sloppiness (MPJ-DK, do you read your own articles before nominating them for FAC, or even GA, that it passed, flabbergasted about that?): the intro talks about "Masatu Yakushiji", the background chapter about "Masato Yakushiji", what is it? MasatU or MasatO?
    1. No I am not "flabbergasted" that it passed, but then again I am also not as easily driven to insult someone either mileage clearly varies. And yep, fixed the typo.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. there is hardly any introduction in this "background", so the reader -of which I am just a representative, that's what review is- is completely left in the dark how and why a MEXICAN show wrestling organisation ended up on the other side of the Earth/Pacific in Japan? Why Japan? Why not Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina, Ukraine, Mali, whatever, how come these Japanese guys were invited to this CMLL, that was exclusively Mexican?
    1. You want me to explain WHY CMLL decided to tour Japan? How is that relevant to the championship? I'm fine with giving a bit more context of what CMLL Japan was, but for the sake of this championship it does not matter why they are not in Uganda or Svalbard. Does the article on a SuperBowl explain why the 49'ers are from San Francisco?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Masato/Masatu is not linked, probably because he has no article. Two options; add a red link (to show Wikipedia is not complete; red links are no shame, avoiding red links is a shame) or add information about this guy; who is he, how did the CMLL end up just with him, what's his background in (other) fighting/martial arts (?) disciplines, etc. etc. I don't need to read his "once upon a time life story of 15 pages", but just a couple of phrases about him and his background, ideally with new, not earlier used sources
    1. Nope, he is not notable enough for a red link even, perfectly within the guidelines, I am very well versed in WP:RED as well as WP:N.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned in it. Just like an article on a sporting event does not give a little background on each player mentioned or a movie article would inform us of what movies an actor has been in prior to filming the specific film. Could you please provide examples of current FAs that actually do what you're asking for? Perhaps point out where Spanish conquest of the Muisca explains what "pre-columbian", "Altiplano Cundiboyacense" and " preceramic" are? I would love to see an example of this, sounds nifty.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The next year", I'd say "next year", but it's a minor thing
    1. I don't like leaving out the definitive article, I went with "The following year"  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. you start already talking about "weight classes" but I've got no idea what is "lightweight", "super lightweight", middle weight etc. It's not introduced and assumes the reader knows this. An FA is directed at everyone, not just fans of this genre of entertainment. Classes NEED introduction with definitions before talking about them.
  6. Moving sections around will help, after I move it I'll check to make sure it makes sense.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. describe this "Virus" fighter, as he was the second champion. Who was he, what was his experience, etc.
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. again for Ricky Marvin, the Havana Brothers, etc. No pages of text, but also not nothing as is now the case. Who are these people? Again, an FA should stand by itself, not needed to click various links to actually get what it's about
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. why do you keep talking about a "tournament" (as if it was a sports competition), while in the intro you rightly (but very shortly) mentioned that this is all just show, no real competition?
    1. Presented as a tournament to the fans so they held a pro wrestling tournament, we don't need to hit the readers over the head with "you know this is all fake" every single time, that's terrible writing. I do agree that the "rules" section should be moved up, get that established and out of the way so it's clear to the readers, I will work on that.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "A few months later ..." -> "A few months later, ..."
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "In subsequent years ..." -> "In subsequent years, ..."
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "In 2003 CMLL reinstated" -> "In 2003, CMLL reinstated"
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. huh? Havana Brother 1 "loses" (you cannot really lose if it's not a real match, but ok) and suddenly all Havana Brothers, 1 to 35 quit?? Why? Please explain; again the article should be self-explanatory. Back just 1 year later, is that really "quitting" then?
    1. Stating a fact, Virus became champion and Havana Brother I stopped working for CMLL for a year or so - no source on if he quit, was fired, injured, detained at the border or took paternity leave. I never used the word "quit", you put that intention in and you spoke for the other Havana Brothers, I never mentioned those as it's not relevant to the topic at hand.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. no wonder your article(s) are so short, they read as if it's written only for fans/people who know these fighters. "Romero became a two-time champion on December 10, 2004, but stopped working for CMLL shortly after the match.[5] CMLL made no attempts to get the championship back from Romero at that time. Romero would on occasion defend the super lightweight championship on the Southern California independent circuit." -> "but" should be rewritten. He became a two-time champion? He became champion for the second time at that date, right? or two times in one day? "Romero won his second title on Dec 10, 2004, and decided to quit the CMLL shortly after the match" or something similar. What does "no attempts to GET the championship back" mean? How do you get the championship back from someone? Does Romero need to defend his title, or how is this arranged? If Romero "defends" the championship in the super lightweight category, but is not part of the CMLL, but gained that championship with the CMLL, how can he defend his championship when he's not even part of the organisation anymore? Or can you just win the Formule One World Championship and next year go Nascar racing and DEFEND the F1 championship? You see what I mean?
    1. A belt represents the championship, like pro boxing. Romero kept the belt, was introduced as champion when he worked for other companies and had the belt with him. I found no indications that they even tried to get the belt back, they basically pretended that it did not exist, I will provide some clarification.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero. -> Why? Why was this -and this "match" only- not shown? More explanation, less assumptions that the reader knows about all of these things
    1. Small time wrestling show, no video coverage of the show, no press coverage of that show found, only documentation showed that next time they fought Williams was billed as champion.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Romero regained the title from Tommy Williams but never defended it afterward., but he "re"gained this title in the independent California circuit or for CMLL? See the F1/Nascar example on the lack of logic in these statements.
    1. Applying real sports logic to professional wrestling will drive you crazy, the Surgeon General recommends that you do not try.
  17. "When Romero returned to CMLL in 2008, it was as an enmascarado (masked character) called "Grey Shadow", with no public acknowledgment of his history with CMLL." ok, I get what this means, he came back as a kind of pseudonym. What were the differences between Romero and "Grey Shadow"? Was "Grey Shadow" his real stage name, or was it "Sombra Gris", but you translated it?
    1. I never translate the ring names, if it's Spanish I may thrown in a ("Golden Mask") or something, but if a Spanish language company uses the English name I don't translate it.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "The CMLL World Super Lightweight Championship was not officially declared vacant until Romero left CMLL to work for their rival AAA. " What is "vacant", who is "AAA", again I need to be able to understand all of that from this -intended- FA article alone.
    1. So "their rival", would be "CMLL's rival" - in the way that Coke and Pepsi are rivals, that is who AAA is, in an article about the championship you don't need a history lesson on CMLL/AAA just that Romero left one to join the other. And yes that was their actual name at the time, just "AAA". I will work in "Vacant" in the rules section.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "CMLL held a tournament to crown a new champion,[13] and on April 7, 2009, Máscara Dorada won a torneo cibernetico elimination match for the super lightweight championship." -> a tournament that is not a tournament. A champion that is not a champion (because no competition). Who the hell is "Máscara Dorada"? Yeah, Golden Mask, but who is this? How come he is introduced here, or rather, thrown in the ring without any introduction?
    1. Yes, yes I get it - you would like me to get out a 2 by 4 and hit it home in every single sentence that wrestling is predetermined, moving the section up front will help address this. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. "During Máscara Dorada's reign, the weight class was adjusted from the "Super Lightweight" to simply the "Lightweight" division, expanding the official weight limit of the championship." -> what does that mean? How was this adjustment? What was super lightweight (until x kg) and what was leightweight (until y kg)?
    1. So considering I put in the official definition of both I'm not sure what you're looking for?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "In 2011 Dorada vacated the championship when he announced that he was moving up to the middleweight division instead.", comma after 2011. But whut? How can one "move" to a different class? Did "Máscara Dorada" (not "Dorada", it's not his last name, it's a combined stage name) suddenly gain weight or what? Again MORE explanation please
    1. How does a lightweight go up to a higher weight class? Gee I don't know, burgers? building more muscle mass? perhaps he started to carry his wallet to the ring - I think there are limits to how much we can insult people's intelligence.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. "Virus became a four-time champion on June 7, 2011, after defeating Guerrero Maya Jr. in the finals of a tournament, making him the only wrestler to have held all three versions of the championship." Huh what? last time I read about Virus was in 2003, we are 8 years further. And what was his third title then? Who is Guerrero Maya Jr., now suddenly thrown in the ring? What "three versions of 'the' championship"?
    1. Virus was not in the picture for 8 years, an article about the championship is no place to track what he was doing in between  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. CMLL Japan Super Lightweight, CMLL World Super Lightweight and CMLL World Lightweight  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reigns
  1. Dragon Lee is the current champion in his second reign, having defeated Kamaitachi on March 4, 2016, to win the title. Who the hell is Dragon Lee? Where is the info about his first reign? Why do we jump from 2011 to 2016 without any info on what happened in between? Why in a new chapter? Who is Kamaitachi? Are there suddenly Japanese fighters again participating (I sense from the name)? But that was done years before, not? I am confused.
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It is a separate section because it's more about stats, current champion etc. not the overall history but the "right now" section. And I agree the prose in history needs to close the gap, which I will do
    3. CMLL employs wrestlers from all sorts of countries always have, and are not restricting who can hold a "world" title by their country of origin. Is this really that surprising? Do "World Championships" in legitimate sports exclude Japan?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Eight different wrestlers have held the championship for fifteen reigns in total. Virus holds the record for most reigns, with four: two in Japan and two in Mexico. He held the title for a total of 2,046 days, more than any other champion, and his fourth reign lasted 1,398 days, the longest individual reign. " the longest individual reign of what, this weight class, all weight classes, how does this compare to other classes, is this extremely long or average among these "fighters" (it's all show, so no real fight and thus no real "reign")?
    1. I will add in some context compared to other CMLL championships, good idea.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Ricky Marvin had the shortest individual reign, lasting somewhere between 1 day and 32 days." -> rewrite. "Ricky Marvin's individual reign is not officially known as ... <- info from note in here, but would be minimum 1 day and maximum 32 days", "somewhere" is not encyclopedic language, except in "over the rainbow".
    1. Unless the article is called somewhere of course.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The belt that represents the championship has not been updated since the days of the CMLL Japan Super Lightweight Championship; the face plate still reads "Super Ligero" as well as "Japan"." - first time I read about a belt. Do the "winners" get a belt, or all wrestlers, or how does this belt thing work? Again introduction of things before you name them.
    1. Winner is awarded the belt (and there is only one belt, it's passed along like a trophy), reordering the section will help address this and I will clarify  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rules
  1. Yes, THIS needs to come first. But... "The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is for competitors between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); during Máscara Dorada's reign from 2009 to 2001 [???] the weight limit was changed to the Lightweight division,[13][14] which is between 63 kg (139 lb) and 70 kg (150 lb)." COMMAS after years and break up sentences. the weight limit doesn't change to the lightweight division. The weight limits get redefined and that redefinition creates a new division.
    1. The division existed for a long time before that (Mexican National Lightweight Championship) but the limits for this specific championship was changed during Dorada's reign. and it should be "2011" not "2001", which has been fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "CMLL has at times ignored the weight limit, promoting champions such as Dragon Lee who was billed as weighing 76 kg (168 lb) when he won the championship." just like that. No explanation. Is that normal, that heavier fighters can participate? Why did the CMLL do this? Background, explanation, this is very confusing.
    1. They ignore it when they see fit, that's really the long and short of it, "Because CMLL felt like it" - as the article states the limits used to be more strictly enforced, but in the last 10 years or so CMLL has done this several times, "because they want Wrestler X to be champion" but you will not find a reliable source that states "CMLL is weird, CMLL does what CMLL wants"  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "All title matches promoted in Mexico take place under best two-out-of-three falls rules. On occasion, single-fall title matches have taken place, especially when promoting CMLL title matches in Japan, conforming to the traditions of the local promotion." second part contradicts first. If ALL title matches take place under rule 1, then 'on occasion' cannot be right. And the other way around; if "on occasion" (the "especially" indicates it is not ONLY in Japan) is right, then ALL cannot be right.
    1. Clearly states "promoted in mexico", which is not all matches, no contradiction there. One fall championship matches happens when they are defended in countries where one fall matches are the norm - and CMLL tours Japan more than any other so that's the natural example to bring up for exceptions to the rule.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "One championship changed in a one-fall match on January 24, 2016, when Kamaitachi defeated Dragon Lee during CMLL's 2016 Fantastica Mania tour." what are these matches; one fall, two-out-of-three fall, what is that? I know nothing of this entertainment and am confused. And yes, this very article needs to introduce those concepts to me, at least basically. If I want to know MORE, I can click through. Not "if I want to know ANYTHING, I NEED to click through"!
    1. Article is about the championship, 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game does not explain what a "quarterback" is or the intricacies of a field goal.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "With a total of twelve CMLL championships being labeled as "World" titles, the promotional focus shifts over time with no single championship being promoted as the main one." -> shifted. And this is Japanese to me, I don't get what you want to say here. Again because you cramp far too much information, assuming pre-knowledge by the reader into 1 phrase.
    1. I will provide more context  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "As with other professional wrestling championships, these are not won legitimately; their holders are determined by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition." this is the LAST sentence of the article, but it needs to be the first (that whole rules section belongs under background). And it needs expansion. If you say "it is not known why one promoter wins over the other", as you did here on the talk page, THAT is info that belongs in the article. It's ok that it isn't known, but that it ISN'T known is information. THAT is what I wanted to read in the article, not having to ask here as part of the review.
    1. Reordering content and I will add a note that the general public are not informed of what goes into the decisions.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.... ehh and that's it? 2 tables, some refs and notes, and I've been "informed" of what this CMLL World Lightweight Championship is?? I have more questions than answers after this piece of reading. Do you re-read your own texts? Do you see what I mean? How can you propose such a text as an FAC in the first place? Why not do much more effort BEFORE nominating it here?

    1. So we've got "the rules governing the championship", "the background/history", "the current champion" and "overview of their reigns" and at the end the title history in list format - yes I'd say you have been informed of the championship. bits and pieces can be added here and there, but I'm not sure exactly what other general factual information you think is relevant to add (other than taking the article off track by explaining who everyone is, what pro wrestling is etc. which is not actually about the championship at all. So please do tell me what relevant championship information is missing? I could list every single championship match ever held but frankly that gets into trivia territory.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is barely what I class as "C" for the ones I've written and they even contain more refs. Sorry, but this needs a lot more work to be eligible. Tisquesusa (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again wearing the "number of references" as a badge of honor for no particular reason, it's not the size of your article but the coverage of the topic. It is an encylopedic aticle, not an directory of sources. But since some of your input has helped make it a stronger article I do appreciate the input, so thank you for that. I will work on items of reordering content and various clarifications over the next day or so. I've made some immediate fixes as well, but there are things you suggest that have no place in an article about a wrestling championship and standards you don't even follow yourself if your "proudest work", that ain't getting done by me.  MPJ-DK  11:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can we please make sure that we sign after every comment and, where necessary, every line please. It is getting hard to keep track of who is saying what. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a further, slightly frustrated, comment: Would it be possible for us all to cool this down and de-personalise it? Sniping backwards and forwards isn't going to get anyone what they want. I'd like to clarify this. Any opposes (and comments) which are NOT specifically related to WP:WIAFA will be disregarded by the coordinators in closing. If Siuenti and Tisquesusa could state, briefly and clearly (and without discussing the nominator, other articles or anyone's perceived motivations) which of the FA criteria they feel that the article is currently failing on, with at least one example of where the article fails to meet that criteria, we might have a way forward. Otherwise, I am tempted to view many of these comments as unactionable and based largely on personal preference. Posting great walls of text (either in review or in response) is only going to slow this down and make everyone tired. I've removed quite a bit of argument to the talk page now (and am tempted to move some more, but will hold fire for now), and will continue to do so if it does not relate to the article, WIAFA and this review. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are way different from those by Siuenti. He questions the good faith in our Danish contributor with the in-your-face signature. After a challenging series I don't, I think he is very reluctant to put unsourced information into his articles, which is a good sign. My criticism is about the lack of context, background and expansion in this very article. An FA should be "the best of the best", you as custodian of this section should agree with that. And in that sense the article fails. That is not personal and doesn't need a defensive attitude, it is purely looking at the state of the article, the confusions a reader unknown to lucha libre has, and the attitude of the author. It may be that in the past many articles were (easily) pushed to GA and/or FA status, but that is irrelevant to my detailed review. Those "walls of text" mean that I actually read the article. That's what's reviewing is about. I have reviewed MSc. theses, scientific publications, other wiki articles (both here and elsewhere; internal wikis of high standard) and assessed many works by employees of multinationals. On top of that, I maintain a high standard in my own work. As said, I request 98% "perfect", while others are satisfied with 90%. That's fine and up for reaching a compromise. Where I don't comprise on is the attitude by the nominator, in this case also the author. You can see from my history that when challenged on the content of my proposed FA, I listen and do not turn defensive to issues readers have with the text of the article. An FA needs to be: 1) crystal clear, fully describing the topic and not needed to click through to other articles and 2) heavily referenced with -ideally- online, but I don't see a problem with offline (in that you cannot group me with Sileunti) sources. Yes, it may be a lot more resistance than before to MPJ-DK, but that is not a bad thing; it means his articles get more scrutiny than before. That is all to improve the quality and standards to have your articles belong to "the cream of the crop" of Wikipedia's articles. My points are nowhere unjustified, personal or crazy.
And to answer the defensive attitude by the author; yes, I explain unknown terms to the reader in my articles. When I talk about the Altiplano Cundiboyacense, I explain what it is shortly in every article. No, I don't explain what a river is, but I do explain what the Bogotá River is. That is what I request from this article too; a short introduction/background on what is lucha libre, what are the general rules, who are those fighters and why do they go all the way to Japan from Mexico. If that is "too much to ask", then not only our reviews are pretty much senseless, the whole standard of "Featured Content on the Biggest of All Wikipedias, the showcase of The Best Of The Very Best (FA)" should be taken into question. Sue me. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Article is about the championship, 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game does not explain what a "quarterback" is or the intricacies of a field goal." wrong comparison. This article is about a certain class. In an article about Formula 3, it also needs to be described what makes Formula 3 different from Formula 2 or Formula 1. You should take a more bird-eye view. An FA is an article that stands by itself. It doesn't require clicking on the links within the article, those links are there to know more, not to know anything. Just 1 sentence is enough in most cases. Who are these fighters? How does Japan come into play into this -previously- Mexican """sports""". Those are very valid and not crazy at all questions by a reader who is not submerged into this niche of entertainment. If I'd review an article about Etayoa bacatensis, I don't need to know what a mammal is, but yes, I need to be informed what an ungulate means. Same here. I don't need to be taken by a child's hand to what a fight is, but I need to be informed what the specific rules are for this specific championship, you -as nominator- request a specific FA status for.
Do I explain that in my articles? Yes. And if people come with "I am confused, please explain more", then I listen and do the actual work. From your reluctant and defensive attitude here and the fact that many of your FL/FA/GAs were pushed "to the highest rank of Wikipedia" easily, I get you don't really care. You see a review as "awkward", "disturbing". Not at all as a motivation to make the best of it. Professionalism is to respond to clearly phrased, honest and clear arguments with "ok, I'll work on that". Not: "you are nitpicking, irritating, 'excessive' or anything". My points are nowhere dishonest, personal or unrelated to the topic. They are sound and should be encouraging. As said, I have enough credentials in the field of reviewing content. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tisquesusa: Could I draw your attention to the way that SlimVirgin opposed this article below. She has demonstrated what I was trying to say above: she has said on what grounds from WP:WIAFA she is opposing and explained why. This makes it clearer for everyone where we stand and specifically what the nominator would have to do to address the reviewer's concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So considering one of your first comments before we've really had any real interaction was so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too. is it really any wonder I am a bit defensive? and you claim nothing is personal yet that was directed straight at me. MPJ-DK  02:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see where I have used the words "awkward" or "disturbing"? Nor nitpicking, irritating or any of these other comments you put on me? I pointed out above that yes my defenses go up after your very personal claims. As stated I agree that the article could be improved by going a short "what is lucha libre" and "what are the general rules" sections, I am working on that, I am not just slapping that in there without a little work to ensure accuracy and sourcing. I do believe I indicated above that I agree with those changes, they are coming. As for "who are those fighters" I am struggling to see how that would even work - can you provide me with an example or two where this is done because I am not seeing how this could be accomplished without getting off track every time a different wrestler is mentioned.  MPJ-DK  03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the "rules" section up and made that the "background", setting the stage before moving on to the history of the championship. I still want do add a few things here and there to address a couple of uncertainties but I believe this is moving in the right direction??  MPJ-DK  04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

[edit]

Oppose per 1(c). Most of the sources are not in English, so the text can't be checked without more difficulty than usual. I tried to check a few points at random, but I wasn't able to verify anything or determine whether the source was reliable, had a COI, was self-published, whether there was close paraphrasing, etc. If these checks can't be made with a reasonable amount of effort, whether by online research or visiting a library, the text fails WP:V.

WP:NOENG (part of V) says: "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Quoting the sources in footnotes wouldn't entirely solve the verifiablity issue, but it might help. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you care to inform me of which points where the source is online and available in Spanish you were not able to check? Is using the built-in browser translator or translate.google.com considered an "unreasonable amount" of effort? As for reliability, COI etc. the first step could be to ask for information from me, I've had those questions posed plenty of time and explained the various sources and their RS status. And I agree, if something was disputed steps can be taken to verify it - is there anything you dispute? I have already provided alternate links to show three separate and independent sources support statements made in the test. But if there is a specific statement you want to dispute please do share so we can get it addressed.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so perhaps I can illuminate the various sources for you.  MPJ-DK  01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre - Primary source, used for non-contentious facts, to illustrate how CMLL presents the championship, name changes etc.
  • "Wrestling Title Histories" book - Published by Archeus Communications, not sure what else they've published, but this is the "championship bible" for pro wrestling - the website www.wrestling-titles.com is built on the information the gathered and the authors are considered an authority on championship history
  • Súper Luchas - A weekly published pro wrestling magazine, has been around for as long as I can remember, has a chief editor (Ernesto Ocampo) and other editorial staff listed on the inside of the first page. Published by mpresos Camsam, SA de CV who publish a number of other magazines.
  • MedioTiempo - Sports news website, run by MSN with a specific lucha libre editorial staff (chief editor Apolo Valdez)
  • Source #16 is from the Mexico City boxing and wrestling commission, their official ruleset.
  • Source 18 is from a Japanese pro wrestling promotion, reporting on one of their own shows - used to source uncontentious material such as the date of a championship change and the fact that there was only one fall in the match.
  • "Mondo Lucha a Go Go", book published by HarperCollins, one of the world's largest publishing companies (at least according to Wikipedia which is not a reliable source)
  • "Legends of Pro Wrestling" a book written by Tim Hornbaker, a journalist that has written countless books on wrestling, sorts and other topics.
Thank you for this information. Can you add quotations in footnotes? For example:

In 1999 CMLL began to tour Japan, promoting a series of wrestling shows under the name "CMLL Japan". The shows featured a mixture of CMLL and Japanese wrestlers. On February 27, 1999, CMLL held a one night tournament to determine who would be the first ever CMLL Japan Super Lightweight Champion, marking the first time in the history of CMLL that they used a championship specifically for that weight class.

The source is Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: CMLL Titles [Lutteroth]". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. pp. 389–401. I'd be surprised if this is easy to borrow, and the paperback costs $188 to $840 on amazon.com. Can you add to a footnote what the source says that supports the text?
I agree it's not easy to find, I bought it on eBay myself, fortunately for a lot less than $188 I'll break it out of the high security vault and see if I can get a good quote for the citation. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This specific reference cites the pages that cover all CMLL championships, proving the "negative" that no "Super Lightweight" championship was used by CMLL before 1999. I will put in a note. MPJ-DK  03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the following footnote with the citation ""Wrestling Title Histories" documents that by 2000 CMLL had never used a championship for the "Super Lightweight" division, they had previously or were at the time promoting championships for the following weight classes: Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight and Welterweight." does that provide enough clarification?  MPJ-DK  03:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also "one night" needs a hyphen; replace "first ever" with "first", and try to rewrite the next part to avoid the repetition of "first". Also, this source is already cited in long form elsewhere in the article; and some citations have locations and some don't. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed.  MPJ-DK  03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I go to this source—Súper Luchas staff (December 23, 2006). Ocampo, Ernesto (ed.). "Lo Mejor de la Lucha Libre Mexicana duranted el 2006". Súper Luchas (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Impresos Camsam, SA de CV. pp. 3–6. 192. Retrieved July 11, 2009.—all I can see are three comments, unless I'm missing something. The source is used to support:
(1) "Romero regained the title from Tommy Williams but never defended it afterward."
(2) An entry in the "Title history" table, and the sentence "Rocky Romero began working as 'Grey Shadow' in early 2008 but the title was never officially vacated until Romero began working for Asistencia Asesoria y Administracion (AAA)."
(3) Two entries in "List of combined reigns".
Ah okay I see what you are saying. The link is to show the magazine I am referring to, like an Amazon listing for a book which does not have a preview of content. I'm citing the magazine, the link is mainly to "prove" that it exists I guess. If that's confusing the link can go? And the source covers what you mentions except the 2008 information, I'll double check to make sure I have it in the right location. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem. I neglected to source the note for that line, I had it under the next entry, I will put the same citation with the note to be clear, excellent catch.  MPJ-DK  03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 11 is the same, also a Súper Luchas article; the link leads to comments, but no article.
Same as above, "proof" - if that's more confusing than helpful I'll be happy to remove it. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one http://superluchas.com/2006/12/23/super-luchas-193/ appears to be a blog post advertising a book. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well not a blog, its Super Luchas posting that issue 193 is available, showing the cover and high lights again same purpose as a book link that takes you to Amazon.  MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is itself "issue 193", compare http://superluchas.com/2006/12/23/super-luchas-192/ which would be "issue 192" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any links that don't go to source material should be removed, unless they're helpful in some way and not confusing. What does citation 9 say that supports the following? "In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero." SarahSV (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I will get them removed to reduce confusion. It basically stated that "Williams was being advertised locally as the CMLL World Super Lightweight on a show in October, so he must have won it on their last show held September 15".  MPJ-DK  03:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm not sure that's the same sentence. Would you mind posting the Spanish text that supports the sentence above (the one beginning "In 2005"), and the page number? SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote the sentence in the text then? I'm confused.  MPJ-DK  03:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it wasn't clear. Can you post here the Spanish text, and the page number of the article, that supports the following? "In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero."
The source is: "Ocampo, Ernesto, ed. (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana". Súper Luchas (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Impresos Camsam, SA de CV. pp. 3–6. 140." SarahSV (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well my confusion stems from the fact that I told you what the source said in English - which you were uncertain it was the same sentence??? I have my magazines boxed in the closet, I'll dig through them for the page number, but unless my memory fails me English or Spanish that's basically what it said.  MPJ-DK  03:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spot check of the sources. I'm asking that you post the text in Spanish that supports that one sentence, so that I can read the original. SarahSV (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll dig it out, I just wanted to be sure we're on the same page, sounded like we weren't but it looks like we are. It won't be tonight, it's late here so I'll find the physical magazine tomorrow and get you that quote.  MPJ-DK  04:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MPJ. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thank you for the time you're putting in voluntarily, with as many FACs of mine that have died from lack of comments I welcome any and all constructive input to help make a better article.  MPJ-DK  04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This is a rather better way of registering concern: SlimVirgin has specified on which criteria she is basing her oppose and explained why. This makes it actionable and leaves the picture clearer for everyone (and I'm not commenting on the merits or otherwise of this oppose or any other). It would help if other reviewers could follow a similar model. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright SlimVirgin I found what I was looking for. So it's on page 9 of the magazine. The page has a couple of different sections recapping the year for each championship. The specific section is labeled "Campeonato Mundial de Peso Super Ligero del CMLL". It only has one entry for 2005 and states Luchador del sur de California Tommy Williams fue anunciado como el campeón en octubre, así que él debe haber derrotado Rocky Romero el 15 de septiembre (I've tried my best to get the accent marks correct so it's as precise a quote as possible).
  • MJP, thanks for supplying that. I'd suggest adding quotations from the sources, either to a separate footnote or to the citation template, as well as page numbers, for the text based on (a) the magazine Súper Luchas; (b) the book Mondo Lucha a Go Go (which is cited twice in long form to support two sentences, refs 9 and 14, referenced to pp. 29–40 and 114–118); (c) the book Wrestling Title Histories (which is cited twice in long form to support multiple sentences, referenced to p. 388 and pp. 389–401); and (d) the Japanese source or sources. This is a short article, so that shouldn't be too much of a burden, but if it proves to be too much to add to footnotes, consider posting the quotations to a subpage, Talk:CMLL World Lightweight Championship/Sources.
    The citations should be written clearly, so that they're referenced once in long form then short thereafter, or once in long form using {{rp}} for page numbers. However you write them, there should be page numbers or smaller page ranges for each sentence or paragraph so that, if someone obtains these sources in future, they will know roughly where to look. Also, make sure every link leads to source material to reduce confusion. SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent suggestions, I was not aware of the "RP" template, I'll check into that and see which approach works better, I have not worked a lot with the short cite formatting.  MPJ-DK  01:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can help e with one of those, the book reference that is from page 389 to 401 is tricky. That section covers the championships promoted by CMLL in subsections, so to prove that CMLL did not have a "Super Lightweight" championship I'm basically stating that that page range does not show other championships for that division - I am trying to prove a negative with the citation. I put a note in with it, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to deal with it?  MPJ-DK  01:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ, the way you've added the quotation to citation 17 doesn't work, because you're using that source (ref name=SL140) four times, but the quotation applies only to one. Can you take a photograph of that page (p. 9) with your cellphone and email it to me? I'd like to get some sense of what the source is. SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the entry in its entirety as there is nothing else on the page about the championship, a photo will not change that so perhaps I can explain instead.  MPJ-DK  10:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17A - Tommy Williams did not work for CMLL but in the southern California Independent circuit. so Romero defended it outside of CMLL on the independent circuit.
  • 17B - The rematch - actually the source did not say rematch so I'll have to reword that.
  • 17C - cites the win and the date - that is in the quote
  • 17D - cites when the reign began - that's in the quote as well
  • Thanks for explaining. To complete the spot check, I'd appreciate it if you would email me a photograph of p. 9 and the front cover of that edition. That'll give me a better sense of what this source is. Also, p. 140 is still in that citation, so that should be removed if not relevant. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright three requests for pictures for slightly different reasons, I get it - you want to be sure I actually have the magazine ;-) I normally do not mail naughty pictures after the third date. I have been on a business trip since Friday and will not be home until mid-next week but I'll get you the pictures you need then.  MPJ-DK  12:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin I am back from my business trip, blech what a trip. Anyway I have what you're looking for - but how do I send them to you??  MPJ-DK  23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ-DK, thanks for the email and for sending a cover. To complete the spot check, I need page 9 of the source, which is Ocampo, Ernesto, ed. (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana", Súper Luchas, used here. SarahSV (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ-DK, got it, thank you. I'm wondering whether you sent the wrong cover. The source check is for the 3 January 2006 edition, issue 140, but the cover you sent says: "Lo mejor de la lucha libre mexicana durante el 2004" ("The best of Mexican wrestling during 2004"). That headline is from the January 2005 edition, issue 91, that you cite elsewhere, e.g. in Sin Piedad (2004), citation 2: "SuperLuchas staff (January 24, 2005). "Número Especial - Lo mejor de la lucha libre mexicana durante el 2004". Super Luchas (in Spanish). issue 91." SarahSV (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid I'm going to call a halt here. This has been open for nearly 3 months now. After struggling to get attention, there has been a flood of interest but progress has halted. There is an oppose outstanding from Sarah, and I think if we look hard enough there are actionable comments from Tisquesusa and Siuenti. I don't think we can promote with issues outstanding, and there is certainly not a consensus right now that this meets the FA criteria. My advice would be for the nominator to continue working with Sarah away from FAC and perhaps consult the other two editors to see what they think needs including to meet the FA criteria. This can then be renominated after the usual 2 week wait; there is no problem with contacting the editors who commented here in any new FAC as long as they are informed neutrally that the article has been renominated. Hopefully next time it will get a smoother run. I can be contacted at my talk page if anything is unclear here. Good luck in continuing to work on this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah dang! Last time I was on I thought I covered the last issue with Sarah, but I now see I sent the wrong cover to her - the right page of the actual source, but I accidentally took a picture of the wrong cover. Tough luck, but them's the breaks - as for Tisquesusa - I've addressed all reasonable items but have not heard back in quite a while so that discussion seems to be going nowhere as there has been no comments on any of my improements. As for Siuenti.... Anyway thank you for the patience, I appreciate it and thank you to everyone who helped make this a better, stronger article.  MPJ-DK  20:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 [6].

Great white shark

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be featured because it is well referenced with over 125 inline citations, was the most popular fish related article during April 2017 according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages, and the information looks pretty complete according to a scan of references from Google scholar.......I had a brief discussion with admin Casliber. The issues with the admin have been addressed......

This article is about...The Great white shark species Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

The text is in need of a copy edit. So far, I've come across the following issues

  • There are a few duplicate links, some of which, like California, barely needing to be linked once
  • "however" is seriously overworked and nearly always unnecessary
  • According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above older estimates->According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated as 70 years or more, well above earlier estimates
  • 59,413 kg (130,983 lb).— tonnes/tons seems more natural
  • It is also known to prey upon->it preys upon
  • ranked first in having the most recorded shark bite incidents on human->has the most recorded shark bite incidents on human
  • its first scientific name, Squalus carcharias—something missing there
  • which means sharp or jagged, and odous, which means— close repetition of something that doesn't need to be there anyway
  • According to J. E. Randall— he and other people are given without a link, nationality, profession, or any indication of why what they think is significant.
I'd like to see the text tightened up before I continue reviewing, I'm picking up infelicities which may be minor but seem too numerous as it stands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: on the count of the nominator has not been a major contributor. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The major contributor has not been involved in anything Wikipedia for about a year......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant, you are clearly not equipped to deal with the problems this article may have like a major contributor would. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the face of it, I would suggest sending this to copy edit and peer review before nominating for FAC. In addition to the problems mentioned by others, I also see many paragraphs ending without citations. The GA nominator, who may have written much of the article, should also have been contacted. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review in Wikiproject fishes is non-existent. Other featured article candidates have had copy edits performed during the featured article nomination process. I still intend to work through the copy edit process to get this article up to snuff..... The article is well citationed with most sentences cited. This article at present is cited far more than other featured articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think you misunderstand; you have sentences hanging at the end of paragraphs that have no citations (for example the last under "Size", and the first under "Examples of large etc"). It is impossible to know what these sentences are based on. As for peer review, it doesn't have to be project based, there's a general one:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 [8].

Naruto

[edit]
Nominator(s): 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The series is based on a one-shot manga by Kishimoto published in the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump." Wasn't it actually based on two one-shots? One simply named Naruto and the other that has Sasuke-look alike who even performs the Chidori (I think Karakuri was the name)
  • Avoid as many references as possible in the lead per guidelines
  • I would suggest mentioning at least in one sentence Boruto's series in the lead.
  • Remember to archive citations like citation 11.
  • For the first sentence of Conclusion, the year 2006 might fit there.
  • Before starting the plot section, I would suggest adding an intro like "the manga is divided in two 'parts'" so that newcomers understand it
  • Reference Masashi Kishimoto in reference 181 as well as other similar citations.
Good work. Now other things:
  • The Last: Naruto the Movie information lacks a reference unless the Boruto link already has it.
  • " ninth and the tenth Naruto films, as well as the original novel which was adapted into the eighth Naruto film" I'm a little lost since some films use the Shippuden subtitle whereas others like Blood Prison remove it. I suggest simply using the subtitle of the movie so that the reader will understand it.
  • Just wondering, but wasn't Neji Hyuga's cursed seal edited in the Western version of the series due its similarities with the Nazis? It could be used in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • The 8th, 9th, and 10th films don't have the Shippuden part in the titles, and whether or not it was part of Shippuden production, it's redundant.
  • Do you have a reference for that?
Nope. Just wondering.
@Tintor2: -- 1989 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Gen. Quon

I'll try to do a bit more to look this over later, but right now, I see two (minor) things:

  • I believe that per MOS:DOUBLE, titles of citations that are in double-quote marks should have titles or quotes within them encapsulated with single-quote marks. For instance, in reference 18, Boruto should be in single-quotes since the title itself is encapsulated by double-quote marks. You might check other refs for this.
  • Just a minor point here. The Amazon links direct a reader to the Japanese version of the web store, ending with ".co.jp". It seems odd that the publisher is then identified as "Amazon.com", given that that's a 'different' url (I know that it's the same company, but it does remain that they are two separate marketplaces serving two different parts of the world). Perhaps in this case it would bee best to refer to the publisher as either just "Amazon", "Amazon.co.jp" (with a piped linked back to the Amazon.com Wiki article), or maybe "Amazon.com, Inc." to illustrate that the publisher is the parent company and not the US-based storefront. Against, this is just a suggestion more so than a thing that needs fixing.

Like I said, I'll try to look at this again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed it.
  • I see where you're getting at, but all of the suggestions (except for Amazon since it's a disambiguation page) you had all redirect to Amazon.com, so IMO it would be a waste of time to do that. Fixed.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required, but are there any other images? It's a bit naked as is (But this is not going to prevent me from supporting this). For instance, perhaps you could put something in the Confucianism section?
  • I did a few "-" -> "endash" changes. Feel free to revert if need be.
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection "Novels" (that was a mouthful!) is unsourced. This is an issue since the sentence before is sourced, and the two sentences convey very similar info (in other words, consistency).

Prose is great. Once the above points are addressed, I'm ready to support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added images in the past, and they have been removed, so I don't plan to add anymore images.
  • I added a source.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure the (ja) link to the Japanese Wikipedia next to the red link for Yukari Fujimoto is entirely necessary. I have never worked on an article like this before, but I think the red link is enough, and hopefully someone will make an article about it on the English Wikipedia in the future.
Other than that relatively minor note, I can support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in because it was recommended by WP:REDDEAL. People sometimes use those kinds of links to translate, and visiting her ja page and using translation software can give a bit more context. I think it should be restored. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ISD

Here are some issues I came across.

  • In the sentence: "He comments that the series was a comeback for dark fantasy that slowly faded away when Shonen Jump transferred to Ultra Jump in 1987", I think Shonen Jump and Ultra Jump should be in italics. Best make sure this style is constant throughout the article.
  • In the "General Roles" section, I noticed that you keep beginning sentences with the phrase: "She comments that". It might be worth altering this to make it a bit less repetitive.
  • In the "Novels" section, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the sequel light novel series of stories set after the end of the fourth great ninja war and beginning of Boruto (e.g. Kakashi's Story, Shikamaru's Story etc.). Reference to these books should be mentioned.

Once these are sorted out then I'm happy to support this article's promotion. ISD (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I now support this article's promotion to FA status. ISD (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 122.108.141.214

Could you please change "Asashi", the given publisher in reference #16 to The Asahi Shimbun (with wikilink)? Sad to see the semi-protection has been restored. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the gender roles section needs a good copyedit - there are several grammar issues with this section.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to look it over whenever you get the chance? -- 1989 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor changes.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace "the characters has" with "Fujimoto argues that the work has", and "Because of the character development" needs a 'how'. Not sure what "when they are written to improve their status in the story," means. I would scratch "series has an outmoded gender role", and replace some of the 'shes' with Fujimoto. Not sure that 'politically incorrect' is the most neutral way of phrasing this idea, as 'political correctness' is considered a pejorative term. Is it 'an' Hokage, or 'a' Hokage? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the section. I placed the pejorative term in quotes due to that's what she said. -- 1989 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There still might be some other grammar issues that I haven't been able to see myself. Are there any other turns of phrase you've used from sources without using quotation marks? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- 1989 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"CdJapan" should be written as "CDJapan", because that's the orthography used on its About page. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" "JAPAN ANIMESONG COLLECTION SPECIAL 「Naruto -ナルト- 少年篇」" " needs an English translation for those few bits of Japanese at the end. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have English-language Japanese newspapers, such as those in Category:English-language newspapers published in Japan, been consulted at length? I note there are at least two articles from these newspapers being used - because Naruto was phenomenal, I'd expect there to be more. Library databases such as EBSCOhost or ProQuest can be helpful for chasing older articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Trove to identify further sources? Kliatt, Teacher Librarian, the Internet Bookwatch and the School Library Journal are quite well-regarded. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget EBSCOhost, either: I found this in-depth article which talks a lot about how Kishimoto's art style has changed: Spanjers, Rik. "NARUTO." Critical Survey of Graphic Novels: Manga, May 2013, pp. 215-221. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=88265667&site=ehost-live. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added -- 1989 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why only the Japanese and English language editions of Naruto are discussed? As the Anime News Network encyclopedia linked in the article indicates it was widely translated, it seems like a gap in coverage for other language editions to not be discussed at all (not even in the main list of chapters). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including other editions won't show any improvement to the article imo. If you seem to think the opposite, what type of coverage should be told involving other countries? 1989 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue of comprehensiveness - 1c. Excluding these editions means the article is missing information, and it's yet another indicator of how well-regarded Naruto is, that it's been translated into many many other languages. Other featured articles, like Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble include information on non-English, non-Japanese editions of works. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. 1989 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- 1989 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Can you please do the script-assisted thingie that makes dates in the 2009-01-08 format go into the January 8, 2009 format? When I added the trove sources to the further reading section, I lightly altered the citations from Trove's own recommendation, but didn't alter those. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- 1989 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article meet MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per MOS:BADITALICS, marking Japanese text in italics makes it hard to read. 1989 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BADITALICS would surely only cover the kanji, not the romanised forms of words (such as jinchuriki, etc.)? MOS:FOREIGNITALICS specifically uses some romanised Japanese words as examples. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 1989 23:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - has this had enough depth of review? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Jaguar

I'll call out any issues as I see them:

  • "Masashi Kishimoto first created a one-shot of Naruto for the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump" - according to the source, it was a September issue, not August
  • I think you meant Summer, which I have fixed.
  • "Background art became less emphasised in favor of characters" - not related to a sourcing issue, but there's an inconsistent use of American and British English here
  • Fixed.
  • "For Part II he said that he attempted not to" - Part II needs to be linked here and not in the second paragraph of the characters section ("so he emphasized it more in Part II of the manga")
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 19 - shouldn't the publisher be Viz?
  • No. Since Crunchyroll wrote the article, they are the publisher.
  • "that Naruto is known as a shonen manga because the series is aimed at boys, and also because the series is characterized by moments of intense action in the story development" - I can't access the pdf file given in the source. Perhaps it would be best if the url is deleted
  • I didn't label the reference with the subscription notice. Fixed. I could send you the article if you want to verify.
  • "while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga" - this is not mentioned in the source
  • I changed the reference.
  • "It included never-before-seen scenes and much non-canon material was cut to make it more faithful to the original manga. In addition, it contains openings and endings different from the original series." - this is unsourced
  • Removed.
  • "As a bonus, the short original video animation Konoha Annual Sports Festival was included with the Japanese release of the film" - I didn't see this part mentioned in the source, but to be fair, does it need to be sourced if it's a canon thing?
  • No, since it's already sourced above. I moved the reference to the first sentence.

Those were all of the discrepancies I could find, albeit minor. I checked all of the online sources I could access though the a lot of them were either offline or Japanese. It's a solid and well written article overall. JAGUAR  12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for addressing them so quickly. I'll support on the sourcing side of things. From what I've read the prose seems to be in good shape too, and has been further reinforced by the reviews left above. I did miss a couple of references because the links timed out, but I'm confident everything is in order. JAGUAR  17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, as well as Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017." You give the last air date of the sequel but not of the original series; might as well be consistent. A couple of other points: "aired" seems wrong, since you mean "began airing" or "premiered"; and "as well as" implies that the sequel is included in the first series. How about: "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, ending on <date>, and was followed by Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017."?
  • "Naruto: Shippuden was first released by Viz in North America in September 2009. It was broadcast on Disney XD beginning in October of the same year": it sounds like the Disney XD broadcast was the first release in North America, so why does the previous sentence mention September?
  • Suggest glossing "jinchuriki", "jutsu", and "Sharingan" or with a footnote; nobody unfamiliar with the manga is going to have any idea what these are. I'd also suggest mentioning what a Tailed Beast is in the explanation of jinchuriki, since otherwise the reader doesn't know Nine-Tails is a Tailed Beast, which makes the kidnaps in Part II a little harder to explain.
  • "Orochimaru desires to acquire Sasuke due to his powerful genetic heritage, the Sharingan": I don't understand this, even after following the link. Does "acquire" mean "gain as a follower"?
  • "Akatsuki is successful in capturing seven of those creatures whose hosts are killed in the process": this makes it sound as though Akatsuki captures the Tailed Beasts directly. Shouldn't this be rephrased; he captures the hosts, and then extracts the Tailed Beasts, right? Or is there another capture step after the extraction?
  • I see some prose problems. Here are some example sentences and phrases that need work; generally these are clumsy rather than ungrammatical.
    • "He was originally working on Karakuri that he released to Shueisha in 1995 that got him an honorable mention in the Hop Step Award in 1996 when later on he was unsatisfied by the rough draft."
    • "which later formed into the manga series Naruto"
    • "devoted many panels of art to intricately display": "devoted" needs an "-ing" verb, so it would be "displaying", but it would probably be better to restructure the sentence.
    • "had him motivated": "motivated him" would be more natural.
    • "Kishimoto states.... Kishimoto stated..." in two consecutive sentences.
    • "he is proud of the work he put in the story, and is thankful that it made him become a manga artist in the beginning": "put into" is the usual way to say it, and "that it made him become" seems to have the sequence of events wrong -- writing the story is what turned him into an artist? Presumably this should say something like "it made him thankful that he became a manga artist".
The above is just from one very short section. A few more examples from later in the article:
  • "Since the series started serialization, Kishimoto decided the ending would feature a fight": I don't think "since" has the meaning you intend here; it's most naturally parsed as "because". I suspect you mean "After", or "Once".
  • "He wanted the fight to end with Naruto forgiving Sasuke similar to the time Naruto forgave Nagato"
  • "She comments that while the series' narrative shows that men and women demonstrate their skills in various ways, she criticizes how female characters are developed in a "politically incorrect" way."
  • "Cammie Allen, Viz's product manager, commented that, the main reason for the change was ..."
  • "and ran for 220 episodes until its conclusion on February 8, 2007.. The first 135 episodes are adapted from the first twenty-seven volumes of the manga, while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga." 135 + 80 = 215, not 220; and you also need to be consistent in rendering numbers -- either 80 and 135 or give both in words.
  • "The series has adapted eleven films"
  • "Each of the three movies of the first anime series has a soundtrack that was released near its release date.": I can guess what's intended but this isn't the phrasing you need.
  • "Another fanbook was released to conmemmorate the series' 10th anniversary"
  • There's a missing quotemark somewhere in the sentence starting "He wanted each member to be...".
  • In several places -- e.g. in "Characters" and "Setting" -- there are one-, two-, or three-word quotes used as part of the explanations; I'd suggest paraphrasing to get rid of these. Using "convey the story" or "draw on" or "maybe" or "definitely not" as a quote shouldn't be necessary; there's nothing in these phrases that conveys anything that couldn't be equally well conveyed by a paraphrase.
  • I think you could lose a few of the more microscopic details. Do we really need to know Kishimoto's opinion of the computer architecture that might or might not be present but didn't actually show up in the manga?
  • You use "states" or "stated" a lot. I'd suggest using a less visible word; it's hard to overuse "say" and "said". They're more natural and the reader won't notice them as much.
  • "He does not consider the series to be a cheerful manga because of the way the characters and the environment were developed.": I don't follow this.
  • "Canonical to the franchise, the film tells the story of": I know what "canonical" means but I don't follow this.

Oppose on prose. The list of prose issues above is from reading the first section, plus glancing at the rest of the article; generally I skipped to the next section when I found something listed above, so I doubt this is an exhaustive list of issues. There are too many infelicities in the prose. Some of these can be fixed by straightforward copyediting, but some issues, such as paraphrasing, will take a bit more work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the copyedit and review. I'll resolve your issues above tomorrow. Would you be able to finish your prose review if I try to resolve the paraphrasing problem? Twofingered Typist told me he couldn't really understand it either when copyediting, and suggest that I use more quotes. Should that be the case? Also, how do you gloss something? 1989 20:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "gloss" is shorthand (it's the same root as glossary). I meant "explain or define in the article text". I will try to find time to revisit, but since I was just skimming after the first section I think the whole text needs going over, not just the points I identified. If you can find a copyeditor for whom the points I made all stand out as errors, you've got someone who will probably also find any remaining issues. After a copyedit, if the FAC is still open, ping me again. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to do any further copyediting in your own free time? 1989 21:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: I'll see what I can do. You will have to fix any issues with the plots since I know nothing about them. It seems there are still an awful lot of edits continuing to be made on an article that ought to be mostly stable by now. This doesn't help the process. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article again and done what I can. Successive editors have added every possible detail to be found on the subject in some sections and this will likely be pointed out by the reviewer. You should certainly go through the article and keep only the essential details. (This is something of a vicious circle because I know someone else will drop by and add it all back in again.) I regret that I will not be able to spend any further time on Naruto or Naruto-related articles. Good luck.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for doing what you could. @Mike Christie: Could you go over the article to see if your issues have been resolved? Him and I have done changes to the article to try to resolve what you said in your statements. -- 1989 19:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989, just a note for future reference; when you deal with a list of points like this, it's helpful to the reviewer if you go through and add an indented note after each point that you deal with. If you're sure you've dealt with all the points, of course, there's no need to do so, but I just looked at the first point and that still seems to be an issue so I'm not sure if you've addressed everything yet. No need to do it now; this is just something to remember next time around.

Looking at some of the fixes:

  • "A jinchuriki is a human being in the Ninja World who has tailed beast inside of them. A tailed beast is a giant creature that contains a mass amount of chakra (energy) inside of their bodies." Should be "has a tailed beast", and you capitalize "Tailed Beast" elsewhere, so I'd be consistent. Plus "a mass amount" isn't very good English; I'd make this "a large amount" or something similar.
  • "A jutsu is also known as a skill or a technique involving supernatural abilities." I think this is also not quite right; a jutsu isn't known as a skill; it is a skill.
  • "The Sharingan is a special ability of the eye the Uchiha clan holds that can copy any type of jutsu, be able to see movements that are at a fast pace, and cast an illusion on its victim." Suggest changing "movements that are at a fast pace" to "rapid movements" or something more natural.

I haven't looked to see if the original points are fixed yet; I'm just skimming to see if I can find more prose issues.

  • "The first of the DVD compilations containing thirteen episodes, released by Viz was nominated at the American Anime Awards for best package design." The punctuation is wrong here; I think you want something like "The first DVD compilation released by Viz contained thirteen episodes; it was nominated at the American Anime Awards for best package design."
  • "derided the poor transition of his artistic style into animation": "transition" is the wrong word here. I think you meant "translation", but I suspect this would be better rephrased; perhaps something like "felt Kishimoto's artistic style translated poorly into animation".
  • Not really a prose issue, but "The series has received praise and criticism from several reviewers" is a poor lead sentence for a paragraph. Lead sentences should should give the reader an idea of what to expect; paragraphs in reception sections work best when there's some organizing principle determining what goes in what paragraph. This sentence is about as unspecific as it is possible to be.
  • "The start of Part II has been praised in a review by Casey Brienza of ANN. She noted how well the characters were developed as they had new appearances and abilities. Brienza also praised the balance between plot and action scenes allowing readers to enjoy the volume." This is wordy; it boils down to "Casey Brienza praised the start of Part II; she approved of the characters' new abilities and new appearance, and also liked the balance between plot and action." That cuts about 40% of the text without losing any meaning. The original is also vague; for example, what does "how well the characters were developed" mean? I took it to refer to the second half of the sentence, which means it's unnecessary, which is why I cut it. And why "has been praised", instead of just "praised"?
  • "It contains artwork was used for the Shonen Jump comic covers." Missing "that", I assume.

That's just from looking at the last couple of sections. I looked at the diff of Twofingered Typist's work, and they've definitely really improved the article, but if I can find the above in just a few minutes of glancing through, there's a lot left to do still. I'm afraid my oppose still stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix all of the issues you had above. I'll see if I can get further help with the prose. -- 1989 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't gone through to see if the above points are issued; instead I looked again to see if there were more prose issues I hadn't spotted first time through.

  • "The manga has been been nominated by several award shows, and won a few of them": it won awards; it didn't win award shows.
  • 'The cards are released in named sets, called "series" in the form of four different 50-card pre-constructed box sets.' Missing a closing parenthetical comma after '"series"'; I see one or two other comma errors elsewhere in the article.
  • "Viz has also published new novels known as Chapter Books written by Tracey West with illustrations from the manga." No reason to capitalize "chapter book", and no reason to say "novels known as"; I'd either make this "...published chapter books written by..." or "...published novels written by..."
  • "In July 2015, Lionsgate announced they are developing a live-action Naruto with Avi Arad producing through his production company Arad Productions, with Michael Gracey directing, while Erik Feig, Geoff Shaveitz and Kelly O'Malley will oversee production." This is clumsily phrased; for example, we have "...producing through his production company Arad Productions...".

Sorry, 1989, but if I can still find prose flaws this easily the article isn't ready. Again this is not from a careful read through; it's from glancing through the second half of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I'm trying to see if I can find further help with the prose. I'll resolve your comments tomorrow. -- 1989 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Could you take a look at the copyedits that I did, and let me know if it still needs fixing? -- 1989 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike may not be able to get in touch right now. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's recently been a lot of passive voice sentence structures being reworked to the active voice. However, I'm not sure this is always a good thing - the use of the passive voice can indicate the fictitiousness of what's going on, such as 'the females developed' and 'the females were developed'. Similarly, I'm not sure that 'the DVDs released' is the proper way of putting it, but I can't articulate the why of it as confidently as I can with the earlier example. Can anyone give further advice on the voices in the article? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading now...copyediting as I go....

  • why not just write "host" rather than "Jinchuriki" ?
  • As a child, Naruto is isolated from the Konoha community, - if people are consciously rejecting him, then a verb like "shunned by" is better..
  • as Naruto takes place in a "Japanese fantasy world", - why in quotes? Can be reworded "fantasy setting" comes to mind....
  • ..since "there are still so many things that need to be resolved". - ditto, why not "due to the number of unresolved plotlines/storylines."
@Casliber: Fixed All -- 1989 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Do you plan on adding more comments soon, or is this it? -- 1989 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's heavy going. I've been busy and a need to do some relaxing stuff. I will have a look again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I get it, since this type of article isn't really your interest. If you don't plan to go any further or comment on the prose, then thanks for doing what you could. -- 1989 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Although we had a lot of early support here, Mike has found a few problems and Cas is also finding issues. Given this, I think continuing the FAC would be counterproductive and the work would be done better away from FAC. Therefore I am going to archive and would encourage the nominator to work with Mike and/or Cas to address the issues and then renominate after the usual two week waiting period. This would pretty much guarantee a far smoother run next time around. Sorry for any disappointment, I know it can be frustrating to be archived after a few supports, but the oppose is a convincing one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 [9].

Eastern Hills, Bogotá

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Eastern Hills of the Colombian capital Bogotá.

  1. - article is imho complete covering all areas and linking to specific main articles for further reading
  2. - list of sources is extensive and reliable
  3. - images are there to show the location and different characteristics
  4. - infobox, tables and other features are complete
  5. - other, supporting articles (geological formations, rivers, earthquakes) are in preparation or have been newly created already

In general, I think the article meets the standards for FA. Please review and I am open to comments about the contents of the article Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.
In terms of the sources, there is no need to have so much capitalisation in the names or titles, and you need to ensure the formatting of the references is consistent (There are examples of p.1 and p. 1 and some page ranges that are p, not pp. - The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just popping back to see progress on this. Although there have been great strides in sorting out some of the images, I see that there are still too many of them, and a number of those that remain have the sizes forced to 350px, which is against the MoS guidelines. Pushing the guidelines isn't a problem in itself, but it's forcing large areas of white space into the article and dominating the page, even on a wide monitor. I strongly suggest you read through MOS:IMGSIZE and act accordingly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The images are there to inform and highlight the text. The quality of a Featured Article depends on the information, the amount of sources and the informational level of the article. Where do you see "white spaces"? I have deliberately scaled everything to the text. "there are too many images" is a personal flavour, not an in-depth review of an article where clearly a lot of work is put in. I follow the guidelines and additional to that have an own style, something that is perfectly accepted in Wikipedia as many articles have slightly different styles and wordings, use of lay-out, images, tables, etc. Personal flavours not directed towards the content of an article are not relevant remarks. If you don't like images, you can avoid looking at them. But there are many people around who do like images and are much more visually than textually focused. Those people profit from the images and would be denied service by forcifully removing them to accommodate a "desire" by people who don't have any interest in them anyway. The image sizes are important too; the majority of images in my opinion are too small, certainly for readers with less eye-sight (not me, I write for others). They are served with larger images, showing more clearly what is the illustration of the text. Those people again would be denied service if images are scaled down. If you have an in-depth review of the article, I am all ears. But if an article of this size, quality, completeness and full referencing using many online accessible sources would "FAIL" a FA review, then so be it. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tisquesusa, Please don't think I'm attacking you or the article, but these are valid concerns. Point 3 of the FA criteria is that "Images follow the image use policy", of which sizing is one element. That's not "personal flavour", or even just a guideline: it's policy. It's fine for you to say that you "have deliberately scaled everything to the text", but that scaling goes entirely out of the window when the page is viewed on a browser of a different size, and there are very large areas of white space when I view the article. If you choose to ignore the policy and not to address the size problem, that is up to you, but my oppose will stand because if it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

This is a fascinating article marred by significant layout flaws. I find the prose to be generally professional, and that makes me want to encourage you. After spending quite a bit of time reading and taking notes line by line, I've decided to stop about midway through the History section to see how you respond to what The Bounder said and what I have said below.
Layout
  • I agree with The Bounder's comments above about the excessive number of images. There are way too many. I suggest that you choose only the ones that are necessary to illustrate a point or points in the text and to place them, generally at default size, entirely within the section they refer to. All the rest of the images will still be accessible via the Commons. (As an aside here, I would note that each image that you decide to keep will need alt text, and the thought of creating alt text for all of these images might by itself induce you to avoid illustrations that are purely decorative.)
  • The collapsible lists create a similar layout problem. In addition, according to MOS:COLLAPSE, they will likely create accessibility difficulties. I suggest rendering the essence of these lists as straight prose and deleting the "show–hide" lists.
I have trimmed down on the images, the ones remaining indicate the important features. Not all readers are equally visually focused. The lists have been uncollapsed and the flora and fauna made into a separate list linked in the article.
Thanks. It looks better than before but still has large white spaces and an overabundance of visuals, including the two collapsing templates. It would be relatively easy to eliminate images such as the white-tailed deer from Kansas that seem only tangentially related to the Eastern Hills of Colombia, and it would not be difficult to turn the hydrology table into a paragraph or two of straight prose. These are just examples, not a complete list of possible improvements. Rather than poring over the Manual of Style for an answer to every question that pops into my head, I have often looked at WP:FA to see what others have done to meet the criteria. For example, you might find Mendip Hills worth looking at. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The white-tailed deer is really key to most of the history of the Eastern Hills. It was the most abundant species and the main ingredient of the food of the Muisca. I've linked sources on that here, others are at Aguazuque and related preceramic sites. Same for the spectacled bear. It may be today it's a very restricted species, but just last week one of those was killed in Fómeque, just to the east of the Eastern Hills. It's important to point those species out, so having them in an image. Pity we don't have a white-tailed deer from Colombia and the nice picture is from Kansas, but that doesn't make it an "irrelevant" picture, it's just a nice example (honouring the photographer/uploader of that one to Commons). Ideally all photos are from the Eastern Hills themselves, which works for other images, but for the white-tailed deer that would be impossible; the urbanisation of the area doesn't allow for sightings of those deer in the Eastern Hills. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine to keep the white-tailed deer if you think it is important. I meant only to use it as an example of something that could possibly be removed in order to resolve the layout problems. Unless you can find a way to eliminate the big white spaces, for example, the article will not likely meet the FA criteria. I realize that the images are important to you and that it might be painful to remove many more of them or to reduce their sizes, but when you nominate for FA, you are asking everyone who takes part in the process to agree that the article is as good as possible. That necessarily means conforming to the encyclopedia's layout guidelines as well as a large number of other guidelines to be found in the Manual of Style. I hope this explanation helps. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "The NNW-SSE trending mountain chain..." – Compass directions in Wikipedia are generally spelled out unless part of a street address. Maybe "the mountain chain, which trends north-northwest to south-southeast" would better conform to the Manual of Style. Ditto for other similar instances in the article.
Solved
Hydrology
  • Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north..." – Word or words missing?
The ":" refers to the table directly below, now expanded to be easier to read.
Ah, I see. I missed the importance of the colon on my first pass-through, and I find the sentence structure confusing. Instead of "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north:" might I suggest this for clarity: "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills. The most important rivers from south to north are:"?
Flora
  • "A study of the vegetational cover has revealed the presence of 29 types of vegetation covering 63.16% of the total area. The remaining 36.84% is used by urban settlement, agricultural lands and quarries." – Better if rounded to nearest whole numbers; i.e, "about 63 percent" and "the remaining 37 percent"?
Solved
  • " In the Eastern Hills a total of 443 species of flora have been identified, of which 156 species in 111 genera and 64 families of vascular plants." – Word or words missing?
The 156 species refer to the families of vascular plants.
I'm still confused by this. Does this mean that 156 of the 443 identified species belong to 111 genera in 64 families? What about the other 287 species? Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it. And I am adding the geological formations to solve those red links. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of readability, I'd suggest reducing the long list of species, most of which are redlinked, to a small sampling.
Made into a separate list; there many red links are present but I've added the photos available at Commons to invite writers to create those new articles. Imho a plant that has an image on Commons should have an article too.
Adding red links to the separate list seems entirely appropriate to me. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • " at the summer solstice of June 21, the Sun rises exactly from Lake Iguaque..." – I think you need to say explicitly where the observer is standing to see this effect; i.e., "as seen from El Infiernito, the Sun rises...".
True, I have added the location; the solar observatory itself.
  • "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor to the under the early Colombian government..." – Word or words missing?
That's right, added "church".
The sentence still does not make sense to me. It reads, "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor church to the under the early Colombian government constructed Catedral Basílica Metropolitana de la Inmaculada Concepción." – Perhaps "The Spanish conquistadors built a church, a precursor of the Catedral Basilica Metropolitana de la Inmaculad Concepción, at a similar site in the Eastern Hills"? Or have I misunderstood something? Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish built their churches at sites where the indigenous Muisca celebrated their religious festivities. It was a way to replace the original Muisca religion and to submit the "primitive" indigenous peoples to the new rule. I think I've reworded it, but if it's still unclear I can rewrite. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of making another small edit here. Please revert or alter if you think of a better way to put it. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...after the deadliest of the conquest expeditions of advanced pre-Columbian civilisations. More than 80% of his soldiers did not survive..." – Deadliest for whom? If we consider the deaths of the conquered, was this expedition the deadliest?
It was explained in the next sentence but added the Spanish for clarification.
Thanks. I re-arranged the prose a bit for clarity. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Muisca Confederation
  • I notice that some of the links around words like "agriculture" and "salt" are what's known as Easter-egg links that take readers to an unexpected place. The MOS guidelines suggest avoiding links like this. Finetooth (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Nemocón was to indicate the important salt mining town, now replaced with a link to the mining of the Muisca. In some future a separate article about the salt extraction of the Muisca should be made, as it was their important characteristic.

I've also removed quite some links to minor topics that should have articles (are notable), but not the main ones. The main articles, of which the geological formations are in preparation, still have red links. Added another that I am preparing too. Thank you for the comments, compliments and thorough review! Have a great day, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made quite a few minor copyediting changes today. Feel free to revert any that you think are mistakes. I will probably have more, but I'm getting too cross-eyed to continue just now. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few more minor edits today, and I will now wait to see what other editors have to say and what you decide to do about layout and alt text for readers who cannot see the images. I don't know what to suggest about the collapsing templates. In my own writing for Wikipedia, I've relied on using existing templates that look good to me rather than creating my own. Template:History of Egypt looks good to me, for example, and this form could be used across a related series of articles related to the Muisca. WP:Template namespace has ideas, guidelines. What you have done already is well-researched and very interesting. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finetooth, I have expanded the Climate section to solve the ugly white space that was there, adding a reference too. I've removed the large Muisca history template that is less relevant for the Hills and too extensive to show up in the mobile version. The timeline of inhabitation is important and more concised so I think that one showing up expanded (I've raised that issue in another discussion) on the mobile version shouldn't be a big problem. The only images that are now spanning the page are the forest fires, but they are important to highlight the constant (yearly) threat to the hills, the people living on the slopes of them and the way they are treated (thanks for the Bamby Bucket link!). I've added all the rivers that were red links and all the geologic formations in equally extensively referenced articles (I don't do stubs). The remaining red links of the Reservoirs, Earthquakes, Bogotá Fault and Suba Hills are in preparation. I've selected other images of the flora and fauna (the white-tailed deer was a subspecies from the US) and expanded on the captions to highlight the importance and in my view captions should be interesting to read too, not just "this is X", that is obvious from the image itself. What do you think of the article as it stands now? Cheers and thanks, talk) 02:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tisquesusa: Seeing your continuing struggles, I assume that there must be some basic misunderstanding of what we mean by "white space". We are not talking about spaces between the images on the right but rather about the huge spaces between sections of the text. For example, the distance between the last sentence of the Etymology subsection and the first sentence of the Geography section is (on my desktop screen) six inches, according to a ruler I keep in my desk. Instead of the usual continuation of the text, what I see is a blank space of about 50 square inches. There are similar blank spaces lower down in the article. I don't believe it's possible to fix this problem without removing more images. Every reviewer who looks at the article instantly sees this problem, and reviewers might well choose to go no further. This is a shame since the article in other respects has FA potential. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: Ah, thanks, now I understand better what you mean. It must be some setting with your browser, or Wikipedia settings as it is the {{clearboth}} template which should work fine, that's what's intended for. I use that to get the next chapter below the images in case they extend the section. In the case of "Etymology" there was no issue. But if there are more instances of that, let me know, I removed the "Etymology" one. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth

  • As someone who likes to use images, I'm all for it, but it's possible to go overboard. That said, I love your images, although I can't read the text because the images distract me. :( I'd make a few suggestions. First, regarding the images: I'd suggest trying to incorporate them more textually--that is, switch them back and forth (left side/right side) to see if that reduces white space (white space=bad). Also, I'd use one of each, not multiples. I'd really make a concerted effort to categorize and subcategorize these images in commons so you can link to them via the commonscat box. This would make it easier for the ignorant but curious like myself to find them.
  • Second point: I like the writing and it flows beautifully. There are some textual inconsistencies, one of which is this: are the white tailed deer extinct or not? If they are, they cannot be a dietary staple. If they are a dietary staple, they are obviously not extinct.Also shot dead=killed.
  • Third, are there actually "sub" articles on these subjects? If there are, then you can expand much of your excellent descriptive work in those, with the images, and use the overlaying article to summarize those ideas. Just a thought.

Finally, also a thought: you use a lot of the verb "to be" when you could use some far more interesting verbs. Also, one last comment, I am one of those with a browser/settings (unexplained) that used to but no longer will expand collapsible tables.  :( auntieruth (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sources okay. I use Earwigs program to check paraphrasing etc. had the most common text

Hi @Auntieruth55:, thank you for your review and comments.
  • I have rescaled the images using the upright parameter, so it should be ok with your image setting
  • I don't see white spaces left, if you do, could you post a screenshot where they are? I checked both on my laptop with 1920 resolution and on my phone (desktop version of wiki).
  • I chose to position all the images to the right and all the text to the left deliberately; those who want to see the images and the captions check for the right and those who don't want images can read the text without """disturbing""" images to the left.
  • most of the articles in the subpages have been either written by me or checked against my high standards. There shouldn't be any pages with issues left under the many blue links added to the article. If you spot one, please let me know on this page and I will work on it
  • as a non-native speaker it could be my English with "to be" is too boring and may be improved with -as you say- "far more interesting verbs". If you want, please edit the article where you see fit or suggest individual improvements here.
  • there should be only 1 collapsed table (the template) left, which I think is crucial to guide the reader to the history of the area. If it causes major problems, please post a screenshot to let me know.
  • I noticed just now the coord template screws up the lay-out of the article completely, I don't know what's happening, but it seems to be outside of my realm. This is what I get: screenshot. I hope it will be solved soon or if I can do it and that we can pass the article to FA. I've reread the text and reworded for clarification. All the geologic formations have been added and described with extensive bibliography and references, the missing links will be added soon too. One or two remaining red links should show Wikipedia "is not finished" and be inviting readers to add their interests and/or knowledge to the specific articles.

Thanks again and good night, Tisquesusa (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a light once over on the section with the animals here There were incomplete sentences, and a few other problems. See if that works for you.
  • The problem with white spaces hasn't gone away. I have no idea what to do with it. Although it is distracting. Let me know about this edit, and possibly I'll tackle some more. As a non-native speaker/writer, you do very well! auntieruth (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: I checked with my own resolution (1920x1080) and the screen resolutions 1366x768, 1280x800 and 1024x768 and no white spaces appear apart from the rivers that should now be solved with the inclusion of the map in the table. In which section do you see white spaces still? Can you post a screenshot? Tisquesusa (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for a long time now without attracting any support, so I'm afraid we will have to archive this now. It may be renominated after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Why this "archiving"? The article certainly is notable and good enough for an FA. There is no time limit to these reviews, many articles are many months standing in the GA review before they are even looked at. I have asked relevant questions with requests for examples for the remaining slight image/white space problem, without an answer until now. So there's no ground to "archive" this ongoing discussion. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (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) 23:02, 4 May 2017 [10].

Yu Kanda

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the character Yu Kanda from the manga D.Gray-man. I chose to nominate due to its smaller size when compared with my previous nomination. Since English is not my first language, a fellow user from guild of copy-editors recently copy-edited. If there are any issues, feel free to point them out. I'll try hard to fix all of them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, leaving the links to fellow users who might point out issues User:ProtoDrake, User:1989, User:Aoba47, User:Narutolovehinata5, User:AngusWOOF and User:Jaguar.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ISD

[edit]

Comment: Spotted the following things that are probably worth addressing:

  • Overlinking: Going via WP:OLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Thus, while it might be OK to link to some names once in the lead and once in the main article, that should be limit. Allen Walker is linked to three times, so his link in the "Appearances" section should be removed, as should the links to Lenalee Lee, Froi Tiedoll, Alma Karma. In the "Critical reception" section remove the repeated links to Skin Bolic, Takahiro Sakurai, Travis Willingham, Takuya Satō and Tsubasa Yonaga
  • May want to sort out the red line to Blue Tonic. If there was an article that has been deleted, you can just get rid of it.

Other than that, I think everything else is fine. ISD (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • In the first paragraph of the lead, there is a repetition of the phrase "known as" in one of the sentences. This is more of a nitpick, but I was wondering if you could possibly revise this to avoid repeating the same phrase in such close proximity. It is not a major issue, but I think it would clean up and strengthen that part a little more.
  • In this same paragraph, I am not sure about the use of "however" when referring to the character's behavior with this teammates. The word choice implies a juxtaposition between him being cold towards his teammates and him not liking it when they use his first name and those two ideas seem to fall in line with one another. I would suggest just removing the "however" as the "even" is a strong enough part on its own.
  • In the phrase "a late Exorcist", would it be better to just say "a deceased Exorcist" to make the point clearer? I know that we are told to avoid euphemisms so if you are using "late" to say "dead" or "deceased" than I would suggest changing it.
  • The word "femenine" should be "feminine". I always misspell that word too for some reason.
  • I am not sure the quotation for "dumbest" is necessary as I believe you can paraphrase that part.
  • I would specify in the Willingham caption (the one with his image) that it was his work as the English voice actor.
Thanks. Done everything. Did I miss something?Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]
  • "Kanda sides with the Black Order in their fight against a the Earl's group" - error
  • " the two video games, and the crossover Jump Ultimate Stars." - is Jump Ultimate Stars one of the two video games? Or does this mean there are three?
  • " In response, Kanda impaled Hoshino angered at her for her inexperience" - I don't think this makes grammatical sense. Missing comma perhaps?
  • "with Japanese words that resemble "The one who cannot read the atmosphere. Though" - missing quotation mark in between "atmosphere" and "though"
  • "more merchandise related to Kanda and other characters was released, including a Blue Tonic" - does blue tonic need to be capitalised?

Those were all of the minor issues I could find after my first read through of this article, although they were only nitpicks. Overall this article is comprehensive and solid. JAGUAR  16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tried fixing everything.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them. I couldn't find anything wrong with this article, so I'll support. Well done! JAGUAR  17:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

ALT text is adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you suggest removing it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

Oppose at this point. I am concerned that this nomination is attracting supports at this early stage, as it is fairly clear on close reading that a lot more attention needs to be paid to the quality of the article's prose. While I appreciate that some work has gone into improving it, it is still way short of the high standards demanded of a featured article. These standards demand both grammatical correctness and clear and concise expression, avoiding excessive verbiage so that the meaning is plain even to the relatively uninformed reader. At present, I feel the article does not meet these criteria; apart from actual errors, the wording is sometimes clumsy and the meaning obscure. I know little about manga beyond what I've read in Wikipedia articles, and I was quickly confused when I tried to work through this one. I've made some detailed comments on the lead and first part of the "Creation" section; some of these points can be very easily settled, while others I think will require a bit more thought. I'll add more when these points have been addressed. I don't like opposing; however, my objective is not merely to criticise but to help bring this nomination to a successful outcome, and I hope you'll accept these comments in that spirit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "...even disliking it when people refer to him by his first name". Clarify whether his first name is "Yu" or "Kanda".
  • "Later in the series..." – later than what? Perhaps: "As the series proceeds..."
  • "The character was created with the intention to bring a change to the series' Western setting, with his design being based on samurai." Clumsily written, suggest: "The character was created to bring a change to the series' Western setting, his design being based on samurai." I've made a minor edit to strengthen this point.
  • "As a result of the character being attractive, Kanda has been difficult for Hoshino to illustrate, as she focused more on his eyes and hair when drawing him." Hard to make sense of this as written. There is no rationale given as to why an "attractive" character should present the creator with difficulties.
  • "Due to his original backstory having multiple plot holes, Hoshino rewrote it to one where Hoshino created Kanda's first friend, Alma Karma, who plays in his backstory as well as alterations to Kanda's characterization". Again clumsy prose (e.g. "Hoshino rewrote it to one where Hoshino..."). Also, the grammar falls apart after "who plays in his backstory". The sentence makes little or no sense to the general reader, and needs a redraft.
  • Your minor revision doesn't improve the clarity or the grammar of this sentence. I'd try and work on it myself, but I am unsure of the point you are trying to make. Would it matter if the entire sentence was removed from the lead? Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is voiced by Travis Willingham in English and by Ian Sinclair in Hallow. The two parts of the sentence "in English" and "in Hallow" are mismatched. One's a language and the other an episode, presumably. Anyway, this voice actor detail is inappropriate in the lead, the function of which is to act as a broad general summary of the article. The detail is given in the main text and doesn't need to be spelled out here.
  • I've made a minor copyedit to your revision - but why is this information required in the lead? It's spelled out in the text; why do we need to be told the same minor detail twice? I suggest you replace the detail in the lead with a short summary sentence: "Various voice actors have been employed for the character, in both the original soundtrack and the English dubbed version".

Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third paragraph: the word "Initially" is redundant at the start of the fourth sentence. In the same sentence the formulation "due to" is used for the second time in the lead (and recurs in the main text). This phrasing tends to disfigure prose, and should be reworded whenever possible.
  • You need a "his" before "character development".
Creation and design
  • Suggest "an unpublished work" rather than "one unpublished title"
  • The prose would flow better if the first two sentences were merged: "The character of Yu Kanda was carried over from an unpublished work created by Katsura Hoshino, who designed Kanda to introduce a change into D.Gray-man's Western setting."
  • Who is being quoted in the phrases "came out very naturally" and "who are like young lions"?
  • What is meant by "her amateur manga"?
  • "liked" is a wimpish word. Perhaps "admired"?
  • "she felt" → "Hoshino felt"
  • "thought by Hoshino" → "considered by Hoshino"
  • "the official ones": there's nothing "official" here. Do you mean "the final version"?
  • "By the release of the series' tenth volume, Hoshino wrote a joke about how she missed Kanda. In response, Kanda impaled Hoshino, angered at her for her inexperience as he claimed he did not know how to illustrate him well." Don't know what this is about - it seems to be merging reality with fantasy. How necessary is this potentially confusing snippet?

*"This contrasted other characters such as Reever Wenham and Malcolm C. Rouvelier based on their older looks". The verb "contrasted" needs "with", but even so I'm not clear what point the sentence is making.

  • "The original idea for Kanda's feminine looks is that he was originally..." Ugly repetition (original/originally) - delete one. Also, "basis" would be better than "idea", which is used in the next sentence.
  • "When Hoshino could start with the character's backstory, both Kanda and his best friend, Alma Karma's, designs were made to contrast each other, with Kanda retaining his feminine looks while Alma appeared more masculine." Unnecessarily wordy: you could simplify to "In the backstory the designs for Kanda and his best friend, Alma Karma, contrasted with each other, Kanda retaining his feminine looks while Alma was presented as more masculine".
  • "This was done in order to hide the fact that Karma is actually the reincarnation of the woman Kanda has been searching for". I'm confused. Earlier in this paragraph you say that this idea was "scrapped".
  • Why has Hoshino suddenly become "the author"? better to stick to the name.
  • The derivation of Kanda's name would be better placed at the beginning of the paragraph, rather than being stuck on the end as an afterthought. You could also clarify what you mean by "volume twenty" – of what? I don't see any previous mention of 20 volumes in the series.

More to follow. Ping me when you have responded to the above Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: thanks for the feedback. Tried doing everything you mentioned. The only that confuses me is that is that I was using "the author" to avoid repeating Hoshino's last name so many times.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tintor for the speedy responses. I'll work through these this weekend and report back. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Tried rewriting those sentences in the lead. Hope it looks better now.Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Removed some and reworded others. Thanks for editing the article too.Tintor2 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done with the above, and will proceed with my prose review for the remaining sections of the article. Please be patient as this may take me some time. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's just that I removed some details from his appearances section that might be minor.Tintor2 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lois Lane vs Mary Jane

[edit]

Oppose this seems to have a lot of issues. Many statements that could be challenged don't have obvious citations, and a lot of the citations are off-line in a foreign language, not really compatible with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. More to come. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese guidebooks were used since Viz Media never released them.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a FAC I would like to pre-emptively "request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page" Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You ask me to put a translation for every Japanese page where Hoshino talks about the character? Sounds like a lot of undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lois Lane vs Mary Jane: Still, a bit confused. The Japanese text is a lot add as well as the English translations. It would mean that every chapter cited in Appearances also needs quotation marks.Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By any chance it's this what you want? "<ref">Hoshino, Katsura (July 4, 2011). CharaGray! (in Japanese). Shueisha. p. 31. ISBN 978-4-08-870268-1. Hoshino: Guess his hair and eyes. Kanda is a person that "says things with his eyes". That's why I pay attention to his eyes in his battles. Also, I draw the highlights in his hair with more care than I do for the female Lenelee's</ref>
That's good, but I'd like the Japanese as well so your translations can be checked. That quote is number 8, right? It doesn't seem to support "believing that the latter indicate the character's mood" Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a question out of many of a single page. I think it will be really undue weight if we have to add every single quote (especially the Japanese one).Tintor2 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't write in Japanese, give me a bit of time until a fellow might write it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm taking these edits to indicate that the nominator would like to withdraw the nom, and will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2017 (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_2017&oldid=783200478"