Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2009

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:25, 30 November 2009 [1].

Nintendo DSi

[edit]
Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because......any legitimate issues brought up in the first nom were fixed in September. This article has been copyedited, researched, and otherwise nitpicked by some editors and its sources and prose have been run through the gauntlet. « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that one instance of Kotaku cannot be replaced for now. When it comes to retail DSi-exclusive games, nobody else seems to care enough about the subject to do their own research, so they just source Kotaku instead. « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

--an odd name 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PR is now closed. Most citations have a Firstname Surname format with the exception of interview citations since I see no author parameter available. :/ « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Used "lastn" for the full names. On a side note I saw Yui Ehara and thought of Yuri Ebihara...LOL. --an odd name 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - The images were checked at the last FAC - have they changed since then? Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No images were changed since then. « ₣M₣ » 15:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Dabs and links fine. What makes this reliable?

That about page pretty much sum up their POV, doesn't it? Its removed and formatting addressed. All or none? Opted for the former. « ₣M₣ » 07:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a, 1c/d
    • The prose is not up to stuff. Examples include poor use of semicolon ("The DSi has five brightness settings compared to the DS Lite's four, however battery life is reduced on all brightness levels;[26] such as 9–14 hours on the lowest brightness setting compared to the 15–19 hours of its predecessor."), sentences are often unclear ("The console has two larger TFT-LCD screens at 82.5 millimetres (3.25 in), instead of the former 76.2 millimetres (3.00 in), capable of displaying 260,000 colors" does not make it explicit to what the DSi is being compared to), et al. It needs a copyedit for more logical flow. I'm also concerned about the use of limited sources for generalized information and mixing of tenses in the reception section ("Most reviewers cited similar strengths and weaknesses of the cameras.", "Since this DS iteration adds new features while preserving a similar overall design and portability to its predecessor, many critics recommended the DSi to new consumers of its product family.")
    • The article is lagging behind in terms of reporting updated information. For example, sales figures are from late September and in literally twenty seconds of Google searches I found a plethora reliable sources that could add to the coverage. ex., [2][3][4]
    • Conversion templates are using BrEng, when the rest of the article is written in American English (WP:ENGVAR)
    • Why does Launch of the Nintendo DSi go to Nintendo DS launches? There's two paragraphs on the DSi, it can be covered in its own article; this page is not suffering from length issues.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:18, 29 November 2009 [5].

Seattle Sounders FC

[edit]
Nominator(s): SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently passed a very successful (active) peer review where many improvements were suggested and made. User:Cptnono, User:George, and myself have worked diligently to take action based on all feedback given in the review as well as making many other improvements. At this point we have exhausted all known resources that could resonably be added to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and that with the help of the WP:FAC reviewers we will hopefully be able to get the article to the status of featured article. SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. Restarting because this lengthy FAC turned into a line-by-line peer review. Sources, alt text, and images cleared by Rafablu88, Eubulides and Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I was copyediting this article and checking the sources to make sure some changes I was making wouldn't distort the meaning, I discovered that the language of the article was often extremely close or even exactly the same as the sources. Here is an analysis of what I found in the "Team name, badge and colors unveiled" section. Please read this dispatch and rewrite the article to remove any problems of this nature. The entire article will have to be checked, sentence-by-sentence. This is often best done away from FAC, very slowly.
  • Wikipedia: The badge design, loosely resembling a heraldic shield, consists of two layers representing the partnership between the ownership, the community, the players, and the fans.
  • Source: This design is loosely based on a heraldic shield, which helped identify combatants who were otherwise hidden by their armor. The Seattle Sounders FC badge was developed with two distinct layers to represent the partnership between the ownership, the community, the players and the fans.
  • Wikipedia: Despite the names having been selected by fan focus groups, internal committees, and fan suggestions, the lack of an option to continue the Seattle Sounders moniker was an unpopular decision.
  • Source: Team officials didn't confirm the names, but said the monikers fans will be able to choose from were decided through fan focus groups, internal committees and fan suggestions.
  • Wikipedia: In response to the reaction by the fans, the team added a fourth "write-in" option for the team name, leaving the door open to any suggestion.
  • Source: Tuesday, when Seattle FC, Seattle Alliance and Seattle Republic were officially announced as options on the ballot, a fourth write-in option was also included, leaving the door open for the Sounders name to transfer from the USL club to the MLS team.
  • Wikipedia: Of the 14,500 votes received for the new team name, 49% of the votes were a derivative of the name Sounders.
  • Source: Over 14,500 fans registered their vote during the four-day election. Approximately 50% of the voters submitted a write-in name, 49% of which included a derivative of the name Sounders.
  • Wikipedia: As part of the agreement, the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live brands are featured prominently on the front of Sounders FC's jerseys and throughout the stadium.
  • Source: The landmark deal is highlighted by the ‘Xbox 360 LIVE’ logo featured prominently on the Sounders FC jersey.

Please read the hints in the dispatch about how to avoid these problems in the future - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:18, 29 November 2009 [6].

Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)

[edit]
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first FAC, so gentle please. :) I've put together what I think is a very thorough and complete biography of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, a jeweler and director of the Dutch West India Company who founded the only successful patroonship in New Netherland. Going a lot by the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (a translated collection of primary documents and subsequent early-20th century discussion), along with info from the New York State Museum and other various sources, I've brought this article to GA status and expanded WP's knowledge of this important colonizer. I also think it's well illustrated; considering the guy died in the 1640s, I was able to secure some great photos and have svg copies of his merchant's mark and signature made. This person is important to the history of my local area. upstateNYer 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: The picture that illustrates the article is claimed (in the article) to be the Kiliaen van Rensselaer of the article, painted 100years after his death. This seems unlikely to me, since there were two later Kiliaen van Rensselaers that it could be, most probably the one who was born in the 1660s.
The picture is not "100 years after his death". The costume is consistent with the last decade of the 17th century, ie about 50-60 years after his death.
If the painting remained in a particular family for a length of time, it is quite possible that they knew the name of the person, but later generations presumed it to be the first and most famous man of that name, rather than a later one.
So the question is, who said that the painting represented this particular Kiliaen van Rensselaer? and did they really know? I would think that the fact that it was so obviously painted many years after his death negates the fact that it represents him.
If, on the other hand, the family commissioned an artist to paint an imaginary picture of a deceased ancestor, it is most unlikely that they would depict him in current costume, or show him as quite so youthful. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me think of the painting of Shakespeare that was done years after his death. The quote from the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (p. 32) states, "It would have been appropriate to add a portrait to this voluminous collection of writings of the first patroon, but unfortunately none is known to exist, that which is occasionally represented as his likeness being clearly of about a century later than the time of the patroon." The image itself, which if you go to the image page, shows the source of the image as well as the source for the preceding quote, is from the Schenectady Digital History Archive. The way I interpret the quote from the book is that the author didn't include this because it 'wasn't worth anything due to the date of its creation' or something, while I think it's still important as being an image commissioned to represent him by the family. As for his outfit, I could see the contemporary artist putting him in the elegant outfit of the artist's time or what he thought was appropriate for Kiliaen's time, no? upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I disagree with your interpretation. The writer here is telling you quite clearly "none is known to exist" and "the one ...occassionally represented as his likeness is clearly about a century later", in other words, too late to be him. It is most unlikely to be a picture commissioned later to represent a deceased family member. It is much more likely to be the man who was alive at that time and who had the same name. This is fairly obvious. The term "represented as" means that someone has said it is him, but they are not necessarily correct.
As for the painting of Shakespeare, the Chandos portrait, probably painted about six years before his death, has been the source for later images. Because Shakespeare is 'enormously famous there are statues of him all over the world, but all based on this portrait.Amandajm (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that there is any point in doing that. You have the statement that "none is known to exist". It needs to be made clear on the uploaded image that this is cannot be a portrait of the man, because of its date. Otherwise, you will invite someone who knows nothing about the history of costume and this discussion to insert it at a later date. Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course it should be removed! It is most unlikely to be the person the article is about. It is 60 years too late, and there was another man of the same name as patroon at the time the picture was painted. Amandajm (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is hard to imagine that even a portrait intended to represent a dead ancestor would not have given him a ruff etc. If it had that it might also be a copy of a lost original - there would be nothing unusual in that. By the way, KvR is exactly the sort of person one expect to have had one or more rather good portraits painted, but it/they or its identification has evidently been lost. Having this image can only mislead. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I'm not sure how I missed this, but the source that I have on the image page (under source, not description) does claim it's this Kiliaen and even points out who owned the painting in 1903 (Howard Van Rensselaer). Is there anything about this painting (maybe the style, or the clothes or something) that leads you to think that it is European (and not early European American), because this was the only patroon named Kiliaen that lived in Holland; the rest lived in New York. upstateNYer 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; confirmed by a curator at the Albany Institute of History and Art that the portrait is in their collection and is not the Dutch KVR. Bummer again. upstateNYer 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Welcome to FAC! I'll try to be gentle!
  • Okay, first thing... a large number of your references (including the first 8) lack a publisher and last access date. Everything needs publisher and last access dates. I'll come back and review after all the websites have that. Right now, you've got a large number of your citations that have outside links, so I assume they are to websites. SOme, though, appear to be to online scans of printed works, which would mean that you treat them as printed works and would italicise them and given the conventions you're using, use the last name of the author to refer to them, not the title unitalicised.
    • I find the best way to cite (since WP doesn't offer an option for ibid. or anything like that) is to use the References sections for footnotes, usually using the author's last name as the source, along with a link to the document, which usually comes from Google Books, as this one does. That means the link goes straight to the page you want. Then the bibliography section gives all the additional information, such as publisher, year, etc. So all my references should have the information stored globally in the Bib section, not the Ref section. And does a citation to a book at Google Books really require an accessdate? Technically, I could be looking at a hard copy on my end and offer a link out of convenience, that which I never actually access. Seems excessive. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We ask at FAC that the citation system be consistent. Either use the last name for the author ALL the time or the title of the work ALL the time. Right now, you've got some with last name and some with title, and that's not consistent.
  • I took the liberty of running the dash script over the article for you.
  • Also, what makes the 1888 Family genealogy book reliable? Most late Victorian family histories are ... iffy sources at best. Even if it's not fabricated (and a LARGE number were) it's quite likely to have been superceded by more recent works.
  • The same concerns on outdated sources for the Van Laer work from 1908.
  • And the same for the Spooner ref from 1907.
    • Hmm, well to be honest, I feel that the closer you are to the source, the more likely you are to have the primary sources to make verifiable claims. Many of the documents used in the general research of these works could very well have been destroyed in the 100 years since. The Van Laer work, which is known universally as the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts is the single best source for information on this person, being cited by almost any following work on the Van Rensselaer family. This is because it is a compilation of primary sources translated from old Dutch to English by an employee of the New York State Museum as a celebration of 300 years since Hudson discovered New York (1609). This is the closest anybody can (and most likely will) come to really knowing this man, since much of the document is made up of his correspondences, bills, receipts, etc. It also contains commentary which I think is probably coming from the historian that knew Kiliaen the best. I would claim that these sources are far from outdated since most of them are cited in future documents. Pretty much everything that is known about Kiliaen comes from two of the three sources you list, including the book The Van Rensselaers in Holland and in America (1956) which is currently out of print (and not worth $210). upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the only thing in your references that is recent is the History of New York State. Historiography has advanced quite a bit in the last 100 years, so I'd expect to see more recent works consulted. Here is a google scholar search that should help you get started.
    • Will take a look; in all honesty, I trust the older works more than those from current historians. Unless they're basing their work on primary sources, I don't see them as "more reliable" just because they're more recent. The NYSM has vast amounts of info on the history of Rensselaerswyck, but nobody to go through it; apparently they're busy elsewhere, which is reasonable. upstateNYer 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, also, since there have been no fewer that 6 other Kiliaen van Rensselaers in the family, simple name searches don't produce much, especially since one of the Kiliaens (which evolved into Killian) was a Congressman. I'll definitely have a look at the google scholar results, but I don't expect to find much on the correct man. It's sometimes very difficult to keep a pair of Kiliaens that were cousins (grandsons or great-grandsons of the first Kiliaen, I believe) straight, which is why this article in particular has been difficult to research. upstateNYer 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I noted that at least two of the articles were covering events in the correct lifespan for the subject of this article. I did not check much further than the first page. The second page has a couple of things that might be interesting and that are in the correct time frame also. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems:
Alt text discussion moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, I changed your done templates to little bolded dones, see the FAC instructions, templates are discouraged at FAC because too many templates on the page can cause the page to break. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. upstateNYer 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Other than the lead image, which is being discussed above, I believe I've fixed all the issue brought up. What's next? upstateNYer 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decline 1c (Original Research), 2c (Misrepresentation of items actually cited as another work: the work contained in). Nominator refuses to action actionable points. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I wish I could be more tender with you on this point, but archival research and production of material from primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to length material has been moved to talk. 2c issues are primarily resolved, though Fifelfoo would prefer that VRBM chapters be indicated due to the mixed primary / secondary nature of the text. 1c issues with what Fifelfoo describes as primaries are unresolved, with Fifelfoo and the nominator presenting arguments on both sides which are fully explained at talk. (the nominator is free to amend this characterisation of the talk contents). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:57, 28 November 2009 [7].

HDMI

[edit]
Nominator(s): GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a notable subject in the consumer electronics world since there are over 600 million HDMI devices. The article covers the history, technical specifications, and revisions of HDMI along with the relationships that it has with other devices. The article was listed as a good article over a year ago. Any comments would be appreciated. GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide alt text to images per WP:ALT.
  • Several web-links are dead (click "external links" in the Toolbox on the right);
  • urls are missing in refs. 92, 100
  • "Overreferencing". A representative example is section "CEC" where 9 links are bundled only to support the brand names. Some of them are incomplete (see above); clicking some others leads to a page of questionable validity (promotional page).
  • I am not happy with the prose. Examples are excessive capitalization (I understand there are many proper names there, but not all are such) and use of slash and brackets. I believe abbreviation "CE" is unnecessary, especially given the large number of other abbreviations.
I have added alt text to all images, I believe that all of the reference links are now correct, have tried to cut down on the number of references in CEC trade name sentence, and have changed all CE abbreviations to consumer electronics. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have reduced the number of references in CEC trade name sentence to the minimum possible while still having all trade names referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added information to those references that were missing information. For the following articles I will comment on whether I consider them to be reliable:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2254162,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
Reliable, ExtremeTech is done by the same people behind PCMag.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html
Reliable, the home theater magazine launched in 1994.
Current ref 34 (Jeff Su) lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
Removed, the author of the article works as a HDMI product development manager but it was hard to tell who was the website publisher.
http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/202803907
Reliable, website is owned by United Business Media who also owns the EETimes website.
http://www.elitelex.com/HDMIConnectors.html
Replaced, website sold HDMI products but had few articles on HDMI.
Current ref 55 (Ultra-smal...) lacks a publisher and last access date, and what makes this a reliable source?
Reliable, Nikkei is huge media company in Japan.
http://www.twice.com/article/238949-Retailer_Requires_Simplay_HDMI_Testing.php
Reliable, a business magazine.
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the information in that magazine interview came from the Vice President of Marketing for HDMI Licensing.
http://www.cepro.com/
Reliable, a trade magazine that was launched back in 1994.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Reliable, a website that stores technical articles and has the best SPDIF article I could find.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, gaming website that covers issues related to Linux.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, a gaming website that did the first article I know of on HDCP computer monitors. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some, but on the others, still need more information to show reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looked into the publisher information for those references:
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the online magazine was established in 1996 and is an official Google news source.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Removed, I couldn't find information on the publisher.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by Phoronix Media and was started in 2004.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by FS Media and was started in 1998. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section in the article on HDCP and a link to the main HDCP article. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose largely on 1a (prose is not engaging) and 1b (doesn't comprehensively include 1.4 or a variety of devices beyond PC and Blue-ray). The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why. For example, the reviewer above asked about DRM (Digital Rights Management). Yes the article mentions HDCP but the reader would have a hard time guessing what it is, how it works, who wanted it in the spec and why, etc.

Take the second sentence. This gives me a list of seven analogue cable formats. Why do I need to know them at this point in the article? The statement "It represents a digital alternative to" is very weak (in what way does it "represent" rather than just "is"). Compare what the HDMI folk say: "HDMI is the global standard for connecting high-definition Consumer Electronics and PC products." Change the "the" to "a" to downgrade the advert-speak and you've got a sentence that explains in laymans terms what HDMI is about. Another example is the "(such as the PlayStation 3 and some models of Xbox 360)" comment. Way too much information; saying "video games consoles" was just fine for the lead.

"The HDMI Founders began development on HDMI 1.0 on April 16, 2002" Why is "Founders" capitalised"? That day was simply the date of some press announcement. The exact day that HDMI began development isn't really important and probably unknown.

"At the time, DVI-HDCP (DVI with HDCP) and DVI-HDTV (DVI-HDCP using the CEA-861-B video standard) were being used on HDTVs." You've lost most general readers by this stage. The reader probably doesn't even know what DVI is/was and almost certainly won't know what HDCP is. And I can guarantee they won't have heard of the "CEA-861-B video standard" much less care about it.

As mentioned in earlier comments, overciting is a problem. For example, "HDMI began to appear on consumer HDTV camcorders and digital still cameras in 2006." has five references. There are at most two facts in that sentence so I'd expect two sources at most. The first source contains all that is needed to prove the first digital still camera with HDMI was launched in 2006. The next two aren't needed. The last two fail to prove (as far as I can tell) that Canon's camcorder was the first with HDMI. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources (which would contain a statement similar to the one in our article) rather than editors researching the primary literature (product reviews, manufacturer spec sheets) to collate facts.

I think it would help to have a single bullet-point full citation for the HDMI spec. Then each fact that you are drawing from that source could have a shortened footnote "HDMI Specification 1.3a Section 5.2.3.2". For the cases where you need to draw from multiple sections or pages, don't include multiple citations in the body text. Rather, have a footnote that mentions the multiple sections or pages.

For "applications", the article only mentions Blu-ray disc players and personal computers. What about cameras, camcorders, games consoles, set-top-boxes, home-theatre PCs, smart phones. The PC section is far too long, detailed and contains material that isn't really about HDMI but about individual hardware components or software packages. Why do people want HDMI on their PC? Why do they need feature X of HDMI 1.3 on their PC? I don't care what the "ATI Radeon HD 5870" graphics card can do any more than I want to open up my camera to see what chipset was used to control its HDMI connecter. Is there a specifc game or type of game that needs these features? Is there a professional need for the extra colour capabilities for artists or designers? Is there a minimum that I need to play Blu-ray discs on my PC? The rise of the Home Theatre PC isn't mentioned and is surely important (connecting computer equipment to consumer televisions).

Lastly, this article seems to be mostly built around the 1.3 specification, which has now been superseded by 1.4. For example, there is a new Type E connector that is locking, making it suitable for internal automotive connections. The new Ethernet and audio-return channels and 3D support aren't covered in any depth. I appreciate that 1.4 is new and has little product-support yet.

I think the article needs a fairly radical overhaul to make it an engaging read and focus more on getting the point across rather than bare facts. Too much to achieve during FAC IMO. Previous peer reviews have made comments on the over technical nature of the prose. Perhaps you could establish a dialogue with a non-technical collaborator and use them to help revise the prose. Have a look at the aimed-at-consumer literature and see how manufacturers attempt to explain "Deep color" and other jargon to their customers. Be ruthless when trimming those highly technical facts. Perhaps try re-writing a section in completely non-technical language with no acronymns and then force yourself to justify adding in each technical bit. If you really love and don't want to lose the technical information you have collected, consider creating daughter articles on HDMI versions or PC support for HDMI, etc. Colin°Talk 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:10, 28 November 2009 [8].

Hawaii hotspot

[edit]
Conominators: ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) and ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is no small article. Coorespondingly, this is no small project! But I do think that it's ready to go through FAC. ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fairly complete to me. Although I did not see any response to my previous issues: skipping from Ancient myths to 1880, no mention of Māhukona? I have done research on history but am not a geologist, so maybe all the explorations such as Charles Wilkes, Menzies, and authors such as Titus Coan etc. are not geologically interesting? Anyway there are links to them on the individual volcano articles, and this seems long enough to cover the topic well enough. There are a bunch of red links, that might not be evr filled in if the targets are not otherwise notable. Ah, should the red link to Journal of Science be instead American Journal of Science which does have an article, and even mentions Dana? Yes, I vote promote it. W Nowicki (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks done. Um, do you mean that the article should mention Māhukona...? And what do you mean by geologically interesting? be a little more clear and I will fix :) ResMar 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I do not know enough geology to understand if your not mentioning Māhukona in your table is a mistake or intentional. Isn't it one of the hostspot volcanoes? Why is it not mentioned? Note it has an article, as opposed to the East and West Molokaʻi, so someone thought it was notable.

haha, that's embarrasing. Fixed. ResMar 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the James Dwight Dana wikilink I see he was on the Wilkes Expedition! but that was not in 1880, but 1840-1841? It was just published later. Right? Mauna Loa#Wilkes expedition discusses. W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, where is this? I see both links but it doesn't mention him in either as far as I can see; am I missing it? ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my point was that you should probably add a link to James Dwight Dana from each of those other articles. In the James Dwight Dana article it should link to Hawaii hotspot, and talk about him visiting in 1840-1841. At least that is the way I like to work, complete the "web of knowledge" and it improves Wikipedia as a whole. As for this article here, if James Dwight Dana was on the 1840 expedition, then the wording that says "In 1880 and 1881, James Dwight Dana directed the earliest geological study..." is misleading. Mention the 1840 visit here? Or something like "After a brief visit in 1840 on the United States Exploring Expedition, he began a more in-depth study..." or whatever, if he really was on the visit. W Nowicki (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, its called History of study, not a history of Dana, so... As for the in-article links, sure I can do that. ResMar 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption says "Sir James Dwight Dana" probably the "Sir" shold be removed? He was American, not British? No mention of a Knighthod either. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but ref 1's first PDF link is dead.
Ouch. Fixed. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; no dead external links now. --an odd name (help honey) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dates look good. --an odd name (help honey) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name (help honey) 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this article definitely deserves to be a featured article. It is very in-depth, refined, and is written like an encyclopedia. Kevinmon•talk•trib 07:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The writing is ok, but I found things to improve at the top, suggesting independent eyes are needed.

  • "While most volcanic activity occurs along the boundaries of tectonic plates, hotspots can occur far from any boundary, and require different mechanisms for maintaining volcanic activity." Perhaps "a" instead of "any". Different mechanisms for each hotspot, or the difference is between the mechs of hotspots and non-hotspot volc. activity? Pesky, isn't it.
Well, I clarified how volcanoes on the boundary work, and added "geological" to boundaries. I'm not sure if "a" is better then "any", though, because I kinda want to stress how singled-out hotspots (in general, but Hawaii too) are as compared to the geological settings around it. "...far from a geological boundary" to me sounds like it's just one thing, not many. Not sure how to denote "in general" in the sentance though. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More than 123 ... Could we have commas instead of semicolons?
Done. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pipe "heavily eroded", to the article "erosion". Is this a dictionary term? Is such a broad article target useful?
Done. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 35 km" ... so it moves from time to time (serious question, not being sarcastic), or can we just say 35?
Well, firstly, yes the hotspot does in fact move. Secondly, they know only the rough location of the hotspot because it's a bit vauge. How do you find the exact location of a heat bump? So I think "about" belongs there. ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parallelism not treated as such: "This chain includes the Hawaiian Ridge, consisting of the islands of the Hawaiian chain northwest to Kure Atoll, and the Emperor seamounts (a linear region of islands, seamounts, atolls, shallows, banks, and reefs along a line trending southeast to northwest beneath the northern Pacific Ocean)." Parentheses versus commas.
Done. ResMar 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rm comma after "old".
Fixed. ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, which one, there are two "chain" type images. The diagram of the trends or the one illustrating movement? ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Severe 2c issues leading to necessary 1c issues (unverifiability of research). MOS doesn't give you a loophole, the cites are internally inconsistent, and don't provide for verification of research (1c) at the moment. I have extended an offer to fix the citations in the article to a common style to the nominator, and the nominator is welcome to take the offer up at any time during the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Unresolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Fif told me he'll handle it for me. Awfully nice :) ...ResMar 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supports

Apart from a few references fixes, I would have to say support as being the creator of this article. The article has transformed greatly since I created the page, and its contributors have done hard work adding more information, sections, images and references. However, I have not been one of the major contributors of any Hawaiian volcanism articles because I have been busy working on Canadian volcanism articles for quite a while due to the lack of contributions. BT (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[9] It's an online learning program for college people. Um it says at the bottom of the link "The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302)" Does that make it accurate? ResMar 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[10] Ok, it says "Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects." I'll try and see if I can't find it on the .gov network. ResMar 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! I'm wondering if I could use its handle instead because the handle has the abstract, and that's all I need for the article. ResMar 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, he told me yes on his talk page, so I've replaced stormingmedia with the report's handle on the Defense Technical Information Center network. Done! ResMar 13:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, Ealdgyth's a "she". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, and I can't find a substitute; gonna have to remove it...ResMar 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Space Encyclopedia is catagorized at World Cat as a juvenile encyclopedia. Surely we can find an adult encyclopedia at least?
Hehe, well I'm sorry I ended up having to use my childhood encyclopedia :P ResMar 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted SDSU, NYU, but there may be others.
I've gone through the refs again and I think I have it. See any more? (well besides the K### thing at the end, that's a channel in California and refers to itself only by that name). ResMar 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 51 ("The Horn of Africa". On the Volcanoes of the World. Science Channel. 2009-06-06) is this a TV show? If so, you need to give a bit more information in order to make it clear to readers
I added |work=Tv show to it. ope that makes it clear. ResMar 13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: still no mention in the article if Dana was on the historic Mauna Loa ascent in 1840-41 or not? If he was, probably deserves a mention, right? It was quite a project, with Wilkes hiring hundreds of men to haul all sorts of equipment to the top. The site is on NRHP. Wilkes a talks about measuring gravity with a pendulum, however, not if there was anything scientifically valuable discovered about the voncanic activity. W Nowicki (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring you, I got tied up first with the refs, now with reliabilty. I'll get to it :) ResMar 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, give me a WP:RS source and I'll add it to the article. ResMar 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the dash bot on it. I see & (see MoS)
Cool, there's a dash bot? Where can I get the code? Looks useful. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which wrecked on the reef"—were wrecked?
I think someone got to it already, because I can't find it. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pics are tiny; have you upsized any based on the amount of detail and other criteria? The blue/green map is just one example. I'm squinting. The glowing lava flow is largely wasted at that tiny size; so are the "tears".
Prose looks ok. Tony (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has many excellent images. Too bad they all have to be thumb size according to regulations. I can up the size of a few, but not all; which ones do you want? It originally was like that, actually; I had a stack of 400px images before it was removed. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGES says that image sizes can be forced in certain cases; see bullet 8. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ok, if everyone's for it I'll go and upsize the images. Hehe, I was really sad when we had to downsize to meet thumb requirments (that apparently can be forced through...). ResMar 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, I hate thumb size. If you have an image and you can show it at higher size, do it! The thumb-sized images are really small and you can't see detail on them :( I've upped two of the lava pix, the chart, and the lava stalagtites. Good? ResMar 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The no forced size rule is there for a reason, you can easily enlarge images using your preferences. Some people have larger screens which would easily handle huge thumbnails, while people with smaller screens need smaller thumbs to avoid overcrowding the screen. The default setting is a happy medium which looks best on the largest variety of screens. Many of the images are already enlarged to the maximum recommended size, and honestly... if you want to see more detail you only have to click on the photo to see the full size. Secondly, forcing sizes smaller than 300px will actually make the photos appear smaller for those people who have their prefs set for 300px, which is the opposite effect you are trying to achieve by forcing the image size. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the previous comment re the inadvisability of setting thumbnail sizes between 180px and 300px. To work around that problem, please use "|upright=1.2|" rather than "|220px|". Also agree that one should not overdo upsizing; the default sizes are normally what readers prefer (though not always, of course). Eubulides (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but there are a few problems:

Gee, that really illustrates how interprative the guideline is, considering how the guy before you said that the alts are "Fine". ResMar 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main photo gets a long description, second one is See adjacent text because I think the caption describes it adequatly. ResMar 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the caption isn't adequate, because it merely says "historic lava flows can be seen in black", giving the blind reader no clue as to where these flows are (something that really stands out to the sighted reader). I suggest saying that the northeast quarter of the island, the northern and southwest coasts, and a central ridge, are all black. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. ResMar 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text for File:WorldCrustalAge - Hawaii hotspot.png should mention the overall pattern of older crust in the eastern Pacific and younger in the western, which is obvious to the sighted reader but not to the visually impaired.
Done exactly as you said. I wish you would stop being so politically correct with all the visually impaired nonsense. Just say blind. Sheesh :D Sounds like you're calling the fat American lady "veluptious." ResMar 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most visually impaired people are not blind, but OK, I'll call them blind in future comments here. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please omit phrases like "Drawing of" (it's not a drawing, anyway), "Photo of" (eight times), "Picture of", "Painting showing" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omited. ResMar 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's still one "Photo of" and one "Picture of", and now there's a new "A depiction of". These phrases all convey essentially zero useful information, and should all be removed so as not to waste a blind reader's time. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Closed? Why? It's still going! IT'S NOT MY FAULT HALF THE PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED HAVEN'T RESPONDED DESPITE MESSAGING!
For now I'm simply going to ignore the close. It is unjust and unright. Going ahead with everything as normal. ResMar 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:10, 28 November 2009 [11].

Maryland Toleration Act

[edit]
Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article's come a long way, with good reviews at both GAN and PR, and a thorough copyedit by the peer reviewer. I know there's gotta be some problem with the refs, despite my checking repeatedly, since I never get them quite right, but think it's ready to be picked apart at FA. Thanks in advance for your reviews. Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1b,c,2c: There appears to be an extensive untapped literature, of which the literature used here is not adequately representative, and where major features of the topic are not currently discussed. Referenced material producing facts and analysis has not been correctly cited (by author admission). 1d: Despite the hundred of years, there is a failure to adequately deal with anti-papist and anti-dissent opinion forming; Toleration is portrayed in a modern manner inappropriate to the subject matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Comment Extensive sourcing issues unaddressed by author prior to FAC. (2c, citation consistency)[reply]
Date consistency: "December 1957" in the article, the December is an issue name, not a date. Generally dates are inconistent September 21, 1649 (Old or New style?) yet, "Retrieved 2009-11-13"
  • I've changed the dates in the refs so they are consistent with the date formatting in the article. Have tried to deal with the issue name / date issue, but not confident of the result, so let me know if that is what it should look like. Unfortunately, the sources that I used for the date are not clear about whether the date is old style or has been converted. Any ideas on how to deal with that? Geraldk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using publisher locations, all publishers must be located.
Encyclopedia articles must be signed by experts to be high quality reliable sources, you don't name the article in the encyclopedia or the articles author. Treat for citation as if a chapter in a book. Finkelman, Paul (2006). The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. ISBN 0415943426.
  • The article is written by Finkelman, who also edited the encyclopedia. I've added the title of the entry, but am I correct in assuming I don't need to include his name twice? Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a Scholar publishing in a non-scholarly mode (its too short, even for law). Pursue the material you would cite from there through Finkleman's references. Also its pp975-6 in the Books edition you cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you indicate the publisher of one journal, you need to do it for all of them (Church History versus Constitutional Comment)
Can you please cite US law correctly? "Maryland Toleration Act". Yale University Avalon Project. 1649. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
1c commentary
You are reliant on Finkleman. Failure to indicate that this is a high quality source will not be good for your 1c status.
  • I rely on Finkelman largely because his presentation is compact, but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer. I do believe Finkelman is reliable, he is a professor who specializes in American legal history at the Albany Law School, website here. Geraldk (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's basically a 1c failure right there, "but could add additional in-line citations to other sources I've used which make the same points if you prefer." Please ping me when you've written the article to FAC standard? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled by your response. Not just the unwarranted rudeness, but the suggestion for some reason that because other sources have the same information, but I've chosen to use a source that is both accessible to readers and reliable rather than listing in-line cites for offline sources somehow weakens the article. Do you have a substantive concern about the reliability of the source? Geraldk (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The encyclopedia article you're citing is not, in my mind, a "High Quality Reliable Source." Its a signed Tertiary by an expert, but it is well under the expected word count for HQRS in legal history. It may be Reliable in a strict sense, but it is so emaciated an account that it certainly isn't HQRS (the fact that the tertiary is smaller than this article is of concern, it appears as though we've expanded upon Finkleman). That you've channelled verifiability into a single source due to access issues is not commendable, it removes the actual verification process. A courtesy link is a courtesy, it doesn't carry the weight of the verification. It is fine to cite a single fact with multiple verifying items. Your expression also creates a deep sense of doubt in my mind, which is developed by the 1b/d issues over anti-Catholicism, and sustained by comparing the 1b/c material gathered against a rapid search of the literature. The Maryland Toleration Act has obviously been a focus of significant scholarly attention. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation please, "the Enlightenment, which is generally considered to be when the idea of religious freedom took root"
1c / 1b commentary
Hostile and negative receptions of the law are dismissed and understated. The political/economic elements of anti-Toleration in the United Kingdom and specifically the American colonies are inadequately contextualised. The text presents a naive Whig theory of history which I'm unsure originates in Finkleman or American (legal history) triumphalism.
  • Yeah, sorry, this comment's a little above my head. You mind breaking down 'naive Whig theory of history' so I can better understand what you are getting at? If your concern is that the article's treatment of how the law's being an early example of religious 'tolerance' contrasts with its exclusion of non-Christians is not balanced, then I can certainly reword. Also, what do you mean by the political/economic elements of anti-Toleration? What are you looking for me to include in that area? Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People hated the law at the time. Protestants repealed it instantly, and repeatedly. The concerns and politics of British repression of catholics and dissent isn't contextualised. The anti-Catholic anti-dissent views are brushed over entirely, and viewed from an anachronistically modern context. The Whig theory of history is an analysis of (predominantly) legally focused institutional histories generated which view the secular anglo-american state as the perfection of mankind and the epitome of civilisation, and reflects on all things leading towards this blessed state in terms of its promotion or hinderance of Whiggery. Basically, its explaining the past in terms of how it creates the present. This article projects contemporary ideas backwards onto the concept of religious tolerance in the 17th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, OK, I think I understand you to say that the article judges the law within the idea (right or wrong) that it was one further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution. That was certainly not intentional. Will go back to the sources tonight, although as I recall they did not go into much depth about the Protestant opinion of the law at the time aside from saying that as soon as they had an opportunity, Protestants repealed it. The larger background of British repression of Catholics will take the identification of new sources, and may take a day or two to complete properly. And I suppose some scrubbing of language is in order. Thanks for the clarification. Geraldk (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does come across as very much addressing whether or not this legislation was a "further step towards a perfect state of religious tolerance as embodied in the Constitution." Readers will be interested in that, but we should provide them with raw materials rather than a conclusion. (If you can't find materials on Maryland, general comments on seventeenth century toleration should be found in discussions of Independency and of the 1689 English Act of Toleration.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Yet
    • This law was passed September 21, 1649. How, then, is its repeal of 1654 seven years later?
    • More importantly, this is eight months after the execution of Charles I, four years after the outlawry of the Book of Common Prayer. There is very little sense of this context, and the implication that the Civil War began in 1652 is nonsense.
    • By the same token, the claim that the parliamentary commissioner Claiborne was a staunch advocate for the Anglican Church is most unlikely.
    • It seems almost equally unlikely (although more technical) that (in 1651) he was appointed by Cromwell in person; Cromwell spent most of that year in Scotland.
    • A rebellion of Catholics overthrew Calvert in 1688? Is this vandalism? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3

These issues should be able to be fixed quickly and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:04, 27 November 2009 [12].

Supernatural (season 2)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ωphois 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the standards of a featured article. Ωphois 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, I can see a lot of work has gone into this contribution but the prose is appallingly bad. There are problems everywhere—too numerous to list here. The whole article requires a thorough copy-edit. I suggest that this candidate should be withdrawn, taken to peer-review, and a good copy-editor recruited. It does not meet the standards of a featured article, sorry. Graham Colm Talk 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few examples so I know what you are referring to? Ωphois 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the Lead alone, lack of parallel structure, "During their travels they use their father's journal to help them carry on the family business, saving people and hunting supernatural creatures." I have not seen this TV series, but to me this should read, "to save" and "to hunt". But there are too many problems to list here—if I list a few more, there will be a temptation to fix only the ones listed. There is much redundancy throughout the article and a lack of logical flow in many parts. I know I have just ruined your day, but this is nothing personal. Let's see what other reviewers have to say on this and if I am wrong then I will retract. Graham Colm Talk 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: The family business is "saving people and hunting things". The sentence is not a series. The comma is used for a parenthetical phrase. Anyways, I'm fine with that, though I would like to know what you find as redundant.Ωphois 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those "in order to"s for a start, [13]. Graham Colm Talk 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I fixed the redundancies I could find, and fixed some stuff in the writing section. Ωphois 02:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Good shape overall, I have to say, I thoroughly disagree with previous comments describing the prose as "appalling"—it needs some touch ups, that's all, it's not like it's complete and utterly terrible. Here's some comments:
  • In the lead, the info about the change to The CW could be improved a bit. Explain how it used to be on the WB.
  • In the description for "Playthings," fix the broken link to Matreya Fedor
  • In "Writing," explain a bit of the "usual format" used in season 1, as explained in the quote.
  • Also in "Writing:" "Some storylines originated from ideas that writers could not[...]" -> "[...]ideas that the writers[...]"
  • No source for almost the entire last paragraph in "Music."
  • iF Magazine is actually not the same as If (magazine), so please delink in "Reception."
That's all. Nice work again. :) The Flash {talk} 05:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, but I have to agree with Graham. Here's a sampling of sentences from one random paragraph, I would defy anyone to claim that this approaches criteria 1a: " its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Sasata (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The vampire episode "Bloodlust" came out of the writers wanting to make an episode in which characters questioned if the monsters should be killed."
  • "Cathryn Humphris pitched a story with a ghost as a death omen, trying to warn people rather than kill as usual ghosts do, and this evolved into "The Usual Suspects"."
  • "Kripke noted a part of the episode in which brothers are arrested and tell police what had happened, and it became the framework of the episode, starting the plot off with Sam and Dean being taken into custody."
  • "The original concept for "Tall Tales" was a "he said, he said" episode, where the brothers tell their own accounts of the storyline."
  • "Unlike other episodes, the writers did not put their own spin on trickster lore, keeping the "deadly sense of humor" and decision to go after the "high and mighty to bring them down a notch"."
Okay. I'd I'll submit it for peer-review. I'd like to request that the nomination be removed. Ωphois 10:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:00, 24 November 2009 [14].

Ralph Bakshi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline: Date consistency, citing chapters in books without separate chapter authors, provision of appropriate bibliographic information for a text (2c). 2c citation consistency Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The chapters cited were written by the authors of the book. In the cases in which this is not true, the editors' names are provided, as well as the authors of the chapters. There is no citation inconsistency. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Could you supply a volume and issue number, if such exist. Supplying an article title, and indicating Staff author, [Staff author] (for no byline, or the byline ^ Television/radio Age. Television Editorial Corp. 1969. p. 13.
No, I cannot. Found the citation on Google Books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is unacceptable. I suggest using Worldcat to find full bibliographic information on the edition you cite.
This particular book does not appear on Woldcat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Does Variety not credit authors in the 1970s? ^ "Fritz the Cat". Variety. 1972. Retrieved 2009-08-13.
The Variety website does not credit any author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Date inconsistency, 3 styles used: eg, "^ Canby, Vincent (October 1, 1982). "Bakshi's 'Good Lookin'". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-13." and "^ King, Susan (April 24, 2005). "Bakshi's game of cat and mouse; He took heat when he addressed adult themes in animation, a realm thought to belong to kids. Now it's kudos.". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2009." and "^ Gibson, John M.; McDonnell, Chris (April 1, 2008). Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe. ISBN 0789316846." pick one style and stick with it throughout.
I'm not sure where there is a problem, as the style is automatically generated by the cite templates. Could you look at how the templates are formatted to see if you can fix it yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is unacceptable. Its an actionable consistency complaint, and readily rectified by human editing, the fact that there are two retrieval date styles indicates that human beings manually entered retrieval date data at least once. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the styles consistently reflect the formatting guidelines for each type of citation (book, newspaper). If you honestly feel that there really is a problem, fix it yourself. If you cannot fix the "problem", there is no problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I believe I have addressed this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dabomb87! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chapters in edited collections generally also indicate the book editor, as the books are indexed under book editors, "^ a b c d Grant, John (2001). "Ralph Bakshi". Masters of Animation. Watson-Guptill. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0823030415."
In most cases, there is only one author for each of the books. In instances where multiple authors contributed to a book, I've tried to credit the editors where possible, although I was not able to find the names for every book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
If a book does not have specifically authored chapters (ie, "Chapter 3: Dancing under the stars. Rosa Luxemburg"), you cite the book, not the chapter. If chapters are specifically authored you cite the chapter as the item, as such, Luxemburg, Rosa (1915). "Dancing under the stars." The Big Book of Dancing Marxists, Engels, Frederick (ed.) Place: Publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the book citations are formatted correctly. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Where authors of chapters are also authors of the book, it is uncommon to cite chapters specifically. You seem to do it consistently, is this a style matter? see also "^ a b Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008). "Ups & Downs". Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe Publishing. pp. 210-211. ISBN 0789316846."
Cleaned up these cites. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Guardian often names its authors, did they not name an author for this work? ^ "Who flamed Roger Rabbit?". The Guardian. August 11, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
Must have been removed by a copyeditor by mistake. I restored it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Chapter in a larger work, quotation within a title? Title quotations if on a single line generally end with a comma, not a full-stop (US English: period). ^ Beck, Jerry (2005). "Cool World". The Animated Movie Guide. Chicago Review Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781556525919.
Chapter headers are presented as they appear in the book. Please explain the exact problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See above about correct citation of Authored books without specifically authored chapters. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Author? Staff? [Staff]? Volume, Issue, Page numbers if released on paper? ^ "Main Street Pictures Teams Up With Top Hollywood Creators". Animation World. September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
Fixed citation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Nominator's claim that "the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC" is false, blatantly so. Here are two issues that were raised not just once, but multiple times during the previous FAC, which have not been addressed in any way. I can repeat my text virtually verbatim from that last FAC:

  • A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, four contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this.
    • All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion, and everything that could be found is in the article. You may believe that it is not "balanced", but the fact is that the cited opinions of the films do reflect opinions from the release of the films. Jerry Beck wrote the reviews of these films when they were released, and they appeared in various animation journals. The reviews in his book, I would assume, more or less, reflect the same opinions. I believe that the overall presentation is balanced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • "All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion": this is patently false. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is not false. It is 100% true. It is completely lazy to not look at the article and make an opinion based on the fact that I'm saying it. If fifty people tell you that I am correct, are they wrong? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • Contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic are quoted from Newsweek, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times. Contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted from Playboy, The New York Times, Variety, and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted from Newsday, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and New York. It is patently false to claim that not even one of these publications, nor any of the hundreds of other newspapers and general-interest magazines around the country reviewed Wizards, or American Pop, or Fire and Ice. Talk about lazy. DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are no reviews of Fire and Ice on Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews presented for that film are the best I could find. I added a couple of additional reviews for Wizards and American Pop. Fire and Ice had an extremely limited release. The Beck commentary was the best I could find. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question?
    • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Please explain via a detailed description of your sources, why you chose to "clip" Bakshi's quote--"We were trying something different [...] but a series didn't make sense. It just didn't work"--rather than, say, "clip" the claim that the Wildmon controversy led the project to be "abandoned", or continue to provide both statements while explaining how they were either equal factors or how the explanation for the abandonment is unresolved.
      • Also, despite your "clip", this passage remains confusing and unclear. The change in title from Junktown to Christmas in Tattertown is introduced as if it was an unremarkable decision; then, two paragraphs later, after reading about the Wildmon controversy, we encounter the claim that the controversy led to the renaming. This is very poor structure. Please consolidate the discussion of Christmas in Tattertown into one paragraph or rewrite the section to be much clearer about the chronology. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewrote. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • And yet, confusion remains. The first passage now reads: "The same year, he began production on a series pilot loosely adapted from his Junktown comic strips. According to Bakshi, 'Tattertown was going to be a revitalization of cartoon style from the '20s and '30s. It was gonna have Duke Ellington and Fats Waller jazzing up the soundtrack.' Nickelodeon was initially willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown." Do you see the problem? What was the title of the planned Nickelodeon series intended to be--Junktown or Tattertown? Also, you have yet to explain your rationale for deleting Bakshi's comment that the series concept "just didn't work". DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I raised these issues in the last FAC, I reiterated them there when they were not addressed after a week, and Steve in his reviews also indicated that they were significant concerns. In the interim, nothing has been done to address these concerns.

  • In addition, it seems clear that virtually nothing has been done to address the overreliance on one source, Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, that Steve addressed--again, repeatedly--in the last FAC. As Steve took the lead on that issue before, I hope he'll return here and give us his sense of whether there's been any progress or not. DocKino (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfiltered is used largely in sourcing biographical information which cannot be better sourced elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with the book. It's the only biography to focus entirely on Bakshi's work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • As Steve, Ottava Rima, and mattisse detailed in the last FAC, this is not a standard biography and is perhaps better described as a tribute volume. Steve also noted that a review of the book in the Los Angles Times, described it as "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia". The L.A. Times reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Despite all this, none of us argued that the book should not be used as a reference, simply that a greater effort needs to be made to access additional sources to ensure that a balanced view of Bakshi's career has been provided. There is little evidence that any such effort has been undertaken. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I previously stated, the book is used primarily to source biographical information, not to state an opinion of Bakshi's works. Anyone who took a look at the article could tell that the book is being used in a neutral manner. Additionally, the book is, in fact, a standard biography, not a tribute volume, and Solomon is incorrect in describing the book as vanity or apologia. Many sources are used within the article to create the overall body. It's not a repeat of information stated in Unfiltered. And it's not "sloppily written". Don't take a California writer's opinion of a book about a New Yorker. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ibaranoff, this article is approaching a record number of FACs. Unless you can quickly address these recurring issues, I feel obligated to archive this FAC and ask that you not re-submit it until you have gotten permission from Raul, Karanacs or me. I'll give it a few days to see how this evolves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly, there are no further issues that need to be addressed. DocKino is clearly nitpicking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Being the editor who originally raised the issue of too many references coming from the primary source,[15] that is Unfiltered co edited by Ralph Bakshi, I still count something like 110 references to Unfiltered in the footnotes section. I personally think that is too many. But it is up to you all. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The footnotes are presented this way in order to clarify which sections of the book are being cited, because it's a large book with many sections of art, and reviewers have found it difficult to find the pages cited based on the previous order. Again, the book is used primarily to cite biographical information. As the only book to cover Bakshi's life and work, it's necessary for it to play so heavily in researching a biography of Ralph Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • You mention above that Fire and Ice had an "extremely limited release", but this is not made clear in the article. Please add what you can about the circumstances of the film's release.
  • I just read through the entire article and feel that it's in quite strong shape. The reliance on Unfiltered gives it at times a somewhat more personal tone than we might expect if sources more distant from Bakshi were referenced, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. I don't feel the article reads like a hagiography--the inclusion of negative reviews of the films where appropriate certainly contributes to an overall sense of balance. Mattisse has weighed in, above. I'll contact Steve and Ottava Rima to see if they're interested in returning for another look. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. The first thing that needs to be said is that this is a strong article, and has been for at least the last few nominations. The issues that let it down during previous FACs have mostly been minor in the scheme of things; they could and should have been resolved long before now. Instead of bringing this back with few changes between nominations, I would have liked to have seen some of the time since August being spent on thoroughly researching offline contemporary sources of comment on Bakshi's films and periods of his life. The only new sources are reviews from The Chicago Reader and The New York Times, plus the Ocala Star-Banner article I found during the last nomination. That's a good start, but each of these is available online, which makes me think that there may be more out there if the attempt is made to find them. Even the Star-Banner article hasn’t had its full scope utilised—it's a reasonably large profile piece on Bakshi and yet is used to source just the one line that Fire and Ice "was given a limited release and was financially unsuccessful". What about Bakshi's views of the animation industry, analyses and perceptions of his work by himself, critics and the public; what about about his rescinded pledge to abandon animation for live action because of the difficulties he faced? This is just one profile piece that I found almost by accident, so I'm a little wary about proclaiming this article as comprehensive as it can be. That said ... I am open to the possibility that there isn't much else available—I haven't a foolproof way of knowing. With that in mind, if the Star Banner article is used to its full potential I'll withdraw this part of my "oppose" and consider supporting based on the other featured article criteria. I don’t think I can be fairer than that. Now, on the heavy use of Unfiltered—something we've established as possibly not the most neutral source—the nominator asserts that it is used "primarily to source biographical information, not to state opinion of Bakshi's works". For the most part, I'm content to go along with this (for the record, I've examined every statement sourced to the book), but there are exceptions. For example, "Bakshi won praise from his peers and a pay rise"; "praise from Rolling Stone and The New York Times and its acceptance into the 1972 Cannes Film Festival altered perceptions"; "Priscilla Anne Reuel ... told him that [Tolkien] would be proud of his approach to the story"; "As a result of his reputation as an innovator of adult animation"; "It became a major hit, grossing over $100 million worldwide, and was the most successful independent animated feature of all time"; the blame for Cool World's critical and commercial failure resting largely on the shoulders of the studio. If the exceptions could be looked into and ideally backed up by another source, I think the only remaining issue some might have with Unfiltered is that selective anecdotes tend to paint Bakshi in an attractively rebellious light. As more neutral sources seem to confirm that aspect of his personality, I'm willing to let that slide. Others might not, and I recommend that subsequent reviewers consider the point. All the best, Steve T • C 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clipped the bits you mentioned, and added additional sources regarding Cool World. The Ocala Star piece isn't about Bakshi's career, but the state of animation in general. I didn't include Bakshi's analysis of how he and others perceive his own work because it doesn't fit into the biography scope. I haven't seen enough verifying any "rescinded pledge to abandon animation for live action" from reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Sorry, my fault. I didn't post the link: [17] (note for others, this is a different Star Banner article than the longer profile piece). I'll take a look at your other changes shortly. Steve T • C 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, I think there's been a minor misunderstanding here. The Ocala Star-Banner piece I reference in my "oppose" comment above is this one, which I thought you were aware of; however, the one you've used in the article is the smaller piece I've linked immediately above (at [3]). Take a look at the longer article, see what you think about its usefulness. Steve T • C 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added one citation from the article you posted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • With the Star-Banner piece, I didn't mean that it merely should be added as a citation for pre-existing material, but that it should be used as a source for new content. Is there really nothing in the article that you think would be of use here? Steve T • C 09:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't see any new information there. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • Do you really not see a place in this article for things such as Bakshi's assertion that he planned to give up animation for live-action after the commercial and critical failure of Fire and Ice (even though, as our article does say, he went instead into semi-retirement to focus on painting); Bakshi's analysis of his own work, e.g. that they're all "satiric looks at [jerks]" informed by his own anger with society; Bakshi's difficulties with and opinions on being the only person making adult animation; Bakshi's shifting place in the animation industry over the years, e.g. pre- and post-Coonskin ("boy wonder", genius and innovator, to a pariah whose career was forever tainted by the controversy)? These are just examples snatched from a look at random paragraphs. I mean, if you think that none of it is relevant to this article, then fair enough, give me a counterargument and I'll honestly consider it. Steve T • C 11:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think Bakshi's opinions of his own work are relevant here because this is a biography, not a analysis of his works. He never actually wanted to give up animation for live-action, so that's irrelevant as well. And his reputation was not hurt by Coonskin. The movie wasn't even as controversial as many newspapers made it out to be. Bakshi himself said that the "controversy" was exaggerated. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • What purpose does the L.A. photo serve? It shows old and new Downtown L.A. Do we have a source that says Bakshi's studio was located in either area? If so, please state so in the primary text and specify the depicted area in the caption. If not, the image should be cut--an essentially random, and unattractive, shot of L.A. hardly does the reader much of a service. Given the attention paid to its innovative visual style, there is certainly a strong fair use case to be made for the inclusion of a thoughtfully selected still from Fritz the Cat. I'd look in that direction to improve the quality of the article's visual information content. DocKino (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:00, 24 November 2009 [18].

York Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because after another peer review (From Brianboulton), the article meets the FA criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looks excellent. ceranthor 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hawthorn Football Club has played between two and five AFL matches a season since 2001, and the St Kilda Football Club played two games a year between 2003 to 2006. - bit informal to say a season, perhaps each season?
  • Support The last FAC took care of most of the technical issues and that last clean up on attendance was easy enough. I switched one March into "03" in a ref. The copy editing was done and this really is a great presentation to the reader. I do have a few personal issues with the article but none of these contradict the MOS (unfortunately for my personal taste) so these are simply things to consider:
  • I still think "Structures and facilities" deserves to be above "Events". The article is about the building and those events taking place (as cool as they might be) should take a back seat.
  • I agree, had it like that but was requested to be changed.
  • I think the "Gunns Stand during Hawthorn vs Brisbane AFL match in 2009" image could use a clear tag to force the subsection header ("Other uses") below it.
  • I don't like 3 column reference lists
As a fellow editor who likes buildings around grass where guys run around and sometimes hit each other I have to say that Aaroncrick has done a fantastic job. However, in the spirit of sport and since we have critiqued eachothers' work: We have better beer in Seattle!Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I peer-reviewed this on 3 November, and was a bit surprised to find it here at FAC a day later, before I had had a chance to look at the responses to the points I raised at peer review. Not all the points I raised have been addressed. For example, in the lead: "Between 2003 to 2006" should be "and", not "to". This is marked "done" in the review, but clearly is not done. I asked for some explanation of "John Orchard", who appears in the History section. If the source doesn't specify who he was, he should be introduced as "a contemporary observer, named as John Orchard...", not just as "John Orchard". There is also a superfluous comma after his name. The sentence beginning "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the ones will be put on display..." still doesn't specify "the ones". I've also noticed things I didn't note at the peer review; Hawthorn and Richmond Football Clubs should be linked at first mention, not second. These things, and there may well be others, make me feel that the nomination here was rushed. I don't think the article meets criterion 1(a) at the moment, and recommend that a non-involved editor gives it a full read-through and copyedit before it is considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, but I have to oppose this. My comment above, posted a few days ago, made it clear that I thought the article had been nominated at FAC too hurriedly after my initial peer review, and that the prose needed a thorough going over. This has not happened. I have been through the lead and the History section myself, and have found plenty that needs fixing. Mostly they are not major points in themeselves, but cumulatively they spoil the prose quality of the article. They must be addressed and/or fixed. I don't have time to go through the remaining sections, but someone needs to.

  • Lead
    • "The area was originally swampland before becoming Launceston's showgrounds in 1873. Work started on transforming the area into a sports venue in 1919 and was completed within two years." These statements are inconsistent with what's written in the history section, which records that the area had been used for sports for many years before 1919; a bowling green, tennis courts and a "main oval" were apparently in use in 1910. And it doesn't seem that work on the new venue was completed within two years, when we read that the main grandstand wasn't completed until May 1923.
      • You have not addressed the inconsistencies in the above statements as against the History section. A sentence is required after "...in 1873" to explain that the showgrounds were increasingly used for sports purposes and facilities for bowls and tennis were introduced. Then "In 1919 work started on transforming..." etc. The lead still says that the work was completed in two years when it obviously wasn't. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously mentioned, Hawthorn and Richmond football clubs should be linked at first, not second mentions
  • History
    • "...taken over by the council..." What council?
    • "Even though cricketers were in 'full praise' of the ground, footballers (Australian Rules) were unable to use the facility as winter rain caused it to become waterlogged." The sentence is not very elegant ("full praise" and a parenthetical insert), but is not logical, either. The facts (1) that cricketers praised the ground and (2) that it became waterlogged in winter, are separate and unrelated; an "Even though" is inappropriate. Suggest amend to "Cricketers were full of praise for the ground, but because winter rain caused it to become waterlogged, footballers (Australian Rules) were unable to use the facility." - and perhaps that should be "often unable" since I doubt it was waterlogged for the whole season. It might be worth saying, later on, how this became "the best rainwater ground in Australia."

Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Consequently rebuilt" should be "subsequently rebuilt"
    • Irrelevant detail: "The floods also delayed the start of the Northern Tasmanian Football Association (NTFA) season by a week" (nothing to do with the subject of the article).
    • Contractions such as "who'd" should be avoided.
    • A punctuation check is required throughout. For example, commas are required after "Alderman Storrer" and "Alderman Salder" (there may well be others)
    • "a council publication," - again, what council? The lengthy quote from this publication has way too much detail and should be cut.
    • What is a "suburban-style" sports ground. Is this an official classification or just someone's description? What does it actually mean?
    • "Before the 1998 federal election, the local member of parliament (MP) representing the Division of Bass, Warwick Smith—a minister from the ruling Liberal Party—promised to fund the re-development of York Park if he was re-elected. Although Smith lost his seat, the Liberals retained power and kept the promise." As written, this reads like political bribery and corruption. I assume that the promise was for public, not personal funding, and I doubt that he actually made his reelection a condition. So it may be advisable to reword the final part of the sentence: "promised funding for the re-development of York Park. Although Smith lost his seat, the Liberals retained power and kept the promise."
    • "a deliberately lit fire..." Very clumsy, suggest "a deliberate fire"
    • "heritage-listed" requires link or explanation
    • "There has been a $7 million proposal..." Too vague, give a date for the proposal.

I will be more than happy to review my oppose when the above points have been addressed and when a copyedit of the final sections is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have addressed some of my concerns; those remaining are unstruck, above. It does not seem, however, that you have acted on my suggestion that the second part of the article should have a thorough copyedit. A very quick run-through reveals the following samples of things which need attention. I stress these are samples - the matter won't be resolved by merely fixing these.
  • "The ground also hosted occasional Tasmanian home games in the Victorian Football League from 2001 until their demise in 2008." - "their" needs specifying.
  • Is the so-called "siren controversy" really worth a paragraph to itself? It doesn't seem enough of an event to warrant this much space in an article about the ground.
  • "In 2007, a five-year $16.4 million sponsorship agreement began to make the state government Hawthorn's primary sponsor." I queried this sentence at peer review, particular the "began to make" rather than "made". However, this is about sponsorship for the club, not the ground, so why is it relevant to this article?
  • "...an Ike & Tina Turner concert as well as a Billy Graham religious revival meeting". "As well as" implies a connection between the two events. Replace with a simple "and"
  • "The stand has two corporate box areas, the Gunns Function Centre and the Corporate Function Centre.[39] Immediately north of the Stand is the Aurora Function Centre, which houses coaches' boxes along with a function centre." Surely a less clunky way can be used to convey this information, which mentions "function centre" four times.
  • "York Park has often been criticised for its large playing surface, which is blamed for producing low-scoring football, which is regarded as unattractive." You shouldn't have "which is" twice in a single sentence. And you should say by whom low-scoring football is "regarded as unattractive"

As I am away for five days from Sunday I had hoped to be able to strike my oppose before leaving, but this is not possible. I see you have several supports, and if the FA delegate decides that my concerns are insufficient to keep thia FAC open, then so be it. But if it is still open when I return I should have the time to do the copyediting work myself if no one else has stepped forward. Please be assured that my aim is to get the article right, not to find fault. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Reviewed a good chunk of this at the last FAC. I'll be leading off this review in Events, where I left off last time.

  • "with a record sttendance of 20,971 for the match between Hawthorn and Richmond". Typo.
  • "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the old ones will be put on display at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery." I see that the source is from last year. Is there any indication that this has already happened?
  • Other uses: "The Crusty Demons performed at the stadium during 2006 and March 2008." Can we get a more precise date for their 2006 performance(s)?
  • Structures and facilities: "an extension in 2005 to 5,700. The 5,700 capacity stand...". The capacity figure doesn't need to be repeated two words after it was originally given.
  • "because it is regarded as the home of Australian Rules Football in Tasmania." If Rules and Football are not proper nouns (not sure whether they are or not), they should be de-capitalized.
  • Record crowds: Link Challenge Cup, assuming there isn't a previous link that I missed.
  • Comment The sentence in the intro about becoming the Football hall of fame is in the wrong place. It either needs to be in the paragraph about football and thus linked by subject matter, or else it needs to be last (chronologically) within the paragraph that it is currently in. Amandajm (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Let me explain again.
1. This sentence is in a paragraph which is chronological, all except for one sentence. So move the sentence to the end of the paragraph, then all the sentences will be chronological. OK?
2. If you don't want to do that, there is another way to fix it. Move it up, and then it will be the last sentence of the paragraph above it. That sentence is about football. So then, this sentence about football will be in the paragraph about footbal. OK?
You have a choice, both ways to fix it are good, but right now it is in the wrong place. Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — sorry but the prose is not up to FA standard, some examples include:

  • "York Park is a sports ground located in the Inveresk and York Park Precinct" - located is redundant.
  • "the most of any stadia in Tasmania" - how about "more than any other stadium in.."?
  • "The area was originally swampland before becoming Launceston's showgrounds in 1873" – originally is redundant.
  • "on a regular basis" – more redundancy, how about often or even regularly?
  • "Also" is often redundant; there are three occurrences, close together, in the Lead. I think this interesting article needs a little more work on the prose before promotion can be considered. This should not take a good copy-editor more than an hour or so. But, unfortunately, it is not ready yet. My advice is to wait for Brian Boulton, who has kindly offered to work on this after his short break. Graham Colm Talk 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I agree the prose isn't there yet.

  • Thanks. I don't agree with Brian on this, and have asked him if he'll comment. A deliberate fire sounds to me as though the fire is being given a personality trait or is showing intentionality. However, it is also possible that "deliberately lit" is an Australianism that comes naturally to me but reads oddly to an editor from another country. Brian may comment when he comes back from a break. In any case, my other comments below are more significant than this one. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A deliberate fire" is OK as a bit of prose shorthand, in the way you might say "a deliberate kick" etc, but to save argument and/or exchanges of various awkwardish wordings, why not call it "an arson attack"? Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ground also hosted occasional Tasmanian home games in the Victorian Football League from 2001 until the team's demise in 2008". Which team??

* "York Park has often been criticised for its large playing surface, which is blamed for producing low-scoring football, which is regarded as unattractive." This needs at least one citation. Also needs a copyedit - two clauses beginning "..., which".

  • In fact, this sentence has another problem. Now I re-read it, i don't know what is meant by "the corresponding match" either. Perhaps talk about there being something repeated each year, and then have a report on attendance as a stand-alone sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm back from my short break and over the next couple of days will give this article a full copyedit. That won't make the prose perfect, of course, but should improve it. Meanwhile, I have raised a number of concerns that are not copyedit issues, which remain unresolved. Here is a summary:-

  • In the lead, a sentence or phrase is required after "...in 1873" to explain that the showgrounds became increasingly used for sports purposes and facilities for bowls and tennis were introduced. Then "In 1919 work started on transforming..." etc.
  • The lead still says that the work was "completed" in the two years after 1919, when the text of the articles tells a different story.
  • The "best rainwater" statement is apparently wrong
  • You need to be much more precise than: "Four years later, the southern stand (demolished in 2004) was completed, leading to a 'building spree'." What was the nature of this building activity, how long did it go on for, what resulted from it.
    • Cheeck my sources in a few hours for clarification. 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The term "suburban style" as a description for a sports ground needs explaining
  • I repeat my belief that the "siren story" is scarecely worth the space given to it, since this is an article about a sports ground, not a club history. I'd say a passing mention would be enough.
  • Likewise, as worded it seems that the five-year $16.4 million sponsorship was for the Hawthorn Club, not for the ground. Unless this money was devoted in some way to the development of the ground, the sponsorship is not relevant to the article.

Please give me some feedback on these before I start polishing the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:27, 24 November 2009 [19].

Rhode Island Route 4

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]


We am nominating this for featured article because after months of work, this dual research project of a Rhode Island freeway is probably ready for Featured Article status. The route went under a partially-excruiating A-class review, solving the AltText in the process. And for once the prose isn't mine, but theco-nominator, User:Raime's. We are open to all comments Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]

  • Support 2c. Decline: 2c. resolved and checked at Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Inconsistent Author ordering (Some corporate authors before title, some corporate authors after title, individuals before). Inconsistent date formatting YYYY-MM-DD; Month D, YYYY. Inconsistent date positioning: Author (Year), Author ... Year. Lack of Provenance information. Italics indicates published material, if the reports are published, they were published by an Authority, unclear if Institution is Author and Publisher, or just Author. Any consistent resolution is fine for these problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ones published by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (or its predecessor, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works) are in correct form, as no author is cited. Also, a lot of these depend on the citation template used, which I have little control on.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The date order within citation issue comes from the fact that the works aren't authored, this is controlled by if you've entered an author field. The date style (YYYY-MM-DD, Month D, YYYY) is entirely controlled by the editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite report, which is in the same style / formatting system package as Template:Cite book correctly formats your reports with the data you currently have. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the date consistency solved. Also, I changed the books to reports per that. Help me fix them, because I actually have never used the template.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No dabs or dead links (per the link checker tool), and the given alt text has no obvious problems, which is good. I'm a stickler for consistent date formats, so I thank Fifelfoo for checking those. Featured articles have consistent citation formats (see criterion 2c) and I think date formats are integral to that. --an odd name 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have reviewed this article twice and at this point only have a few concerns before I can support the article:
  1. As discussed above, the references should use consistent date formats.
  2. In References 5-9 and 13, "report" should not be wikilinked.
  3. It may help if some non-map sources can be added to the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 2 the template does that. #3, RIDOT produces nothing.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably other non-map sources that are not RIDOT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough4872 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. ---Dough4872 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I will support the article the way it is now, but it would still help if more non-map sources can be added. ---Dough4872 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a comments—as a lifelong Rhode Islander, I just have to offer my two cents. At quick glance, it looks like a great article. I'm getting ready for class, so I'll make this quick for now:
    • In the second para of the lead, shouldn't "long-range" be "long-term"?
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could change "slightly more than" to "approximately"? Pretty much means the same thing in this context, and it flows a bit better.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Makes a curve" can be shortened to "curves".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You use the phrase "a partial cloverleaf interchange" twice in the same paragraph and in the same manner. I know it's hard to spice up such sections, but you could change "a partial" to "another partial" to give the reader a bit of fresh air.
Fixed, but it was in 2 paragraphs, not one.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the proceeding paragraph, but I see what you did now. — Deckiller 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After exit 7, Route 4 continues due north as a six-lane expressway" Considering your use of accurate directionals (I.E. northeast, northwest), "due" is somewhat redundant.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Route 4 has an overpass at Middle Road..." "Has" seems bland.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the Rhode Island Department of Public Works (RIDPW) proposed a relocation of Route 2 which," Comma before "which".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During the time of the study," can be shortened to "during the study".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in 1972. In 1972," I recommend restructuring one of these sentences to avoid such repetition.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has laid out long-term plans for changes to both the southern and northern termini of Route 4." Sentence can be tightened. Perhaps something like "The.....RIDOT has long-term plans to change both the southern and northern termini of Route 4."
Changed to something else. Your suggestion would suggest a different occurrance.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is not correct, as then you could mean 9 miles high as well. All done otherwise.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.— Deckiller 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Wouldn't happen. Not one contribution since June.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the image will have to be removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - removed image in question and added another one of the freeway section. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to it here, so I can check it out. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:RI 4 south North Kingstown.jpg. Cheers, Rai•me 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RI-4 map.svg - Please add a source for the information contained in this map to the image description page.
Fixed.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.

  • Prose - Although the prose is not awful, it still needs work, as it is often quite repetitive and does not necessarily flow well. For example, the first three sentences in the section Route description all begin "Route 4 ...".
  • Comprehensiveness - I am highly suspicious of road articles that rely almost entirely on maps and state department of transportation reports, so I went searching for more information.
    • Per [20], it appears that much of the roadside in a certain area is covered by invasive plants. I suspect that with more digging you may be able to find out why that is - did the road construction or an effect of the road impact this?
Unnecessary. Marshlands are the main reason, which I have added mention of.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This study [21] gives information about red-light running at some Route 4 intersections
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found indications of multiple state and federal reports that were studying expanding the road in the late 1980s/early 1990s. In particular, it appears that there were related archealogical finds, which would be very interesting to see. The following list is not comprehensive [22] [23] [24] [25]. The archaelogical evidence has been discussed in newspapers as well: example [26]
You're not making anything easier for Google Books - No access - and I don't live in Rhode Island, so accessing those aren't easy unless Raime has access. I can use the abstract of the newspaper, but without access, I can't get anything else.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used the abstract, which covers enough I think.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more newspaper articles available about at least the 1980s construction [27], which may provide background or local interest information not included in a government report.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related to the point directly above, this article provides no justification for the road. Why was it a good idea to originally build the road? Why did it need to be expanded? (some article snippets I've seen suggest that the road could be the site of many fatal/serious car accidents?)
    • From some news article abstracts, it looks like Rhode Island resisted raising the speed limits when first allowed by the federal government. Is there any information on whether/when the speed limit was raised on Route 4, and what objections there might have been?
That was on Interstate 95 between 4 and the CT line, not worthy (I looked at the articles).Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like traffic cameras are on at least one Route 4 intersection and the ACLU got involved [28]
Not the reason, but did find something involved.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like some groups in the 1990s were protesting any further expansion [29] - why?
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs context, and although not all of these ideas may be useful, they will hopefully point you in the direction of what types of context might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to a question up there, I found these links in a ten-minute search of Google books, Google scholar, and Google news (search terms "Rhode Island" "Route 4"). I don't have easy access to any of them; I strongly encourage you to find good access to the Providence Journal archives. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got significant amounts in. I hope this covers more than enough.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the comment above that you "Used the abstract, which covers enough I think." That is not acceptable for research. While abstracts often mention the highlights of an issue, they cannot place events/issues/etc in proper context. It's better not to use the information at all rather than rely on a short abstract. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was the abstract of the lone news article in that section.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links I provided are examples only. It is up to you to do more research and determine whether there is enough information to include in the article. That means doing searches of your own and actually reading full articles, not just article abstracts. I suspect this will take considerable effort and recommend that you withdraw the FAC nomination in the meantime. I'm taking this off my watchlist; once the research has been done, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you get me money to read such stuff. I don't have any money to pay towards the full stuff. This FAC isn't moving. I've added considerable information to this from what you provided and if the abstract of a newspaper article isn't going to satisfy you, then I don't care. This FAC is not moving and I did the research.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To write a solid featured article, you'll need access to the complete articles. The blurbs (abstracts) that Google News or other archival sites (NewsBank, etc.) really aren't sufficient for FAC for the reasons Karanacs gave above. The information given in the blurbs is often too vague to write anything based solely on it, or at least too vague to accurately write anything based on it.
FAC shouldn't be easy. To write a good, comprehensive, solid FAC, you need to devote considerable amounts of time to gathering resources (and not just ones online), researching, and writing the article. I've seen editors spend weeks, even months gathering different resources from vastly different IRL (print) sources to ensure that they had done enough research to write a rock-solid featured article. That doesn't seem to be the case here at all, at least not compared to the amount of time and effort that those editors devoted to their articles.
The generally negative tone of the reply above is very similar to what I've seen by you in different venues when similar points are brought up by other editors. Consider this: had the appropriate amount of time been invested on research for this article, and for that matter any article before it was taken to FAC, this point wouldn't keep being raised by reviewers. The same is true for article prose on some of the other FACs in the past; the more time is spent refining it, the less it will be an issue come FAC time. – TMF 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki - ask people for help. If you don't have access to a particular source, perhaps someone else does. Why don't you try asking around? The solution is not to refuse to do the work, but to find a way to solve the problem. Leave a message on the FAC talk page or on the talk pages of editors who live in Rhode Island and who might have access to the archives of that particular paper. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange for help in finding sources, pictures, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I've done as much as I physically can without using the suggested parts of Wikipedia, which I will doubt work anyway. Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose (on comprehensiveness) stands until off-line sources have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:34, 24 November 2009 [30].

Shirley Temple

[edit]
Nominator(s): 808Starfire (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets FAC criteria, is well written, and adequately sourced. I believe that any concerns or problems encountered during the review process can be met and dealt with by the nominator quickly and efficiently. 808Starfire (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose massive copyright abuse, most of the images don't even have FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I added alt text to the infobox. Do so for the other images. Pretend you're on the phone with someone who can't see them.
  • Dates are consistent: ref dates are ISO style, and others Month Day, Year.
  • The few external links all work. (added on 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Archived per this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 22 November 2009 [31].

Anna Bågenholm

[edit]
Nominator(s): Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it's interesting and I think it meets the FA criteria. The article has recently gone through a peer review. Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good now! Amandajm (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still oppose the article, or can you cross over your vote? Theleftorium 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Sveriges Television, do they brodcast in Swedish? So the shows referenced from there would be in Swedish? Please not that on the references (Yes, it's picky... but...)
  • I have another concern in that this appears to be mostly about the actual close to death experience and not the actual woman. Shouldn't it be titled something other than just her name? Right now I'm getting WP:Coatrack concerns here. Granted, it's not anything horrid, but surely we can find a title that better expresses the fact that almost the entire article is about her near-death experience.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going well! In the first paragrph it says that she awoke on the 30th May but there is no indication of what day the accident occurred. It might be a good thing to state that she was in a coma/unconscious state for ten days, just to make it clear. It's the intro. Grab the reader with very direct language.
  • Also, semi-colons are much abused on Wikipedia and often used in places where statements are hardly linked at all, or would be better linked to the preceding or following sentence. Where two statements are closely linked, or follow directly in time sequence, there is often a more meaningful way of joining them by using a simple conjunction (and, but) or turning one statement into a clause of the other (if, because, when etc). Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully oppose. Fine article, but some details need correcting before it can be promoted.
    • "the lowest survived body temperature ever recorded in a human" in the intro is not strictly correct. Humans can survive lower temperatures when on a heart-lung machine and such temperatures have sometimes been used in extremely complicated thoracic surgery, IIRC.
    • Clinical death, linked to more than once, is a diffuse layman's term to describe heart arrest. As the article is largely about an incident of heart arrest, a more accurate term should be used.
    • "Nerve damage in her hands and feet" (also mentioned later in the article) is similarly diffuse. First, nerve injury is as such overly broad, and second, "in her hands and feet" is unclear. Nerve injury related symptoms that are localized in the hands and feet can arise from injury anywhere between the central nervous system and the peripheral nerve. Therefore it should either be made clear that the symptoms are localized there, or the localization of the actual injury be described.
    • "began giving her cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in an attempt to regain her pulse" is technically a bit incorrect. A patient in deep hypothermia can not regain a circulation of his/her own until rewarmed and CPR in such a patient is only a bridge to rewarming or heart-lung machine. Any circulation, including pulse, in such a patient is a result of CPR, and one would rather not describe it as "regain" because that seems to imply the patients own cardiac activity.
    • "Bågenholm's lungs collapsed at 02:20" is very unclear. Please avoid such ambiguous layman's terms. The lungs of a patient on a ventilator do not simply "collapse". Either she had a pneumothorax, sometimes described as lung collapse, but then that should be described, or some other pulmonary condition, but that would also need details.
      • The source does not mention which kind of "lung collapse" it is. I changed the sentence to "Bågenholm's lungs stopped working properly at 02:20"; is that an improvement or should I just remove the sentence completely? Theleftorium 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be better but still a bit diffuse, because after a drowning accident there will always be a degree of lung dysfunction, and without access to the medical details it does not make much sense to single out a specific point in time. Why not just say that her "lung function deteriorated" or something like that? Kosebamse (talk)
    • "Bågenholm's metabolism slowed down to ten percent of "its baseline rate"". I assume that refers to basal metabolic rate? Link please.
    • "Bågenholm's case and the cases of others who have survived extreme hypothermia have, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, "informed modern medicine to such an extent that cooling patients is emerging as a way". The Sydney Morning Herald may not be overly well informed here. The theory that hypothermia can be used as a therapeutic measure in the conditions named has been discussed before the case described here. Some in-depth discussion might be indicated. The statement as such is misleading.
      • This review treats therapeutic hypothermia and shows that the interest for this treatment has existed for quite a while. Here's another one. Kosebamse (talk)
        • Should I just remove this part then? Theleftorium 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know. The sentence in its current shape is misleading. There are pieces of information throughout the article that hint at hypothermia and its medical aspects. Perhaps one could pull them together and make it two, three sentences with a few links to hypothermia, therapeutic hypothermia, and cardiopulmonary bypass, and a few references, saying that hypothermia is dangerous but can be survived, is used in extreme form in cardiopulmonary bypass, can be beneficial under certain circumstances, and should be treated according to guidelines (see article I linked at the bottom fo this page). Just an idea. Kosebamse (talk)
    • The article on the whole is drastically over-referenced which makes it ugly to read. Please consider cutting the links by half. Please don't succumb to the inline citation police.
    • Unless I missed it, there do not seem to be references from medical sources. As it is mentioned that the case was widely discussed in the medical sciences, it would certainly be in order to quote a few medical journals or textbooks. Newspapers all to often have it totally wrong when it comes to medical facts. Kosebamse (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two medical sources in the article right now (ref 13 and 15). I'll try to add more. Theleftorium 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This could help illustrate the medical perspective, the Bågenholm case is briefly mentioned. I do think that the original report (Gilbert M, Busund R, Skagseth A, Nilsen PA, Solb. JP. Resuscitation from accidental hypothermia of 13.7°C with cardiac arrest. Lancet 2000;355:375-6) should be included as well, but am unsure if there is a free online source for it; it is by the way mentioned in the first named article. Kosebamse (talk)

Comments

  • ...after a skiing accident in 1999 left her trapped under a layer of ice for 80 minutes in freezing water. May be just my personal preference, but I would also say about how thick the ice was.
  • ...a doctor at the Narvik Hospital who was about to celebrate his retirement with a party in May 1999. I think that it should say May 20, because this is the first mention of the date, instead of vice versa.
  • A rescue helicopter soon arrived and Bågenholm was brought to the Tromsø University Hospital in an hour. Well since a couple of lines of the article were already spent on the specific helicopter, I think it's safe to say "The rescue helicopter".

Wow, very nice article. Prose is very very good. I'm almost jelous :P ResMar 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Theleftorium 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On first glance, the article appears overcited, and it's unclear if WP:MEDRS has been taken into account (the popular press can be used to cite some medical facts, but is notoriously inaccurate for most medical facts). Considering issues remaining to be resolved raised by other reviewers, I'm going to archive this for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:45, 22 November 2009 [32].

Jordanhill railway station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A very well done article on a topic one wouldn't expect such quality from. The article was nominated for good article status in March 2006, resulting in it being listed. The article was reassessed in August 2008, and it was again deemed worth of the status. The only major editing note since 2006 was a debate on the naming structure for British railway stations; it was temporarily moved to Jordanhill (railway station) after a very brief discussion, and soon moved back. And yes, this was the millionth article on Wikipedia, thus why it ever was polished this much. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm not yet convinced on the "very well done" part.

  • Most images lack alt text.
  • Most external links are dead.
  • Most ref dates are Day Month Year; change the rest to that format.
  • Some refs say "Retrieved on date", and some say "(Accessed date)". In general, the citations bounce between manually-typed and {{cite ___}}-generated, which causes inconsistencies like that—either use consistent templates or drop them.
  • Is there no more info for ref 16 (The Herald, 20 August 2001)?

Thankfully, there's no dab links. --an odd name 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the above and comments below. Polish it outside of here and bring it back later. --an odd name (help honey) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as per AnOddName; most sources are no longer operational, and almost all citations are poorly formatted. Further, at least one of the images is lacking proper source information, and has been tagged accordingly. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Has potential, but needs a lot of work. The lead doesn't include anything about the history, despite that being the longest section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -
  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I have not looked at the sites in terms of reliablity, as there are a lot of deadlinks.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:45, 22 November 2009 [33].

David Lewis (politician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Abebenjoe (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... after nearly two years as a GA, it has received numerous copy-edits, with minor content changes in that time, that I feel now bring it up to FA status. Abebenjoe (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsOppose (see below): Prose needs a lot of work. It's quite bloated—I think two or three hundred words could probably be shed without losing meaning—and there are stylistic and some grammatical errors. An example of the former is the article's frequent referral to its subject as "David", which should only be done in cases where he's being distinguished from somebody else with the same last name. An example of the latter is the frequent misuse of colons (when being used as part of a sentence, the portion of the sentence preceding the colon must be an independent clause). I'll do what I can to help with this, but I'm not sure I'll be able to manage a full copyedit during the article's time at FAC, and am not sure that my copyediting would be sufficient in any event. Steve Smith (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess if we both have at it we could sort that out. Never say die. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I didn't say "oppose"... Steve Smith (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... and neither did I. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, the more closely I look at the article, the clearer it becomes that it's not ready for FAC. Besides the prose issues, which extend well beyond the examples I cited, the tone is frequently POV and there are major gaps in the coverage (for example, until my last edit, the body of the article didn't actually say anything about Lewis being a Rhodes Scholar; the reader was left to infer that from a section heading and a category). I really hate to do this, because I love seeing articles about Canadian political history promoted and it's obvious that a great deal of good work has gone into this, but it's just not close enough to justify reviewers' time. I'd be happy to work with the article's authors outside of FAC to help get it up to snuff, if they'd like me to. Steve Smith (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. And please remove the two little flags; see WP:FLAGBIO. Eubulides (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c. Variety of 2c consistency issues, please see this FAC's talk page for details.
    1c grade citation issue: a number of references to Newspapers lack authors, article titles, and page references, please correct this urgently, see your final citation, "Ward, Bruce (1981-05-24). "David Lewis' principles guided political career". The Toronto Star (Toronto: Torstar): pp. A4." as an example of newspaper reference formatting.
    In relation to 1c, can you explain the reliance on Smith 1989? Why are there no references to histories of the NDP? How have you exhausted the scholarly literature? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many histories of the NDP, and the few that are, are listed in the bibliography. Most are memoirs, like Donald C. MacDonald's book. I could have used more of Gad Horowitz's book, but it was covered in Smith 1989. Smith 1989 is the only book the fully chronicles the Lewis' involvement with the party, with far more detail than other books that are devoted to T.C. Douglas, or M.J. Coldwell (the Stewart books).Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles are from either the Toronto Star, or the Globe and Mail newspapers, both based in Toronto, Canada. In many cases, the author is not determined except that it may be given as the wire-service Canadian Press (CP). Some of the older Isis articles from the 1930s didn't appear to have explicit authorship, as they were from editorials, if my memory serves me well.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: I'll get back to the prose in a bit, but there are some image issues:
In Canada, any photograph taken before 1949 is in the public domain. This photo is in Canada's national archives, and deals with a Canadian subject: leaders from the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation political party, attending a conference in London, England in 1944. By Canadian standards, this is a public domain photograph, as no copyright exists. The David Lewis 1944 jpeg is a cropped version of this photograph.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian photos taken pre-1949 are indeed in the public domain. That the photograph is of Canadian subjects does not make it a Canadian photograph, however. Do you know where/when this photograph was first published? That would be important in determining in what jurisdictions, if any, it's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, it was printed in late fall 1944 in the CCF's The New Commonwealth Abebenjoe (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may have also been published in an October 1944 issue of the CCF-friendly Glace Bay Gazette. In the 1970s, I remember seeing this photo when I was a child in one of these papers, as they were at my Uncle and Aunt's home in Cape Breton. I immediately recognized the photo when I saw it on the LAC website. The newspapers are likely buried somewhere in the Beaton Institute at Cape Breton University. So I'm not exactly sure which paper published it first, but it was definitely in Canada, in the fall of 1944.Abebenjoe (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm comfortable saying that that was first published in Canada and therefore entered the public domain here January 1, 1945, soon enough to slip in under the copyright renewal date of January 1, 1996. So no problem with these images. Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the photo that Steve Smith was mentioning. Yes, that image with M.J. Coldwell and David Lewis is also in the public domain, as stated for the same reasons as the previous photos: pre-1949 photographs have expired copyright, therefore public domain. That wasn't one of the photos I added to the article, but I'll look into the province of Ontario's archives, and see if there are any other notices on it. I do know by looking at the authorship of the photo, Gilbert and Milne, that their photos are generally in the public domain at the archives, but as I said earlier, I'll check if there are any special exemptions.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That image is indeed in the public domain in Canada. However, because the United States does not use the rule of the shorter term, that doesn't make it in the public domain in the U.S. Canadian photographs dating from before 1946 are in the public domain in the U.S. (by reason of being in the public domain in the source country as at 1996), but that's not true of this photograph. Steve Smith (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Archives Ontario page. Although the copyright has expired, Wikipedia may have to ask permission to use their copy. Here's a link to their copyright and usage page if you want to make a decision, one way or the other http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/archival-records/csg_108_copyright.aspx If you decide that we need permission, then it will take about two weeks, but shouldn't be much of a problem, as there is no further copyright claims on the photo, it would merely be permission to use their copy. What I find confusing on their copyright page is the criteria for photographic material. It seems to be omitted, as it appears that they are only mentioning the copyright for written materials, which states that the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author, which isn't the case with pre-1949 photographs, to my limited legal understanding, as I'm obviously not a lawyer.Abebenjoe (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those terms aren't an issue, as the photograph is in the public domain in Canada. The problem is that to be used as free on Wikipedia, it must be in the public domain in the United States, and I don't see evidence that this image is. Steve Smith (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is in the public domain in Canada, and both Lewis and Coldwell are dead, Coldwell in 1974, and Lewis in 1981, is there a fair-use tag that can be used to satisfy USA copyright?Abebenjoe (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think so. You'd have a fair use claim on a single low resolution image of Lewis if there were no free ones available, but there are (see above). I don't think this image is critical enough to the article to clear criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I think it may be one or the only picture we have of M.J. Coldwell. Haven't checked his article in a while, but I know this image was used in at least one iteration of that article.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for using"David", his first name, it is to avoid confusion with his son Stephen Lewis. The only other time I used his first name was when his father was mentioned in the same section. Can't call them both by their last name.Abebenjoe (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't appear to be the case with the fourth and fifth paragraphs of "Early life in Canada", the first paragraph of "Labour club", or the second paragraph of "Leader of the NDP". Steve Smith (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it out, but usually either Stephen or Moishe was in the same paragraph or section.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some of the first name issues. Added cite news template to the The Isis articles.Abebenjoe (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Steve, if you are willing to spend some time on the article, outside FAC, then please, by all means, see what you can do with it. I'll see if I can get some photo clearances from the Douglas--Coldwell Institute Foundation in the meantime, as I believe they hold copyright on many of the photos of Lewis from the 1950s to his death.Abebenjoe (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:50, 17 November 2009 [34].

Brooks–Baxter War

[edit]
Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Third times a charm! I've made all the changes that other editors suggested in the previous round of FAC, if there are any other suggestions I will make those corrections as well. Please be specific. --The_stuart (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1d (following PMAnderson, below) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC), 1c, 2c Jargon reduced at 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) the first comment and translation are in relation to the original terse language Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c A large number of 2c issues resolved, with one outstanding, at Talk: from 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved and checked 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1c
No article indicated, no indication if article written as by an expert, unsigned tertiary. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources unless they meet a stringent criteria. It must be written by academics, for an academic public, and the article in question must have the "by line" or be "signed" by an academic specialist. You don't give us enough to go on here. Name the article, and the author of the specific article.: ^ a b c d e f g h Zuczek, Richard (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era. Westport: Greenwood Press. p. 103-104. ISBN 0313330735.
You have failed to acknowledge Michael B. Dougan's work here. Please read p.105 of the cited source which indicates:
  1. Dougan, Michael B. Arkansas Odyssey Little Rock, AR, USA: Rose Publishing, 1994.
  2. Moneyhon, Carl. The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR, USA: University of Arkansas Press, 2002.
  3. Woodward, Earl F. "The Brooks and Baxter War in Arkansas, 1872-1874" Arkansas Historical Quarterly 30 (1972):315-36.
Your failure to use these modern sources indicates the reason why I am declining this on 1c and 1d issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR from Primaries and speculation. You have conducted Original Research by synthesising Primary Sources here. This is the correct work of a historian; not Wikipedia. Find this in a secondary source. Your text also contains speculation, "On November 6, 1872, the day after the general election, the Gazette reported: "The election was one of the most quiet in Little Rock we ever witnessed.[14] The returns on that day were too small to report with any certainty who had won, and the newspaper reported fraud. Rumors flew about claims that registration had been cut short or extended in many counties to suit the needs of whoever controlled the polling places. The following Monday, the Gazette published incomplete tallies from the various counties showing a small majority for Baxter. They also reported more forms of attempted fraud. Some unofficial polling places had apparently been set up, but only those votes cast at the regular polls had been certified.[15]"
Use of an unsigned tertiary from the 19th century to support (Again, you've used a non reliable source encyclopedia. Its more questionable because its from the 19th century and is not academically titled (unlike your one above): On the May 19, General Newton and his troops reoccupied the State House grounds, which had just been evacuated by Brooks; forces, and on the 20th he reinstated Governor Baxter.[26] Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas. actually This Masters thesis from 1947? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha comments

This seems to be a mostly good article that'll probably eventually make it to FA, but the prose is, I am afraid, not of very high quality. I tried to improve it a little, but it would be best if someone else also had a good look at it.

Other specific issues I encountered:

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article now, I think. It devotes only a few sentences to the actual war, and does not note the back-and-forth governorships of Brooks and Baxter.
Actually it does in the 3rd paragraph, but I have added a little more. The "war" so to speak involves most of the Arkansas reconstruction history. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added much of that myself. :-) But your further expansion makes it even better.
  • "and two thirds were in favor of the constitution" (rephrased by me) - I think an actual percentage would be preferable. Is that possible?
Not with available sources. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we can't do much about that. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brief but long-remembered "Militia War"" - Is this a notable topic? If so, a wikilink should be in order.
Perhaps another article should be written on it some day but for now there isn't much more to say that isn't already in the article. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but remember that red links are not prohibited in FAs. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paper script" - What?
Fiat currency, basically Arkansas dollars backed by nothing. This is before the federal reserve greenbacks that are common now, and the Gold Standard was still in effect, so money typically could be traded for an equivalent amount of gold. They were basically issuing worthless money that had no gold backing, which made the states credit even worse. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be in the article, or in a linked article on paper script. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have wikilinked it to the article on scrip.--The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The impeachment of Johnson - When he had done nothing wrong, in what way did the Minstrels argue for his impeachment (i.e., what arguments did they use to say that his actions were worthy of impeachment)?
I've studied the court documents and they had no argument, in my opinion it was tactic meant to waste time. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contested Louisiana gubernatorial election" - Link?
There isn't much about it on Wikipedia other than "President Grant ensured that William P. Kellogg", he ensured it with federal troops, and didn't want to have to do that again in Arkansas. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are not forbidden. I believe that elections are automatically considered notable, and when the Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1872, was contentious enough that federal troops needed to intervene, the topic surely deserved to be linked. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have linked per your suggestion. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were not supreme court justices, just federal justices. I've made the correction. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on writing this article and good luck on further improving it! Ucucha 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

130.184.211.7 is me, sorry forgot to log in. --The_stuart (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; all my original issues have been resolved now. I think the issue PMAnderson brought up, is an important one, however (and one I should have paid more attention to earlier--though I did find the article somewhat friendly to Confederates, I didn't pursue that further), and I will not support until you have either added more recent sources to address PMAnderson's concerns, such as the ones Fifelfoo suggested, or made a convincing argument that these sources can't be used. Ucucha 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. No secondary sources since 1943, and one since 1922 (I exclude one tertiary source, and one source on a governor in a different century); no wonder it reads as if it were a production of the Dunning School. The historiography of Reconstruction has changed markedly in the last eighty years; our articles should reflect that. Go and read modern printed books; and do remember that neo-Confederatism is not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources newer that 1943, they aren't great, but I have them. I think I was little more fair than your assessment. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have the encyclopedia, and a source on the Republican governor from the 1960s; I also see some effort to pull against the bias of your sources. But your account of Reconstruction as a whole, and your interpretation of events, is (inevitably) drawn from your sources; you cannot be expected to reflect the modern account of Reconstruction unless you have seen it - and the article, as it stands, doesn't. This is not a moral weakness, but it is less than our best work - and is not the face we would present to the public. Read modern histories (does David Donald anywhere write on these events?) and tell us about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is easy enough to fix. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is new, but I took it myself. --72.204.48.64 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:50, 17 November 2009 [35].

The Author's Farce

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk) and NocturneNoir (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I and NocturneNoir present the first FAC nomination of a long and major project dealing with the plays of Henry Fielding. Though previously neglected, the current work presents a thorough background into the creation, plot, themes, and critical heritage of The Author's Farce, one of Fielding's greatest plays. It has been a pleasure to work on this project and I am happy to present this nominee. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the National Portrait Gallery. I linked to their new site which has an uncropped and untouched version (perhaps when they redid the images). The old link would not exist anymore, as it most likely deprecated. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - a few comments from the lead:
  • "about the Goddess Nonsense choosing a husband..." This is what Tony1 calls noun+ing. Better: "about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband" or something similar.
  • "Through the use of a play within a play,.." - perhaps link to "play within a play" since it is a dramatic device. Also, it might help to move this into the first paragraph, as I had to puzzle for a while over "Although rejected by one theatre, the play is eventually put on at another during the third act", as at first I thought perhaps it was meant that happened in reality before I read on and it became clearer.
  • "Additionally, having the Little Theatre..." - personally, I think the "additionally" can be dropped as unnecessary, and it weakens the impact of the second sentence by making its contents seem less important effects.

—mattisse (Talk) 15:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made three changes. See if this clarifies the second point: "Although rejected by one theatre, the play becomes a play within a play when it is eventually put on at another theatre during the third act." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. During the middle of the third act of another play. Or was it tacked on at the end? —mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See if this helps: Reality - Fielding had a play that was rejected. The Author's Farce uses that as part of the plot. Fiction - Luckless has a play that was rejected called The Pleasures of the Town. Act 1 - writing the play. Act 2 - play is rejected. Act 3 - play is put on within The Author's Farce. The third Act is about Luckless putting on The Pleasures of the Town, which is interrupted at the end with word that he is really king of some distant land. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of putting your OCLC numbers in the OCLC template and adding two missing periods.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know we had an OCLC template now. Blah. I should pay more attention to these things. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I clarified - all of the characters offer advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Signore Opera, among others.[17] Eventually, she chooses Signor Opera, a foreign, castrato opera singer, as her favourite, after he sings an aria about money. In response, Mrs. Novel claims that she loved Signior Opera and died giving birth to his child.[18] - different spellings?
Hahahahaha. I fixed it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character Signior Opera, the image of the favoured castrato singer within the puppet show, mocks the foreigners that would perform as singers along with the audiences that accepted them. - again, different spelling?
It should all be Signior right now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that two of the supports here are only partial (images and 2c). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the oppose is amusing. Don't forget that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid the article falls far short of meeting criterion 1(a). Here are some examples:[reply]

Lead paragraph
  • (Sentence 1:) "The play was Fielding's first success and was written as a response to Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejection of his previous works."
    • "Response" can mean "reply" or it can mean "reaction." In the former sense, a sentence such as "Das Kapital was written as a response to the theories of Adam Smith," is entirely appropriate. But that sense cannot be employed with "rejection of his previous works," since a satirical play doesn't counter anything in a rejection. We can use "response" in the sense of a reaction (or stimulus-response), but the stimulus there is the anger, shame, humiliation, or pain experienced as a result of the rejection. (Another playwright, for example, could have been relieved by the rejection (feeling the pressure to be off)). Please rephrase (as long as it is consistent with sources.) This, however, is meaningless. (Clarified. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Besides, one earlier play, Love in Several Masques, if its link is accurate, was in fact performed in Theatre Royal. Please amend statement accordingly.
    • Needs to be "Drury Lane's rejections of (some of) his previous works."
  • (Sentence 2:) "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and writing plays to make money."
    • (Incorrect and ambivalent.) If "romance" is meant in the sense of love, the sentence should read "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at finding romance and writing plays,"
    • or, if by "romance," a literary work is meant, "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at writing (both) romances and plays."
    • or, if by "romance," lovemaking is implied, then say, "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and at writing plays," though this last version is too ambiguous for an encyclopedia.
    • "to make money" is ambivalent and vague. Not clear if it applies to romance, to writing plays, or to both. Please make more precise: as in "writing plays to earn a livelihood," "writing plays to make quick money," etc. If, for example, the former is meant, please say, "... attempts both at romance and at writing plays to earn a livelihood."
  • (Sentence 3:) "In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled "The Pleasures of the Town" about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres.
    • I am assuming by "finishes" you mean "completes writing." Why not simply say, "In the second act, he writes a puppet theater play ...?" Or was the puppet theater play begun in the first act? (If so, why weren't we told.)
  • "(Still sentence 3:) the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres."
    • "choice of the husband?" You mean "... of a husband."
    • In any case, it most likely is not about the choice, but rather about the selection. In other words, say, "... about Goddess Nonsense's selection of a husband ..."
    • Too much jargon in the sentence.
    • To improve the prose, the sentence is best broken up, as in: "In the second act, the protagonist writes a puppet theater play parodying some common literary and theater genres. Titled, "The Pleasures of the Town," the play centres on the Goddess Nonsense's selection of a ..."
  • (Sentence 4:) "Although rejected by one theatre, the play becomes a play within a play when it is eventually put on at another theatre during the third act."
    • I doubt you mean "Although." Please say, "After being rejected by one theatre, the play becomes ..."
    • There is no need for "eventually" if it is staged in the very next act.
  • (Sentence 5:) "Instead of using puppets, the puppet characters are portrayed by actual actors, and the play ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities."
    • "Instead of using puppets" is both wrong and redundant. Say simply, "The puppet characters are now portrayed by human actors ..."
  • (Still sentence 5:) "play ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities."
    • What does this mean? Please clarify.

These are just the five sentences of the lead paragraph. I'm sorry the prose needs drastic reworking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per usual, the above statements will be ignored as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says "In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled The Pleasures of the Town about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres.", not "the Goddess Nonsense's choice of the husband from allegorical representatives of common theatre and literary genres." Curious why there is that difference. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[36] Even the 31 October version says "a husband". Perhaps this should be brought up at WT:FAC like the last time such problems like this have happened regarding this user's FAC posts. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I've enacted a few changes. Take a look, Fowler. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. It is actually "a husband" in my Sentence 3 above. My mistake. Have struck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[37] It was originally added in as "a husband", and, after checking through all diffs, it was never altered to "the husband". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To NN. It has improved a little, but "choice of husband" is still poor, if not incorrect. Also, one play was staged by TR,DL in 1728. Then there is the rest of the article. I'm happy to add some more sample sentences from other sections. The main point for me is that the prose doesn't flow (yet). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to address some other comments:
  • "The response (as reaction) is not to the rejection, but rather to the shame (or humiliation or pain) of rejection. Please rephrase (as long as it is consistent with sources.) This, however, is meaningless. Pretty sure the shame of rejection is implied here; clarifying would result in The play was Fielding's first success and was written as a response to the shame he felt because of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejection of his previous works is wordy, likely inaccurate, and sounds of original research. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
I don't mean you have to be explicit. There are ways of finessing it. For example, "Born of anger felt at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's rejections of two previous works, "The Author's Farce" was Fielding's first success." or, "The Author's Farce—its writing triggered by Theatre Royal's rejections of two previous plays—was Fieldings first success." I don't have the source(s) here so I can't say for sure what will work, but I can't imagine an English language source saying, "... was written in response to the rejection ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and writing plays to make money." - I believe "romance" is a general term encompassing both love and lovemaking (though not romances as a type of play). "to make money" is also purposefully vague. Luckless needs money, period; short-term and long-term are both necessary. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
Well, acts of a play don't really "describe." Again, there are many ways to skin the cat. You could say, "The first two acts present protagonist Harry Luckless looking for romance and writing plays to make money." etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming by "finishes" you mean "completes writing." Why not simply say, "In the second act, he writes a puppet theater play ...?" Or was the puppet theater play begun in the first act? (If so, why weren't we told.) Not sure why this is relevant at all. Seems to give undue weight to when the writing began. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
OK, let's not worry about it for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much jargon in the sentence. This isn't Simple Wikipedia.
  • It has improved a little, but "choice of husband" is still poor, if not incorrect. What do you suggest? My strong suit isn't English (in fact, it's likely Math), and I'm at a loss for a better wording. — NocturneNoir (23:48, 11 November 2009), — (continues after insertion below.)
Do you have the actual quote from the source? If so, I can take a stab at paraphrasing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind copyediting the prose for anything you notice? It seems that many of the quick-fixes you suggested (such as "Drury Lane's rejections of (some of) his previous works.") are quite appropriate and entirely correct. It seems to me (and I've seen this happen at both GAN and FAC) that a reviewer, such as yourself, may find it easier to just enact the changes instead of commenting here, waiting for the article's nominator to fix it, and then checking again to see if the fix has been enacted.
Regardless, thanks for the review; I already have taken a look at the prose to the best of my ability and do think it meets 1(a) (and would therefore disagree with you that the prose doesn't flow). I feel many of the points you mentioned are extremely precise, and, in my opinion, overly so. Though I welcome such comments, I feel you're checking for brilliant prose while merely professional prose will suffice. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Fielding's first play was staged by the Theatre Royal. Fielding's next two plays were denied. All of the works describe the situation as them rejecting plays. The language corresponds to the sources used. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Here are the first three sentences of section 1:

  • (Sentence 1): Same issues as Sentence 1 above.
  • (Sentence 2): It was advertised as being rehearsed in the 18 March 1730 Daily Post and in the 21 March 1730 Weekly Medley and Literary Journal.
    • (Ambiguous: it's not being rehearsed in the newspaper) Replace with, "In the 18 March 1730 ...., it was advertised as being rehearsed."
  • (Sentence 3): "The Daily Post ran advertisements for its opening in its 23 and 26 March publications, noting that the play would contain a puppet show."
    • You mean in its "23 and 26 March editions."

I think you guys will honestly be better off working on the article without the FAC pressure, nursing it some more, and then resubmitting. I will be delighted to support it if it is well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To NN again. OK, I'll edit the lead tonight. See if you guys like it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you do not, because your edits to pages before have added in original research, faulty syntax, imprecise language, and many other problems. My response below verifies these problems, as well as multiple FACs in which you have done the same thing and, in the end, your opinion was ignored as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edition is a term that implies the same work changed or altered in some manner. Publication implies independent works. Also, "It was advertised" is the phrase connected to "in the" per Subject vs Object syntax. The word "as" means that the "being rehearsed" is a modifier of the "advertised". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your way. The August * edition of the New York Times vs. August * publication of the New York Times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Tony1 for clarification with regards to prose. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To NN: I'm afraid there are unacceptable levels of paraphrasing errors in the article. I have created a section Inaccurate paraphrasing of the talk page detailing some in the first paragraph of the first section. Please have the paraphrasing (with respect to the source) vetted by an uninvolved copy-editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article begins The Author's Farce and the Pleasures of the Town, a play by Henry Fielding, was first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket.
It should begin The Author's Farce and the Pleasures of the Town is a play by English playwright Henry Fielding and was first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket.
The first sentnece needs to state the obvious, not in passing, but as the main topic. We also need to know the country. Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 09:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nearly there, and covers the ground, but needs a good prose edit, and more linking. I did some changes to the first few paras, but gave up without getting to basic things like "land-lady". WP:ENGVAR needs attention. I think I changed these, but please note a "production" of a play implies at the least some cast changes -you don't have four "productions" on consecutive nights. There were far too many "showing"s, a word that should only be used as a last resort when "performances" pile up. "revival" is a useful word here. Bantam (city) in the East Indies, of hen fame & where the English had a trading post from 1603, should be linked to & explained. Generally there are a number of missing links to literary terms that won't obvious to all readers. Is it the case that the play has not been seen in public since the 1730s? Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow the specific term used in the source when possible. By the way, I do not have any sources that say that the "Land of Bantam" is the same as Bantam city or has any connection. "not been seen in public since the 1730s" - from the page: "The last documented non-puppet version of the play was given on 28 March 1748 by Theophilus Cibber as a two act companion piece for a benefit show. The Pleasures of the Town portion was performed outside London throughout the century, including a show in Norwich during 1749, 15 shows at Norwich during the 1750s, and a production at York during 1751–1752 theatre season. There were even benefit shows, including the third act, performed in Dublin on 19 December 1763 and in Edinburgh during 1763." Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Woods Introduction: "Bantam in Java had long been considered an exotic place of incredible ..." - I can't read the full thing but google search picks that up. But you don't need it anyway - Bantam would have been as familiar a name as say Kuwait today. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. I don't have Woods's introduction, only summaries of what he said. Interesting how no one mentioned that later. Ah well. I'll link. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link for Bantam is not the city, which was the capital of the Kingdom, but rather Sultanate of Banten. A better reference that this meaning is intended is footnote 2 on p. 285 in the Lockwood edition (2004). I have copied most of the footnote to a section of talk page of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As invited, I've looked at the rewritten "Background" section, which I've tweaked a little & renamed "Performance history", which the great bulk of it is. I'm ok with the prose here, & don't think it gives too much detail per SV below, though I agree it is not the most interesting reading. But moving on to the next prose after the cast list, I hit issues again. The first sentences are:

Although Fielding predominantly wrote five-act plays, The Author's Farce is a three-act play. The beginning of the play depicts Harry Luckless's attempts at romance with Harriot, daughter of his land-lady Mrs Moneywood, in addition to his attempts at earning money. Although the work begins in the same manner as Fielding's previous romance-themed comedies, it quickly transitions into a different type of play that emphasises the literary and theatrical establishment. [my bolds]

-some specific points already raised above. The first sentence invites the comment "and so?". Is he trying to marry or seduce the girl, or both? "Landlady" is one word (as it is later), he is attempting to earn money. Is "manner" making a stylistic or genre point? Can't "transitions" just be "turns". Is "emphasises" all it does in respect of "the literary and theatrical establishment" - doesn't it at least "deal" with them, or something more informative? The "horrible advice" later is a horrible choice of word. Since little concrete is said on the themes of the play, there should be some quotations from it to illustrate them. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applied some fixes. The first sentence is only declarative and factual - this is a plot summary section not an interpretative section. "manner" is a genre point. As for quoting the play, I don't know what you would want to quote - most fiction tries to reduce plot sections and the plot is from a third party source's interpretation of what happens. What is wrong with "horrible advice"? The advice, according to multiple sources, was very bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't like my "it" in this revised sentence: "The version was created for Theatre Royal after it suffered from the Actor Rebellion of 1733." Can't work out what to do with it. Perhaps if the previous version hadn't introduced the notion of a theatre's suffering from a rebellion (huh?), it might have contained the solution. Tony (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The different formats are key to showing the evolution of the show, as it was not a piece like The Beggar's Opera that had mostly large runs with little change in format. Sometimes it was paired (popularly or unpopularly), sometimes not, and sometimes only a tiny portion was shown. I don't know how else to really discuss it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:44, 15 November 2009 [39].

2009 Giro d'Italia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for featured status because I believe it comes as close to satisfying the criteria as (essentially) one editor can get it. I've been editing this article like crazy since May, and I believe that if it does not, as I type this, satisfy the FA criteria, it will once I have addressed concerns of persons more experienced in vetting FA's than I am. I am nominating this article because it seems to be the only step left. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AnOddName
  • No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
  • The larger images, and some of the smaller ones, have decent alt text. The smaller "stage" icons in the "Route and stages" table already have text next to them, so you can use "|link=" in the image tag to exempt them from alt text.
Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation dates are consistent ISO style.
  • User Kov 93 appears to be the primary article contributor (you're a close second). If Kov 93 doesn't know about the nomination, remember to notify them soon.

--an odd name 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kov 93 hasn't edited the article since July, but still should have been notifed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kov 93 is not the primary contributor to the article. He edited the article in a handful of bursts of 30 or 40 consecutive edits within a couple of hours (I have also made numerous consecutive edits, but they've been over days at a time), most of which were wholly rolled back and needn't have at all been made in that way. Further, he does not have a very good command over the English language, so I doubt how helpful he could be here. I'm trying not to sound like a complete jerk here, but he really did not contribute much. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S'pose that's not entirely fair...most of Kov's editing was updating the standings as the race went on. Not really in improving the quality of the article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by SandyGeorgia

There is some WP:MOS cleanup needed. The section headings include incorrect uppercase (see WP:MSH); there is unnecessary bolding in the "World Rankings points" section (see WP:MOSBOLD); there is unnecessary use of WP:ITALICS in several places (example, ... and so shared leadership of the Fair play classification and throughout at least the "Other classifications" section); there are WP:MOSNUM cleanup needs (example, ... and 2 for twentieth going to Lars Bak); and punctuation of image captions needs review per WP:MOS#Captions (sentence fragments vs. full sentences). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by Kevin McE

Several small, mainly semantic, issues:

  • We have already discussed on the talk page the mathematically unsound nature of trying to give a total race distance to the nearest 100m. If a footnote is needed to explain why the total for the race is not the total of the stages, let's have a footnote.
  • By the definition of queen stage, two stages cannot claim the status. If there is not unanimous sourced allocation of the epiphet, drop it. Totalling two non-consecutive stage times seems a very odd piece of data.
    • I disagree. It is verifiable that both stages were called the queen stage (Blockhaus was also referred to as "one of three stages vying for the status as queen stage," but I only found that in one article). The times I thought was interesting in that most stages in a stage race are completed in 3-4 hours, but I'm not too attached to it.
  • Di Luca did not "come in" second, 41 seconds behind the winner: he "came in" over the last finishing line a couple of minutes before Menchov. Suggest "Second place overall went to Di Luca, who also won ..."
  • I don't think we should have rolled over so easily to one person who wanted CERA spelled out in full. Like Alex, I think the normal English usage rule should apply, and that this aids readability.
  • Can I suggest categories, classifications, or even types of stage, rather than 'brandings, and eliminated rather than taken out to explain the consequence of finishing after the cut-off?
  • To say that stages are meant to end in a bunch sprint suggests intention on the part of the organisers. While this might be true, it would be unverifiable, and I would suggest predicted to instead. Premier doesn't seem an appropriate adjective for the top sprinters.
  • Did you mean to say that Milan is a traditional city? The city in which the city traditionally finishes, or in which the race has finished each year since 1989. Either way, that stage being showy and prestigious seems unencyclopaedic as a description.
  • What did Columbia do to upset the winners of the team time trial, and who were they anyway? Yes, I know what the article is meant to mean, but in UK English at least, this is the question raised by wound up. Keep the formal tone: were/finished as/became/ended the day as/etc etc.
    • Changed, but I have to ask, are WP:CYC articles meant to be written in British English? I'm actually not terribly opposed to that, but it would mean a lot of coming after me to clean up my "kilometer"s and "November 2"s and surely countless other phrases of which I'm not even aware. As I think I can safely say I'm the most prodigious prose writer in our Project, what I write will often "grate on" your sensibilities just as what you would write might grate on mine. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody has said that cycling articles should be in UK English, but wp:Engvar suggests version neutral language wherever possible. Of course users of one dialect will not always be aware of the effect of their words on the users of another: that is why we seek to work together. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • stage 3 to, not in, Valdobbiadene
  • Will all readers know that "the Manx sprinter" refers to Cavendish? Is the word Manx a familiar one at all outside the UK?
    • I'd think so, unless we're trying to be accessible to people who don't read English very well. He's the subject of the sentence, and the only other rider named in prose to that point is Petacchi, who is described as Cavendish's rival. Seems clear to me (but, of course it does, I wrote it). And "Manx" is certainly familiar to someone outside the UK ;) Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that that is the agreed, accessibility approved version of Columbia-HTC, and LPR Brakes-Farini: it looks to me more as though it is separating two concepts instead of joining them.
  • The next day, he claimed the jersey, when he was second to stage winner Denis Menchov at Alpe di Siusi and an elite group of favorites emerged.: first comma definitely unnecessary, second one arguably also redundant. It would be good to make a second sentence here, to say who comprised this elite group of contenders.
  • In the following para, the sentence beginning There he claimed a convincing... does not need a comma after the first word.
  • nearly two minutes back of him : is that English? nearly two minutes behind him" seems infinitely preferable to me.
  • King of the mountains points are won at passes that are not stage finishes: that is not the impression given by the sentence about Garzelli's win. Very few roads, and therefore few races, go to the summit of a mountain.
    • Probably a revision would help, but points are won on summit stage finishes. Garzelli was second to Blockhaus, and got 10 mountains points for it - [41]. Garzelli was in the top five (points for the top five) for four of the six summit finishes. That along with the breakaway over Sestrière and having the best time at the intermediate time checks that came at the tops of the climbs in the Cinque Terre time trial is what won him the jersey. It's not as off as you're indicating. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, points are not won on mountain summits, because civil engineers build roads that follow the easiest route, which means they go through cols and passes, not over peaks. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stage 9: a protest of...: in UK English, at least, protests are at, about or against something, but never of...
  • Quick Step's Seeldraeyers winning the white jersey, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone winning the green jersey, and Astana winning the Trofeo Fast Team made it eleven teams coming away with a significant prize. Several gerunds as the subject of an informally phrased verb doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopaedia: maybe With wins for Quick Step's Seeldraeyers in the youth classification, Garzelli of Acqua & Sapone in the climbers' competition, and Astana in the Trofeo Fast Team ranking, eleven teams won significant prizes during the race.
  • Should the description of the various competitions not precede the description of their outcomes?
  • Di Luca was announced to have given two positive tests: jars on UK ears: is this the correct construction in US English? Can a more version neutral phrasing be found?
  • Can we give dates or stage numbers rather than the description of the stages on which Di Luca returned dodgy tests?
  • There were also two classifications for teams: plural.
  • "The first is the Trofeo Fast Team. In this classification, the times of the best three cyclists per team on each stage are added,..."
  • Surely the description of the non-jersey awards should immediately follow the statement that they exist, rather than about 5 screen-lengths farther down the page. The team awards are non-jersey awards.
  • IMHO, the usual bullet list is a far clearer way of listing the "reserve" jersey wearers. Even if the current prose remains, the sentence Each of the first eleven podium presentations awarded multiple jerseys to a particular rider is far from clear. Suggest appending "Such a situation occured after each of the first 11 stages." to the previous paragraph.
  • The sentence on the Trofeo Fuga Cervelo needs to be re-written in a past tense.

I don't know if anyone else shares these views. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdgeNavidad
  • In the "Final standings" tables, the winner's row is boldfaced. Although I have seen this in many tables in Wikipedia, I have not seen it in a FA-article, nor can I find justification for this in the MoS. What about this?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text comments by Eubulides

Alt text is done; thanks. Images have alt text (thanks) but the alt text needs some work.

Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit afraid of this failing because of inactivity (nobody's said anything here for three days). Is there more that needs to be done, or is the article just hopeless? Please let me know what more I can do. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

These are small issues, easily resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – First couple of sections read pretty well to me, but I was left with one question at first. Initially I was unsure whether Di Luca's finish would hold up even after his failed drug tests, but one of the footnotes covers it. Would it be possible to briefly mention this in the body, so that other readers won't have the same confusion I did? Another thing I just saw on a quick glance is that reference 8 shouldn't have "FUJI-SERVETTO" in all caps. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do a proper review at some point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the pic down to the routes and stages paragraph. It's fine there. Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is something of an undue weight issue in the section about the jerseys in contrast to the main race description/evolution. I don't believe that the mentions of the second guy wearing a jersey because of the multiple holdings are as important as some more discussion of the changes in the top few guys, who are not there. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand what you think is missing. I understand the thought that the reserve wearers don't bear mentioning (I disagree, but I understand). What exactly is this "some more discussion" you'd like to see? Every transition of the pink jersey is mentioned, as is every other transition involving someone who held a jersey for more than a day. Is this what you think is missing, mentions of García, Facci, and Farrar as classification leaders? I, again, disagree, but would love to see others' opinions. Even if something about them were to be included, it would only comprise maybe one further paragraph. The article is only 18K of prose, so we're hardly at an either/or point. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:44, 15 November 2009 [42].

The Ex-Girlfriend

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Music26/11 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. After the previous FAc the article has been through a peer review and all concerns have been adressed. Thank you for your time.--Music26/11 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Needs considerable work before it meets 1a's "professional" standard. Logical flow is lacking throughout, and the article employs an oddly informal tone. Examples:
    • "but Jerry discovers he finds her" Unnecessary awkwardness with "discovers" + "finds".
    • "Jerry tries to convince George that he does not need the books because he has already read them, but George persuades Jerry to get them for him." Just one example of some yawningly pedestrian prose throughout the plot section.
    • "that she and Jerry can still be friends, despite her recent break-up" be more explicit here...why would it be a problem for them to remain friends? She broke up with George, right, not Jerry?
    • "This takes Jerry by surprise as Marlene worked as a cashier." Huh?
    • The characters seem to do a lot of "finding" in this article...
    • What is the deal with this cultural references section? Random trivia thrown together into a paragraph does not make for feature article quality. Nor does the random picture of Tony Bennett.
    • "It was based on one of David's experiences, when he gave..." One example where prose can be tightened (active voice: "David based the story on...")
    • What's with the odd shifts to conditional tense in random places? ("On Seinfeld, David would frequently come up with the idea for an episode and would make it into a teleplay with Seinfeld's help", "Seinfeld would change wardrobe between takes", "One or two members of the crew would shake the car", etc.)
    • "Another scene that was cut featured Jerry's neighbor Cosmo Kramer (Michael Richards) entering Jerry's apartment carrying a plate with cantaloupe on toothpicks" And the significance of this is?
    • "Although Seinfeld would be considered a hit show by today's standards, NBC was disappointed with its ratings, and, after three weeks, put the show on a two-month break" Very odd way of wording this...Seinfeld is considered a hit show...please be more specific here. ("The Ex-Girlfriend" debuted to disappointing ratings, and...) Also, why are we linking "break"?
    • "In a review of the episode, Jon Burlingame of The Spokesman-Review stated "Seinfeld...". ?? The source isn't reviewing the episode. It mentions the episode, but really, this article is one of those "what's on TV tonight" that's used to fill column-inches.
    • Please cite quotations. TwilligToves (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:44, 15 November 2009 [43].

Operation Crossroads

[edit]
Nominator(s): raeky, HowardMorland


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it is a strong article and meets all FA criteria. It has gone through a peer review and all issues raised with peer review resolved. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was HowardMorland (talk · contribs) consulted on this nomination, per WP:FAC instructions? If not, the nominationn should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He asked me to nominate it after completing the changes from the peer review. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Raeky: that clears that up :) Should he be listed as a co-nom, and will he be following the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, not sure how to do it though. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add his name, if you confirm that he is participating in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an impressive piece of work, but the disussion at Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Arkansas_upending.3F may indicate a clash between "Truth", and "Verifiability" by external reliable sources. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to pursue this further. However, I am pretty sure the only external reliable source (in the form of a living expert) is author Jim Delgado, who has changed his mind since he last published on this subject in 1991. It also seems to me that the video which convinced Delgado, and me, is also an external reliable source. The dark object standing free of the water column is clearly not a break in the water column, as Delgado thought when he saw the still picture and video shots from a different angle. The Internet has made available new information that was not available to experts just a few years ago. HowardMorland (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I haven't had time yet to study it enough to support, but leaning that way). I really enjoyed reading this so it fits the "engaging" requirement for FAC. There are some US weights and measures that could do with a metric equivalent (e.g. "about two pounds of fission products", "11.6 pounds of plutonium", not all the "feet" are in metres too). The statement "A percentage of each group working in less contaminated areas was badged." could do with saying what percentage or else admitting it is vague and using a term like"A small number of" or "Only some of". I found the handful of parenthetical sentences to be odd to my eyes. Is this an American thing? One of them isn't a sentence "(Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. and Louis Slotin)". My own citation style is that the footnote ref covers the preceding text in the paragraph. Here there are some ends-of-paragraphs or some whole paragraphs that appear uncited. Many of these contain facts that I'd prefer were cited. Given the comments above about some original research, I'm worried, for instance, that the comments on the "1989 diver's sketch of the wreck [of the Arkansas ]" are original rather than sourced. Is there anything else in this article that has been "discovered" by editors looking at photos and sketches? Can you confirm that "shot" is the term used for the explosion rather than for photographs of the explosion? Refs 6 and 52 need more citation details (publisher, date, access date, etc). Is ref 13 a web link or a book ref with a convenience link to a copy of the text. If a book ref, it covers page 40 and 91 which seem odd if that can be turned into one web page? A book ref needs an ISBN. That's all for now. Colin°Talk 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13 is three different things: an essay posted on the web, and two different pages from a book unrelated to the web essay. Refs 6 and 52 come from Jack Niedenthal's website http://www.bikiniatoll.com/ He is a Harrisburg Pennsylvania native and former Peace Corps volunteer who married a Bikini islander, lives in the Marshall Islands, and now represents the Bikini people to the U.S. government. Johathan Wiesgall, a Washington, DC, lawyer who works with Niedenthal vouches for him, but says that much of Niedenthal's information comes from his (Weisgall's) own 1994 book, which would be a better source to cite. I was unaware of this book, but I will have a copy soon. For what it's worth, Weisgall says he has never doubted that the dark object in the Baker picture is the silhouette of the upended battleship Arkansas. I don't know if he puts that conclusion in his book. The diver's sketch is referenced to p 95 of Delgado's book (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battleship_Arkansas_diver_sketch.png) where it is also described in text. HowardMorland (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note: there are footnotes in section headings (per MOS section headings should have no special markup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should those footnotes go? In the peer review, User:Finetooth complained that the footnotes were floating under the table, so I put them in the titles of the sections. How about in the titles of the tables, instead? HowardMorland (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 6 (Jack Niedenthal..) has the author and title run into the link title. They should be separated out. Also needs publisher and last access date information. And what makes this a reliable soruce?
  • Current ref 13 (Cunningham...) has the title run into the link title and lacks a publisher and last access date.
I'm not sure how to do this. Is ref 13 fixed now? HowardMorland (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if you're going to use Last name first or first name first with your authors and stick with one style.
In refs, the first time each author appears, full name with first name first; subsequent citations, last name only. I think I got them all. HowardMorland (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few small tweaks and running the dash script on the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: the article mixes spaced WP:ENDASHes (in the section headings) with spaced WP:EMDASHes in the text. See WP:DASH; emdashes are never spaced on Wiki. The article should consistently use either unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes. External links might need pruning per WP:EL, and some of the "See also" might be incorporated into the article, per WP:LAYOUT. Also, I believe the use of #xx has been replaced by No. xx per MOS; pls check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes are fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed HowardMorland (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shurcliffe listed as author for "Bombs at Bikini", but "Operation Crossroads" by Shurcliffe is cited under "Historian". Reason for discrepancy?
It's a mystery. I just copied the information off the publisher's pages of the books. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delgado book sometimes cited as "Archeology of the Atomic Bomb" and sometimes as "Archeology". Reason for inconsistency?
I shortened titles after their first mention. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea. References in the King Arthur article are divided into footnotes and a bibliography. The footnote references show author and year, linked to the appropriate bibliography item, and a page number. That would answer all the questions about consistent format, but I haven't seen done elsewhere. HowardMorland (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 3 and 4 send the reader to internal links that send the reader to sections of the article. I've never seen this kind of jumping around before. Have you wandered the maze that is MOS for verification that this practice is kosher? I don't know what others think; they seem to me like something that could just be removed. But it is also mostly harmless, and could probably just be left alone.
Someone requested footnotes for statements in the article's initial summary. Since the issues were explained in detail, and documented, in the body of the article, it seemed logical to send the reader there. I have raised this issue at the Village Pump, without satisfactory result. In some articles, this matter is handled by clustering footnotes in the summary. That seems unattractive and not helpful to the reader. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this: Jack Niedenthal, "A Short History of the People of Bikini Atoll."
I am in the process of redoing that on the basis of an actual book. HowardMorland (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [44].

Lisa Simpson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets FA criteria, after a PR i think it is ready Pedro J. the rookie 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Excellent articles, sources are all reliable and the prose is clear. Minor issues:
  • Wikilink to "animated television series"
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 does not need to link to IMDb
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-capitalize ref 74
Done--Pedro J. the rookie 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done--Pedro J. the rookie 10:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (suggest withdrawal): Has the primary contributor of this article User:Scorpion0422 been informed of this FAC nomination? This article uses primary sources (ie the episodes themselves) as a reference some fifteen times (refs #41-#55). In my book, watching an episode, determining character traits (or whatever) based on that viewing, and then adding that interpretation here constitutes original research. Only include information sourced to independent reliable sources, or at least, direct comments from the creators themselves. —indopug (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is informed--Pedro J. the rookie 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the statements sourced to episodes are neutral (though I could be wrong), but I could try and source some of the statements to books. Is there anything in particular that strikes you as being very ORish? -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give Pedro thy master a lot of credit for cleaning the page up. It's better than it was a month ago. However, I think it's not quite in FA territory yet. What is there very good, but I think it could still be expanded, with more influence and reception and possibly some more real-world info added. -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you sugest i close it and wait some more?--Pedro J. the rookie 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks:)--Pedro J. the rookie 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's open, we might as well see what kind of feedback we get before closing it. Perhaps others think the current amount of content is perfect. -- Scorpion0422 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah look at flash's comments.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [45].

Andrew Johnston (singer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well referenced, comprehensive article. It's fairly short, but there isn't much to say about him- further, I'm not expecting any updates in the near future, as he is taking a year out of music. Suggestions and comments are more than welcome. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright review: Both images look good. NW (Talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are still some differing date formats in the references that need to be formatted. Hekerui (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made some fixes. Any I missed? J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ot
  1. OK! magazine is not a very good source.
    It's being used only for the DOB- that's often not even referenced. It's hardly controversial information, and it is from an interview with Johnston- hardly a gossip piece.
  2. What makes acharts.us reliable?
    Wikipedia:Record charts seems to be ok with its use- I remember choosing it based on the guidance offered there.
  3. Please update and add archive links where applicable that the dead link check shows.
    I sorted the MSN link, but it would seem the Daily Record links rot, and the stories are not archived anywhere. What's the procedure, here? They were published online, and they were published in the hard copy papers- it's still citable, right?
  4. Lead doesn't follow MOS:DOB
    Sorry, in what way? Should I not state where he was born?
    It is already stated in the "personal life" Spiderone 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but everything in the lead should be redundant- the guidelines must have changed at some point, because we certainly used to state locations. Changing now. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think the Albums section is needed unless he releases another album, instead use Template:main on the albums section.
    It's fairly standard, and does provide key information at a glance- note also that there probably will be more albums. I'm not convinced- does anyone else have an opinion on this? I have added {{main}} though. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I thought it would be good to balance the FAC review karma somewhat, as J Milburn has been kind enough to give detailed reviews of some of my FAC submissions. Ok, here goes:[reply]

Thanks, and I realise that this subject may well be of no interest to you at all!
  • "...he was signed to judge Simon Cowell's label SyCo Music." needs rewording, when I first read it I wondered what the lad would be judging
    Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he is currently taking a year out to allow his voice to develop." Does one take a year out or a year off?
    Switched. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had moved to Carlisle, where he lived in "poverty",[3] as an infant after his parents separated." It reads to me like the second comma is there to make a convenient pause so that the citation can be neatly tucked in , but the sentence doesn't read right to me with it
    I've been picked up on this before, and so I'm guessing it's a chiefly British technique, but we call it parenthesis (and we call your parenthesis "brackets"). We have a very short article on it here- basically, the commas separate out a clarifying clause- clarifying the fact he lived in "poverty" in Carlisle. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While some journalists have said Johnston's background was taken advantage of by the..." reads awkwardly to me
    Changed. No idea why I wrote it like that... J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On top of his musical career, Johnston continues to live in Carlisle with his mother, and is now home tutored." To me, the sentence reads like "In addition to his musical career, Johnston lives with his mommy and doesn't get out much." ... is that the effect you were going for? :)
    Not really :) I was aware of the fact that I have a section on his personal life, and the fact that he's not a singer 24/7. I was just trying to give a spark of what his real life is like. Do you think it should be changed? J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long had Johnston been with the Carlisle choir, i.e. how old was he when he joined? How old when named head chorister?
    He was five when he joined, but I'm not certain when he became head... I'm having trouble accessing the Cumberland News site to clarify that. I've made some adjustments. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of the tour was conceived because the diocese of Stavanger is a partner to the diocese of Carlisle.[9]" Doesn't quite connect yet ... how are they partners? How did the partnership lead to the conception of the tour idea?
    Added some information about the partnership sourced to the Carlisle Diocese website. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The day after the final, for Simon Cowell's publicist" extra word in there?
    Fixed. Too involved in the text... J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Johnston was presented a gold disc by Penny Smith" how about a couple of words to tell us who Penny Smith is
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnston announced that he would be taking a year out from singing due to the breaking of his voice," passive voice?
    Fixed. J Milburn (talk)
  • "Johnston said that his father is "not really a part of my life. It was my decision"." It's not clear what this decision was, as it was his mother who left the husband
    It was his decision that the father is not part of his life? I've added some more of the quote, hopefully that clarifies the meaning. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything seems to be fine in general. Good quality for a pop cult article.

RB88 (T) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's plenty of information here, but it isn't tied together well enough. The article simply isn't well written enough for an FA. I am going to have a go at improving it. I am strongly opposed to the article ending with a negative comment by Andrew's mother about her reasons for leaving her husband. Presumably Andrew's father is alive somewhere, and regardless of the fact that his mother made an ungarded comment to the media, it adds little quality to an article about Andrew. Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could look into balancing it with a quote from his father? J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [46].

Lomana LuaLua

[edit]
Nominator(s): Spiderone 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria. It is well-balanced and contains anything you would want to know about LuaLua. I believe it mirrors the current featured footballer articles such as Thierry Henry and Bert Trautmann. This is my first nomination so I apologise if I make any amateur mistakes. Spiderone 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) consulted about this nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has been consulted now Spiderone 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know German but this might be useful Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a lot of dedicated contributors and moderators [47] and is one of few websites covering Middle Eastern football Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the "about us" section it claims to be the only English language website covering Greek sport Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a campaign supported by the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), the Premier League and The Football Association and recognised by FIFA (the world governing body for football) and UEFA (the European version) Spiderone 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the four sites still not reliable? Spiderone 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closest to reliable is the kickitout one, assuming it's only used to reference information about the campaign. Otherwise, I'm inclined to say not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is used to show he took part in the Show Racism The Red Card campaign in addition to the mention of it on his official site Spiderone 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Sport In Greece is completely reliable. As this link and this link proves, it uses journalists who have written for The Times, Reuters and Guardian. Both of the owners have worked with the BBC so I don't think it can be considered reliable unless we're showing bias. I think it would be fair to say, as far as Greek websites go, it is reliable. I will try to replace Transfermarkt and Goalzz if possible. Spiderone 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added Spiderone 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that; I tweaked it a bit. It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only a few quick ones instead of a full review, which I would like to do if I find time.

  • "He remained there for three months but his spell there was marred by disciplinary problems and malaria." One thing to watch for is repetitive repeating of words, like the multiple "there"s in this sentence. The second one can be removed without changing the meaning, making the sentence tighter as a whole.
  • "He has a brother called Kazenga LuaLua who plays for Newcastle United". I didn't think the "called" was needed when I read it. A simpler "He has a brother, Kazenga LuaLua, who plays for Newcastle United" may be an improvement.
  • Club career: Feels like some punctuation is missing from this: "Initially, he struggled to adapt and he preferred going to nightclubs over playing for Colchester, Harrop says 'It took a lot of hard work...". Giants2008 (17–14) 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these 3 points Spiderone 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newcastle United: "LuaLua made his first-team debut in a 1–0 home defeat to Charlton Athletic in September 2000 and went on to make a total of 23 league and cup appearances...". Lot of unneeded words here. This can easily be reduced to "and made 23 league and cup appearances", which will also make the voice of the sentence more active.
    • "having started 21 games and made 67 appearances as substitute." Add "a" before last word?
    • Portsmouth: "During this loan he famously scored in the 89th minute in a 1–1 draw for Portsmouth against parent club Newcastle." Would a game in February 2003 that ultimately had no real impact on the season really qualify as famous?
    • Change comma after "His disciplinary problems continued when he was warned by the Football Association over his future conduct" to a semi-colon?
    • Olympiakos: "He fell out of favour shortly before the Greek cup final in May and was placed on the transfer list." According to our article on the subject, "cup" should be capitalized (proper noun). Also, consider linking to the Greek Cup article.
    • International career: "He was however included...". Commas should bracket "however" here.
    • Spell out FECOFA.
    • "as the DR Congo football authorities felt it better not to tell him so to avoid distracting him." Add "as" before second "to".
    • Change comma after "LuaLua scored the second goal in a 2–0 victory" to a semi-colon.
    • Do the same with the comma before "this time it was on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm" in Personal life.
    • If I may make one general comment to conclude my review, I feel that the article needs work regarding its punctuation. There are numerous times throughout where commas are missing from where they should be or present where they shouldn't, and several commas that should be semi-colons the way a given sentence is structured, a few of which I pointed out above. Although it seems like a minor point, solid punctuation is vital for FA-level prose, and having someone go over this would go a long way toward the article meeting the criterion for professional prose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these points now Spiderone 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:LuaLua 2007.jpg - It is unclear from the image description page who the copyright holder is, that is, is the uploader also the photographer? Please contact the uploader and ask him/her to clarify this.Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is inactive so I'm not sure what I can do about this. On the image's page it says "Photo taken By Dave Adcock in Cosham, Portsmouth July 2007" and the user that uploaded it is called Dave so surely we know that he uploaded it and owns the rights to it. Spiderone 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't see that in the history - I have restored that information to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [48].

Well Dunn

[edit]
Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. It was nominated once before, but the FAC was closed due to lack of responses (no supports or opposes). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the sourcing issues raised on the first FAC have been cleared up, bringing this back in 7 days is premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were no objections to the sourcing in the first FAC. Ealdgyth asked for explanations of why some sources were reliable, and I provided responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But she did not strike them, meaning they still needed review for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that to be done? The sources she asked about are published by experts in the field and meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. I explained this, and my explanations were ignored. Ealdgyth said that she would let other editors decide for themselves about the reliability; I am confident that, if any reviewers come around this time, they will agree that the sourcing is up to FA standards. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I generally leave self-published sources for other reviewers to decide for themselves, especially in non-academic or obvious cases. If I'd been utterly convinced, I'd have struck them, but they were close enough that I didn't think they were out of bounds. They should be considered by each reviewer. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text and images cleared in previous FAC; please advise if they have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of uncleared sources carried forward from previous FAC:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the information at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches to establish reliability of these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Putting aside the sources above for a second, most of the remaining references are either to WWF television programs or are otherwise related to the then-WWF. Is there any possibility for replacement of some of these with non-primary sources? A lot of reviewers here become concerned when they sense that too many primary sources have been used, although I grant that sources for a team from this era are probably difficult to find. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used non-primary sources wherever possible. Unfortunately, non-primary information about the early/mid 1990s is hard to find for some wrestlers. Because Well Dunn was never really among the top tag teams in the WWF, there was limited information written about them in the magazines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, between the two FACs, it's been 37 days without a single Support or Oppose. The process appears to be broken, so I think it's time for me to come to the realization that FAC is, for all intents and purposes, dead. GAN has worked out a lot better, as it leads to actual feedback rather than stagnant review page after stagnant review page. Feel free to close this whenever you feel like it, as it's clearly a pointless endeavour. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gary, lets wait on closing. I'm up to it, so I'll give a review and I'll be sure to leave a support or oppose after I'm done.--WillC 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by WillC
  • Lead
    • Infobox
I know it is not a must, but the infomation mentioned in the box I wouldn't mind sourced, because some of it may not be mentioned later and it would be best to have it covered now.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose
"Well Dunn, also known as the Southern Rockers, was a professional wrestling tag team that competed in several promotions in the United States." Wouldn't mind Rockers linked to The Rockers, since I believe that may be a reference in the sentence, and it written as "The Southern Rockers" since that should be the official name. I haven't read it in a while, but WP:THE may have something to do with that.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They held championships in Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and Music City Wrestling (MCW)." → "They held championships in the Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and the Music City Wrestling (MCW) promotions." I like to make sure everything is clarified.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They are best known, however, for competing in the World Wrestling Federation from 1993 to 1995." → "They are best known for competing in the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) from 1993 to 1995." However seems unneeded here.
"In the WWF, Well Dunn faced the promotion's top tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." → "In the WWF, Well Dunn faced several of the promotion's tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." Can change around if you want, but top seems like an opinion.
"They had a feud with The Bushwhackers that lasted for most of Well Dunn's tenure with the company." Seems sloppy, rewrite is needed imo. Something like "Most of their tenure with the company was spent being engaged in a feud with Luke Williams and Butch Miller of The Bushwhackers tandem."
"During this reunion, Doll attacked King and the team disbanded permanently." → "During this reunion, Doll attacked Smith and the team disbanded permanently." Best to keep consistent.--WillC 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    • Early years
    • Reunion
    • WWF (1993)
    • WWF (1994)
    • WWF (1995)
    • Split
  • In wrestling
  • Championships and accomplishments
  • References
  • External links
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009 [52].

No Line on the Horizon

[edit]
Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm nominating No Line on the Horizon for a couple of reasons. I think it is a very thorough and comprehensive look at the creation, development, and release of the album, with information regarding the original concept behind it, the groups of recording sessions, the creation and inspiration of the songs, as well as the release, promotion, and reception towards it. The article was successfully promoted to GA some time ago and underwent a Peer Review before its first FAC, which it failed. The issues brought up in the failed FAC have, I think, since been addressed, and it recently underwent a second Peer Review with all of the points brought up there being addressed as well. I believe this article is the most comprehensive overview of the subject on the internet, and that it is now ready to join the elite clientele that comprises Wikipedia's Featured Articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments after a quick peek.

  • A few citation dates use Day Month Year format. I'll make them ISO style like the others for consistency if you don't mind.

--an odd name 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with Google cache. --an odd name 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that; it went dead only earlier today, before I had a chance to archive it. I'm hoping that it's just a database error/update, and that it will be up again shortly (the other certification years all seem to work fine). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the IFPI and they fixed the broken link; the source is no longer dead and it has been archived in case it goes down again in the future. I believe that the reason it went down was because they were updating the page with information on Q3 certifications. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead should not have citations. The material does not seem that contestable to me to warrant them.
  • Per WP:CHARTS, limit the amounts of charts in each table to 10 plus up to 8 derivative charts.

RB88 (T) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CHARTS is for the singles, so I think he means cut down the singles charting to 10 different charts. Makes sense to me, because every chart appearance can be noted in the article for the single. Suede67 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHARTS is for both: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." This applies separately to BOTH the album chart table and the singles chart table. To stop repeating the same chart, I suggest merging all the singles into a single table, see A Weekend in the City. Also keep the single markets to the English-speaking world only. The article is about the album after all. The rest of the singles detail must be put in the respective pages. RB88 (T) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay; eh, one last question though. I'm not too familiar with charts myself, so what exactly constitutes a secondary chart? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. you can have US, UK, EIRE etc ... up to national chart number 10, and then you're allowed up to 8 derivatives like Billboard Independent, Ultratop Alternative etc. should you so choose to include them, too. RB88 (T) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers; I've done that now. Does it look acceptable? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References 103 - 106 are broken. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those references don't have anything to do with the article; that's just me copy-pasting the charts from A Weekend in the City to try and work the suggested format for the charts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, once I fixed the format those broken links went away. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • Well, atu2.com is in regular contact with Principal Management and has had several exclusive interviews with people very close to the band before, including Neil McCormick, Joe O'Herlihy (think I spelt that right), and Willie Williams. They were also the media sponsor for an Academic Conference on the band recently. However as the same claim is backed up by another source (Rolling Stone), I'll remove it to save some hassle. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the link from the Q and Mojo reviews and cite the print publications themselves (check Metacritic for page and issue numbers). We don't know (and I doubt) the atu2.com has permission to republish them.
  • Replace Acharts.us with everyhit.com.
  • Also, web content does not merit italics unless the publication is in print also (not applicable if you're citing Billboard.com though)

RB88 (T) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- Current refs:

  • 13 and 65 need to be RTÉ. Abbreviate it in ref 37.
  • 14 should be The New York Times.
  • 17 should be The Irish Independent.
  • 21 should be CNN for consistency.
  • 52 and 73 should be Pitchfork Media.
  • 69, 74, and 93 do not need italics.
  • 99 needs unabbreviation.

RB88 (T) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs 15, 19, 29, 30, 35, 47, 49, 81 are sourced from reprints at atu2.com. I doubt the website has a license for all of them, if any. So, the links should definitely be removed. And then you have to source the material from the print publications themselves (or the websites if published there). RB88 (T) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, though the Hot Press articles are now part of the archives (meaning that a subscription is needed to view them). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just add "Subscription required". RB88 (T) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:U2nloth.ogg - The purpose of use only really discusses the lyrics, which could be included as a quotation in the article. Why does the listener need to hear the song? Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that including an audio accompaniment which can be compared to the cover art and the lyrics would better show the correlation of how the image inspired Bono to write the song. Additionally, the sound sample is indicative of the direction the band took in recording the album, showing how it fits about halfway between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind sonically (though I note that the rationale did not include that); I have now altered the rationale so that it reflects this point. Do you feel that it now meets Criterion 3? If not then I will be happy to remove it if it is the only obstacle towards your support, though I feel that for this latter purpose especially it's use is essential. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Awadewit has been notified of a response but has not yet returned to the nomination page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is stronger, yes. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Maralia 20:09, 13 November 2009 [53].

Midshipman

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Based on the comments from the first FAC review, the article was copy-edited and re-peer reviewed, the Adelborst references were replaced using a Dutch government publication, the content was re-sectioned, the non-compliant US naval ranks navigation was removed and replaced with a more compliant officer candidate navigation, along with various other minor changes. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All but one of the previous items are now struck; there's still an "in 1810" that needs to be removed. One more thing, which resulted from the above changes: the lead image's alt text "A full size portrait of a boy wearing the uniform of a midshipman." conveys almost zero useful info about what a midshipman looked like, so a visually impaired reader will be nearly clueless about looks. Could you please rephrase this to discuss the blue coat with tails, the marvellous brown bicorne, the sash, the longish golden hair, the white waistcoat and breeches and hose, the sword, and the portfolio under his arm? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - Very good informative article. Just a few problems spotted with some of the text:
    • A midshipman is an officer cadet, or alternatively a commissioned officer of the lowest rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. .... Do we need the word "alternatively", it adds nothing?
    • a British Royal Navy midshipman served seven years on the lower deck and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and position. After serving at least four years as a midshipman or master's mate, they were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.
A few problems with this passage. 1) "Rank and position." Aren't these the same? The words "and position" seem to add nothing but a slight confusion in the reader's mind. Or do you mean "Rank and duties" or "rank and responsibilities", which would be clearer? 2) The sentence makes it seem that midshipman and master's mate are the same thing, which the article shows they are not. This needs some clarification. 3) Tenses. We switch from singular tense to plural without reason, which is jarring. Perhaps "he was" should replace "they were".:::* 1) They aren't the same;I like rank and responsibilities. 2) That's the text of the regulation... 3) I'll fix that.
    • During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the U.S. replaced apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college,
Grammatically "led to the replacement of" would be better than "replaced". And U.S. Navy would be better than just U.S.
    • The local term for "Navy Guard" is regarded as equivalent to "midshipman" in many languages
"Navy Guard" means nothing in English, and is likely to puzzle readers, since it does not bring to mind anything resembling a midshipman. From the article text, it appears that the origin of the foreign rank translated into English here as "Navy Guard" was a type of cadet. It might be clearer, therefore to replace the term with "Navy Cadet" or "Naval Cadet".
  • I'm still puzzled! It literally means Navy Guard; in the many nations there are Guards units in the Army with a strong royal connection that Midshipman lacks; the translation into English by the dictionaries I consulted is Midshipman, not Naval Cadet. Off the top of my head: In many romanc languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... Thoughts?
The Canadian Navy uses the term "Naval Cadet" in English, so that is the closest English term in actual use. Your suggestion is an improvement however. The problem could also be solved by a rearrangement of the sentence, for example: "Terms regarded as the equivalent of "midshipman" in other languages include the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. These can be roughly translated as Navy Guard or Naval Cadet." Xandar 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navy Guard came from the name of the companies they served in, which is discussed in the next two sentences - again, if you look in the dictionary for those words, all of them are translated as midshipman. The translation of Naval Cadet into French is Aspirant de marine.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However as the sentence currently appears in the article it is still wrong, since Naval Guard is not an English term. If you don't like my version, then your alternative In many romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... would be a lot better. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beginning in the 17th century, volunteer boys were sent to serve on ships in place of a midshipman, with a "letter of service," from the crown, which instructed the admirals and captains that the bearer was to be shown "such kindness as you shall judge fit for a gentleman, both in accommodating him in your ship and in furthering his improvement.
Very long sentence. Could it not be split after "from the crown"? Then continue "This instructed..." Also "Beginning in the 17th century" feels clumsy. It would be better to start with something like "From the 17th century onward..."
    • There are two different explanations for the origin of the term midshipman. The lead states that it comes from "amidships". This does not appear in the main text, however, instead there is an explanation about working between the main and mizzen masts. Perhaps the amidships explanation needs adding to the main text to avoid confusion.

Xandar 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one other puzzling passage:
  • At the height of the Age of Sail, during the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), most midshipmen started their sailing career around the age of 12. Royal Navy regulations required that no one "be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea". Most boys served this period at sea; another three years might be served in any lower rating,either as a seaman or as a servant of one of the ship's officers.
The last sentence. Does it mean that some candidates served six years at sea before becoming a midshipman? That's how it seems to read. Xandar 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - here's a longer version: You can join the navy at 11 if your father is a naval officer, or 13 otherwise, and no one was verifying birth records if you 'looked' 11/13. Prior to promotion to midshipman, the regulations said you had to serve 3 years at sea in any lower rating. Most boys with connections served as volunteers or servants(pre-1794) or volunteer 1st class (post 1794), but 30 or so boys a year attended the royal naval college which counted as sea time, and another minority served as seamen boys or able seamen - it didn't really matter what rating you had, just as long as you had the sea time(Unless you cheated and used your connections to skip this whole process). I'll just delete ';another three years might be'. Thoughts?Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clearer, which is what we want. Xandar 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • Done
  • Done
  • File:Midshipman Noa.jpg - Please provide a date and an author for this image. Also, please provide a link to the source and more detailed information on how to find this image at the source so that we can verify the license.
  • Done - I'll notify the author, but for the time being I'm going to remove the image.
  • File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • File:Navy sleeve NCdt.png - Please add a fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article and be sure to include a source for the information in the diagram.
  • File:Midshipman-SA.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
  • Done
  • File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done - I also fixed the image to remove the insignia of the medical corps.
  • File:Grade-aspirant.svg - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
  • Done
  • File:7 - skad.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
  • Done
  • File:9 - fhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
  • Done
  • File:11 - ofhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done - this rank is in the process of being abolished, and despite the name its actually a type of warrant officer so I removed it from the article.
  • File:SP Alumnos.gif - Please add a {{summary}} template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
  • Done

I look forward to striking my oppose when these issues are fixed. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, crit. 1c and 3. Awadewit has pretty much covered my issues with unverified image, but I'm also concerned about referencing. A small sampling of unreferenced content that I don't think meet the "common knowledge" threshold include:
    • "There is no evidence to support either story, but the nickname persists today."
    • The last two paragraphs of "Royal Navy", " During the second seven weeks, officer cadets learn essential sea officer skills, including navigation and the marine environment, strategic studies, and basic sea survival [...] which completes part of a Foundation Degree(FdSc) in Naval Studies (equating to two thirds of an Honours degree), on completion of initial Professional Training."
    • Some of this content might be referenced, but it's unclear as to what it is cited to.
    • The article essentially just focuses on the UK/former commonwealth territories and the United States. Is this term used by non-European countries and the aforementioned exceptions? If so, it needs to be covered, if not, it needs to be said.
  • Its an English word, is only used by Navies that were based on the British Royal Navy and speak English. I covered the differences in the comparative rank section. Would you suggest adding a statement to the lead? Kirk (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to an in fiction/pop culture section, there is a relevant Military history guideline that should be followed if such a section is indeed implemented: WP:MILPOP which is in the MILMOS which was integrated into the MOS a while back. -MBK004 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, my opinion is its a good candidate for another article, not a section in this article. Kirk (talk)
  • Leaning Strong Oppose per Copyvio
  • We say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy ." Following the link to the source, they say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy." I hope this parroting is not gonna be a trend.
  • Oh dear. We say "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the curriculum was intended to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Harding 199, p. 145 says "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the teaching was to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Note the difference is a single word. And the latter is copyrighted as well. This is a little uncomfortable.
  • I scanned it for copyvio (after finding the first instance) and found another instance in about 3 minutes. You're the nominator, and you didn't check for this? How many more instances are there? You should read WP:COPYVIO very, very slowly and carefully. I actually only said "Leaning Oppose" in order to give you a fig leaf to let you withdraw the nom. Changing to Strong Oppose per WP:COPYVIO. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you 'scanning for copyvio'? I wasn't aware of any tools for this purpose; certainly the article has gone through a GA review, two A reviews, two FA reviews and at least two peer reviews, but a tool would be helpful. I've already addressed quite a few potential violations in this article; I'm not sure why the 1c problems in the prose you've indicated would require withdrawing the nomination. I think I found the instance you found from the OED, I'll review the article for problems today & if you have other specific problems, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tools are my eyes, my brain and my willingness to do something called "work" —that is, to actually go and search for copyvio. It's forgivable (sorta) if the GA reviewers don't catch such copyvio, but the A-class reviewers should be ashamed. Moreover, yes, you should withdraw the nom. You are putting your name on an article which has already been proven to have copyvio problems. You should act as a responsible Wikipedian and manually verify every cite. Moreover, if you haven't read WP:COPYVIO yet, now would be a good time.Ling.Nut (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll estimate I manually reviewed 80% of the citations yesterday & I found no other issues, but my eyes and brain have their limits. I have read WP:COPYVIO but I feel like we're not on the same page here; I'm going to ping SandyGeorgia to chime in. Cheers. Kirk (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather as in Britain". Is that a British expression? Strange to my ears.
  • "After passing out they". Eh, "passing out" is unintentionally humorous in AmerEng. Can rephrase? After graduating, perhaps?
  • What does note 30, "37 Stat. 73" mean?
  • Hamersly 1881 in notes but not refs... no wait, here it is, below Morris & kearns, but looks strangely cited and located...
  • Done - I redid those; the peer review fixed the reference item but not all the footnotes.
  • Withdrawn - I don't currently have access to a couple of the print sources for a 100% review, so SandyGeorgia, Maralia & I agreed the best course of action was withdrawing the nomination until that's completed. Thanks everyone for their help on this review. Kirk (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:50, 10 November 2009 [54].

Bionicle

[edit]
Nominator(s): Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it that it has met all FA criteria. The issues which got it rejected the first time are no longer there, and after fixing all the issues the now-removed templates said needed fixing, I think it is ready for a second chance.--Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the major issue identified in the last FAC (lack of inline citations) has not been resolved at all, and there are scores of other issues with the article as well. Recommend withdrawal and a series of peer reviews to help improve the article. Steve Smith (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - adding the necessary citations. Thank you for pointing that out. May I ask what the other issues are? Sorry, but I'm currently the only person whose really editing this article now.--Twilight Helryx 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw (by an odd name) I clearly see Steve Smith's issues. Also:

  • Most importantly, what are the actual toys? There are subarticles, so at least summarize what they say about the actual toys and toy sets (if they say anything about them); maybe list a few examples if you want a full list somewhere else. This is the central subject of the article ("Bionicle is a toy line from the Lego Group marketed at 6-16 year-olds"), so at that point I simply demoted to C and didn't look back.
  • How has the toy line sold overall? How have critics generally received the line?
  • Contrary to popular belief, "Bionicle" is not "Bionic" with an "-le" suffix, but a portmanteau constructed from the words "biological" and "chronicle".—if there's no clear (cited or common-knowledge) evidence people actually think it's "'Bionic' with an '-le'", just say what it really is. Use italics, not bold, for the emphases.
  • However, a recent advertisement for the Toa Mahri listed Kongu as a "Kahu" bird rider.—I didn't see the ad. Source please.
  • Any info on the development of the general line? I see a tiny bit in the lead: "The concept was derived from Lego Group's earlier themes Slizers/Throwbots and Lego RoboRiders. Both of those lines had similar throwing disks and characters based on classical elements." How do you know this? Sounds like original research unless the Lego teams, critics, or some other reliable source has said so. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
  • The Three Virtues (Unity, Duty, and Destiny), a recurring theme throughout the Bionicle storylines. You say this and then make no further mention of them in the body; are they minor aspects, then? Also, unless the symbols themselves (which is which, by the way? Is only the middle dot Duty, or all three dots?) are the Virtues (as opposed to the qualities of unity, duty, and destiny), just remove the non-free image. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing.--Twilight Helryx 13:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [55].

Denton, Texas

[edit]
Nominator(s): MahangaTalk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a month of thoroughly researching, writing and referencing, I'm convinced it meets the FA criteria. It follows the guide set forth by WP:USCITY. MahangaTalk 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, mainly 1a Not liking the prose I've seen so far.

  • I've had to link cable companies and such for context and trim some redundancies. Speaking of those, surely there's a better way to say "The city council consists of seven members: mayor, four council members, and two at-large council members." I have a feeling there's more and I won't fix 'em all.
  • Most paragraphs start with Denton. Mix 'em up somehow.
  • Remove that "Handbook of Texas" template from the citations (it's ok for external links) and just use "cite web" or "citation" so that the publisher can be specified without looking like an awful car crash between two sentences with a comma between them.

This article failed a GAN as well. Withdraw, work on it further (maybe another peer review or an independent copyedit), then go for GA before moving further here. --an odd name 07:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I made a couple fixes already. I'll start on the rest a later today. Regarding the failed GAN: I prematurely nominated the article because there was a backlog and I figured it wouldn't be reviewed for at least a few weeks. Unexpectedly, a user reviewed the article just a day later. Since then, I have made substantial changes to the article and contacted the original reviewer for additional feedback. He didn't reply. I made another GA nomination and it's been unreviewed for two weeks so I decided to take a chance on FAC. MahangaTalk 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Given that and Juliancolton's comments, I'll stay neutral here. Still recommend someone else look over the prose and such. --an odd name 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the GA reviewer, and I think the article's come a long way, but a few sections still need some more citations. For examples, the statistics in the Geography section remain sources. Good work so far! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Uncited statements of opinion:
    • " Lake Lewisville, a popular fishing and boating destination, is 15 miles south of the city." (the "popular" needs the cite)
    • First paragraph of Climate needs citation/sourcing
    • "Big-name performers and bands such as Arturo Sandoval, Tower of Power, and Brave Combo have performed at the festival."
    • "A number of music venus and commercial recording studios exist for Denton's music base."
    • "Several area school districts have large athletics programs which draw significant attendance from the general public, especially for high school football games."
    • "Most Texas state agencies also have facilities in the city, the larger of which include a Texas Workforce Center, a driver license/highway patrol office, and a state school."
    • "North Central Texas College, a community college in nearby Corinth, is also attended by many Denton students."
    • There are other statements that could use citations throughout the article.
  • Current ref 7 (Sims...) lacks a publisher and last access date.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • Current ref 33 (Official Capital...) lacks a last access date
  • Current ref 60 has no publisher listed (Belo...)
  • Current ref 74 lacks a publisher (Sister Cities...)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added some citations, formatted others, and removed some peacock terms such as "big-name bands". Regarding the question about reliable sources: Paste is a fairly prominent music magazine (circulation of over 200,000) and the article merely uses their opinion of Denton's music scene. I think it's ok per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. Pegasus News is a small online news source for DFW. It's as reliable as the local Denton newspaper. It may not be as high-end as The New York Times, but the news articles I cited were void of any opinion. I will try to see if I can replace it with Denton Record-Chronicle news articles. Thanks, and please let me know if there's something I missed. MahangaTalk 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is "300,000 thousand people" a typo? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Fixed. MahangaTalk 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Denton historic courthouse.jpg - Please add a description and a date to the image description page for this image. Also, I'm unconvinced that this a work by the US Federal Government. It seems to be a work by a state historical commission.
    • I was under the impression it was given to Preserve America (a federal organization) from the Texas commission. In any case, I've replaced it with an alternative image.
  • File:Fry Street 1920s.PNG - Please add a source, date, and author to the image description page.
    • I've asked the uploader for a source. If none is provided, it'll probably get deleted within 7 days. I've temporarily hidden it pending the uploader's response.
      • Still reads "Another dance they did" - please add a fuller description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, I was looking at the caption, instead of the image description. Replaced description.
  • File:Ann Sheridan Cowboy from Brooklyn trailer.jpg - The image description page needs to include a link to the trailer (for example, on YouTube) that shows the entire trailer sans copyright notice.
    • The trailer does show a copyright notice though the upload claims it wasn't renewed. Relevant discussion is here. I've chosen to use a different image.

I look forward to striking this oppose once these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extensive review of the images in the article and for editing the article to match MOS#Images. MahangaTalk 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [56].

Boys in Red accident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Alright time for round two! After nearly a year or work and one failed FAC last month I now feel this article is ready! Main thing stopping this article last time was prose and punctuation mostly; so I have copyedited the article extensively with some input and assistance from User:DQweny (Thank you very much!). This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia and I think it's ready to join the other FA's. =) Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - Problems with pictures Changed to full oppose below.
  • The picture in the lead is important, but its being used under fair use and the rationale doesn't make sense to me, "There is no free equivalent of the van, so the image cannot be replaced." Isn't this from a government report? It should be easy to ask for permission, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
Temporarily removed it from the article. I am going to make a request to Government of Canada. If it's refused for whatever reason then I guess that's fine. If people want to see images of the accident they can click on the report at the bottom of the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* The picture in the 'Aftermath' section says 'Ford E350 van similar to the one involved in the accident', except that its a cargo van instead of a 15 passenger van, so its not actually similar. There's probably a picture on Flickr you could upload, or you could take a picture.

Got a passenger version of the van. (I think) Though it is of a different color. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) A[reply]
Comment: I would have liked to see the picture of the semi that hit the van, I'm surprised this didn't come up in your GA review.
Sorry for being picky, thanks for your hard work. Kirk (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one but I am currently making a request to GovCan over it. Watch this space. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dealt with thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Agree. To my mind this article meets all the FA criteria. DQweny (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criteria 3
  • Note: I'm not sure I really support striking through my objections above - deleting the picture really makes this a worse FAC.
  • One issue you face is the lack of any other FA-class articles about any auto accidents. Based on some of the aviation accident FA-class articles:
  • There aren't enough pictures, graphics, etc. to support the prose. A good rule of thumb is one graphic per 250 words, so you are short about 5. For example, how about a map? Also, each image needs to be discussed in the text. See American Airlines Flight 11
  • If this was my article, I'd contact the WP:AIRCRASH task force for a peer review, as well as leting them know I wanted to create a new task force for auto accidents (maybe they can help set it up), add a map, getting permission to those images in the report, and working them into the prose. I'm sure more experienced editors can give more tips as well. Good luck and thanks for your contributions! Kirk (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • I didn't strike through anything I didn't feel was properly dealt with.
  • I haven't used aviation accident articles as the template for this article. In fact, I actually think that in some ways the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings article is of a closer model to a car accident because it revolves around an event that occurred on the ground, and wasn't investigated by a specialized air task force.
  • That's the recommended format, I would love to have enough images to do that, but I don't. Other FA's are like this as well... see Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état.
  • I agree. I think I have seen a template dedicated to bus accidents that I possibly could manipulate in some way.
  • An auto accident task force would be a good idea. Also, I don't think there is any map that can be added to this article unless I just want to show the position of Bathurst within New Brunswick, even the accident report does not have a map. As for the images in the report, if I can't get permission to use them then whatever, that shouldn't derail this nomination. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose I guess as a transplanted New Brunswicker, I should take a look at this one. It's not in bad shape, but I think it's still some distance from being a featured article. Some specific comments:

  • I've done a copyedit, but I don't think the prose is there even after that. I think I've reduced the bloat enough, but it's still stilted at some points. I'd encourage the solicitation of another copyedit, and I'll try to get back to this myself once I have some more distance from it.
  • In "Accident" we're told that the vehicles came to rest on the shoulder of the southbound lane, but we're not told which way each vehicle was driving, which would be relevant information for understanding the relevant kinetics.
Guess that was removed during the copy editing. I have now clarified the van was travelling northward. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Reaction" just reads as a list of quotes, with no apparent attempt to build thematic unity.
Tried to tie together the section with an opening topic sentence. Might change the formatting of this section a bit. Watch this space.
  • I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the extensive use of primary sources in the "Investigation" section. Have these details not been covered by secondary sources?
  • On what basis do rural schools claim to have been impacted more than urban ones by the new rules?
Removed, this claim was based on a source that has since become a deadlink, this now reads as POV.
  • Who would the families of the deceased be bringing charges against?
None of the references I've looked at mention anyone specific. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. As I said, I'll try to be back later to give it another going over. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to add to the primary source issue, the second paragraph of "Recommendations" is supported in its entirety by a single primary source. The paragraph draws conclusions that are not supported by that source (i.e. "One major effect..."). Steve Smith (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref was wrong instead of reffing policy 512 it should have reffed 513 which it is now doing. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the primary source doesn't support that it was a major change, doesn't support that it resulted from the accident, doesn't support that it was a completely new policy (rather than a replacement for an old policy that may have included some of the same elements), etc. This is the danger of primary sources, and why Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on secondary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess I should clarify here. Until the accident policy 512 and policy 513 we're not enforced and schools were only requested to follow them. After the accident the policies became fully enforceable and all school must adhere to them. So actually the insurance requirements are quite old but you didn't need to have them until after the crash. I'll get looking for a ref! --Kuzwa (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Both images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a. A few examples listed below, but please don't fix these few and come back and ask me to reconsider. The article needs two or three major revisions from experienced editors before it could pass 1a:
  • The provincial government agreed with the majority of the suggestions and has since enacted many of them.. Weasel words.
  • suspected that only the semi had gone off the road. So the van was on the road? Or the shoulder? Oh, it wasn't visible. Ambiguous.
  • one cannot drive if they have been working. garbled grammar. Rewrite.
  • Many at Bathurst High School speculated. Weasel words, unverified.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [57].

Obesity

[edit]
Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it exemplifies Wikipedia best work. Has many sub pages which fill in detail for many sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took packages of the two most commonly used obesity meds and took a picture of them with a digital camera. This is not much different than what has been done on the Sertraline article. I would ask the above user to assume good faith. If this is not allowed we have a great number of images on Wikipedia that must be deleted. Let me know what the community thinks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a copyright problem with that image. However, it'd be much better to take a picture of the actual medication, rather than its packaging, so that the casual user can easily see whether it's a capsule, pill, liquid, etc.; this is useful at-a-glance information that the current photo doesn't convey. Eubulides (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote the above comment, the image has been improved as suggested; thanks. I don't see a copyright issue with the improved image either. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:CactusWriter and User:Stifle below and would refer to Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. Packaging labels can be copyrighted to the degree that they incorporate creative elements in design. The Meridia clears the creativity threshold easily. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add some alt text. Not completely sure if this is what is desired?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good start; thanks. Here are the remaining problems I see:
  • File:Obesity-waist circumference.PNG and File:Italienischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg are still missing alt text. For the former, please use the |Alt= parameter of {{Infobox Disease}}.
  • The alt text for the maps don't convey to the visually impaired reader any useful info that's not already in the caption. Please reword them to say something useful, e.g., "Obese males have higher prevalence (above 30%) in the U.S. and some Middle Eastern countries, medium prevalence in the rest of North America and Europe, and lower prevalence (<5%) in most of Asia."
Agree
  • Please move the phrase "two most commonly used medication to treat obesity" to the caption, as it does not describe visual appearance and cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image; please see WP:ALT#Verifiability. For that image I expect the alt text will just say something like "Cardboard packaging of medications; see caption." as per WP:ALT#Placeholders. (Is there any way that relatively-weak image can be improved, as suggested above?)
Will head down to a pharmacy and take some more pictures.
  • The alt text "A three dimensional model of the leptin molecule" is mostly just a copy of the caption; please rephrase it so that it says what the molecule looks like, rather than repeating the caption, as per WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • I had trouble parsing "Well all the bony structures and organs appear similar the normal weight individual showing little subcutaneous fat and the obese person showing substantially more subcutaneous fat." Perhaps the "Well" should be removed, and a comma or two inserted?
  • Please omit the phrase "The image of the side of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All above items have been fixed; thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never normally argue with doctors, but my eyebrows shot up at "During the Baroque the wealthy often were obese" (picture caption). In fact the reference refers to "the Middle Ages and Renaissance", not the Baroque, and is anyway from Francine Kaufman, who appears to be a doctor not a historian. It is a vague & dubious proposition imo, & our age is in no position to point the finger. Riding & hunting tended to keep them relatively trim, with of course some exceptions. The picture is a great one, but the caption needs a different angle - how do we know he did not have a thyroid disorder etc anyway? Otherwise the article seems very good & nearly there. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks the ref does say middle ages and changed it to that. There are a number of other books which make this assertion aswell. They can easily be found through google scholar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I add a better reference? The changes you made have made the situation worse if anything. Where did "officials" come from? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are of similar lengths.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded new images which I hope are within copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new images are better from a copyright point of view. I can see where some might still object, but to my eye this particular use of the packaging is de minimus. If it's still a problem, the pictures can be retaken (again!) so as to emphasizes the capsules and deemphasize the boxes (perhaps even eliminated the boxes); this should satisfy even the more-conservative editors. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read about a quarter of this tonight and have run out of time. Here are my comments so far.

Lead: I found "medical reasons" to be a rather vague get-out-clause that overlaps genetics and psychiatric illness.
Classification: This section contains a lot of detail the reader doesn't need at this point. It has equations. It doesn't just contain "classification" details -- particularly the childhood obesity section, which is a mini-article. I suggest this is either moved far down the article (which raises some problems with the definition of BMI used throughout the article) or greatly slimmed down to just discuss the methods of classifying obesity and move all the non-classification information elsewhere.
Childhood obesity: The sentence "Activities from self propelled transport, to school physical education, and organized sports has been declining in many countries." seems broken.
Childhood obesity: "it is important that" needs to be attributed in the body text or rephrased. We don't give medical advice so need to push that advice into someone else's mouth.
Mortality: "well in the European Union" not sure what this is supposed to have said.
Causes: The disproven "slow metabolism" excuse probably doesn't belong in Diet. Could this be moved up to the lead of this section.
Genetics: You lost me, as a general reader, with "Adults who were homozygous for a particular FTO allele". Scanning at the rest of the page on my screen, I see strange "locus" numbers and tables with stuff like "near D6S1009, GATA184A08, D6S2436, and D6S305". What on earth is the general reader to make of that? Does any of this detail belong in an overview-article on a major health topic that needs to be accessible? Any reader that made it past the equations earlier will have given up now, I'm afraid.
Colin°Talk 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Colin for the comments which I by and large agree with. Have made changes to address them except the genetics section that I am still thinking about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ott
  1. "Excessive body weight is associated with various diseases" why not say that it increases the likelihood of various diseases? Like it says in the morbidity section.
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The mortality section talks about smokers, doesn't seem that relevant.
    Smoking vs non smoking is very relevant in the literature as those who smoke are lighter yet have increased mortality due to smoking. Therefore if you do not take smoking into account it appears that it is healthy to be overweight ( ie you must compare none smokers to none smokers and smokers to smokers ) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caloric at the start of Causes section needs wikilinking?
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Agricultural policy and techniques" mention and wikilink to gm crops as an example?
    Linked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Social determinants section again, is the smoking part really relevant? It even says "Changing rates of smoking however have had little effect on the overall rates of obesity".
    Yes changing rates of smoking have had little effect on the rate of obesity as 1) rate of smoking has changed little
  6. I think the dieting section goes in to too much detail, it should be merged in to one or two paragraphs like the exercise section.
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The pedometer line can be written to be more helpful and could probably be added in to the paragraph above it.
    DoneDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. City of Bogota is one example on it's own, provide some more?
    Added a review to support bogota's efforts. Will add more examples to the subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Clinical protocols section only gives North America's protocol, what about other countries?
    Added examples from the rest of the English worldDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In other animals section needs expanding.
    Expanded some further expansion should take place on the subpageDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Why is Canadian Obesity Network in the external links section?
    No idea therefore removedDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think more images are needed. For example a graph to show a correlation between morality rate and obesity. And more examples of the effects of being obese, why not use Image:Gynecomastia_001.jpg or Image:Belly Strech Marks.jpg? I'm sure there's plenty more.
    Will put together a graph of obesity vs mortality. The two images you refer to gynecomastia and belly strech are already on the Obesity associated morbidity and I do not think add sufficiently to move to the main page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have found some data but having trouble getting it into a graph / chart. http://www.radtechstudy.nci.nih.gov/docs/Freedman_IntJObes_2006.pdf Can anyone help?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Figured it out and done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You should merge the sister links together, see Template:Sisterlinks
    Cool done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Chinese government dab link.
    Not sure exactly what you are refer to? Made a change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to change the Chinese government link to one of the links listed on that dab page. Government of the People's Republic of China would probably be appropriate. Or find a health/china related article.--Otterathome (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay get it now. Done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Some of the external link sources need updating, see EL checker tool.
    Is there a bot that can fix these redirects?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I don't like the caption of the wide-chair photo. How about something like 'Service must accommodate obese people with specialist equipment such as much wider chairs."--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SureDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have address all the above concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be many very short sections sentences such as in the Diet section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I am sorry, but the prose is still not up to scratch. I am constantly finding errors that prevent me from continuing to read the article because because I feel a duty to correct them. [58] There is still much redundancy in the article and a lot of what seems to me as padding. When reading the article I find myself continually questioning its reliability. Take this section for example, "An association between viruses and obesity has been found in humans and several different animal species. The amount that these association may have contributed to the rising rate of obesity is yet to be determined", is too vague. And surely we are referring to viral infections and not "associations". Indeed, as a virologist, I would be very interested to know the names of these viruses. The medication section is sloppy and confusing—and I have just noticed another error in the prose, "There are a number of less commonly used medication." I feel very mean in saying this, but this article does not represent our best work as it stands. It requires a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor who is familiar with the subject. We need to lose words that break the readers' confidence in the article like "certain" and "various" and odd metaphors such as "Comprehensive approaches are being looked at". It's a shame, there is a great deal of useful information here, but it's presentation is very poor. Graham Colm Talk 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes will agree I have never been noted for my grammatical or spelling abilities. Hopefully some one can help out with the remaining errors of prose. With respect however to "words that break the readers' confidence in that article" obesity is a difficulty subject to study with conflicting results and certain tentative conclusion. Greater certainly should not be claimed to exist were it in fact does not. I am glad you find a "great deal of useful information".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the article revising certain sentences and wording and correcting errors. Please let me know whether you think my 'corrections' in wording are justified and actually produce better results, I know this can be a very subjective issue. Some of the issues I cannot attend to for fear of skewing the meaning, which would be especially disastorous in a medical article.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Many thanks looks good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What, in 'Effects on health' > 'Mortality', does this mean: Obesity increases the risk of death in current and former smokers as well as in those who have never smoked. Is it just "Smoking increases the risk of death in everyone". I don't understand. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit redundant I agree therefore removed. But you are right it just implies that it increases risk of death in everyone.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be away for 4 days.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
Data originally from the "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" however they have removed it and earth trends has the same data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. This holds true for any site, even one reproducing information from another site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This info is provided on the site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry, missed the reply while I was on the road) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What source do we usually use for this info?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A plain dictionary is fine, it doesn't have to be online. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 80 (Metabolism alone..) needs to note that it requires registration or a fee.
Anyone know how to do this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this for you, for future reference, you add a format=registration required field in the cite template. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 160 (Department of Health and Ageing...) has the publisher run into the link title, it should be separate, and lacks an access date.
Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 222 (Fennoy...) lacks a last access date.
Fixed ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of theories that are commented on in the reference and mention in the wiki text "Some attribute the Venus figurines to the tendency to emphasize fertility while others feel they representation "fatness" in the people of the time."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm not sure what to make of this. I easily found grammatical problems where I looked (I moused over an image and found an error in the alt text, then I start reading from the beginning and found an error in the lead). I found the article confusing in many parts; it never really clarifies when "weight" and "fat" are considered together and apart. The article defines obesity as an over-accumulation of fat, then says it is measured using primarily weight and height. The Management section seems to gloss over the paradox that it is possible (and quite common) to lose weight without losing fat and gain weight without gaining fat. I couldn't reconcile that issue anywhere in the article. Overall, the prose appears unpolished and somewhat unaccessible. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Per 1a definitely, and perhaps as per 1c. This article really isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. However, I have a feeling that enlisting some good copy editors to spruce it up would work wonders. Moreover, this is an important health topic, and new info comes in all the time (see my link below). I would not feel comfortable Supporting unless I had undertaken a line-by-line fact check... not looking for inaccuracies or mistakes (because I doubt that there are any), but rather looking for omissions... Even if I discount that aspect (as some might argue), it still needs prettying up. Oppose per 1a.
  • I'm seeing a nontrivial sprinkling of punctuation errors. Don't have time to fix them; maybe another day.
  • You have a problem with bunched edit links. I saw at least two instances in your "History and culture" section. You need to do something about this.
  • What's this page number thingie doing in there: [103](pp95,101) [105][106]?
  • See Obesity responsible for 100,000 cancer cases annually.
This information is already at the subpage in percentage form Obesity_associated_morbidity#Oncology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During Christian times" What time is that?
  • Is "all cause mortality" the appropriate phrase, or a typo? Sounds awkward to me...
  • This sentence looks like a {{fact}} magnet: "Increasing the average body mass index from what is now considered underweight to what is now the normal range played a significant role in the development of industrialized societies." Ditto for nearby generalizations. Are these citable to Caballero?
  • "Obesity is once again a reason for discrimination" Why "once again"? Reference to earlier paragraph? Clarify.
  • More potential {{fact}} magnets just above that sentence.
  • Here's a big problem in my eyes: I see some "paragraphs" that are two sentences long. I dunno where WP:MOS stands on those these days, but I would do something about them.
  • I also see a small amount of... arguably... poor organization. I have encountered a few sentences that look somewhat misplaced. For example, some stuff in the "Historical trends" section seems to be about changing attitudes. When I see the header "Historical trends" I think of increases in prevalence etc. and I expect facts and figures. Perhaps this section should be renamed, or more likely, its contents reshuffled throughout the article? There are also isolated sentences here and there that struck me as being somewhat incongruous with respect to their position in context.
  • Facts regarding the Obesity Policy Action (OPA) framework are kinda decontextualized. Proposed by one group of researchers? Widely accepted? Other important details? Eh, there's a larger problem here: you mention "comprehensive approaches", but list only this one. It's also a dreaded two-sentence pseudo-paragraph. It also includes the awkward "look" metaphor mentioned above by another reviewer.
  • What's all this in "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Volume 1" (p. 467) about a "set point"? Did I overlook that bit of the article?
  • "in 1997 the WHO formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic". That looks like something that should be mentioned in the lede.
  • Speaking of epidemics, I don't remember being struck by info describing the nature and scope of the epidemic, such as "According to data from the 1976–80 and 1988–1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight (defined as at or above the 85th percentile of body mass index [BMI] in 1976–1980) rose from 25.4% to 34.9% among American adults, from 24.1% to 33.3% among men and from 26.5% to 36.4% among women; nearly doubled among children ages 6–11 years from 7.6% to 13.7%; and rose from 5.7% to 11.5% among adolescents." [http://www.cspinet.org/reports/obesity.pdf Halting the Obesity Epidemic: A Public Health Policy Approach. Again, it is sincerely possible that I overlooked it. I am not being facetious when I say that.
  • Eh, you're probably getting sick of me by now (join the club), but the above observation meshes well with this, again from Harrison's (p. 464): "The recent increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States is far too rapid to be due to changes in the gene pool." That's a revealing insight/connection.
  • I've been staring at these two sentences for a while, feeling they are awkward & wondering how they should be rewritten: "Public health efforts seek to understand and correct the environmental factors responsible for the increasing prevalence of obesity in the population. Solutions look at changing the factors that cause excess calorie consumption and inhibit physical activity." I give up. They are also uncited; are they common knowledge, or part of a nearby cite? Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section "history" should contain more information about how people's attitude toward obesity change through time, such as in 1910s many people in the U.S.A. concern about obesity and overweight, the medical community do not worry much about them; they're highly concerned about thinness, claiming it easily effects physiological diseases. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:02, 5 November 2009 [59].

Battle of Yarmouk

[edit]
Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... The article apparently seem perfect to be a featured article as it fulfill all the requirements for the same, there has been exhaustive research and editing on this article to make it compatible with the needs of a featured article. The article has been referenced with several Wikipedia:Reliable sources. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • thanks for the advice, i just nominated it for the A class military history articles.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Second Steve Smith that its an article with potential. Second Steve that its the wrong forum, FAC isn't an article workshop. Take to Milhist A then Good Articles first. Article violates WP:MILMOS#SOURCES through primary source use leading to original research and the use of inappropriate tertiaries. The references are completely inconsistent, years are formatted in and out of brackets. Akram lacks page references. Article in The Medieval Review miscited. OUP Pakistan lacks a city. "Khalid ibn al-Walid, Encyclopædia Britannica (2007)." dog doesn't eat dog. Biblio not alpha. Naftziger not in bib. Page number referencing all over the shop. fn8 and thus fn10, 6, 5 are all OR through using primary sources in a history article. Density of citation is insufficient in some places. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [61].

Kerry slug

[edit]
Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because 1) previous candidate discussion did last 10 days although it should "lasts two to three weeks". 2) Everything was going good and every requests were fulfilled. 3) I think, that the one who closed the discussion accidentally added "not promoted" instead of "promoted". Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no support in the first nomination—articles need both wide declared support and resolution of standing problems to pass. There was an Oppose that still stood in the first review, for example. Now, SandyGeorgia did say it could be re-nom'd "in a week or two"; you clearly have. Still, this nom should only continue after you've resolved (or explain why you shouldn't resolve) the remaining Oppose issues, and any other needed cleanup. If you've done so already, good luck! --an odd name 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was the case with the first application for FA status, the rest of the members of Project Gastropods were not notified that the nominator was about to re-submit the article. I would have attempted to clean up the prose some more if I had known this was about to happen. As it was, it took me by surprise once again. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • The article was not at FA standard when Sandy archived, and there have been no subsequent edits. Although the article improved considerably at its previous FAC, the changes were largely made by Invertzoo, whereas the nominator tended to argue instead. I suggest that the nominator withdraws the article for two weeks, and works with other contributors (who seemed surprised by the first nom) to get this ready for FAC. This is potentially a good FAC, but the nominator needs to get advice and help to cross the remaining hurdles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you focus on constructive criticism, please? The fact, that nobody edited the article in last 18 days (since rash adding "not promoted") means, that NOBODY knows what else should be improved (if anything). Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I for one did not edit the article during the last 18 days had more to do with the fact that I had no idea what was going on, and thought perhaps the attempt at FA had been given up completely for the foreseeable future. It was not because I thought that nothing needed fixing. Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to do some work here and now, as long as they are things that I know how to do. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geomalacus maculosus, please clarify why bolded in lead, this is not normal practice, can you give a link to an MoS or Gastropod project policy?
Scientific name is more important than common name. It is in bold in (nearly all) every 5000 gastropod articles. (Bold scientific name is compatible with bold name in taxobox and usually it is compatible with article name. It is a part of guideline, how to write gastropod articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adult Kerry slug generally measures about don't need both "generally" and "about"
I changed this as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an arionid, which means it is a round-backed slug, and shares a lot of suggest It is an arionid, or round-backed slug, and shares many of
I changed this exactly as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kerry slug is in the genus Geomalacus, which literally means "earth mollusc" surely the name of which means... . I'd be inclined to start with The Kerry slug's binomial name is Geomalacus maculosus and explain the words' meanings afterwards.
OK, great, changed that as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the only species within the subgenus Geomalacus better to say there are two subgenera first, so we know where we are (especially as the genus and subgenus names are the same)
I change this around, hope it reads better now. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it has the same subgeneric name as the generic name, this means it is in the "nominate" subgenus, which means this slug is considered to be typical of the genus. I don't think that is what "nominate" means, please amend wording and give a wikilink to nominate
Took out the dubious wording and put in the wikilink, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redundant And as there are no other species within the subgenus, that means there are no other species quite like this one. that's what species means, not subgenus
Took out the dubious phrase. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Andrews - does he need a link?
No, probably not notable. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its specific name maculosus means spotted, from the Latin word macula "spot"., - fine, but shouldn't this be with the explanation of the genus name?
It's there now, thanks for the suggestion, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color variation Image caption - why suddenly American spelling?
Sorry that's an accidental oversight, that was probably me, I have live in the US for over 30 years. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you have glossed Taylor's "shagreened" and "trifasciate", might read better if just replaced.
Replaced them, and yes it does read better, thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The salivary and digestive glands are the same as they are in Arion species Which is? Meaningless as it stands.
I tried to make this read better but we could remove it completely if this is not sufficient. Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the reproductive system is described This para could also benefit in places by replacing technical terms rather than glossing, eg the proximal (near) end, why not just near end?
OK, fixed the most obvious ones of these. I previously did a fair bit of work on this section in an attempt to make it less dense and impenetrable, but am reluctant to simplify too many pieces of terminology for fear of removing the correct scientific vocabulary which is very precise and accurate. Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mating of this species is described in Platts & Speight (1988). Could you describe it for us please?
This source is unavailable for editors of the article. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As first time round, references are riddled with incorrect and inconsistent formatting, I'm disappointed that no effort has been made to fix this before returning to FAC
User:Fifelfoo wrote "consistent". Feel free to improve details by yourself or propose changes/improvements. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fifelfoo didn't write "correct". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes made so far. With respect to the references, I should point out that I did correct a good deal of the formatting last time around, but nothing further was doen my the nominator. The nominator had the opportunity to sort this before coming back to FAC, but chose not to do so. I am not prepared to put further effort into getting this article to FA if the nominator can't be bothered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved punctuations in references. Is there anything else what could be improved? --Snek01 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent style for dates, page numbers etc, journals, reports and books all italicised, journal names spelt out, not abbreviated, check for nonsense like (file created 26 February 2008) 2008 9 pp.. Do the reports have authors, year for the reports like the books and journals. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are corrected: these two additional years are deleted.
  • Page numbers are unified (one correction made).
  • Journals are/were italicized correctly.
  • Books are/were italicized correctly.
  • Reports are not italicized, which is correct.
  • Journal names are not abbreviated and will not be abbreviated.
  • Reports have no authors if they are them not written.
  • There is not possible to add accessdate in cite conference template for EUNIS.
  • All references provide as much as informations as possible. --Snek01 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to change the citation style refs to cite style for consistency. You don't have to have a Further Reading section, but if you keep some or all of it, you need to format those too and expand abbreviations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, strong arguments have been made above that this article was not ready to be brought back to FAC, because previous issues haven't been addressed; unless other contributors (like Invertzoo) are prepared to move forward here, the FAC should be withdrawn until the work can be completed. FAC is overloaded, we have to avoid having it used as peer review, and if the Project members state that there are still issues and that it wasn't ready to be re-nommed, those issues should be worked off-FAC. Please consult with them and advise. I apologize for not responding to your e-mail, and understand that may be part of the confusion here, but I prefer that FAC business be kept public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is prepared to move forward here, of course. At least abide with rules stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and not delist it too early (at least in this case it was not useful at all). You recommend "Please consult with them and advise." I have consulted with you asked if its time to nominate, but you did not responded at all. Thank you cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note about FAC transparency (and my apology for not responding to the e-mail) here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC instructions are clear that a nom should not be brought back until previous issues are resolved. Please have Invertzoo confirm if s/he is prepared to participate at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) All previous things ARE resolved. 2) She (and me too) was very surprised that FAC ended (see my talk page). Nobody (although long time wikipedia editors) understands the reason, why was (unreasonably - according to my point of view) FAC ended. --Snek01 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nearly all of the images are incorrectly licensed. Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years (i.e. {{PD-Old}}) is only the test for unpublished works. Published works have different criteria. As, per the sources, these are indeed published, alternative tagging is needed. {{PD-US}} would be appropriate for works published before 1.1.1923, as I believe all of them are. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All tags are correct. They are tags from Wikimedia Commons. They are not tags from English wikipedia, as you have linked. All images have added death date of their authors. (And, by the way, they were not published in the USA.) Everything is OK with licensing of them and there are even no alternatives for tags for these images. --Snek01 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek01, ElCobbola is a Commons administrator and a very knowledgeable editor wrt image issues; if he suggests something needs to be resolved, it will be expedient to heed his advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator is not an guarantee of information always. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons tags are in all ways germane identical (PD-US vs. {{PD-US}} and PD-Old vs. {{PD-Old}}); the en.wiki versions were linked only as an expedient way to demonstrate the difference. Please read my comment and the PD-US tags critically; the date of the author's death is irrelevant when the work has been published. The PD-US tag doesn't say it must have been published in the US. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Images are in public domain, this means that LICENSE is OK on every image. 2) You probably wanted to say, that it could be also possible to add tag http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-1923 to the images also. I do not consider it necessary. There is nowhere written that such additional template is necessary and it is written nowhere in guidelines neither at Commons nor at English wikipedia. Theoretically maybe you will find such information somewhere and then add such additional template. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, everyone agrees that the images are in the public domain, but images have to be tagged with an explanation of why they're in the public domain. The tags currently say that they are in the public domain because their creator died at least seventy years ago, but that is not why they are in the public domain, because that rule applies to unpublished works. The reason these works are in the public domain is that they were published before 1923, and that's what the tags should say. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my computer there is this text on image (for example File:Geomalacus maculosus 3.jpg) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." This IS the reason: "because its copyright has expired" explaining why they are in the public domain. There is nowhere in guideline written that additional tag is necessary (that would be useless). Is the same text on your computer also? --Snek01 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is that the text is incorrect: it's not in the public domain because of the "life of the author plus 70 years" rule, it's in the public domain because of the pre-1923 publication rule. What is required isn't an additional copyright tag, but a different copyright tag, since the current one is incorrect. Steve Smith (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve TEXT of the template. After that I can decide to add a different tag, if it still will be needed. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn't wrong. That template is for unpublished works. These are published, so their term is based on publication, not life of the author. You're welcome to read Title 17 or this "Reader's Digest version". Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The text currently in there comes with that tag, because that tag is intended to be applied to works that are in the public domain by reason of the "life plus seventy" rule, which this one is not. The text on that tag is fine, it's just that that tag doesn't belong on these images. A different tag, with different text, is required here. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Steve Smith (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed PD-old to the PD-old-70. Its OK now in this one image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use {{PD-US}} instead, as {{PD-old-70}} still refers to the life plus seventy rule. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Link to exact template to be sure what you mean. 2) Alternativelly you can link to a DIFF of your edit and then I will understand or I will explain you what was incorrect with your edit. --Snek01 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola did link to the exact template above: commons:Template:PD-US. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not possible to add because the image is not U.S. work. (That is very annoying to gave such primitive advices to an administrator and to student lawyer). --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you're correct; the correct template is commons:Template:PD-1923. On another note, please do not strike out reviewers' comments unless they have confirmed that they are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you will find a guideline which states that this additional template is necessary when there already is PD-old-70 template, then it can be added also. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest speedy archiving. Article does not currently meet 1a or 3, and nominator shows no willingness to acknowledge problems, let alone make any attempt to correct them. When FAC is backlogged, we can do without this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider, that images are tagged correctly. It was also checked in previous FAC. --Snek01 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, it has been explained to you ad nauseam why the image tags are not correct. I do not know what else to tell you. Steve Smith (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, US law on copyright expiration is very complicated. This flowchart was created by copyright lawyers to figure it out. Isn't the result of the first decision yes? If not, please apply the decisions in the flowchart to the images in the article and report the path by which you get to “Expires 70 years after author’s death.” —teb728 t c 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As an example, suppose a work was published in 1925, the author died in 1935, and his heirs renewed the copyright in 1952. The path through the flowchart then is no, yes, yes, yes; so the copyright expires 95 years from publication in 2020—even though the author died 74 years ago. —teb728 t c 05:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. I also understand comments and the same point of view of other participants. We together agree what the license of the file is. Then there is the task, what tag or tags will be the best. Files are hosted on Wikimedia Commons and primarily this should be resolved regardless of this FAC. Because if this FAC will be closed, then the problem will stay (from your point of view) unsolved. There are also many other possibilities how to solve this. No party did convinced other party yet. What do you suggest? --Snek01 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending resolution of the criterion three concerns noted above. This is an easily remediable and unambiguous issue. Simply astounding is the senseless combativeness and failure to recognize an untenable position. Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note to Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Public_domain_templates . I hope that tags of images be solved soon, so we will be able focus on other points of improvements of the article. I would like to thank to all reviewers for their comments. I would like to especially thank to reviewer Jimfbleak and I will try to focus on improving references, although I do not know how yet. I would like to thank to Invertzoo for improving the style. --Snek01 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's note I am closing this nomination early because it is obvious that many of the problems that existed in the previous FAC have not been fixed. I strongly encourage the nominator to work closely with the significant contributors of this article, and engage the reviewers as necessary, to identify areas in which the article still needs to be improved. I will remove any further nominations that occur without work having been done on the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [62].

Kala (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I got M.I.A.'s first album to FA some months back, and feel this article is now of comparable quality. I think I've taken care of alt text, reliability and correct formatting of refs, correct licensing of images, etc, so all that remains is for people to pick my prose apart :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Dabs and links fine. Current refs: What makes this reliable (used three separate times in refs 32, 43, 47)?

  • http://s26928.gridserver.com/info/?m=200705
    • It's part of her official site - if you go to http://www.miauk.com (apologies for any retinal damage that may be caused by looking at her website) and then click on "news" it takes you to the blog. To link directly to specific pages for earlier months, though, you have to use the gridserver URLs
  • Ref 1 needs an author.
    • Done
  • Ref 9's author is Robert Christgau (add it), but then you have to replace either that ref or the MSN Music one as they're written by the same author. The infobox reviews need POV spread.
    • Done - removed double Christgau review and inserted a less favourable one into the infobox
  • Ref 16's work is simply Remix.
    • Done
  • Ref 53's work is simply Stylus.
    • Done
  • Replace ref 74 with this as it's more notable due to being an awarding body.
    • Done
  • Replace ref 77 with the official Irish IRMA archive here.
    • Done
  • Using the "work. publisher" citing convention has ruined the refs' consistency. Either follow it for all refs or remove it for the ones you've used it on. It also throws up problems with web-only media like PopMatters being italicised.
    • All done now, I think, let me know if I missed any or got any wrong......

Other comments

  • WP:CHARTS limits the amounts of chart positions to 10 charts and 8 auxiliary charts. Remove some in the list.
    • Done
  • Try and put the Personnel section in two columns for enhanced readability.
    • Done

RB88 (T) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [63].

Joey Hamilton

[edit]
Nominator(s): Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because prior to the first FAC it underwent a peer review by Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs). It also underwent a review by DoubleBlue (talk · contribs) (here). Following the FAC, Giants2008 (talk · contribs) reviewed it on the talk page. Finally, 66.213.50.2 (talk · contribs) peer reviewed it very recently. Thus, after five reviews before and after the FAC, I believe it is ready to become a Featured Article. Thanks, Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Cube, is uneditable by the public (however you can send them an e-mail telling them about any inaccuracies) so I am of the belief that it's reliable. While Our Sports Central is fully reliable since it doesn't have any random blogger speaking their mind, it's simply an organization that reports on minor league sports. Finally, Fanhouse is usually unreliable however there are numerous writers who are not your random person and actually have a history with major publications. The author of that particular article won some writing award in 2004 or so, which in my opinion makes that particular article reliable.--Giants27(c|s) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a look, I couldn't find anything that proves my belief that they're reliable for the Baseball Cube and Our Sports Central, thus I replaced them with more reliable sources. However, I have kept the FanHouse ref because although it is called a "blog", it is owned by AOL and the writer along with others have received accolades for their work, which IMO shows accuracy.--Giants27(c|s) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the fanhouse out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review, or lack thereof: No free images to use? Did you try looking through Flickr and possibly emailing some of the copyright holders to see if they will change their license? NW (Talk) 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognize there is an issue with it having no images. However, I've looked through Flickr a few times since I started work back in May, however the resulting image is copyrighted and out of focus and because of this, I opted to not contact the author about releasing it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.--Giants27(c|s) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No dabs present. Will offer a full review if there's ever a time that I'm not swamped in real life. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hamilton had stints in training camp and the minor leagues which included some of the Padres and Reds affilates." Didn't like the way this read when I first saw it, and I think I know why. Try changing "which included" to "with" and put an apostrophe at the end of Reds, and this will be better.
  • "Hamilton became eligible for election in the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009". "in" (first use) → "to".
  • Early life: "He attended Statesboro High School in Statesboro, Georgia." The previous sentence says he was from Statesboro, and it should be clear enough that there's where the high school was. Consider dropping the last two words for tighter prose.
  • I see some overlinking in the early part of the body. Basic words like elbow and sue do not need links, which can clutter up the text if overused.
  • "He was elected to the Georgia Southern University sports hall of fame in 1997." From reading the source, it looks like the official title is the Georgia Southern University Athletics Department Hall of Fame. If so, I'd imagine that should be used in the article.
  • San Diego Padres: "but ended winning the game 6–3 after Phil Clark hit a three run home run." Missing "up", and there should be a hyphen in "three run".
  • In the next sentence, remove the space after the dash in the win–loss record.
  • "In his fourth year in San Diego in 1997". Try "In 1997, his fourth year in San Diego".
  • Disabled list would be good to link to, since non-baseball fans won't immediately know what that is.
  • "There was a rumored trade around the 1998 MLB trade deadline that would have sent Hamilton to the Detroit Tigers but the trade never materialized." This is an example of redundant phrasing, with three "trade"s in a single sentence. Try making the third one "it", as in "but it never materialized".
  • Should the "game one"s and such be changed to "Game 1" etc.?

Will look at the rest later. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [64].

Anna Anderson

[edit]
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A notorious imposter who lept into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) amended 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At my FAC I was told I could put all my inline citations at the end of their sentence if I wanted. I think this would be a good idea for you, particularly with the last line of the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image's alt text should briefly say what Anderson looks like; this is obvious to the sighted reader who can see the image, but a visually impaired reader currently is given no clue. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find a reliable source which describes her appearance, except in relation to someone else's features (i.e. "her nose is more prominent than Anastasia's", or "her eyes are the same colour as Anastasia's"). DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:ALT#Verifiability says, you don't need a reliable source merely to describe what's in an image, as the image verifies its own description. Obviously the alt text can't say "she looks like Anastasia!" but it can say what the image looks like. I wrote something. I noticed my edit was the first in more than a week: I hope the article's not frozen or anything. Eubulides (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, so I guess my draft alt text is good enough. By the way, I forgot to thank you for writing the alt text for the other images: thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially keen on that reference, and tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it. However, it is written by John Godl, who also wrote an article on Anderson for the "European Royal History Journal" (reference number 3 in the article). So, if you consider that a reliable source, then Godl would count as an "acknowledged expert". I do not believe that the "European Royal History Journal" is a peer-reviewed academic journal, though I could be wrong, but the editor does claim to have a degree in history,[66] to only publish "serious and thoughtful research"[67], and is independent of Godl (and so a third-party). Godl's article is critiqued by Peter Kurth (who wrote the most substantial biography of Anderson) on his website: http://www.peterkurth.com/anna-anastasia.htm. So, that would perhaps count as "academic discourse". I think it is hard to argue that Godl is not a reliable source, given that he has published in the area and his work is criticised by others working on this subject. If your query relates to whether Archimandrite Serfes is a reliable publisher, then I can only say that he is a priest, and independent of Godl, so it would appear that he is (though not a professional one). I realise that some editors may consider this source to be on the border of acceptable, but I have a hard time coming up with a valid reason to reject it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but while it may meet the minimum requirements for WP:V, I'm not sure it meets the higher FA requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering other academics are responding to this piece, it seems important to include, although it would be nice to find independent verification for the following information: Five years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton of the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory had grown much larger, leading to "increased confidence that Anderson was indeed Franziska Schanzkowska". Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. This complicated narrative is clearly told - well done! The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and comprehensive. I do have some minor suggestions:
  • I wonder if the lead goes into too much detail about the DNA testing in the third paragraph.
  • I'm curious how you decided on the naming scheme used in the article. While I had no trouble following the name changes for Anderson, I'm wondering if it could confuse others.
  • I, Anastasia: An autobiography with notes by Roland Krug von Nidda translated from the German by Oliver Coburn, London: Michael Joseph, 1958 - Needs an author
  • Clarke, William (2008), Romanoff Gold: The Lost Fortune of the Tsars, The History Press, - Needs a publication location
  • Lovell, James Blair (1991), Anastasia: The Lost Princess, Robson Books, - Needs a publication location

Thank you for working on this! Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Added the locations. I'm uncomfortable adding an author to I, Anastasia: there isn't one listed on the edition I'm using (1958). I think one is just supposed to infer that Anastasia wrote it. Modern editions give the author as Anna Anderson, though it was actually ghost-written in her name. The naming scheme came about because I decided that if one introduces her as "Anderson" in the first section the article loses some of its dramatic impetus. I think introducing her as an unknown helps to carry the story along. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had some fine, excellent work and represents a major tribute to scholastic overhauling. However, before it explodes on the Wikiworld scene of spectacular articles, I suggest-- as I have continuously done-- that the article's grammar and structure be streamlined. I have read high school term essays that read better than this article. With that one bit of editing, this article would indeed be exemplary. Hopefully, some of the inputters here would not be shy about reading and posting comments at the talk page! It is NOT a controversial subject!76.195.81.239 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make some specific suggestions for what to improve? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?--I could and I did, several times, at the talk page. But I wish to point out here that with user DrKiernan hogging all work in progress, those suggestions really don't matter, unless some admins come and read for themselves.76.195.81.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that many comments with regard to the prose. Considering the accusation you made above regarding high school essays, you should have no problem pointing out a litany of problems. However, there is no such list anywhere. If you can make one, I'm sure we would all be grateful, as it would only improve the writing of the article. With regards to your contention that DrKiernan is "hogging" the work, you should be aware that as the nominator of this article, s/he is supposed to respond to all the issues raised here and most articles that are brought to FAC have a "primary contributor" that does the majority of the work. Also, you should know that admins have nothing to do with this process. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, this IP editor is a former account who invoked right to vanish after his disruptive edits drew the attention of administrators. Typical posts include: [68] [69] and User talk:76.195.82.162. I do not consider his objections to the prose either justifiable or actionable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DrK. I didn't know. Awadewit (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2009 (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/November_2009&oldid=328812920"