Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2013

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [1].

Good Girl Gone Bad

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) &  Statυs (talk, contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because... We have worked on it very hard to bring Good Girl Gone Bad to good article status. Now with the help of Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) who copy-edited it, I think that it is nearly ready to become a FA. We would like all the nominators who oppose, to bring their issues here so we can resolve it. Thank you! — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vic Rattlehead

[edit]

OK, I'll have the honour of opening this discussion. So far I've only gone through the introduction part and it seems well-organised. A suggestion of mine would be to include the actual position the song "Umbrella" received on the Rolling Stone list. Another note might be to de-link "studio album", "1980s music" and "reissued" because they are common words. I will come back with more notes.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Вик Ретлхед: Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnapSnap

[edit]
  • I second Vic Rattlehead's comment on delinking common words.
  • "She cited the 2004 studio album Afrodisiac" — I'd personally remove the word "studio"
  • [[Drum (musical instrument)|drum]]s → [[drum kit|drums]]
  • "Nick Levine of Digital Spy compared it to 'Sexy Love' and 'Because of You'" → It should probably be noted that "Hate That I Love You" is a collaboration with Ne-Yo, and the latter two songs are by him as well
  • "...the 1990s song by Mad Cobra, 'Flex'" → "...the 1990s song 'Flex' by Mad Cobra"
  • "an old styled" → "an old-styled"
  • "a rife driven by an acoustic guitar" — "Rife" is an adjective
  • "fifth-best selling" → "fifth best-selling"
  • Delink "Czech Republic" per WP:OVERLINK
  • "'Don't Stop the Music' was digitally released as an EP via the iTunes Store on September 7" → Of what year? 2007 is only mentioned at the beginning of the section
  • Allmusic → AllMusic
  • Hot Press review is rated in numbers (5/10), not stars
  • In citation No. 44, The Village Voice should be italicized
  • UK Album R&B Chart → UK R&B Albums Chart
  • "91 weeeks" → "91 weeks"
  • "...had sold more than 7 million copies worldwide" → "...had sold more than seven million copies worldwide"
  • Remove all mentions of Rovi Corporation as it no longer owns AllMusic

SnapSnap 20:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Journalist

[edit]
  • Comment
  • The prose could use some work. Here are a few examples:
  • "While preparing the album, Rihanna worked with many producers..." Awkward expression. Instead of "preparing" the album, how about just saying that she recorded it?
  • "It earned Rihanna seven Grammy Award nominations and won the Best Rap/Sung Collaboration accolade for "Umbrella" at the 2008 ceremony." "It" refers to the album. So therefore, the album won the Best Rap/Sung Collaboration accolade for "Umbrella". A bit awkward.
  • The first paragraph of "Development and title" needs a much better flow and you need to be clearer about the purpose of the information there. Start with a topic sentence and then go from there.
  • I'd like to expand on this point just to give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about. As is, the section reads: "Rihanna released x. x was released in 2001. x sold 100 copies." Try to make the prose compelling and engaging to the reader, vary the construction, consider syntax etc. But the bigger problem is that I don't know why the information about A Girl Like Me is there. I'm not asking for it to be removed. But you have to tie in the information about that album to this article. Example:
"Less than a year after the release of her second studio album A Girl Like Me, Rihanna was once again in the studio with her collaborators composing tracks for a third album. A Girl Like Me had been a moderate success for the singer, yielding two number-one singles and awarded platinum status in both the U.S and the U.K. A pop-oriented album with R&B and dancehall influences, critics had been divided over its balladry, formulaic sound, and lack of consistency. For this third album, Rihanna intended to explore new musical territories and to pursue a more aggressive, predominantly upbeat sound. In an interview for MTV news... blah, blah, blah" It may be a bad example, but do you see how information about the old album was tied into this article, for a specific purpose? Let me know if I'm any clearer. Orane (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recording and Production— "They wrote and sang "Hate That I Love You"..." So, Rihanna also co-wrote the song? (that's what the sentence implies) It's a collaboration/duet? (the sentence doesn't make that explicitly clear).
  • "They wrote the track "Umbrella" with pop singer Britney Spears in mind. Her label rejected the song before she could hear it, stating they had enough songs for her to record.[14]" What album was she recording at the time?
  • "Timbaland, who wanted to write a song called "Rehab" for Rihanna"? Awkward as written. Are you suggesting that he had conceptualized the title before even setting about writing the song? If that's the case, say so.
  • You gave a list of studios in the section, but never state which song was recorded where. Who did the mixing or the recording, or sang background? Might discogs help with this?
  • Composition
  • Dorian Lynskey of The Guardian compared the singer's vocals to the voices of Ciara and Cassie." In what way? What similarities/differences were highlighted?
  • ""Don't Stop the Music" is a dance-pop and techno song[25][26] that contains rhythmic devices used mainly in hip hop music." Are you suggesting that the reader already knows what these "ryhthmic devices" are?
  • "The seventh track on the album, "Say It", samples the 1990s song "Flex" by Mad Cobra; it consists of silky and warm groove and features island-oriented music characteristics." Ditto above point. What characteristics? A steelpan?
  • Sell Me Candy" features jumbled and noisy production with chaotic beats. What instruments? What does it sound like? As a matter of fact, what are any of these songs about? Their lyrics or topics are never addressed?

I'll stop there, but there are a lot of similar issues in the body of the article. Orane (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [2].

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sports articles, but no article on disability sport has even been featured. Let's make history and change that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I'm very surprised to find myself on this side, and am happy to see something sports-related at FAC that is different from the usual articles, but I'm seeing too many glitches in the writing. I'd expect to see some of these typos from a non-native English speaker, not one of FAC's most frequent participants. I can't lower my standards for a veteran or all of the cabal accusations we get would be proved to be true; therefore I must oppose until fixes are made. And there are quite a few that are needed for a modestly sized article.

  • Background: Typo in "but havd never won gold."
  • Group stage: "Australian Gliders Head Coach, John Triscari...". I don't think the comma or the capitalization of "Head Coach" are appropriate.
  • Brazil: En dashes are needed for the score ranges in this section, and the others by the looks of it.
  • The comma after "Triscari" at the start of the section's third paragraph should be taken out.
  • Great Britain: "but the final score was a 51-24." Remove "a" since that is a grammatical flaw.
  • "but the Gliders shared the ball around". In all of the time I've watched sports, I've never heard the phrase "shared the ball around". Did you mean just "shared the ball"?
  • Canada: I see erritt here, which I assume is a name typo.
  • Quarter final - Mexixo: I'd think that the hyphen here and in the next two subsections would be en dashes per the MoS.
  • "a" needed in "and received quarterfinal berth against Mexico".
  • "Australia's first shot at goal was taken by Kean from the free throw line, but she missed both shots." First it's "first shot at both", but then multiple shots are mentioned. Which is accurate?
  • Semi final - United States: "Meanwhile, Team USA was able to get ahead, to 40–39." I'm really confused now, because the summary says Australia won by the same score.
  • "with Team USA's Rose Hollerman missing a one from inside the paint just before the shot clock ran out." Is "missing a one" acceptable phrasing for wheelchair basketball? I'm not familiar with this sport and just wanted this to be clarified.
  • Gold medal match - Germany: "and at that pint had beaten them three of the previous four times they had played." Either "pint" is a typo or a reference to alcohol. One of the two.
  • All caps in reference 8 need fixing.
  • Ref 24 is to Wikinews, which isn't a reliable source.
  • The publisher of ref 46 (The Age) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected all the typos. Kean's shots made sense to me; you get two free throws from a foul. Re-worded to make it clearer. Sharing the ball around is a common term in Australian football, and we tend to use football terminology in basketball. Google turns up [3][4][5][6][7] The Wikinews one is interesting. The quote is actually from the Paralympic News Service. After a game they would produce a sheet with the flash quotes from the coaches and players that the media could incorporate into their stories. Laura transcribed it rather than scanning it. After the Paralympics, all the flash quotes disappeared. Anyhow, after the Games I put all the documents in boxes, the Australian Paralympic Committee shipped them back to Australia in a container, and I deposited them in the Sports Information Centre at the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra. Changed the reference to the original document. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Made a second bot-assisted sweep looking for hyphens. Somebody please raise an RfC to ban endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [8].

KFC

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it since July 2012 and I believe it is ready. Advertising and operations sections have been worked on since the last nomination, and the references have been tidied up. Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to reviewers if you summarized the changes that have been made since the previous archived nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

I had frankly intended to avoid making a very large detailed list of problems, because in the case of this article, that's time consuming and perhaps not particularly pleasant. But since you've also dropped by my talk page to note, in italics, that my specific objections were corrected, I suppose it's only fair for me to do so.

  • Reference 1: DLA Piper is a specific law firm. Although they provide legal news and insight as part of their website, and are likely a reliable source, I would not consider them a high-quality source for the purposes of FAC, at least where others exist. Consider instead scholarly publications on legal topics:
  • Thimmesch, Adam B. (2011–2012). "The Fading Bright Line of Physical Presence: Did KFC Corporation v. Iowa Department of Revenue Give States the Secret Recipe for Repudiating Quill?". Kentucky Law Journal. 100: 339–389.
  • Murtha, James F. "Taxing Colonel Sanders: Re-examining Constitutional Nexus Through the Lens of KFC v. Iowa". Western New England Law Review. 35 (1): 55.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 9 is not an independent source, referencing claims that are surely documented in reliable, third-party source. This is a recurring problem with this article, regardless of how many specific instances I do or don't catch on any given review pass.
Where are these third party sources getting their information from? Likely Sanders. This is hardly a contentious statement anyway.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, that's how secondary sources work. But it's those sources we're encouraged to draw upon, when possible. In this case, sure, the claim's probably not contentious (and while KFC has not done so to my knowledge, you could imagine a company engaging in revisionist history to make its origins more "homestyle" than they really were). But on the other hand, I cannot imagine that Sanders's autobiography is the only reference to this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have replaced Reference 9 with a third party source. Farrtj (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 11 is not an independent source. Where it is used to identify Sanders's personal opinions, that's fine, but it's also used to reference claims that should be citable to better material.
Okay I've replaced the non-opinion facts with an independent source.Farrtj (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 22 et al.: Article editors are given substantial latitude in their citation formats so long as they are consistent. However, you cite various pages of this same Robert Darden book as something like four different reference entries. There are several ways to handle this sort of thing to make it clearer to the reader that the same source is being used multiple times. This probably isn't strictly actionable, and you dismissed my concerns over it at the last FAC, but it's frankly annoying from the perspective of someone examining how the article is sourced, so I'm going to keep bringing it up. On the other hand, what probably is actionable is that you don't have a consistent approach to when you make the book's title an external link. Doing so every time would be fine; doing so on the first use only would be fine. But the link is there in #21, gone in #22, back in #27...
Sorted. You make a fair point.Farrtj (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 36 is not independent. In this case, the claim's not controversial in any way, so it's probably not actionable that this isn't sourced to something independent, but it could be.
Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 42 is a perfect example of the problems I have with your source quality. You are using the company's own Form 10-K filings to reference such easily-sourced claims as the presence of drive-throughs in many KFCs, or the co-location of some KFCs with Yum!'s other brands. There should be no problem finding third-party sources for these sorts of things.
Replaced with a third party source where I could find one.Farrtj (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 49 is a non-independent Youtube video. This is CEO David Novak speaking at the University of Missouri, not a publication of the University of Missouri. Is this the best source available for this claim?
I can't find the claim elsewhere. But where else would such a claim originate than from the company, especially the CEO, who should be most expected to know? And he's hardly going to lie about such a relatively mundane fact.Farrtj (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 53 does not have WARC material formatted in the same manner as later sources. I'm still not thrilled with this source in general, but I'll concede its use isn't actionable unless I'm able to give more concrete justifications for my concerns.
  • Reference 71, 72, and 75 are not a third-party source, but serve as the sole citations for nearly two paragraphs of history about KFC's operations in Japan. At least some of this really needs better-quality sourcing.
Where else would one find such detailed insider knowledge about the operations of KFC Japan than from the company itself?Farrtj (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 74 is not independent, but more to the point here, I'm not sure that Sanders's visits to Japan are anything more that trivia.
Where else are we going to get that information from other than KFC or Sanders? And you argue that it's trivia, but I'd argue otherwise: Sanders visiting the Japanese operations three times in 8 years demonstrates the importance of the division to the company: it wasn't some forgotten about regional offshoot. Bear in mind he was in his eighties at the time: quite a trip for an elderly gentleman! Farrtj (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We, as editors, aren't intended to make those sorts of decisions, however. Our role is to summarize what other sources have said about topics. If no independent sources are willing to address the topic, it's not important. I couldn't find anything, but admittedly didn't look very hard. Maybe the Japanese media covered this at the time? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, as far as I'm aware, have access to Japanese media articles from the 1970s, either in English language editions, or in translation. Sanders also mentions visiting Japan in his autobiography, so the claim that he visited clearly isn't a complete fabrication. Farrtj (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 80: I'm not sure why this one has the (subscription required) tag in a different place than the other references using it.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 94 has more history that could be sourced to better references. There are plenty of books about the fast-food industry in Australia and New Zealand that can get you year and location of first-in-franchise stores and the like.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for Reference 95 and Bob Lapointe.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 97 is the same article cited in reference 91. I understand that you're taking facts from different page numbers here, but with journal articles, even more than books, convention is to cite the article's page range in the source in the first place.
Well spotted. Sorted now.Farrtj (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 107 is not an independent source (it's a KFC franchise operator), and it's being used for at least one important historical claim (that KFC withdrew from India).
Removed statement and source.Farrtj (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 109: You italicize Financial Times most places, but not here.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 110: You italicize Bloomberg here, but I know I've seen it differently earlier somewhere, not going to chase it down right now. Also, you should check whether or not the company still officially considers its news service to be called Bloomberg News or not; I'm not sure offhand.
Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 111: By now, you know what my complaint is about history cited to these in-house web pages.
Couldn't find a third party source so removed the claim.Farrtj (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got the same problem with the multiple entries for the Stephens Balakrishnan work that I did with the Darden book. That's especially true here, in fact, where a claim sourced to pages 126–127 gets a difference reference entry (#124) than one cited to just page 127 (#127)!
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got a bunch of sources from 129 to 134 or so, and then again from 138 onward for a bit, documenting the sort of food that KFC serves. Most of them aren't independent -- and I note with some irony that one of the few independent sources in the bunch is USA Today, which you told me you found unacceptable in the previous FAC review when I suggested it was a source for the claim that the bucket is a "longtime icon" of the chain!. As an example of why this is a problem, by basing the article's description of the Streetwise Menu off KFC's corporate sourcing, it's described here as "value dishes", which is surely not a neutral POV.
Well I trust USA Today for a relatively neutral and trivial reference for something like Kentucky Nuggets. I need a better source for a claim that the bucket is "an icon" or whatever. I have changed the wording of "value dish" to "value menu", a pretty standard term used among management and business types. We're going to struggle to find third party sources for a lot of these menu items. Farrtj (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 148 is a corporate earnings conference call turned into basically a press release by an entity that looks like, but isn't really, a traditional news wire.
I don't think it's basically a press release. It's a transcript of a earnings conference call. Farrtj (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 162 and 163. You have two entries here for the same source, one for page 95, and one for pages 95–96. I realize that you're trying to be precise here, and that's laudable, but there really are better ways to do this that don't give the impression that the sourcing is broader than it really is.
I can only find one of these.Farrtj (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 164 is to the website of Louisville Magazine. Web citations that are just styled with the URL are a pet peeve of mine at FAC.
Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 168 is a dead link.
Removed dead link.Farrtj (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 172: Brandweek is a print publication; if you're not citing online content, do you have page numbers for this article?
No. My source for the reference is LexisNexis, which does not always give page numbers.Farrtj (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 173: PR Newswire isn't a traditional news service, its a rebroadcaster of press releases (hence the name, actually), and so this source should be labeled as such (this one's actually not problematic to use, since it's providing a direct quote rather than supplying background).
Now labelled.Farrtj (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 174: I believe this publication should simply be styled Campaign, but you may want to confirm that.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 175: We can probably quibble about whether this is an acceptable use of Youtube content or not, but at the very least, this isn't a properly formatted reference.
  • Reference 207 is not a neutral, third-party reference for the KFC/PETA conflict. I suppose it's okay to use reference 209 for KFC's response to the situation, but, really, this was well-reported. Rather than cite primary sources from either side directly, the article should be sourced to neutral, third-party material. Consider, as an example:
  • Yaziji, Michael; Doh, Jonathan (2009). "Case illustration: PETA and KFC". NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration. Business, Value Creation, and Society. Cambridge University Press. pp. 112–114. ISBN 978-0-521-86684-2.
You're right about ref 207, and I've replaced it with the source you give. Farrtj (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there are probably even better sources for the KFC/Greenpeace issue that are currently being used. The news media citations are absolutely a step above citing Greenpeace directly, but there are books and reviews written with at least a little historical perspective, that would be higher quality still.
I could only find two book sources on Google Books [9][10], but they only deal with the Greenpeace KFC issue in passing, and the newspaper articles offer more depth. Farrtj (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 218: I believe this website styles itself Scoop, but feel free to double-check. Regardless, this is a press release, and is even clearly marked as such.
That source has been removed as part of a deletion of that paragraph, for reasons detailed in the edit summary, but essentially regarding recentism. Farrtj (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'm done for now. That's just the concerns I have from looking at the reference in the article. I didn't try to see whether the article is a comprehensive review of available literature (as criterion 1c requires), but I guarantee that it's not. I didn't look at the quality of the prose (criterion 1a, and I know there's work needed there, too), nor did I try to determine if the article provides adequate coverage of all aspects of the topic (criterion 1b). I understand that a lot of work has been put into this article. I understand that its editor is passionate about that work. I understand that FAC is not a very forgiving or enjoyable process, and that I play the "mean cop" here a lot of the time. Please understand that I do this because I believe strongly in the Wikipedia project, the FA program, and the criteria; I criticize because I want articles to be better. But I don't think this met the criteria two months ago, I don't think this meets the criteria now, and I don't think it's going to meet the criteria two months from now without a fairly substantial amount of resourcing and revision. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While it was an interesting read, I noticed some inconsistencies, some issues, and some comprehensive issues that can't let me support it. I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and I hope my comments in no way dissuade you from bettering this article. It's an important topic, and I applaud you for attempting it!

  • In the opening sentence, it should be "that", not "which", since it's a restrictive clause.
Okay done.Farrtj (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with over 18,000 outlets in 120 countries and territories as of December 2012" - do you have a more recent update, since that's almost a year ago? Similarly, in the infobox, any estimate more recent than 2011?
No. Taken from the 2013 10-K, which counts 2012 figures.Farrtj (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Harland Sanders, a colorful figure" - ehh, doesn't sound that encyclopediac by saying "colorful"
Okay, changed.Farrtj (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chain has since expanded rapidly in China, and the country is now the company's most profitable market." - easy way to cut down on redundancy
Yep, done.Farrtj (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit too much corporate history in the "history" section (like who bought what entity when), and too little about the chain itself. There is nothing about any changes during that time, such as when certain items were added (popcorn chicken anyone?), or any changes to the product.
You're right. I've added a line to the History section detailing a few successful new product launches (including popcorn chicken).Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tricon was renamed Yum! Brands in May 2002." - unsourced
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sam Su is chairman and CEO of Yum!'s Chinese operations.[45] Richard T. Carucci is president of Yum!.[45] John Cywinski is president of KFC in the US.[45] The Yum! COO is Roger Eaton.[45] Muktesh Pant is CEO of Yum! Brands International." - plenty of short sentences here, and I think some could be merged.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KFC was the first Western fast food company in China with an outlet opening in Qianmen, Beijing, in November 1987" - another comma would be helpful after China. Also, you shouldn't use "with" as a phrase constructor. You could say "after an outlet opened" instead.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1989 KFC had three outlets in Beijing; by 1994 this had risen to 28 across the country, including 7 in Beijing" - this should be before the preceding sentence.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and two new products are released each month" - is this an average or actual practice that persists?
This is a good question but slightly problematic, as the Harvard Business Press source (normally reliable) simply says "two new products are unveiled every month". I assume this means that they try to launch two new products as a practice.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " can be largely credited to Yum! chief executive David Novak, who expanded 100 stores in 1997 to 4,400 in 2013" - the wording could be clearer. Was it his initiative to expand the number of stores? And the writing suggests that literally 100 stores grew literally into 4,300 more. I'd add "from" before 100, and maybe clarify by "who helped expand the franchise from 100 stores..." something like that.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the chain was hit by allegations" - that sounds kinda vernacular
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2013, Businessweek speculated that KFC may be "losing its touch" in China." - any update?! This is the most interesting part of the China section so far :)
Updated with more! Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By April 2007, trans fat-free soybean oil had been introduced in all KFC restaurants in the US." - introduced, yes, but were the trans-fat oil still being used? Or did the new trans fat-free oil replaced the other ones?
Clarified.Farrtj (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Novak blamed low US sales" - blamed seems a bit inappropriate here, since it carries some emotional weight. Perhaps "credited"?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use the spelling of "début"?
It's the only version of the word accepted by the OED.Farrtj (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end of the Japan section seems to indicate a decline during the 1990s, but nothing since then.
I've added a line about 2000 that I think indicates that the decline was shortlived.Farrtj (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were 840 KFC restaurants in the UK and Ireland, the fourth largest number of KFC outlets in any country" - UK and Ireland are two separate countries though.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come there weren't protests when KFC went back into India the second time around?
It's a very good question, and I'm sure I would have added the reason(s) if I'd come across them. I'm not sure if anyone has been able to reliably say (it's always going to be an educated guess/opinion rather than an objective fact, much like the reasons for KFC's success in China, of which entire books and academic articles have been written). I'll look into this anyway, but it may take some time.Farrtj (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shelton's company, Winston Industries, continue to supply KFC with pressure fryers." - ref?
Unable to find a reference for this, so I've removed the assertion.Farrtj (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2012, a UK advertisement entitled "4000 cooks" featured an actor made up to look like Sanders." - ref?
I can only find Youtube videos as a source for this... Farrtj (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2013, a KFC franchise in New Zealand was criticized by unions and disability advocacy groups for enforcing a policy that fired disabled KFC employees unable to perform all duties in their branch" - on one hand, this seems a bit like recentism, but on the other hand, I gotta wonder, where is there info on employees and such before two months ago?
Do you mean there should be an "Employees" section in the article? I'm a little confused.Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come there is no indication on why they changed the name to just KFC? If anything, I'd love to see info on the hoax that they changed it because they didn't use real chicken anymore. That's encyclopediac, both the hoax and the reason for the name change.
Although this is addressed in more depth in the History of KFC page, it is an important change, so I have added the reasoning behind the change to the article.Farrtj (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all, I have to oppose, but generally a decent job. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [11].

Of Human Feelings

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the first nomination was found to lack consensus due to an editor's objection regarding close paraphrasing; the material specified by that editor was corrected. Otherwise, my last response to the editor at the first nomination page was not responded to (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Of_Human_Feelings/archive1#Comments_by_Quadell) Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{Note to Dan56: the review has begun)

Comments by Brianboulton

[edit]

Sources and media review: I am dealing with these, in the hope that this will kickstart a substantive content review. This has been at FAC for 15 days now; high time someone with knowledge of the subject jumped in.

Sources
  • As close paraphrasing was an issue at te last FAC I carried out a limited number of spotchecks. I found nothing that I would describe as plagiarism or close paraphrasing
  • One small nitpick re ref. 27b: the source says "learning to love jazz" while the article says "learning to listen to jazz. Perhaps they're considered one and the same, I don't know, but I thought I'd raise it.
  • Ref 44 is behind a paywall and needs a "subscription" tag.
  • Otherwise all sources look reliable and of appropriate quality, and are properly formatted.
Media
  • The lead image has an appropriate non-free use rationale, the other two images are properly licenced.
  • The sound file, a 21-second sample, has the proper non-free use licence.

Just to add – although I have not read the text in detail, the parts I have read while checking the paraphrasing indicate a well-written and comprehensive article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Well, it seems that my attempt to animate this dormant review has failed. I wonder why the silence? At the last FAC six reviewers commented, two supported. The GA reviewer thought the prose "beyond flawless" (a level which should raise eyebrows, to say the least). It doesn't seem that any of these reviewers have been alerted to this renomination, and I suggest that this is done without further delay. I don't have any more time to devote to this, but unless some interest can be generated soon, the article won't be promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted several reviewers of this article's renomination ([12]). Hope it helps, tho turkey day is coming up. Dan56 (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such bullshit! I asked like a dozen editors and at least two or three said they'd review it. A little more time for ppl with actual lives couldn't be given considering its Thanksgiving weeknd? What's the friggin rush to archive an article that's been refined and fixed through two FACs and is ready to be promoted?! Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 11:30, 30 November 2013 [13].

Black Ice (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a page from the Jappalang school of unorthodox FAC intros:

Well Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian may care

That you toss this on the FAC and be a patient man
Hoping it's the last time here
For Black Ice
The end we all want, reach a silver lining
Get a star at the end of the road
To Black Ice
Black Ice

Come on and get the scrutiny of the crowds
I watched all the GAN issues go
Then it had a GOCE cleanup to take
I edited this 72 times and think it's getting great
You know I want to live it up
When the FAC director come a callin' what article I hope it's gonna be around?
Black Ice!
The reviewers come callin, I'm gonna be around
For Black Ice

Worked long, worked long
Not all alone (thanks, Shaidar), and hope I'm gonna take it all
On bringing the FAC out
Before you ask, Ref 50 seems to have cred down the street
So just let your opinion out
On Black Ice!

Black Ice...

But for a straighter intro: Ever since 2010 I've been improving this article about AC/DC's latest album, which is a current Good Article, has had a copy-edit, and is detailed while also using credible sources (even one that could lead to objections has an excusable reason). So for anyone willing to review, Give it all, give it, give it what you got. -igordebraga ≠ 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment starting from the first sentence "15th Australian and 14th international studio album", this article sacrifices readability for detail. An overarching narrative is also missing. You really don't a blow-by-blow account of how they marketed the album on what day (banal and dull), nor should you try to convert the chart tables below into prose (Chart performance and sales is unreadable). The Critical reception section is also lazy "reviewer of publication said quote"—repeat ten times. I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero FAs to get an idea of how build narrative.122.164.183.171 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC) (this is locked-out User:Indopug)[reply]

Thanks for finally providing some input. Cleaned up a bit, see if anything else is needed. igordebraga ≠ 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

This review is mostly focused on reference formatting, although I've glanced over the prose. A more thorough prose review is probably also in order.

  • I know the prose of the Professional reviews section has been a point of contention before, and I still think it needs some work. You've got some WP:PLUSING problems there. Oh, and "aand".
  • In the tour section, this article claims that the Black Ice World Tour was the third-highest grossing tour of all time. By either measure, List of highest-grossing concert tours disagrees.
    • Knew I should have watched it closely (The Wall surpassed it)
  • The introduction to Track Listing is a sentence fragment, but ends in a period. Also, reference tags always follow closing punctuation.
  • Something is broken in the End-of-year chart (see the Mexico entry).
    • Fixed.
  • References:
  • You seem to be linking publishers more often than not. Either way is good, but be consistent. Voyageur Press in your first reference, for example (which is even a bluelink as a redirect to Quarto Group).
  • You've got an ISSN for the Alan di Perna source; I'm not sure you also need an ASIN there (I consider Amazon's ID numbers to be sort of the ID of last resort, personally, since it's proprietary).
  • On the Marco Negonda ref, I have no problem if you want to pipe-link Rock Hard Italia to Rock Hard (magazine) but linking just part of the title is not okay.
  • Everyone hates this complaint: on the Robert Forster ref, you've got a date range. I'm pretty sure that's a hyphen there. Date ranges need en dashes.
  • In the K.S. Wang source, you can link the publisher there (the parent company has an article, and I made a redirect for your convenience here!).
  • You've got a short-form reference to Sutcliffe (it's #28 right now), but nothing that connects it to it's parent source. This makes it a little challenging for the reader to identify the source, and would be a problem if, for any reason, the parent reference was ever removed or replaced. There are a few solutions here (including a bibliography section with short-form references connected to it via harvard references, or whatever we call using superscript page numbers at the reference points).
  • I'm not entirely convinced you need to wikilink AC/DC in the references at all, but since you've got a link-on-first-appearance practice in place, you definitely only need to do so once (see #31 and 34, at least).
  • Make sure date formatting is consistent. You're mostly dd mm yyyy, but check reference 34.
  • In ref 44, you don't link Penton Media. You do later on (93), but this is the first appearance.
  • You style the publisher for Rolling Stone as Wenner Media LLC the first couple times, and then Jann Wenner in the iTunes ref (#48). Any reason for this?
  • Copying refs from other pages (the one that had a different date was this too).
  • I don't believe "Onion.Inc" is correctly formatted in the Burgess reference (#55).
  • I probably should have commented on this sooner, but you're very inconsistent with publication locations. They're always optional, but FAC expects a consistent format. Some entries have them. Some don't. And you've got styling variations among the ones that do (see refs 57 and 59 for two different ways to give the same publisher location).
  • In the Spence D. reference, since you're linking publications, IGN can take a link.
  • Who is the publisher of Billboard? In 43/69, it's Prometheus Global Media. In 70/75/105/125, it's Nielsen Business Media.
  • Ref 98/99: Ideally, we'd have a third-party source noting the photobook's publication, but since all you're demonstrating here is that it exists, sourcing it to its own copyright page is probably okay (99). I don't think we gain anything from using a link to its entry in Amazon's product catalog as a reference.
  • Ref 111 has song titles and such in English, but the page itself is Greek and probably needs an (in Greek) note.
  • Ref 125 doesn't seem to be formatting like the other Billboard refs, especially regarding the publisher (and see the other Billboard publisher issue, above).
  • In ref 132, you only give us the short-form CRIA but you've spelled out all the similar orgs.
  • You link Oricon in 115, and then again in 139.
  • Duplicate links to Mahasz, too, in 112 / 136 / 149. I've likely missed some of this sort of thing, it's easy to overlook.

No definitive opinion regarding promotion yet; most of this is trivial to fix, but there are a couple more significant issues hiding in there, and I'd like to see someone better at prose reviews than I am take a crack at this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of these. igordebraga ≠ 03:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 14:07, 27 November 2013 [14].

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

[edit]
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the criteria for a featured article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: is it a good idea to be bringing this to FAC now, given that "further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely." FAC is a slow process these days—I wonder just how stable this article might be if it took, say, two months for the review to close. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had already added this, but the father has announced he's dropping all appeals. I'll find the ref and add it. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 08:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

This looks good; as someone who heard about this case because it touches on aspects of my work in Australia, the description and coverage of it seems carefully put together and balanced, noting however that I haven't read the cases. I had the same reaction as Curly Turkey regarding that line in both the lede and at the final section on "legal developments". I would be a bit reluctant to stamp it as FA if significant aspects, such as appeals, were still up in the air, though i certainly think the article is of very high quality. I await GregJack's tweaks as foreshadowed above.

Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 08:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Not being American, I'm curious how quality a source is Tulsa World? Do we have any nationally significant news report outlets confirming that story? Or is TW pretty good? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tulsa World is one of the two major newspapers for the state of Oklahoma, the other being the Daily Oklahoman. I could have also pulled a regional paper from South Carolina (Post and Courier) or one of the national American Indian news outlets (Indian Country Today). I would consider the World being the most recognized of the three. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is far outside my subject of expertise, so I'll stick to some minor issues. The picture of Sotomayer is going through the headers for "Subsequent developments" and the text is not large enough to avoid the whitespace. This seems to be a landmark case and the claim that "Coverage in the mainstream media was extensive." should indicate that more sources and commentary should exist. For legal analysis on the case's future impact... is there anything written by prominent lawyers? The section is not clear. "On September 25, 2013, the Charleston County Family Court began contempt proceedings against Brown and the Cherokee Nation for withholding Veronica in the face of the South Carolina adoption decree, which was finalized in July. Both parties may face financial sanctions..." The first sentence here is not sourced and the second seems to indicate the situation is not resolved entirely. Several other sentences also are lacking the inline citations in this paragraph as well. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing:
  • I reduced the size of the Sotomayor image and moved it to take care of the whitespace issue.
  • It probably will turn out to be a landmark case, but it is fairly recent. As of today, there is only one law review article on Westlaw, a pre-decision piece by Zug in the Michigan Law Review; Lexis only has two, a statistic study on how the justices voted/grouped together (Harvard Law Review) and a no-bylined article covering the decision (also in the Harv. L. Rev.) (and likely student written, given the normal process).
I'll come back later and clean the rest up. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I read the introduction. Only the introduction.
The very last sentence says "Brown later dropped his appeals."
Who on earth is "Brown"? No-one by that name has been mentioned in the first three paragraphs. There is no indication whatsoever that the non-custodian father's name is "Brown" until the very til end of the final paragraph of the introduction. If you are going to name him in the introduction, then he needs to be named as soon as he, personally, becomes a player i.e. while talking about a point of law he is "a non-custodial Indian father" but the minute that he takes action, he needs to be named. Amandajm (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell

There are a lot of issues just in the lead regarding grammar, clarity, and prose. For instance, in the lead sentence, "several sections" do not apply (rather than "does"). Later, the tenses would match better when you say the procedures "do not apply when the child has never lived with the father" or "did not apply when the child had never lived with the father", but not "do" and "had". As regards prose variation and style, the first paragraph (which only contains four sentences) says "do[es] not apply" three times, and "required" or "requirement" four times. If the father "won in both trial court and on appeal", this wording implies that he "won in on appeal", and so it should be reworded as "won both in trial court and on appeal". As Amandajm mentioned, Brown needs to be introduced before being mentioned in the last sentence of the lead. Commas are needed after "rights under the ICWA" and "lifted in September 2013". In an issue of clarity, the lead claims "the South Carolina trial court finalized the adoption... but this was prohibited in August by the Oklahoma Supreme Court" — the reference "this" is not clear, but if it means that the adoption was prohibited, that doesn't seem fully backed up by the article (which says that the OSC stayed an order to transfer the child, which it later lifted, but doesn't say they prohibited the adoption).

I didn't get further than the lead, but I would recommend a thorough copyedit by a good proofreader before continuing. – Quadell (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I'll withdraw this, get it past a GOCE review, and resubmit. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Doctor Who

[edit]
Nominator(s): Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the problems with referencing and citations which caused this article to be delisted have been resolved, I would like to nominate this article for a return to FA status. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's quite a few maintenance tags and several paragraphs are unsourced. We also have many paragraphs that only last a sentence. I would like to see a GA review first. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I don't see tags (if they were removed without doing any work, shameful) I agree with Taylor's assessment, there are a lot of basic MOS/style guide issues with this article, inconsistent citations (some full, others needing more information), list incorporation issues, large swaths of text that are either poorly referenced or unsourced. The table in "Viewership#International" could be formatted better. While a GA-review isn't required as a first step, the article would have benefitted from actually doing something with the previous two GA-reviews (several issues still outstanding) and/or a peer review, or seeking input from other editors participating with a relevant WikiProject or on other DW-related articles. Also there is a previous FAC from FEB2013 that cites the very same issues mentioned here. This candidate is not prepared for FAC and requires a lot of work before it should be brought up again. An article is not ready for FAC automatically because the subject of the article celebrates its 50th anniversary today. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fails WP:WIAFA criterion 1e - too many recent changes, particularly in the last 24 hours, some of which was edit-and-revert but a good proportion is pure WP:FANCRUFT. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Fails #1e as stated. Maybe try and make it a GA? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]

For Whom the Sleigh Bell Tolls

[edit]
Nominator(s): Robert Been (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it should be a featured article. So far it looks good for a featured article. Robert Been (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It needs a thorough copy edit and some expansion on terms that lack context, including "3.1 rating in the 18–49 demographic". What is a 3.1 rating? The content is sparse and not even through what would be a normally shakey Good Article pass, I cannot find any reason that this is worthy of featured status by numerous criteria aside from the all important 1a. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 1a and the fact that a non-contributor is unlikely to be able to bring this article up to the required standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Voyager 1

[edit]
Nominator(s): Herald talk with me 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the requirements for a FA. It is well written and is of high standard. It went through two GA nominations and second nomination was withdrawn after all the necessary changes were done so as to nominate it for FA. Herald talk with me 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal

Large swathes of uncited text and bare URLs.122.164.203.235 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—I'm starting with a source review rather than look at other items first.

  • FN 5 is a bare URL. This is a big no-no at this level of review and editing.
  • The citations are of an inconsistent formatting of incomplete information. Take for instance FN 10, which lists "Time News Magazine" in roman (plain or non-italic) text. The name of the website, or the name of the magazine should be just Time in italics, which would be the |work= in the citation template. FN 16 should also have Smithsonian Magazine in italics. Please audit all footnotes for this.
  • FN 27–32 lack either a work/website name or a publisher. Please provide something.
  • FN 33 uses "Voyager.jpl.nasa.gov" as the publisher, yet other webpages from that website have different information. Please make this consistent.
  • FN34 has the title misspelled.
  • FN37 lacks a location and publisher as expected for a book. Additionally, page number references should be provided for books, the year of publication is sufficient, and the ALL CAPS in the title should be reduced to Title Case to match the rest of the title.
  • Looking at FN 41–43, we have inconsistent abbreviation of authors. I know that in APA style, first names are reduced to initials, and some publications don't provide full names, but if you can expand all of them out to full first names, do so, or you may want to reduce them all to initials for consistency.
  • FN 48 needs full information for each link (author, if possible, publisher, dates, etc).
  • FN 52 has the author in "First Last" order when the rest are in "Last, First" or "Last, F." format. Consistency, please?
  • FN 55: names of a magazine publication should be in italics, just like I noted in the first bullet point.
  • Ok, I'm stopping there. Please audit all citations in the article to make sure that you consistently format them.
    • Please provide an author as appropriate and make sure they are formatted in the same fashion from citation to citation.
    • Please provide the appropriate publication year/date where possible. Some web sources are not dated, but where they are, please add that if missing
    • Please provide consistently formatting titles.
    • Please provide either the website/publication name in italics, or the publisher as necessary. Please see that if a publisher of a website is used multiple times that you're doing so consistently from footnote to footnote. Is it the JPL, NASA/JLP or what for voyager.jpl.nasa.gov and jpl.nasa.gov ? Also, JPL should probably be spelled out in citations.
    • I don't think you need to use an external link for the name of a website.
  • FN 3 and 74 have date formatting errors showing up in red.

On an unrelated note, I would promote the article section on "Spacecraft design" up a level in the hierarchy so that is at the same level as "Mission background" and "Mission profile". Until the citations are reformatted, and the missing details about the sources are supplied, I can't/won't judge whether or not these are "high-quality reliable sources" necessary for promotion to FA status. As it is, the article cannot be promoted with this level of inconsistency and a lack of polish in that section. Imzadi 1979 → 14:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review...I have made the suggestions... Herald talk with me 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit did not implement the kind of comprehensive auditing and reformatting of the citations needed to be able to say you "made the suggestions". That edit betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the difference between a |publisher= (which would be TimeWarner or its Time-Life division, both of which are corporate entities) and the |work= parameter in a citation template. (The latter is the name of a website, the name of a magazine, the name off the published work...) The edit just slapped the double single quotes around "Time" in |publisher=Time News Magazine thinking it resolved just one of my bullet points. I am currently taking a college-level composition and writing course, and such a misformat in the appropriate citation of a research paper submitted for a grade there would prompt quite low marks. I think the grade in a high school course for such a paper would also be quite low, therefore I'm entering in a formal declaration now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal and peer review—as noted by others, this would not pass a GAN in this state, let alone FAC. I think the nominator may have felt by withdrawing the last GAN he or she was just skipping a formality for an article ready for this review forum, however I think if the GAN were completed it would have failed the article. This article needs too much work to continue a review at this forum, and it should be taken to a peer review or similar to get all of the issues aired out for correction. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, urge withdrawal. I make something of a hobby of very verbose lists of issues, even when I oppose promotion, in the interests of article improvement. But this article is simply so far from the FAC standard that I decline to do even that. There are large passages of uncited text. The reference formatting is a mess, even still. The EL section is bloated. There are image galleries all over the place that are not in compliance with the MOS on image use. There are huge tabular listings with no contextualization in prose (see the instrument list, in particular, where there's no accompanying prose at all). Several stubby sections make it clear that this is not a comprehensive review of the literature. And so forth. This is an important topic, and I wish the article were in better shape, but it's simply not: I would not pass this at GAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Tintin in America

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fits the necessary criteria. In the last few months, I have pulled both Tintin in the Land of the Soviets and Tintin in the Congo up to FAC, and now I hope to do the same for this article, which explores the third volume of The Adventures of Tintin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • In sentences with overuse of "Tintin", consider calling the comics just (in) America, Congo and Adventures.
  • ("The Little Twentieth") -- why both quotes and italics?
  • FYI you don't really need the references in the plot--it's clear that it is a summary of the comic.
    • I have included such references in the FA articles for both Soviets and Congo. I appreciate that it is not necessarily common practice in Wikipedia, but there is certainly nothing prohibiting it, and I have found that it prevents anonymous users coming along and dramatically expanding the synopsis sections with unnecessary trivia (which has been a problem on these Tintin articles). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any commentary etc on the TV episode?
  • "Pursuing a gangster across the country, he encounters a tribe of Blackfoot Natives."--this is abrupt. You should expand it. And why highlight only the meeting with the Natives?
  • Overlinking of common words--lynch mob, oil etc.
  • Wouldn't the 1932 original comic be in the public domain? You should add more pics then.
    • Definitely not. European copyright law is not the same as American. I ran into this when I uploaded some images from Frans Masereel's 25 Images of a Man's Passion, assuming they were public domain since they were published in 1918. Turns out they'll be under copyright in Europe until 2044—death plus 70 years—so the imaes had to be deleted from Commons. Hergé died in 1983, so that means copyright will last until 2053, at least in Europe. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long sentences: "Georges Remi—best known...", "Written in the context...", "The Lofficiers believed..."
  • "although during initial serialisation..." -- IMHO, this should be removed; the previous sentence is a much better end to the para (in a droll sort of way).
  • You should use File:Al Capone-around 1935.jpg. Mugshots are dull.

These are minor quibbles for a very good article. I'll try to give it a copyedit and support in the coming week.—indopug (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comment As a fan of The Adventures of Tintin, I am pleased to see that somebody is paying attention to this kind of article. The article looks good -- it is well-researched and -written, the images check out, there are no dead links -- I've just spotted some minor niggles, however.


Support: This article is excellent. The prose is clear and vivid, and I can't find any copyediting problems (which is unusual in an article of this length). The sourcing is top-notch. All aspects have been fully covered, and the article is organized and balanced well. This is truly among the best Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Support. I don't mean to give mixed signals. This is still a very strong candidate, with very engaging prose. But the claim that the work has an anti-American or anti-capitalist slant should really be resolved with clear sources. (See below.) – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From this version:

Georges Remi—best known under the pen name Hergé—was employed as editor and illustrator of [Le Petit Vingtième] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) ("The Little Twentieth"),[1] a children's supplement to [Le XXe Siècle] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) ("The 20th Century"), a staunchly Roman Catholic, conservative Belgian newspaper based in Hergé's native Brussels. Run by the Abbé Norbert Wallez, the paper described itself as a "Catholic Newspaper for Doctrine and Information" and disseminated a far-right, fascist viewpoint. According to Tintinologist Harry Thompson, such political ideas were common in Belgium at the time, and Hergé's milieu was permeated with conservative ideas revolving around "patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety".

In 1929, Hergé began The Adventures of Tintin comic for [Le Petit Vingtième] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), revolving around the exploits of fictional Belgian reporter Tintin.

I would not give the prose such a glowing review. I stopped after finding "revolving around" in consecutive sentences. Also, it seems we don't trust the reader to pick up on the conservative, staunchly Roman Catholic the first time round, so we say the same thing three or four different ways. I stopped there and suggest a prose audit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Since the above comment is indented and has an edit summary of "disagree", I'm treating it as a reply to me.) I agree that using the phrase "revolving around" twice is less than ideal and should be changed. It's also possible that the description of the editorial slant would be improved by cutting redundancy... but to be honest, the lead's description of the work as both "conservative" and "anti-capitalist" was surprising to me, and I looked forward to having the paper's position clearly spelled out in this section. I would not recommend removing too much information in the name of brevity. On the whole, I stand by my assessment of the article. – Quadell (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel better about it if a competent copyeditor (such as you) went through the article thoroughly. The "disagree" edit summary was prompted more by @Indopug:'s review; since he is also a competent copyeditor, and mentioned that he would copyedit ten days ago, I was hoping he (or you) would. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. At some point in the next few days, I will do the most thorough c/e I can do. – Quadell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, a thorough copyedit follows. (I printed the article on Thursday and copyedited it, and by now over half of the issues I identified were already fixed by Curly Turkey on Friday. Thanks!)

  • The lead is a good summary of the article, but in says the series was "bolstered by publicity stunts", though only one publicity stunt is mentioned in the body. (Since the body only devotes two sentences to the stunt, and it's not explained in any detail, it might be best to leave it out. Alternately, it would be good to expand information on the stunt in the body.)
    • I've replaced the offending sentence with the subtly different "bolstered by a publicity stunt". Unfortunately, there is not enough published information available in the Anglophone Tintinological literature to expand on the information in the article's body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section is quite informative, and nearly all minor issues I found have already been resolved. But "shared these views, viewing" is still a bit awkward.
  • In "Research", consider the following sentence: "Hergé would also have been aware of American cinema, providing another influence on his depiction of the country, while cinematic imagery provided a key influence on his illustrations." This could use some clean-up. It's wordier than it needs to be, it duplicates key words, and it uses the subjunctive unnecessarily. Try something clear and direct, like "Hergé's depiction of the country was also influenced by American cinema, and many of his illustrations were based on cinematic imagery."
  • In "Original publication", the text says "Tintin in America marked a diminished role for Snowy". It didn't just mark it. A better wording would be clearer. What would you think of this? "The dog Snowy was given a diminished role in Tintin in America, which contained the last instance..."
    • I've re-written this sentence as "The dog Snowy was given a diminished role in Tintin in America, which contained the last instance in the Adventures in which Tintin and Snowy have a conversation where they are able to understand each other." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this section contains the brief mention of the publicity stunt. It really isn't clear to me what happened here. Curly Turkey's minor rewording helped, but I would still recommend a further rewording, with more information added if possible. Consider this: "Wallez organised a publicity stunt to mark the culmination of Tintin in America, in which an actor portraying Tintin arrived in Brussels [and... something. Spoke to a crowd?] Similar stunts had been orchestrated to support the prior two Adventures, but this one proved the most popular yet."
  • One part is confusing to me. The "Later alterations" section begins "When the story was translated into English by Michael Turner and Leslie Lonsdale-Cooper", and it seems to imply that the second (1945) version was translated. It doesn't say so explicitly though, and doesn't mention a year of translation, so I can't be sure. It describes many differences made in the story. But the "social commentary was toned down" image clearly shows two separate panels, one before the changes of the second edition, and one after... and both are in English. I don't understand which (if either) is Turner and Lonsdale-Cooper's version.
    • The colour version was the first to be translated into English by Turner and Lonsdale-Cooper. Many years later, they also translated the original black-and-white copy. I will make this more explicit in the text of the article, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the critical analysis section, the word "remaining" seems like the wrong choice. If your third work is better than the first two, it might "prove to be" the greatest success in a long time, and/or it might "remain" your best work "for a long time", but it didn't "remain" the best "in" a long time.
  • Finally, the article frequently refers to the newspaper (or comic or Hergé or Wallez) as being "anti-American" or critical of "American capitalism": in the lead, in "Background", in "Original publication", in "Later alterations and releases", and in "Critical analysis". But it isn't explained how the comic or newspaper is anti-American or anti-capitalist. Yes, there is one scene where "red Indians" are forced off their land by the U.S. army, but nothing in the "Synopsis" describes anything that clearly looks like a criticism of capitalism or America in general. Americans, after all, throw Tintin a "banquet in his honour" and later a "ticker-tape parade", and it's American factory workers who save his life. The article also describes the author as being fond of many aspects of U.S. culture, so I'm not sure where the anti-U.S. slant is supposed to lie. It's hard to see anything in the synopsis critical of capitalism itself (especially when one bears in mind that Hergé also wrote for a department store while this comic was being created). I think the article could better explain why the comic is considered "Anti-American" or "critical of American capitalism", and should explicitly and unambiguously source the claim, if it's going to be such a prevalent claim in the article.

All in all, I still feel the article is a great candidate with vivid and clear prose throughout, but these issues should be dealt with. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: If the sources don't contain much about the "publicity stunt", then there's not much you can do there. And although the translation situation is confusing to me, it's not an inaccuracy (so far as I can tell), so it's of lesser importance. The only remaining significant issue is the sourcing of the claim that the work is "anti-American" or critical of "American capitalism". – Quadell (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent follow-up: After reading some of the sources for spot-checks (see below), I can see that the sources do indeed refer to Hergé as "anticapitalist" and describe his works' themes as including "rejection of materialism... and the almighty dollar". I do still wish the clause "Although Tintin in America and much of Hergé's earlier work displayed anti-American sentiment" had an explicit cite. Assouline p. 32 touches on it, but doesn't support the entire strong claim. Does Peeters (2012) p. 56 cover it? (I can't see that page.) – Quadell (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose: This looks like a good piece of work generally, but there are quite a few issues for me. Just from the lead and first two sections, I've found quite a few things. None of them are major, but I would have hoped to find less so far into a nomination. Perhaps some of them are nit-picky, but there's something just not sitting right with me. In addition to the concerns of Quadell above, this is pushing me towards oppose at the moment; however, this is not set in stone, and I hope to switch to support. A very good piece of work, certainly, but I can't yet say that this represents our best work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”The story tells of young Belgian reporter Tintin and his fox terrier Snowy who travel to the United States”: This is something of a specialist one (and it’s all Tim Riley’s fault for pointing it out to me!) but “…of young Belgian reporter…” sounds like a tabloid report, and it would be better written as “…of the young Belgian reporter”. There are several similar examples.
  • ”Following Tintin in the Congo and bolstered by a publicity stunt”: I wonder if “publicity stunt” reaches the required level of formality for an encyclopaedia. But I can’t think of a better phrase.
  • ”Following Tintin in the Congo and bolstered by a publicity stunt, Tintin in America was a commercial success, appearing in book form shortly after its conclusion”: I’ve a few little issues here.
    • “Following Tintin in the Congo…” Following what? It’s plot? It’s structure? It’s writing? It’s publication? It’s success?
    • “appearing in book form shortly after its conclusion” may be a little abrupt for anyone venturing here unaware of the publication history. A little re-working is needed here, so that it says something like “it appeared in book form shortly after the final instalment concluded”.
    • ”and the series became a defining part of the Franco-Belgian comics tradition”: Do we mean the “series” of Tintin in America, or the Tintin series in general? If the latter, how is this relevant to the lead of this particular story? And how does a series become a defining part of a tradition? It might establish a tradition, or become part of a tradition, but I can’t quite accept “become part” of a tradition, or a “defining part”.
  • ”The story was adapted for a 1991 episode of the Ellipse/Nelvana animated series The Adventures of Tintin.”: Why is this important enough for the lead when other information is omitted?
    • I really think that this information is important enough for the lede. After all, the Ellipse/Nelvana series was very popular, and would have attracted more attention than the other adaptation mentioned in the text. Many of Wikipedia's readers probably came to the series through this particular cartoon series. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the lead cover the article to the extent required by WP:LEAD? For example, there is nothing from the critical analysis or adaptations sections.
  • I think “Tintin” is overused in the plot section. Could a few of these be replaced with “he”?
  • ”He is kidnapped by gangsters and brought before mobster boss Al Capone”: Again, I think “the mobster boss” is less tabloidly.
  • ”After escaping, Tintin discovers a source of underground petroleum.”: Presumably on their land?
  • ”Tracing the kidnappers to a local mansion, Tintin hides in a suit of armour and frees Snowy from the dungeon.”: These three events almost seem unconnected. If we are not saying how he enters the mansion, gets into the dungeon and frees Snowy, I don’t see that we need to be told that he hides in armour.
  • ”Tintin is saved when the machine workers go on strike and then apprehends the mobsters.”: Who is apprehending? Tintin or the striking workers? Some ambiguity, which makes it read a little off.
  • The third paragraph of the plot seems to jump around an awful lot. Maybe that is just the way the story goes, but I wonder if it could be smoothed somewhat.
  • "Georges Remi—best known under the pen name Hergé": Should this be "better-known"? And it should have a hyphen whatever it is.
  • "According to Tintinologist": I really, really dislike "Tintinologist" in an encyclopaedia article. Why not the less informal "Tintin expert"? And Harry Thompson is less known as a Tintin expert than a television producer, so I wonder about that description of him, rather than a plain "writer".
    • I admit that the term "Tintinologist" comes across as a little humorous perhaps, but it is widely used in publications on the subject, both online and in print; for this reason it is certainly the correct term to be using on Wikipedia, far more so than "Tintin expert" which I don't think I've ever seen used in the specialist literature on Hergé and his work. Furthermore, I think that Thompson should indeed be referred to as a "Tintinologist" here, because in the context of this article, it is his work on Tintin that is relevant, rather than his work in television production. Again, this is another example where I would highlight our FA articles for Land in the Soviets and Congo, which both use "Tintinologist" and refer to Thompson as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such political ideas were common in Belgium at the time": We don't actually give a time here, so maybe we could date this first paragraph.
  • "and Hergé's milieu was permeated with conservative ideas revolving around "patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety": This is hardly far-right or fascist.
    • True, but the Belgian fascist movement, prominently represented by the Rexists, was firmly rooted in traditional Belgian conservatism, which was staunchly patriotic and Catholic. The same is true of various other far right nationalist movements in Europe at the time. Of course, it would be ridiculous (particularly in a contemporary European context) to claim that conservatives and fascists are the same thing, but in 1930s Belgium, those distinctions were not always so clear cut. What Harry Thompson is stating with this quote is that Hergé emerged from a thoroughly right-wing milieu, which was very much conservative and centred on patriotism and Catholicism, and which certainly verged into the realms of fascism on a regular basis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was interested in the connection between their traditional way of life and the Belgian Scouting tradition": This is stated as a fact, but what connection is this? It seems rather unlikely.
  • "Hergé had wanted to set Tintin's first adventure in the United States and highlight the plight of the Native Americans, whom he called "Red Indians". He had been fascinated with the indigenous communities of the American continent since boyhood and was interested in the connection between their traditional way of life and the Belgian Scouting tradition. However, Wallez ordered him to set his first adventure in the Soviet Union as anti-socialist propaganda for children (Tintin in the Land of the Soviets) and commanded that the second adventure be set in the Belgian Congo to encourage colonial sentiment (Tintin in the Congo).": Redundancy, a bit clunky, and goes all over the place. What about something tighter like: "Having been fascinated by Native Americans since boyhood, Hergé wanted to set Tintin's first adventure in the United States to highlight the plight of the people he called "Red Indians". However, Wallez ordered him to set his first adventure in the Soviet Union as a piece of anti-socialist propaganda for children, and the second had to be set in the Belgian Congo to encourage colonial settlement." Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm not convinced by the limited changes made after my comments. Several of the replies refer to another FAC for justification, but that is not the article in question here, and just because another FA does things a certain way does not, to my mind, make it OK to do it in another. There are also several issues above which are unaddressed after over a week. Unfortunately, I feel I have to move to oppose as I do not think the problems have been sorted. And I still have not read beyond the plot section. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • I haven't seen any activity here for a while, how are things looking re. your comments, Sarastro1?
  • Midnightblueowl, in the lead you say "In 1945, it was re-drawn and coloured..." -- I assume this refers specifically to Tintin in America but given the preceding info it could be read as meaning all the Adventures of Tintin to date, so suggest you clarify...
  • Did I miss a dedicated source review above? If we haven't had one, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • The sources are all formatted impeccably, both in the footnotes and in the bibliography. Spotchecks for footnotes 13, 14, 15, 20, 27, and 33 all show the sources fully support the claims made, and the material has been fully rewritten and synthesized to avoid even the faintest whiff of plagiarism. (Which is what I've come to expect from this nominator.) – Quadell (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no consensus after a quite lengthy review, it's time to archive this. Thank you all for your participation, and I hope to see the article back here when outstanding points have been resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Avatar (2009 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's content's meets the criteria of FA, and I am willing to fix any problems with the article. Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I request that this nomination be closed, per similar reasoning given at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar (2009 film)/archive1. In part, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates explicitly states: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Blurred Lines did not do that; he simply notified us as if to state, "Yep, you're going through a FA review unless you decide to leave the work up to me." And that is why I reverted him here and here. This will come across as biting, but it's how I feel: I do not appreciate editors who are not significant contributors to an article swooping in and nominating that article for a higher status without attempting to consult with the main contributors about it, if the main contributors are still generally active on Wikipedia, especially nominators who won't be doing enough or most of the work...but will get that "I helped bring this article to FA" badge. It is frustrating to essentially be forced into a FA review. I am not ready for this FA review, and I know (from experience at this article) that I would very likely be doing most of the work (such as making sure that editors are not cutting important things or unnecessarily cutting things), especially since I am currently the editor who most actively edits the Avatar (2009 film) article. It should go without saying that FA reviews are stressing/frustrating because substantial changes are made to an article at the suggestion of other editors, often substantial changes that are not needed and are more so or solely personal opinion. Also, Bob K31416, as currently the second highest-billed contributor to the Avatar (2009 film) article, who is still very active on Wikipedia and who actually contributed more material to this article despite the fact that I am currently billed as the top contributor, should have been contacted about this nomination as well.
And apparently Blurred Lines does not understand what he did wrong with regard to this matter, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only just beat me to removing the nomination, both times. Wholly understand your frustration. No, he can't force this. Maralia (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For further commentary on this matter, see this discussion. For the closer of this nomination, perhaps close this as Withdrawn? Closing it as Not promoted is less accurate to me because it suggests that the article was actually reviewed for FA status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Blurred Lines' attempt to take on the technical aspects of closing the nomination, but we have a slightly different procedure for closing a nomination in a case where no significant opposes on content were lodged: such nominations do not get recorded in articlehistory. The previous nomination, in April 2012, was also closed improperly—neither of them should be recorded in articlehistory. The 2012 close was actually recorded in the archived nominations log so it's too late for me to fix that one, but I will remove the 2013 nomination from articlehistory to avoid compounding the error. Maralia (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Maralia: You know that you could just remove the nomination from the archives in April 2012, and tell that the nomination was wrong because there were no votes, and then remove it from articlehistory, unless if you can't do that, then you may have to get in contact with the admin (GrahamColm) who closed the last case to handle that matter. Blurred Lines 00:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FAC and adminship have nothing to do with each other; passes and fails are not judged by administrators, nor would I need an administrator's permission or help to edit the archives. Graham happens to be an administrator, but his relevant role here is as a FAC coordinator; given numerous similar situations in the past, I daresay he trusts my ability to handle this one, and he can't help but be aware of it thanks to the exhaustive discussion on his talk page.
I'm not going to edit the archives because they are archives, and as such are used to compile various statistics, such as promoted and failed FACs per month. There's no reason to skew the numbers in reports across Wikipedia in order to correct one minor issue. Maralia (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

American football

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've done a lot of work on it and am confident it meets the featured article criteria. To summarize, this is an article about American football, the most popular type of football in... well, America. This is an introductory article, so it covers the topics in a manner that isn't in-depth or extremely technical. The article includes most everything an article on this topic would need:

  • A history section, which covers major milestones in the history of football. It spends the most time on the early years of football but also covers the modern era - it is shorter than the history section on the baseball article, but this is because there is a high-quality featured article, History of American football, which covers the topic in a broader scope.
  • An etymology section (similar to the one in the association football article) that answers the age-old question most non-Americans ask - "why do you call it 'football' if you rarely kick the ball"? It also includes the major terms non-Americans refer to the sport as.
  • A teams and positions section, similar in scope to the rugby union article. Aside from establishing team sizes and noting the platoon system, this also covers all of the traditional, major positions on a football team and their unique roles.
  • A safety section, detailing the sport's use of protective equipment as well as common injuries.
  • A rules section, describing the rules of the sport. This covers all major rules, including scoring, advancing the ball, field dimensions (including metric conversions), timekeeping, as well as the officials.
  • A leagues and tournaments section describing the most popular domestic leagues. This also includes a section on international leagues and the (pipe dream) of getting football in an unmodified form in the Olympics.
  • And finally, a section on variants and related sports. This covers everything from the closely-related sport of Canadian football to more drastic modifications like arena football and touch football.

Overall, this is of similar quality to our two other FA-sports articles (Baseball and Soccer) and I believe it meets the criteria needed for promotion. Toa Nidhiki05 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing due to not meeting two week criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Thank you for understanding, if a little belatedly, the FAC rules. If you do want to nominate this article in two weeks (as opposed to improving the recently archived 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game for instance), I'd suggest using the time to try another Peer Review for this one and asking a few sports-minded reviewers to take a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Battle of Nalapani

[edit]
Nominator(s): Manoguru (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed the GA, and I cannot think of anything more to contribute to the article. Manoguru (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My first concern is referencing. You've got two "incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" templates. Other than referenced quotations, it's not immediately clear to me what text is directly incorporated from public domain sources. At the FA level, I'm rather reticent to okay an article with those templates; citing public domain text is obviously fine, but just using their wording, not so much. I'm not sure why that Shiva Shankar website is a reliable source, but it's not formatted correctly in any case. And I'm concerned that this isn't a comprehensive review of the literature. The article leans rather heavily on Fraser and Princep. Are there more modern examinations of this conflict? Military scholarship has evolved somewhat since 1825. I only gave the text a cursory read, but it looks like there may be some prose issues as well. I caught an instance of "it should be noted" in one of the footnotes. In the main body, you refer to Gorkhalis a great deal (and never link the term). The Wikipedia article is at Gurkhas, and I wonder if that's a symptom of the dated sources that underlie the article. Time permitting, I'll make a closer reading later. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. Good work so far with this article, but it needs some improvements before it can be granted FA status. Specifically, I think it would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, perhaps by a volunteer at WP:GOCE. Some of the images need work in terms of licensing: File:Gurkha_Commander_Nepal_War.jpg needs a tag indicating its status in the US, while File:Rollo_Gillespie.jpg is a bit confused - the source link is dead, the two licensing tags present contradict each other, and it's not clear whether either is correct. I agree with most of Squeamish's points about sourcing, and I also think that some of the phrasing is not as neutral as it should be, for example "To the dismay of the garrison" or "Despite their stubborn resistance with gunfire and stones, the few people that remained in the fort became desperate and could not hold on anymore". You might consider sending this through the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process before trying FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK, but some of the image summaries will need more information for their PD-claim:

  • File:Gurkha_Commander_Nepal_War.jpg - i have cleaned up the summary a bit and added an active archive link. However, the image needs some more information to verify the PD-old claim: When was it published? How old is it? Who is the author? If some details can't be ascertained, atleast some evidence needs to be given or the image fails our image use policies.
  • File:Kalunga_fort_close_up.png - PD-claim looks OK, but you should add some bibliographical info for "A memoir of Major-General Sir R.R. Gillespie" - When was the used edition published? Who is the publisher? Does it have OCLC or ISBN-number?
  • File:Rollo_Gillespie.jpg - PD-claim is OK. The image has been updated with a better (imo) version, i have updated the image summary accordingly.

Oops, just realized Nikkimaria already looked at the images - sorry. Anyway, maybe the additional look is helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Article and review appear to have been moribund for the past two weeks so I'll be archiving this shortly. If you'd like to bring this back to FAC at some stage, pls take on board the comments raised in this review and remember to wait a minimum two weeks after the archiving before renominating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria needed, and it would be an excellent addition to the featured articles group. It passed GAN a couple of months ago and underwent a comprehensive peer review in July.
To give an overview of the article, this was a college football game between the Michigan Wolverines (Division I-FBS) and Appalachian State Mountaineers (Division I-FCS). The game was a massive upset, with the Mountaineers winning 34-32 on a last-second blocked field goal; this result was so shocking because the Mountaineers were in the FCS, the lower of the two levels of Division I football. For an international soccer comparison, the result would be roughly equivalent to a non-league team beating a Premier League team. The win resulted in all sorts of shenanigans at the App. State campus in Boone, NC, as well as at the stadiums of Michigan's many rivals, and many analysts called it one of or even the biggest upsets in the history of college football. both teams went on to have successful seasons, and the two are scheduled to PLAY A rematch in 2014. Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are interesting program comparisons at ESPN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Scheduling
Pre-game
Aftermath
Media reaction
Rematch

Note that at the top, I commented with source suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods; licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In the first sentence, I see "regular-season" and "regular season". I personally don't think this needs the hyphen, but it should be made consistent either way.
  • En dashes were needed in numerous places in the lead, and most likely the rest of the article as well. I ran a script on the article and they should now be in there, but keep this in mind for future noms.
  • Divisions and subdivision: Remove the space before 500,000?
  • Scheduling: Non-college sports fans may not know what LSU stands for. To fix this, I suggest including the initials with the Louisiana State mention in the prior section.
  • Appalachian State: Not sure that "National Championship" should be capitalized like this.
  • "The Mountaineers' ran a no-huddle, spread option system". The apostrophe should be removed.
  • Michigan: "and the Wolverine's streak of three consecutive bowl losses." "Wolverine's" → "Wolverines'".
  • Broadcast and game notes: "The game was the first ever to be broadcast on the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network...". Try not to have the channel's name repeated from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
  • Second quarter: "Michigan was forced to a three-and-out...". "to" → "into"?
  • The fourth quarter summary says Hart's touchdown run was 55 yards, but the scoring summary says 54.
  • Aftermath: Since SoCal isn't explained as an abbreviation anywhere, it might be a good idea to include it in parentheses with the first mention of the conference here.
  • Media reaction: At the end of the section, where the possibility of other upsets like this one is discussed, I'd like to see a sentence or two on the other ranked teams that have lost to FCS teams since this game. I know that James Madison got Virginia Tech one year, and Eastern Washington beat Oregon State this year. Maybe an article on those games will talk about whether this game provided hope to teams like them, which would be a significant part of the game's legacy if commentators feel that it did.
  • Reaction in Boone and on other campuses: Another sentence-to-sentence bit of repetition with "Peacock. Peacock...".
  • No need for two Ohio State links in this section.
  • The all caps in the title of reference 1 should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I have fixed all of the issues you noted here... As to the paragraph on other upsets, I've added the two games for now. They don't appear to have pages (yet... I may solve that), so nothing to link to. I couldn't find anything linking the upsets to Appalachian State aside from the obvious. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I came here to strike my comments and support, but noticed a couple more issues. First, there's some nasty red text where ref 16 should be. Second, there are multiple instances where subsections share the same title; I believe this leads to WP:ACCESS problems. Perhaps you could try including the team nicknames in the Pre-game subsections? That should be enough to resolve the issue.

Notes -- Although there appears consensus to promote based on the comments so far, this does need some more eyes on it to be considered a comprehensive assessment. Looks like it also needs a formal source review, for which I'll post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

Articles on sports are generally outside my comfort zone, and I'm poorly-equipped to tell whether the article goes on unnecessary tangents, or whether the charts are appropriate, or whether a given source is reliable, etc. (Can the article safely assume the reader will know what "converting a 3rd and one" is? I don't, but then again, the article shouldn't have to teach the rules of football.) What I can say is that prose flows well, the article seems complete, and I did not detect any problems with grammar or with bias. So I'm willing to give a support based on my limited capacity as a football-ignorant reader.

Also, the "References" section seems appropriate, except for a few minor concerns. First, I'm not sure "GoASU.com" should link to Appalachian State Mountaineers. Sure, GoASU.com is their news site, but there's a difference between the Vatican and News.va. (The site redirects to appstatesports.com anyway.) The same applies to SoConSports.com linking to Southern Conference. Also, is it a violation of WP:OVERLINK to link to ESPN.com 14 times in the references (along with other multiple links)? Besides these, the references seem fine, and my few spot checks showed the statements supported without plagiarism. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting! I've gone ahead and removed the duplicate links from the references section, as well as taken your advice on the GoASU and SoConSports links. Toa Nidhiki05 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on problems with prose, sourcing, plagiarism, and WP:LEAD

  • Seems redundant: "regular season college football game ... opening the regular season for both teams"
  • "considered as" is generally incorrect. Just use "considered" or "considered to be".
  • "Games between FBS and FCS teams typically result in lopsided victories for the FBS team." This sentence seems unsupported in the body. You describe the differences in scholarship distributions and provide a quote about how they are perceived, but where is a source supporting this claim?**This is supported in the third sentence of the second paragraph of the 'Divisions and subdivisions' subsection, with citation 12 as the source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plagiarism: "The game was expected to be such a mismatch Las Vegas sports books refused to offer a betting line." This is verbatim from the source.
  • Verifiability: "FBS member teams are allowed to have up to 85 scholarship players, while FCS member teams are allowed to award the equivalent of 63 full scholarships, divided among no more than 85 players." The source provided doesn't support that last phrase.**Corrected. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Appalachian State became the first FCS team to defeat a ranked FBS team" Again, I don't see where this is stated and sourced in the body. You write about the 2 teams that have done it since, but where is your source stating that Appalachian State was the first?
  • The prose is too repetitive in many places, for example: "dropped out of the top 25 of the AP Poll entirely" and "dropped from the top five to out of the poll entirely" near each other.
A lot of this is from just the lead—a lot of work is probably in order, including a more thorough source audit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'd left this open a while to give it a chance to garner further support for promotion but as there are still issues after almost two months, I'm afraid it's time to archive the nom. I realise it's a letdown after such a long haul but pls take the opportunity to resolve things and then renominate after the regulation two-week break, per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

God of War III

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's ready to become an FA. Any issues can be easily addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Removed all the images except the gameplay, which I replaced it with a more useful one. Replaced the cover art so the file name is not conflicting (it is the final box art, the file name just wasn't changed). --JDC808 ♫ 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:God_of_War_III_cover_art.jpg: source link is dead, FUR should identify that the image is used in the infobox
Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 00:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed although I thought it had said who the copyright holder is by "Author or copyright owner". --JDC808 ♫ 00:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John From a brief sampling of the prose, I am minded to oppose. Can you see what is wrong with A critical and commercial success, PSM3 magazine...? --John (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you're talking about "PSM3"? --JDC808 ♫ 01:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is PSM3 a "critical and commercial success", or is God of War III one? I presume the latter. Good writing does not feature this sort of ambiguity. Is calling something a "critical and commercial success" somewhat of a cliche, somewhat of a peacock phrase? This is not the language of a FA. --John (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ambiguous when immediately following PSM3 magazine, it says "claimed that God of War III..."? You can't give an example and say it's ambiguous, and leave out the key word(s) that makes it unambiguous. The game was a commercial and critical success. I don't consider the phrase to be cliche. --JDC808 ♫ 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to say it was a "critical and commercial success" in the lead? What is this summarising and where was this referenced? Here's another: "God of War III received universal critical acclaim" and then "Webber criticized the script, claiming that it "gets downright hokey at times".[86] GameFront's Phil Hornshaw criticized it for having an overly cruel antagonist, as well as making the assumption that the players themselves were reveling in the misery and violence as much as Kratos.[87]" The more I look the more problems I see. --John (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how there's confusion in the meaning. It was a critical success because it was well received by the critics, which is all referenced in the Reception section with each reviewer giving it 90% or higher. It was commercially successful because it sold well (referenced under the Release section). Not sure what you're getting at with the universal critical acclaim, unless you don't understand what it means. At GameRankings and Metacritic, if a game (or film, etc.) has an aggregate score of 90 or above, that means it has universal critical acclaim. I'm not sure why you're quoting what Webber and Hornshaw said, unless you're trying to say they're contradicting to the universal acclaim or something. --JDC808 ♫ 19:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I may be being stupid, but I think a lot of readers will see that as a contradiction. This section needs a rewrite. Good writing does not produce these (even apparent) ambiguities or contradictions. --John (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a contradiction even if some readers were to think that. I could source where it says if a game has 90 or above, it's universal acclaim, but even doing that, universal acclaim doesn't mean it's flawless. How would you expect me to rewrite the section? Take out "universal critical acclaim" even though it's true by the aggregate scores? Or take out the negative criticism which would then not make this a properly done reception section? I'm also going to ask the WP:VG project about any solutions, because this has never been an issue before in past FACs. --JDC808 ♫ 00:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what universal means. --John (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the closest I could find to "commercial success" was "By June 2012, God of War III had sold almost 5.2 million copies worldwide—approximately 2.8 million in North America, 2 million in PAL regions, and 417,866 in Japan and Asia—making it the best-selling game in the series.[52]"; it tells me it sold a lot of copies, but how much money did it make? That's what "commercial" means. --John (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the aggregate score for God of War III from Metacritic where it says "universal acclaim" right under its score (1), then if you click "What's this?", you get this which if you scroll down a little, it shows you a chart that says 90-100 is universal acclaim for games. --JDC808 ♫ 03:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, you would need to explain that in the article, because otherwise it isn't clear, and saying universal acclaim followed by negative reviews looks contradictory. On the commercial success front, see "Blue Monday" for an example of a record that sold many units but famously did not make much money. --John (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Could something be a commercial success and a financial failure, which I think was the case with "Blue Monday"? Commerce to me just means business, whereas financial, I believe, is only to do with money. I don't think there's an issue with the use of the word commerce in this article. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought, but I don't think it easily could. Commerce means activities that relate to the buying and selling of goods and services. So we have three problems which currently fail this article; sloppy writing (eg "A critical and commercial success, PSM3 magazine..."), unexplained jargon (eg the specialist meaning of "universal acclaim") and peacock terms like "commercial success". There may well be others. --John (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the definition you provided, wouldn't the amount of copies sold still constitute "commerce"? With that being said, I've explained what you pointed out as "sloppy writing" so how is it sloppy (you didn't comment further on this)? The "unexplained jargon" has never been this big of an issue before. There was one editor who thought "universal acclaim" meant a perfect score from every reviewer and I showed them the link I showed you and that was the end of that. And I don't agree that it's a "peacock term". --JDC808 ♫ 04:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Although open a month, this review clearly isn't progressing towards any kind of consensus so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

OpenOffice.org

[edit]
Nominator(s): David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first viable open-source competitor to Microsoft Office, and instigator and de facto reference implementation of the OpenDocument standard. I've been polishing this article for the past several months, researching the history in detail to get the story citably right (and reading all the press coverage I can find from the past decade in several languages, citing it to the hilt) and I think it's ready. It's just come through a helpful peer review. It's an important piece of software with a complicated story, but I hope to have made it clear - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Image review

  • File:OOoDraw.svg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:OOo3.2.1Icon.png: source link returns 404. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Thank you very much indeed for spotting these! The application icon SVGs appear not to be original application icons at all, but someone's reconstruction after the fact - all the application icons made available at the time were raster images. I've replaced them with the actual OOo 3 icons (which were already on Commons), which are the actual icons from [25]. The OOo logo in the template appears to have been a tentative version - I've replaced it with the official trademarked OOo 3 logo from the website - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose at this time, unfortunately. The prose is stilted throughout, made almost entirely of very short paragraphs, many with only a single sentence (including in the lead). It feels like a collection of unintegrated facts. Some statements have long strings of up to eight citations, which the MoS advises against. There is no section for reception, and although there is a paragraph on reviews of version 2, there is almost no info on the reception of other versions. (Even the paragraph on the reception of version 2 is much shorter than sections on less noteworthy facets of the topic.) Taken all together, I don't think this will be ready for featured status without substantial changes throughout. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS advises against citations? Seriously? Everything that's multiply cited is so because it needed citation (see talk page and archives) or in direct response to a {{cn}} - can you identify which you think are gratuitous?
Can add/refactor out a section on reception.
It's not clear to me your concerns on prose are clear enough for me to action. What's a good example of a technical article that you would think passes? - David Gerard (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually at the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources: "A string of independent citations may also be aesthetically unappealing, so consider bundling them into one." (It also gives a list of advantages at WP:CITEBUNDLE.) As for prose, we have plenty of technical articles with lively and vivid prose: Rosetta@home, Microsoft Security Essentials, Nintendo DSi, Actuary, etc. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean! I'll bundle at least a few, then, this evening. I'll also see what I can do to be more dashing - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Related comment - are the refs archived somewhere? There are a lot of potential dead links in 2 years time, so adding them to the Wayback Machine would preserve their usefulness. Jamesx12345 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom has been open a month and it appears that there's still work to be done addressing what it received in terms of review last month, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

  1. REDIRECT Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1
  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Actually, I am renominating this page because the last time I tried to get this FACd, it was closed due to inactivity. Sorry about that but I've been busy. We all have to go about the business of living and making a living and can't be expected to monitor a page on Wikipedia everyday while waiting for input from the FAC reviewing committee. I'm trying to do my best to see this through so please extend me some leeway. Being a basement-dwelling nerd whose whole social life revolves around Wikipedia is a costly hobby and I'm not prepared to commit anymore than the bare minimum to said lifestyle. I've committed more than enough to this one article.

On to business, I have rewritten the article to remove the POV and conjecture noted in the previous nomination. I hope this is more satisfactory.

Red marquis (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit. I forgot about that. Great, I have to wait another 2 weeks. This whole process is getting to be ridiculous. How many more times does this article have to be nominated before it goes through? -Red marquis (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're making it too easy on yourself, Red. You've been around FAC long enough to know the process. Even if you'd asked permission, I'd have to balance the lack of commentary on the last FAC (generally a reason to permit early renomination) vs. your apparent lack of interest in that nomination. You can commit all you like to an article's development, but you have to commit to a review you initiate. A few days away is one thing, 18 is another. Now I don't actually get a kick out of smacking people with the rule book, can you convince me you'll stick with it this time? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here again. And I see this nomination hasn't been retracted. Let's get it on. I'll be here again tomorrow. -Red marquis (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here and waiting. This basement is starting to get claustrophobic. -Red marquis (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? -Red marquis (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here. If no one's going to review this article, let's close the nomination so I can begin the 2 week cool off period. -Red marquis (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather long article, so forgive me if I do it in pieces. What I have read so far seems very solid. Some comments (and I am not a Manson fan, though I have had some incidental contact with the music industry so I may be able to follow the bouncing ball along here)
Lede:
  • " recorded in several undisclosed locations, including Death Valley and Laurel Canyon" undisclosed at the time of recording, of release, or not at all?
This line was taken from an article that came out at the time of recording. But the information was never released after the album came out. -Red marquis (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would certainly be known to the fans, and would there be a need for the band to repeat itself? I've had some experience with music fans and fan boards, though I am not active on any today. They tend to know stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background etc.
  • "opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected [during the US presidential election of 2000]" I think rather than the presidential election, you may mean the 2000 elections in general. Surely they were not all running for president?
Good point. Perhaps, [...during the US general election of 2000] is better? -Red marquis (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply say "2000 U.S. elections", and I guess a link to the presidential election is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth is a cultural observer?
Admittedly, I pilfered that phrase from the article it's linked to.
I'd change it. It sounds much too imprecise and new age to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The committee heard testimony from cultural observers, professors and mental-health professionals (including William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput)" The implication is that both men are mental health professionals, Suggest you break up the parenthetical and put each where he belongs in the list of categories of witnesses.
Upon second glance, I agree. Rephrased thusly, "...heard testimony from "cultural observers" (such as William Bennett and the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput), professors and mental-health professionals."
  • "with everyone " perhaps "with all members"
Changed as suggested.
  • "In contrast, his sessions with Ramirez were less demanding while they experimented with absinthe" While I understand what is meant, I'm not sure I like the "while". That makes for a messy cause and effect. Suggest a modest rephrase.
Replaced "while" with "as"
  • "The band visited Death Valley a number of times" I thought you said part of it was recorded there? Both in the lede and just above here
The next sentence should clarify that statement. From what I gathered in reading their interviews, they went there to draw inspiration. However, since they were there already, went ahead and recorded samples of ambient noises that they experimented with later, in the studio. The results were then used in the songs to generate an extra layer of atmosphere.
  • " via satellite at a current-events convention" perhaps "at" should be "to" as he was not there.
"to" does sound more clear.
Concept
  • "This religion" I don't think you should start the paragraph that way as the religion was introduced in the middle of the previous paragraph, not at its start. Perhaps "Holy Wood's religion"
How about, "Known as "celebritarianism",[50] Holy Wood's religion parallels Christianity."?-Red marquis (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move the celebrationism into the previous paragraph to the first mention, and start with "Holy Wood's religion …" I like starting paragraphs with flat, definitive statements.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • "Drawing similarities between the Cold War period of 1960s America and the 1990s, Manson uses allegories from that decade" Which decade?
The 60's. I'll rephrase it as "Manson uses allegories from the former decade". I'm not sure if that will be clearer though. I think people might confuse "former" to also mean the 90's since it ended more than a decade ago. -Red marquis (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"earlier"?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the first piece of music blamed for inciting violence" That is a terribly broad statement. There have been riots at the classical music performances, e.g. the Rite of Spring.
Hmmm... actually that line was an opinion made by Manson in an interview. I don't know why it's phrased to sound like a fact. Rephrase as such, "Manson believes it was the first piece of music blamed for inciting violence:" -Red marquis (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, signaling enough doubt to the reader to get by.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this article. I was about to give up yet again. I'll look into your comments in the coming week and make all the necessary changes to perfect this article. -Red marquis (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I will try to get more comments to you shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:


Resuming

Composition
  • "The 1969 Rolling Stones album Let It Bleed (another source of inspiration) was written in the same house where Manson wrote Holy Wood." This was presumably intentional on Manson's part? By the way, I thought the album was written by the whole band? I checked footnote 26 (as of the version of 0752 on 11 October) but I find that link is dead. You rely fairly heavily on that source so you need to find another version or replace it. You may want to be proactive and run the deadlinks checker. You're going to get a source review before promotion is considered (if you get that far, I'm only one person)
How do you run the deadlinks checker again? I forgot how. It's been a while. -Red marquis (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
here. I think it's linked on the peer review page but oddly, not on the FAC. I think one of the coordinators mentioned he tried to add it to the toolbox but the toolbox is difficult to edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the songs have three or four parts" that is, the songs can be subdivided into 3 or 4 parts, or there are 3 or 4 singing voices?
  • The review excerpts that follow Manson's statement re art rock seem a bit out of place and more to bolster Manson's statement than anything else. Are there dissenting views, and is this the place for that discussion?
  • Discussion of album title: Is it worth mentioning that "in the valley of the shadow of death" is, with a slight change, from the 23rd Psalm?
  • ""GodEatGod" follows Adam as he meditates in the desert." I would precede with "The first track," and put a comma after GodEatGod. Jesus did something similar btw, didn't he? Have comparisons been drawn? Just a suggestion because of the biblical shout outs.
  • "with a sample of Don Gardiner's" I think you should link to sample, at least to a definition. I know what it is, others may not.
  • " assassinations of Jesus Christ" hmm. How is it an assassination?
Promotion
  • Bridging back to the last chronological section, I don't see anything about post-production work.
Release
  • "On the evening of November 14, 2000, Manson, Ramirez, and John 5 took a break from the tour to celebrate the album with a brief invitation-only acoustic set " This was, in other words, an album release party. I would characterize it as such. Also, when did the album leak?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the remainder
Release
  • "The third single was released on September 3, 2001 in the UK and October 6 2001 in the US." I guess the obvious question is, was there a delay in release due to 9/11?
Cover
  • "the Disney World logo of the 1960s" Walt Disney World did not open until 1972.
  • "The cover was controversial; some copies were issued with a cardboard sleeve featuring an alternative cover, " suggest the second "cover" be changed to "design".
Formats
  • Can some mention be made of iTunes?
Tour
  • Governor and representative should probably be capitalized, as they are used as titles.
Which is it? In one of the reviews/copyedits (I forgot which one) I was told it should be lowercase.
My understanding of the MOS is that when used as a title, i.e., Governor John Smith, it's capped, when used otherwise, like "the Kansas governor, John Smith", it is lower case. I can't refer you to a specific point as the MOS is voluminous. Look around.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also note there seems to be no template stating that this is a FAC on the article talk page. That's a bit unusual. Can you say why?
I'll await your responses.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I won't be able to work on the article this week. I'll be back next week. Please hold off on closing it. Thanks. Red marquis (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This one not only disappeared from my watchlist due to inactivity, but also for some reason from WP:FACL... Anyway, as neither the article nor the review has seen any interest for over two weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls do not renominate before actioning outstanding comments and awaiting the usual two-week break after archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it passes the criteria Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Fowler&fowler: I'm confused. In its last FAC appearance, this article was archived (i.e. not promoted) at 10:05 on 22 September 2013. The article history tells me that the last textual edit was made at 05:51 22 September 2013. If the plan was to do nothing and resubmit (an article that needs a lot of work), why did you wait three weeks? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was told I had to wait two weeks before nominating it again, I was just asked on my talkpage if I was going to renominate it, so I did. Why do you say the article needs a lot of work? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is: if it was not promoted, and if no changes have been made since it was not promoted, what will a renomination achieve? I say this with no knowledge whatsoever of the intricacies of the FA process. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs nothing done, it passes all criteria for FA already, hence my question to F&f Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment by Fowler&fowler: I am imagining run-of-the-mill readers reading the first sentence, "During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, in an act of genocidal rape, hundreds of thousands of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them." Such readers likely don't remember what the 'Bangladesh Liberation War' was, but are thinking that someone or something was liberated. So, they are surprised by the appearance of "genocidal rape." It doesn't help that they've never heard the expression before (and until mid-August 2013, neither had Wikipedia). Some readers stop right there trying to puzzle out if it was rape, genocide, or both? Others read on to find, as the sentence goes passive on them, that anonymous women were raped by the Pakistani military. (The Pakistan near Afghanistan? Why were they in Bangladesh? they are asking.) Better informed readers are asking, "Do they mean a deliberate campaign of mass rape (and murder)?" Something becomes an act of genocide when it is determined so later by juries and scholars, not while it is happening. Further, if you are using the word "genocidal" and don't mention death anywhere, people are going to scratch their heads. That is what happens when you choose an article title poorly and follow it with a confusing first sentence. The reader then goes to the second sentence, "Scholars and authors have discussed that systematic rape was used by the perpetrators to terrorise the Bengalis and Hindus, who were looked upon as inferior." Discussed that? "Discussed" is not a synonym for "suggested" or "concluded." Readers like me stop reading at that point. That means the article is not ready to be an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to (cautiously) disagree with Fowler here on some points, and agree on others. I think the first sentence could be restructured to address some of the lack of context for some readers. For example, rather than using the common name of the conflict, Bangladesh Liberation War, i would suggest a piped link somewhere in a phrase along the lines of "the 1971 civil war that resulted in the establishment of the state of Bangladesh". Given the article title, i suggest removing reference to "genocidal rape" where it first occurs, not because it is inaccurate, but because it does not aid the reader by being introduced at that point. I would also tweak the phrase "hundreds of thousands" that, while literally not incorrect, has a sensational tone to it. So the lede might better begin: "During the 1971 civil war that resulted in the establishment of the state of Bangladesh, between two and four hundred thousand of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them." Where I wish to disagree with Fowler is in the claim that "Something becomes an act of genocide when it is determined so later by juries and scholars, not while it is happening". No. Something is not an act of murder only when a jury later finds a murderer guilty. It is an act of murder when it occurs. Ditto genocide, so I would argue that the use of the term is not inaccurate. I would favour its omission from the lede's initial text not because it is wrong, but because it does not aid clarity for the lay reader in an article titled "Rape during the X War". hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(just adding) regarding my comment about when something becomes genocide: it is genocide at the time, though just to be clear, of course it is only referred to as such in a WP article when reliable sources say it is such.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Well, let me think aloud. I wouldn't have any issues with the sentences, "In a deliberate year-long campaign of mass rape and murder in Bangladesh in 1971, the Pakistani military committed an act of genocidal rape." or even with the reordered, "During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war, the Pakistani military raped hundreds of thousands of women in an act of genocidal rape." So, the issue is neither with the use of "genocidal rape" nor "act." However, I would hit a cognitive speed-bump in mid-sentence with, "During the year-long Bangladesh war, in an act of genocide, the Pakistani military raped thousands of women." When we place a prepositional phrase in front position (i.e. before the subject), we do it to emphasize or highlight something, but in the process we also subtly transform what is communicated. (In the first two sentences, "act of genocidal rape" is the object of the verb, or part of a prepositional phrase in end position.) What we subtly transform in this instance is the intention. Unlike an act of murder, an act of genocide happens over time, when many lives have been snuffed out, whether there is a top-down intention to kill an unarmed community (e.g. Hitler) or the disparate local killings cumulatively begin to target the same unarmed communities (Partition violence in India). In other words, perpetrators may not always aware that they are committing an act of genocide. By putting the expression in front position, we make such an act more cut and dried than it probably was. Anyway, no big deal. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the lead and background sections for better flow and cohesion. I have added a couple of pictures. I took a quick look at the remaining sections. They seem to be better written. Outstanding issues that remain will likely soon be fixed. I am happy to offer my support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I should add that even though I am offering my support, in part because I'm flat out of time, and in part because I'm assuming others will hold the principal author's feet to the fire, I am troubled by one thing. There is really only one up-to-date reference for this article (based on field work in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India): Saikia, Yasmin (2011), Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. Yet, I find that it has been cited barely half a dozen times, and a couple of those are cursory. This is a little troubling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a copy of it, so I can only go with what I see on GBooks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to go on Amazon and buy it on Kindle or Kindle for PC? It is selling at half price for $13.99. What is worrying me is that the first few sentences of the book paint a more more complex picture: "In 1971 multiple wars broke out in East Pakistan (later known as Bangladesh): one was a civil war fought between East and West Pakistan; another was an international war fought between India and Pakistan; a third war erupted between the Bengalis and Urdu-speaking groups, the so-called Biharis;' and finally, a rampant gender war broke out against vulnerable women within East Pakistan. Men representing the armies of Pakistan and India, as well as the Mukti Bahini (a Bengali militia created with Indian support) and pro-Pakistani Bengali and Bihari civilians who volunteered in the paramilitary forces of Al-Badr and Al-Shams, raped, looted, killed, and terrorized noncombatants in East Pakistan." Apparently, the Indians weren't entirely blameless. ... I just got the book on Kindle and have taken a quick look. While it is skimpy on the immediate history, it still points to many nuances that are absent in the article. Although, I won't withdraw my support, I am more sympathetic now to some of Nick-D's points. Are you able to go to a library to read the book? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't afford it, I am broke. And no to the library. I will hopefully be able to get it next week. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that week has come and gone. Were you able to get the book? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, had no work for three weeks now. Have ordered the Kissinger one from the library though. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

There are more than a few awkward, even ungrammatical, sentences. I know this went through a peer review, but it seems that focused mostly on structural and topic-focus issues and didn't address the article from the copyediting standpoint. There are structural issues, as well -- not so much in the structure of the article in the sense of the 2b criterion, but in the order that sentences are placed and material is introduced. I'll try to pick out some examples from a perusal, but this list should not be considered comprehensive:

  • From later in that section: "The Pakistani army also raped Bengali males, to erode their masculinity and categorise them as homosexual. The army would stop men at checkpoints to see if they were circumcised, and this is where the rapes usually happened." The checkpoint pretext sounds odd out of context ... why was this event a pretextual excuse? And "erode their masculinity" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic in tone.
  • Attacking people you've stopped at a checkpoint was probably invented about 15 minutes after the invention of the checkpoint. That's not the issue. The problem is that this was apparently a circumcision-auditing checkpoint, and that's strange enough, at least to an outside reader, that it's got to have some context if its going to be here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Squeamish, i've been working on some comments, but i didn't follow the first part of your query here. Can you explain what is odd / out of context here? I would class myself as a lay reader for this one, and nothing struck me as unclear...hamiltonstone (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is simply my limited understanding of the conflict, but why would anyone believe that a checkpoint request "to see if they were circumcised", especially in a war zone, was legitimate? Is there some background I'm missing here that would make that, somehow, plausible? It's sufficiently unusual to catch the eye skimming the article text, but there's nothing to provide more background or context there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how this is clearer than before. Basically, what I'm asking is: was there a "legitimate" reason in the context of the conflict why a checkpoint would check to see if men were circumcised other than as a pretext to rape? I'm far from an expert on the religious implications of this war, for example, so I don't know if there's a plausible answer there (not that my knowledge would matter, only what the sources say, of course). If the sole purpose was to enable rape, then we probably don't need that phrase at all. Similarly, I still have problems with the "erode their masculinity" wording; I don't believe that's an encyclopedic tone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will drop the erosion, or phrase it differently. Why they got checked is simple, no circumcision = Hindu/Christian = shot. I did see something along those lines, will have to look throgu hthe books again. 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Darkness Shines (talk)
  • I have faffed about with this a bit, hopefully OK now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aftermath section is a mess in many ways.
  • "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called the victims birangona ("heroine"), but this served as a reminder that these women were now deemed socially unacceptable as they were "dishonored", and the term became associated with barangona ("prostitute")." At least worded this way, this doesn't make any sense. Why does referring to victims as heroines serve as a reminder of "dishonor"? If it's the birangona -> barangona association, then this needs rearranged; if it's something else entirely, it needs explained.
  • The footnote certainly explains why the rape victims would be viewed as dishonored, but that's not really the problem I had with this section. Rather, you gloss over too quickly the failure of the birangona/"war heroine" rebranding effort. The Mookherjee paper I linked below examines this as a central part of its focus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the sort of explanation that the article needed, broadly speaking, but the new prose needs a lot of work. Not to push a specific publication, but is there a reason you're avoiding including Mookherjee as a source for some of this material? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still some awkward prose here: "Unlike the Mukti Bahini who on their return home received a hero's welcome, the survivors of rape, who were held in rehabilitation centers, were seen as a symbol of "social pollution" and shame, with very few welcomed back by their families or returned to their old communities." and "Those women who did marry were usually mistreated, and the majority of men, once having received a dowry abandoned their wives." especially; also, missing a space before "strategy". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, on Mookherjee, I am not avoiding her as a source, heck I have used her all over the article, but the paper you suggested is, well hard to get much from. It primarily is about just three rape victims and the treatment they received after the trial. I have an idea on what to use it for, but I am still thinking on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deutsche Welle interview information seems like it could be bundled in elsewhere, perhaps with less individual detail? I'm concerned about whether these two particular women are receiving undue weight here. Also, Birangona appears here with a capital letter and no italics, unlike earlier, where it was italicized and in lowercase.
  • There are aspects to this tragedy that I would have expected to see in this section but aren't mentioned at all. Has there been anything published in reliable sources about the ongoing social costs of these events? Medical costs? Education for the children? Has the bias the victims experienced extended to their children? That's the essence of my 1b objection: it seems the article stops short of giving the full story here. That may be a shortcoming in the literature, but if possible, it needs addressed.
  • Most were adopted out, I have one source to add about this, but it is not a lot. 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • In literature and media is in chronological order, but ironically here, I'd prefer there was some context introducing things by type of media or something. In the order presented are two films, then two books, but it's easy to overlook that the third subject is a book ("wrote", yes, but films are written, too). The second book is more clearly identified for what it is, but "edited volume" is an odd turn of phrase.
  • No, you didn't. The problem (and, actually, it's more than just a comma) is this sentence: "Rising from the Ashes women's narratives of 1971, was published in English in 2012, it includes oral testimonies of women affected by the Liberation War." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the long block of text here. But I know this has been to FAC several times, and I think it could use a great deal of work before I'd be willing to support it. Oppose 1a/1b at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking over the references provides additional concerns:
  • Several web sources (Das, Minegar at least) need access dates.
  • Huh? No, a bot can't update access dates -- the access date is the date that you referred to the work. For example, if you retrieved a web source today to use as a reference, it would have an access date of 21 October 2013. If you don't have the access dates from when you actually referred to the web sources you used, that's fine; just review the web sources, ensure the information is still present, and set the day you did that review as the access date. The goal is to provide an indication of when the information was known to be present at that location (since web sources can and do change). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in every instance. I'd suggest opening the Bibliography section in the editor ... anything that uses the cite web template, and anything that uses the cite news template to reference a web news source (as opposed to print news with page numbers and the like) needs an access date. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain if the date-lettering of the three Roy sources is correct for this reference style. Unlike the two Saikia sources, the Roy sources are not by the same author, and I believe the short-form references to those sources should differentiate by author name rather than by assigned letter, but I'd like someone else to confirm that I'm in the right here, as this isn't the format I'm most comfortable with.
  • Disagree on your reading of the MOS. That is "[f]or authors who have published more than one work in the same year", but that is not true here. Nilanjana Roy, Rituparna Roy, and Srila Roy are three different authors. The short references should disambiguate, probably by the initial of their first name, rather than with letters, which implies that the three works share an author. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that no scholarly journal publications were referenced for this article? There are several excellent sources available that would, in some cases, cover aspects of the topic not comprehensively discussed in the article as it stands, especially Mookherjee's paper in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute and Sharlach writing for New Political Science. Economic and Political Weekly has an acknowledged left bias, but Bose's work there is probably worth considering also, given that it represents a view from the Indian subcontinent that otherwise tends to be underrepresented in journals.
  • In a good news/bad news situation, a new source has recently been published (as in, last month) that needs to be examined for inclusion. Bass, Gary J. (2013). The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. Knopf. ISBN 978-0307700209. By all appearances, it's a well-written and exhaustively-researched work, and has been positively received. While its focus is not quite the same as this article's, I believe there's ample material in there that does reflect on the topic at hand. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the long run, I really think the best plan for this article might be to get your hands on copies of The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide and Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh and see what the article would look like using those as the most-cited "base" sources, filling in with other material as necessary to provide additional context, details, and opposing viewpoints. That might also make it easier to deal with the fact that many of the opinions and much of the prior scholarship on the topic has come from writers with strong, demonstrable point-of-view biases (which, yes, still includes Bose in my mind, but also Rummel and to some extent Brownmiller). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is going to be weeks until you're able to get hold of sources that represent the current scholarship on the topic, then it may very well be best to withdraw this for now, especially considering that additional time will be needed to read that material, incorporate that content into the article, and copy-edit the changes, in addition to the other issues that are outstanding. I know you've said a copyedit it is in progress, but, quite frankly, that's putting the cart before the horse. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sold on how stridently you discount Bose as a fringe viewpoint. She is certainly a minority author, yes. She's unquestionably controversial, and her claims caused some amount of offense. But she's not Erich von Däniken, Gavin Menzies, or Anatoly Fomenko. It might not hurt to drop by WP:FT/N to see what the consensus opinion is regarding the significance of her opinions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fut.Perf.

[edit]

Just noting for the record that not all of the points I raised in the last round have been addressed. Open issues include, in particular: the over-long background section; general grammar/copyedit weaknesses; repetitive "pile-on" structuring with poor logical coherence (e.g. the passage about the different estimates of numbers of abortions and pregnancies in the "aftermath" section), and the question of coverage of the Sarmila Bose minority views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background section has been trimmed, I am still of the opinion that Bose is fringe, and to use her is a violation of WP:FRINGE Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]
  • Currently the article states "The final reports [of the the Hamoodur Rahman Commission] were submitted in July 1972, but all were subsequently destroyed except for one held by the Pakistani premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the findings were never made public." However, when I was reading this article, it refers to findings of that commission, and indeed criticises Bose for failing to cite them. What's happening here? If they weren't made public, how is Mohaiemen managing to cite them? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most cited the supplementary report which was leaked 25 years after it was written, I recall reading the full report was finally released a few years back, will have to look into it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the findings were never officially made public till it was leaked in some (probably Indian, if I remember correctly) newspaper. Later in 2000 or 2001 Pakistan officially released a part of it in public. -- SMS Talk 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone: Any further comments? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Anythingyouwant

[edit]

I am literally sitting at a bus stop with my iPhone, and who knows when the bus is coming (it's late). But here goes....I find the footnoting Byzantine. Consider footnote "a". Click on it and you get a quotation with another footnote at the end. Click on it and you get a mere name. Then you look for the name in the bibliography and it 's not in alphabetical order. Oy vey . Getting on bus now, cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography is in alphabetical order? The footnotes have a ref, click on that and you get the name, click on that and you get the exact source used in the bibliography. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sharlach is out of order, plus I shouldn't have to click thrice to reach it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will move Sharlach now, but I do not know of another way to do the footnotes, that was the only one I have been shown. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me, Sharlach is in the S's? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the S's should be ordered according to the second letter of the last name, it seems to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The B and M sections are similarly unordered, for the record. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bum, I did not know that, will do it in a bit. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where/if the MOS comments on the topic, but traditional practice (and my preference) is, when dealing with multiple works by the same author, to sort those in chronological order. So the May 2011 Adams reference should come before the November 2011 Adams reference. The same goes for Brownmiller -- except here, unless I'm mistaken, the 2007 source is a reprint of material from the 1975 source in an edited collection. Is there something which requires treating them separately, or can everything just be cited to one or the other (that is to say, are the two sources actually different)? And both the M and S names are still out of order (check Siddiqi and Sajjad regarding the latter). T names, too (check Talbot). And, lastly, that "East Pakistan" article from Time is nowhere near where it needs to be (also, it either needs a url to the online version or a full journal-format citation with page numbers, etc.). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
God I hope I got it this time Fixed the Time one, url and author (reporter in the field) added. Will have to check on Brownmiller, at a glance it looks to be the same. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet! You still have Midlarsky after Minegar; Mohaiemen, Mohsin, and Molla after Mookherjee; Sadique, Sahgal, and Saikia after Sajjad. Oh, and short reference 31 just needs to be Coggin, not Coggin & Time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and getting into third letters seems like overkill. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Ossifrage comes before Squeamish.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Overkill"? You use as many letters as it takes. That's simply how alphabetic ordering works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

Oppose While it's good that lots of effort has been placed into the article on this important topic, it remains well short of FA status in my view. Overall, the article reads like a polemic rather than as a serious attempt to explain what happened, and it provides a rather one-dimensional perspective. My specific comments are:

  • The background section is rather lightweight and seems to greatly simplify things. There's no serious attempt to explain the factors which lead to the rapes, and east and west Pakistanis are presented as being unified blocs.
  • Still very lightweight I'm afraid. You could safely double the length of this material. What led the government and armed forces of Pakistan to take such extraordinary action, and factors which could have prevented this, is an important topic which is only lightly covered. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article notes repeatedly that the rapes were pre-planned and coordinated centrally, but what this involved (which seems a key part of the topic) is never described.
  • The article includes the extremely strong assertion that "Historian Ian Talbot has compared the methodical planning behind the genocide to that of the Nazi Holocaust" but then skims over these apparently huge preparations. Modern writings into crimes against humanity tend to devote huge levels of attention to the chain of responsibility and methods through which the crimes were planned and coordinated, but this article has nothing like this (eg, compare this article with the The Holocaust article). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want me to add stuff on the planning of the war? There is nothing that I have seen, nor anything other than they went in to kill as many as possible to strike the fear of god into those that were left. "kill four million, the rest will eat out of out of our hands" to paraphrase one officer. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that a historian has stated that the genocide was carefully planned that doesn't seem at all credible: if he doesn't provide details (which rather weakens his argument) follow up on the sources he provides to support the statement. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darkness Shines:, @Nick-D:: Talbot does provide a source. Here is the exact quote: "Indeed it might be argued that the genocide unleashed in East Pakistan in 1971 made later episodes of state repression in these provinces more politically acceptable. What is most chilling in such accounts as those of Anthony Mascarenhas<<footnote 30: A. Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh, (New Delhi, 1971), See especially chapters 7–10>> is not the level of the violence unleashed on 25 March 1971, but the meticulous planning which accompanied it. Parallels with the Nazi Holocaust immediately spring to mind." (Talbot, Pakistan: A Modern History, Palgrave-Macmillan, 1999, page 33) Have you looked at those chapters of Mascarenhas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any opposition to the rapes within the Pakistani military and government? The article presents them as being unified bodies, which seems hugely unlikely.
  • What about attitudes in operational level Army units (especially among the rank and file and junior officers who were directed to carry out these crimes)?, and what effect did the protests which occurred have? Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't seem credible - there's no way that the Pakistani military operated as a horde of destructive robots, and there would have been differences between individuals, units and regions. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the children who were adopted out?
  • The "In literature and media" section is currently a nothing more than a very partial listing of works on this topic (it includes some eye-witness accounts, but not the histories used as references). This section should provide a thematic discussion of how the events have been portrayed, including changes over time.
  • The repeated statements that the rapes attracted media coverage in the west quickly become tedious - they read like an attempt to emphasise how important the topic of the article is to a western audience of Wikipedia readers, which simply isn't needed given that the scale of the events speaks for itself
  • What is the purpose of the footnotes? a) is an emotive quote which is not placed in any context at all (including identifying who wrote it), b) is an expanded version of the quote which is already in the article, c) simply repeats what's in a referenced and online source and d) is another emotive quote provided without any clear context. The purpose of the notes seems to be to pile on just how awful this was, which seems unnecessary as it's rather clear.
  • Footnote A is due to F&f questioning what genocidal rape was, so I figured the quote would be explanatory. B, though emotive was added as I have had people question stuff like this on other articles, hence the quote. C, same as B, people will question it, hence the quote. D, it was asked above how the rape victims were seen as dishonored. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be frank, they're all unnecessary and come across as POV pushing (by repeating points already made in the article). I'd suggest removing them as there seems to be no good reason for including them. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will remove them and turn them into quotes in the citations. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropped all but one by Sharlach, I think it needed to fully explain the whole "dishonor" thing, we already had one reviewer asking why they were "dishonored", the average reader will likely also be wondering about that. Darkness Shines (talk)
  • As I'm the reviewer whose comments prompted that footnote's insertion, I'd like to point out that I don't really care for the footnote either. Like Nick-D, I feel it's somewhat redundant, which risks implication of a less neutral, more polemnical tone, a problem you have elsewhere in the article as well. And as I mentioned up in my section when you added it, that's not really what I was going at when I asked you about that section (I was fishing for you to include more about why the "heroine" title backfired so badly, which you have largely done). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the number of reviews this article has been through I'm afraid that some of its prose is not of FA standard. For instance, "In the reasons India officially offered for intervening, it did not include any humanitarian ones, but they are today widely seen as primary" (very unclear wording which acts to confuse the chronology), "The Pakistani government had tried to censor reports coming out of the region, but media reports on the atrocities did reach the public worldwide" (wordy), " Dr. Geoffrey Davis, a physician who participated in the programme, estimated that the commonly cited figures were probably "very conservative" compared with the real numbers." (what figures are being referred to here?) and "his policy of casting the victims as "heroines" however had an unintended consequence, due to the social stigma associated with rape, survivors hid the fact that they had been raped, they received no understanding for what they had suffered and, those women who did marry were usually mistreated, and the majority of men, once having received a dowry from the state abandoned their wives" (over-long)
  • "In next decade and half, Bengalis became gradually disenchanted with the balance of power in Pakistan, which was under military rule during much of this time, and eventually some began to call for secession.[12][13][14][15][16]" - does this simple sentence need five references?
  • "It did not help that General A. A. K. Niazi, head of Pakistani Forces in East Pakistan, called East Pakistan a "low-lying land of low, lying people"." - how did this statement make things worse? Surely it was reflecting an existing prejudice.
  • "According to political scientist R J Rummel" - as I understand it, Rummel has a controversial reputation
  • "The atrocities in East Pakistan were the first instances of war rape to attract international media attention" - not true at all. War rape had been widely reported in many previous conflicts, with the rape of Nanking being widely publicised at the time (as an example).
  • What's the relevance of that question? The atrocities there were widely reported, and had an important influence in hardening public attitudes in the US (and elsewhere) against Japanese aggression. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, not clear. How many reporters were in there photographing and reporting on the atrocities as they happened? These reports went worldwide, did the reports from Nanking? I am just going by what the sources says here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics of the United Nations have used the 1971 atrocities to argue that military intervention was the only thing to stop the mass murder" - this is the first, and only, time the UN is mentioned in the article, and it's relevance is not clear. Who are these "critics" anyway? There are lots of people and groups critical of the UN, and they're not a bloc!
  • "Writing to The New York Times, a group of women said in response to women being shunned by family and husbands "It is unthinkable that innocent wives whose lives were virtually destroyed by war are now being totally destroyed by their own husbands"" - what's the relevance of this? Did the NY Times publish any letters which took a different view?
That doesn't answer my question: individual letters published in the NY Times are not significant to this topic unless they had some kind of broader influence. This goes to the point I raised above about the article excessively covering how the events were covered in the western media - given that the west did essentially nothing to stop what was happening, it's not all that important. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will drop it then. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journalist Liz Trotta reported in 1972 from a village in the aftermath of the conflict and,[79] was one of a minority of American reporters to cover the mass rapes" - what's the relevance of this? Also, the article previously suggests that the rapes were widely covered in the international media which this appears to contradict. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance? All the article says that she was in the country (which is stuck at the tail end of sentence on another, and much more important topic). Also see above on the over-emphasis given to the western media. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead had already been tweaked by me here before you made your comments about the prose. (I was half-asleep after lunch when I tweaked it earlier.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS As for Niazi's public comments, of course they made things worse. There may have been prejudice among some (maybe many) occupying West Pakistanis, but when that prejudice was publicly expressed by the commander of the armed forces, it became quite another matter. See here. I haven't really paid attention to the article (except for the lead and background which I tweaked earlier today.), but you do realize that the background was drastically pruned recently because others thought it was too long. I agree with some of the things you say. See my very last comments in the first section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PPS "In next decade and half, ..." is not a simple sentence, it has a relative clause.  :) But your point is well-taken. I was surprised by the number of cites myself. I hope I didn't bunch them together inadvertently in my tweaking/reshuffling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but the input you're getting is clearly pushing this in the right direction. It might help to run this through the Military History Project's A-class review. I'm largely in agreement with Fowler (who is supporting), hamiltonstone and Nick. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to cut the background section, and now it is lightweight? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong feeling either way on that. I'm most concerned about the fact that the most important source isn't well-represented, apparently, per this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the most important source, but obviously a good one. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DarknessShines: I haven't seen the version you were asked to prune, but I think what Nick-D and Dank might be saying is that although the background gives a quick political history of East Pakistan, it doesn't adequately explain the motivations of the West Pakistanis, why the violence was so precipitate and so brutal, why it took this form of gender violence. There is a general background, but the specific background is missing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It took the form it did due to racism, that is in the article in the Pakistani army section. I can expand on that a bit in the background, the west did not view the Bengalis as "real muslims" Niazi (I think) said in front of a bunch of reporters, "first make them muslim" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I have covered a great many of the points you raised, do you have any further comments? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I can, I focus on prose issues, and prose is the last step. I'd like to wait until Nick is happy before I take another look; I have a lot of respect for his competence as a reviewer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have just as much respect for my incompetence as a writer Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that FAC can be difficult and not at all satisfying, and I'm sorry about that. I do what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping someone will look at The Blood Telegram and Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh and see if those sources address some of the points under discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I have regular net access again I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkness Shines: Let me be blunt. Is your heart really in this? Your contributions history of the last two weeks seems to suggest that you are working on everything except this article. Dank has already stated upstairs, as have others, that there are major sources which are yet to be incorporated in any comprehensive manner. Among these are: 1) Bass, Gary J. (2013). The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. Knopf. ISBN 978-0307700209., 2) D'Costa, Bina (2010). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-56566-0., and 3) Saikia, Yasmin (2011a). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5.. Their viewpoints, interpretations and data are essential to an article at an FA level. I do understand that for various reasons you having difficulty getting hold of these books, but you don't seem to be particularly concerned. I don't see you making posts at the Wikipedia sources noticeboard. You haven't even scoured Google books for what they are able to offer. What is the point of having the article copy-edited at this stage? The copy-editor can't supply the missing warrants of the arguments. If they knew the material, they'd write the article themselves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:, I currently only have sporadic net access, which makes it difficult to do major revisions to the article. I have ordered the Blood Telegram from my library, it will be another week before it gets here, as I had to wait a week before they would let me order it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs): If the sporadic net access is good enough for ANI discussions, edit warring discussions, talk page discussions, it is good enough for this article. Find a library that has those books. Make a trip to the library. Take notes in the library. Write up the arguments on paper or in an document editor and get as much in as you can when you do have access. You've made more edits in 1971 Bangladesh genocide in one day than you have in this article during the entire month of October. The other reviewers might be too polite to say this, but I'm not buying your excuses, and my patience is wearing thin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Although this nom hasn't been open as long as some, it's attracted a good deal of critical comment and I'm afraid I don't see the issues raised being fully addressed anytime soon. I'm therefore going to archive and ask that you take whatever time is necessary to rework it away from the FAC process. Once that's done, I think another peer review would be in order before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Keith Moon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Moon is not only one of the best known drummers in rock music, but he attracted just as much attention offstage as on, and his life has been comprehensively covered in several books, not least Tony Fletcher's biography. The article achieved good article status in April and a further peer review has now been completed. Therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. I hope you enjoy reading it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Cliftonian (talk · contribs), who helped at the peer review, has agreed to help out with resolving any comments that arise from this review, though he didn't feel he had contributed to the article enough to be a co-nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have often read that Vivian Prince, the first drummer for The Pretty Things, had a huge influence on Moon's antics at the beginning of his career. But that was mostly in Things-centered books and articles, so that may be dubious—I haven't read any of Moon's biographies to see if this is mentioned, and thus worthy of appearing here (however, I found a mention in Neill & Kent of Moon "attending early Pretty Things' gigs to study Prince's unique drumming style" in their note for December 6, 1965). Just my two cents as a Things-obsessed guy (not that I don't love the Who in their own right). Ælfgar (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a mention of Prince in the "early years" section, tagged onto the list of artists he admired. The only other person notable for depping for Moon, Scott Halpin, gets an entire sentence. I don't think I can really do more than that, though. Neill & Kent have that one sentence, while Fletcher relegates Prince to a footnote. I don't think Marsh mentions him at all (though it glosses over Moon's pre-Who career a bit). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple mention is perfectly due weight by me. I'll create the stub on Prince as a way of thanking you :) Ælfgar (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, can I suggest a DYK of "Did you know ... that The Pretty Things were banned from touring New Zealand because drummer Viv Prince allegedly set fire to a bag of crayfish?" (source)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Cheery-bomb caption could use a bit of tweaking for concision and phrasing
  • File:Old_American_Cherry_Bombs_Cherry-bombs.png: I'm not sure the given licensing tag particularly makes sense for use with images; I've only ever seen it applied to software and code. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a simple solution to this. The sources used in the article don't specify that it was this brand of cherry bomb, and it's tangential to the subject anyway, so the simplest thing is to remove it. That takes care of copying editing the caption at the same time. As for the licence, the uploader's talk page is full of copyvio notifications, so I guess he chose that to stop getting messages on his talk page, rather than any serious attempt to use the BSD licence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. It's nicely written. The sourcing looks good too, though I haven't yet examined it in detail. I may comment further when I have done so. --John (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments - taking alook now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a locality for the Railway Tavern? to give context.....
Harrow. (North London) —Cliftonian (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A good enough read I forgot about copyediting. Nice balance of key points without being overinclusive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • A few days later, Moon took Johnston to the set of Ready Steady Go!, which caused him and Entwistle to be late for a gig with The Who that evening. How did the visit to Ready Steady Go involve Entwhistle?
He went with them (reworded, added source) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He eventually left Moon's services in 1978 Shouldn't this be without the terminal "s" on service?
I've reworded this to simpler language, which works around the problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to remind the reader that Kit Moon was his mother.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add place of publication for all the books.
According to MOS:CITE, "city of publication is optional" (presumably because the same book can be rewritten for different markets or cultures) but I'll have a look when I'm next to my bookshelves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(warning, strong personal opinion follows...) The three main sources I consulted were Marsh, Fletcher and Neill/Kent. Marsh is officially authorised by Townshend, Fletcher contains a phenomenal amount of research with over 100 first hand interviews including Townshend, Entwistle, Stamp, Butler, Kim McLagan and Annette Hunt, as well as mining the archives of NME, Melody Maker, Rolling Stone and other contemporary magazine sources. Neill/Kent is officially authorised by Daltrey and Stamp, both of whom wrote forewords. Clayton's book, on the other hand, isn't authorised or endorsed by any of the band or people close to Moon (ie: Butler, Kim and Annette), doesn't show evidence that they were consulted and goes into too much "sensationalist" gossip about Moon's party antics and his lost weekend in LA in the mid-1970s. Too much POV and it seems to my mind to be an excuse to publish lots of photos. Butler's own book is of the same vein, which is why I've used it to cite information about Butler but little else. A related question, though, is why I didn't cite the more fondly remembered Richard Barnes' "Maximum R&B" - in that instance, there wasn't really anything of substance that wasn't covered by a good mix of the sources I did use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Fletcher and the Clayson, although I haven't yet read either. I was just curious; three major biographies ought to be enough--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments from FunkMonk
  • Hi, I'll read the article and comment along the next few days. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon was voted the second greatest drummer in history in a Rolling Stone's '"The Best Drummers of All Time'" readers' poll" For the intro, I think mentioning "The Best Drummers of All Time poll" is redundant, we already know what he was voted as.
Agreed - removed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon The Loon" Should "the" be capitalised?
Not according to both the source the term is cited to, and MOS:CAPS. Caps in the lead fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another teacher, Aaron Sofocleous, praised his music skills" Any word on which instruments?
Not in the source given, also Fletcher doesn't name him has such. I don't appear to have written this bit, an old version of the article before I started improving it also has the name and the quote, but unsourced. I've rewritten this snippet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice with some year dates under early life and early years, for context.
What were you thinking of? Aside from joining secondary school in 1957 and leaving in 1961 I don't think there's anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, when did he join The Escorts? When did he take lessons from Carlo Little? But granted, this is a very minor issue. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon singing at the Maple Leaf Gardens, Toronto. " Why no date for this caption?
Forgot (The Who has it). Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The intensity of the explosion singed Townshend's hair" Didn't it also damage his hearing, I think I've read?
You might have read it in an unreliable source, but this reliable one says it was listening to headphones at too loud a volume in the studio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goldfish in the drum set thing seems to fit better under the stunts section than in "other work".
Possibly - though I think it's got more prominence as the most significant solo musical TV performance - being Keith Moon, it was always going to be "stunt" related. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Cliftonian
  • We have both "the Who" and "The Who" in the article; go with either one or the other but be consistent.
I have gone with "The Who" simply because that's what the majority of mentions were, and for no other reason - I am terrified of having a rehash of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was known for his unique drumming style, playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and gained notoriety for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour" Why not omit "gained notoriety"? The sentence is shorter and crisper and has the exact same meaning.
Hmmm. Playing devil's advocate for a second, I could argue that if you omit that, a reader could infer that the "eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour" was part of his drumming style, as opposed to his life generally. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was known for his unique drumming style, playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour". I don't think this infers that the behaviour was part of his playing. Maybe change the word to "lifestyle" to remove any doubt? —Cliftonian (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "He was known for his unique drumming style that involved playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Early years: Not sure whether we need two The Shadows links in this section.
  • Music: Again there are multiple links to a band, this time Led Zeppelin.
Both fixed. I went through overlinks some time back but other editors put them back in. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film: There's a notable redundancy in "Though the film took only 13 days to film". Would changing the second one to "shoot" be acceptable for the movie people?
I can't find the text "the film took only" in the current revision, so I guess somebody's fixed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Drumkit" as a singular word is a legitimate English term according to Wiktionary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dougal Butler: I'm not sure I understand "the lifestyle eventually got too much for me". Was it meant to be "eventually got to be too much for him."?
The current revision already has your proposed change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death: Repetition from one sentence to another in "The Who's drummer has been Ringo Starr's son Zak Starkey. Starkey...".
Agreed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor, but for consistency's sake the date in ref 13 probably shouldn't be shortened.
A more serious problem, though, is the lack of a time / location for the reference, which for a video I would consider mandatory to pass FAC. I'll replace this with a book source, but in the short term I've tagged this as {{better source}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers of refs 48, 61, 66, and 89 should be italicized as print publications.
Assuming that means Drum Magazine, Classic Rock magazine, Rolling Stone and Los Angeles Times, done. Also, Rolling Stone is a "work", not a "publisher" (who in that instance is Wenner Media LLC). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 84 is missing a publisher.
Added. The suitability of this source (it can be regarded as self-published and is written from a fan's point of view) has come up before but I've defended it on the grounds that it doesn't contradict anything stated in professionally published sources, and just expands on some more detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance. Completely unreliable self-published source, wholly unnecessary (the preceding text is adequately cited), but with an accessdate field of 28 October 2013 it's safe to assume I had nothing to do with this. Because this article sees regular traffic, it's worth seeing if an IP or new editor has boldly put something in and if you think it doesn't come anywhere close to WP:WIAFA, just remove it. Unfortunately, this means that all the "Ref", "FN" numbers are now all incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for tuba as one of his instruments?
I thought "where does the article say that?" then realised it was the infobox. The bugle playing is best documented by Fletcher and says that after an atrocious (but amusing) rendition of "When the Saints Go Marching In", Moon gave it up as a bad job and switched to drums. "Drums, percussion and vocals" are the only notable musical instruments he used as documented across a wide range of sources, so I'm going with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN88: missing italics
Ref 88 is currently a reuse of the source "jones". Ref 89 has italics. What reference are you specifically referring to? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN96: page?
(a short rant follows) If a reference to a living person claiming alleged drug use for another person is not impeccably cited, it fails WP:BLP and should be removed. I meant to do this some time back but forgot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need access dates for GBooks links
Butler and Book of Rock Lists both fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN127: italicization is reversed
Do you mean put Faber and Faber in italics? I think this could move to using {{sfn}} as it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether Allmusic is italicized
...and correctly spelled ("Allmusic" vs "AllMusic"), and only wikilinked on first use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
Only Jones had a location - removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN152: formatting
Fixed, though I don't have this source and there is no preview so I cannot personally verify this source is correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN153: who was the original publisher?
Fixed, but also tagged as {{page needed}} as it was not supplied. I don't have the paper source, so unless anyone else can supply the page number, it will have to be resourced or removed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, also added Clayton's book as a notable additional source and removed Butler which is cited in the main text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

[edit]
Sourcing
  • Cites #13 and #21 need locations. You shouldn't generically cite to an undefined moment in a video of unknown length, at least not an a FA.
These are already tagged (by me) as {{better source}} and will be fixed with book sources when I get a free moment to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are unreliable sources currently being used in the article then the article should not pass FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unreliable, as they're quotations from a commercially released DVD, but the editor who added the citations did not include timings. I don't have a copy of the DVD in question to note the times, which is why I tagged as {{better source}} so I could resource from a book instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #15 has a bare url.
This is using the "website" parameter of {{cite web}} - what is our policy on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have a bare url, you should use www.gigwise.com', not http://www.gigwise.com/. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #48 should be put into a template for consistency. Also, the page numbers are missing.
This is currently Doerschuk. The page numbers are not missing as {{rp}} is used. I'm sure there was a reason for using this rather than {{sfn}} but I can't remember what, so I've used that instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites #49 and #51 are to www.thewho.net, which isn't a WP:RS. Also, the mark-up reads Who Tabs, but the work is thewho.net.
This came up in the GA review and in the PR review, and the view I took at the time was it was an expert source citing plain factual information that could be backed up by other sources. A recent drive by edit which claims more reliable sources contract this has convinced me otherwise. I have removed one cite and tagged the other as {{unreliable source}} for the interim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in four years I have never seen anyone argue that this type of source can be used in an FA. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of the PR was to check these sort of things before I listed it at FAC! Unfortunately it's hard to get things improved when faced with general indifference. I would appreciate if people stopped saying things like "oh that's always reliable, and that's never reliable", and instead looked at the content in question - which is, do you believe Moon's kit as used in 1966-67 was called the "Red Sparkle" and contained the components stated. If not, why not? A search for "Keith Moon red sparkle" brings up pages of hits in unreliable sources - where did they get the information from? Each other? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #63 is to an unreliable source with a copyvio on the main page.
This is currently Classic Rock magazine. I've seen it for sale in newsagents. I don't buy this argument. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cite #s are now messed up, but yesterday cite #63 was Keith Moon Records With The Beatles". Keith Moon Movie. Retrieved 3 September 2012, which is an unreliable source with a copyvio on it's front page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keithmoonmovie.com is junk. It should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Edit : I know why I left this in, I meant to resource the fact to Ian MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head", then forgot to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Music book sources.jpg
Some reliable sources, yesterday
  • Cite #88 is to The Daily Mail, which is a tabloid that should be avoided per WP:RS.
I do not buy this argument. You can find my rantings about the Daily Mail on John and Hillbillyholiday's talk pages, but I do not accept the view that they should be aggressively stamped out at all costs. The Mail occasionally has showbiz pieces or interviews which for whatever reason the broadsheets don't touch. In this instance, the source adds some additional quotations for colour, and does not contain any information that is contracted by the main book sources. In my view, this is acceptable as it is citing opinions, not hard facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John has told me this on multiple occasions, as have others. If you cannot source the article without avoiding tabloids then it shouldn't pass FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only supported on prose and I did mention I might check back in later on sourcing. Luckily both items sourced to this tabloid (which I agree is not the best for a FA) are sourceable to Dear Boy: The Life Of Keith Moon by Tony Fletcher (ISBN 0857122223) which is probably a better source anyway. --John (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything in the article can be resourced (including everything I have tagged as {{better source}} and {{unreliable source}}), particularly to Fletcher, Marsh and Neill / Kent, the primary book sources I have used. I'd prefer to use as wide a variety of sources as possible. Unfortunately I'm a bit short of spare time to do this, but if people still think the article is possible to pass FAC, I can do soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #89: The Los Angeles Times should be italicized.
Cite 89 is currently a page in Fletcher. Cite 91 has Los Angeles Times but this appears to be italicized already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a printed source, that's why it should be italicized. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #126 should be put into a template for consistency.
126 is currently La Blanc, which is using {{cite book}} as expected. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Interview with Dougal Butler by Richard T. Kelly, from Full Moon: The Amazing Rock and Roll Life of Keith Moon. Faber & Faber. 2012. ISBN 978-0-571-29585-2. Since you cite to it three times, this should be put into a template for internal consistency. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites #152, #153, #160 and #161 need page numbers.
None of the reference numbers match what you mean. As mentioned earlier, this is one of the problems of putting raw reference numbers in comments - they will change. The only possible case I can consider here is currently #162 which is a cite to Sounds, that an IP added. I've never seen the source so can't comment any further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are cites 153, 154, 161 and 162. Or The New Book of Rock Lists, Greene, Andy (February 2011), Interview with Ozzy Osbourne. Sounds. 21 October 1978 and "Dear Boy : The Life of Keith Moon". Amazon. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #155 needs a location.
This is currently Budofsky - why does it need a location? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Anatomy of a Drum Solo DVD, Neil Peart (2005) accompanying booklet. (Republished in Modern Drummer Magazine, April 2006), which does not include a location. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite #158: BBC News should not be italicized.
What part of MOS states this? Why should it not, but Los Angeles Times, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a printed source, so it shouldn't be italicized per MOS:ITALIC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Awkward prose. - "Keith John Moon (23 August 1946[1] – 7 September 1978) was an English musician best known for being the drummer of the English rock group The Who." "was an English musician best known for being the drummer of" is a bit jarring, IMO. Consider: "Keith John Moon (23 August 1946[1] – 7 September 1978) was an English musician best known as the drummer of the English rock group The Who", or similar. Also, per the MoS the definite article in the Who should not be capped mid-sentence.
  • Prose. - "He was known for his unique drumming style that involved playing zig-zag across the kit with a wash of cymbal, and for his eccentric and often self-destructive behaviour." 1) You use known twice in the first two sentences, try to avoid this repetition. 2) "playing zig-zag" is slangy; recast. 3) "a wash of cymbal" isn't much better. Why is this unique to Moon? Did other drummers of the era not use cymbals? Also, "a wash" is drum/music jargon.
  • Prose. - "In 2011, Moon was voted the second greatest drummer in history in a Rolling Stone readers' poll." 1) "drummer in history in a" is awkward and uses one too many tos. Consider: "In 2011, Rolling Stone readers' ranked Moon the second greatest drummer in history", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Thirty-five years after his death, his drumming skills are still praised by critics and musicians." 1) Per WP:REALTIME, avoid the reference to "thirty-five years after". 2) This is a bit redundant with the preceding sentence; I think it can be removed, since it does little but remind the reader that Moon is still appreciated, which is something that the details in the prose should accomplish with examples, not a generic statement.
  • Prose. - "Moon grew up in Wembley, London, and took up drumming in the early 1960s." Conjoining these two clauses with and seems incorrect, since his growing up and his starting to drum are not closely connected. Consider: "Moon grew up in Wembley, London; he took up drumming in the early 1960s", or similar.
  • Prose. - "After performing with local band The Beachcombers, he joined The Who in 1964, before they had recorded their first single." 1) "with local band The Beachcombers" seems awkward, like it's missing an article. Consider: "with a local band, The Beachcombers", or similar. 2) Per the MoS, the definite article in the Beachcombers should not be capped; same with the Who. 3) Construction issues. The sentence does not make logical sense if you omit the middle clause: "After performing with local band The Beachcombers ... before they had recorded their first single." Consider a react that omits the third clause: "In 1964, after performing with a local band, the Beachcombers, he joined the Who". We don't need the Who's singles history here; keep it Moon-centric.
  • Prose. - "He stayed with the band during their rise to fame and was quickly recognised and praised for his distinctive drumming." 1) "He stayed with the band during" is awkward and misleading, since he never left the Who, why would we indicate that he remained a member through the Golden Era? 2) "rise to fame" is not encyclopedic prose, IMO. 3) "quickly" is maybe not the best modifier here; consider immediately, or similar. 4) "was quickly recognised and praised". Did this occur "during [the Who's] rise to fame"? This whole sentence needs a rewrite, IMO. Consider: "He was immediately recognised and praised for his distinctive drumming as the band achieved fame in the UK", or similar.
  • Prose construction. - "He occasionally collaborated with other musicians and later made appearances on radio and film, but he considered The Who his main occupation first and foremost and remained a member until his death." 1) This sounds like he first "occasionally collaborated with other musicians", then "later made appearances on radio and film". Did he stop collaborations after appearing on radio and film? Also, occasionally is modifying collaborated, I think you mean to say: "Occasionally, he collaborated", or similar. 2) "but he considered The Who his main occupation first and foremost and remained a member until his death." There are several problems here: a) "his main occupation first and foremost" is redundant; there is no need to use main, first and foremost to make the same point, which his brings me to b) Why mention that he was loyal to the Who? If he had joined another band the lead would mention it, but since he didn't I am not sure why you are asserting the negative that he didn't play with any other bands. c) "remained a member until his death" is an excessive self-explanatory detail that the narrative explains well without this awkward phrase. I suggest that you omit this text-string. Consider: "Occasionally, he collaborated with other musicians, and made appearances on radio and film", or similar.
  • Prose. - "In addition to his ability as a drummer, he developed a reputation for smashing his kit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour." 1) The mention of his reputation as a drummer is redundant with the third sentence in the paragraph. 2) "kit" → drumkit. 3) This is quite awkward and in need or a recast. Consider: "He developed a reputation for smashing his drumkit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He had a particular interest in blowing up toilets using cherry bombs or dynamite, as well as destroying television sets." 1) particular is an awkward and excess modifier in this construction; omit. 2) Did he really use dynamite to blow-up toilets? If so, did he know how to measure the charge, because even a half-stick of dynamite would destroy much more than a toilet. 3) "as well as destroying television sets" is awkward. Consider: "He enjoyed destroying television sets and blowing up toilets using cherry bombs or dynamite", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He enjoyed touring and socialising and attempted to live his entire life as one long party, being especially restless during the occasions that The Who were inactive." 1) This is an awkward way to say that he enjoyed touring, socializing and partying, which is a bit redundant with socializing anyway. 2) "attempted to live his entire life as one long party" in not encyclopedic, IMO. "Entire" is an excess modifier here, as is "long", which is also redundant with "life". "Attempted" might not be the best choice of words here, since he was pretty successful at this goal. Consider: "He enjoyed touring and socialising and he partied as often as he could", or similar.
  • Prose. - "His twenty-first birthday party in Flint, Michigan has become a notable example of decadent behaviour amongst rock groups." 1) This needs either more detail or to be omitted in toto, as it does little more than assure the reader that the party is notable, but if it's that notable then why not mention a specific detail or two that would help the narrative establish why he was considered so wild. I.e., all rock stars party (pretty much), but what was different about Moon's party habits that stand out so much from an age of widespread debauchery.
  • Clarity. - "Moon suffered setbacks in the 1970s, most notably the accidental death of his chauffeur, Neil Boland, and the breakdown of his marriage." 1) The last his is referring to Boland. Did Boland's marriage breakdown? Was this a setback for Moon (that's rhetorical, I know what you mean, but the prose isn't clear). 2) Was Boland's death really more notable a setback than Moon's divorce? Was Boland more important to Moon than his own wife? Consider: "Moon suffered setbacks in the 1970s, such as the breakdown of his marriage and the accidental death of his chauffeur, Neil Boland", or similar.
  • Pronoun clarity. - "He became increasingly addicted to alcohol, particularly brandy and champagne, and started to acquire a reputation for decadence and dark humour, giving him the nickname 'Moon the Loon'." 1) The pronoun he is referring to Boland here, not Moon. 2) In "increasingly addicted", increasingly is an excess modifier; once you are addicted you are addicted, there aren't levels of addiction per se. I think you mean to say that he increasingly drank more, which is different than an increasing addiction. 3) "[He] started to acquire a reputation for decadence and dark humour" seems a bit redundant with some of the earlier statements, e.g. you've already mentioned his "self-destructive behavior", his "smashing his kit on stage and destroying hotel rooms while on tour", his "attempt[s] to live his entire life as one long party" and his 21st birthday party. Maybe all these "wild man" points should be condensed into a sentence or two, or made more distinct so as to avoid the feeling that you are essentially repeating these generalities without distinction. 4) "giving him the nickname" is awkward. Consider: "He increasingly consumed large quantities of alcohol, particularly brandy and champagne. His developing addiction coupled with his propensity toward wild antics earned him a reputation for decadence and dark humour; friends nicknamed him 'Moon the Loon'."
  • Prose. - "After relocating to Los Angeles during the mid-1970s with his personal assistant, Peter "Dougal" Butler, he recorded his only solo album, the poorly received Two Sides of the Moon." 1) Why not be specific about the relocation date? 2) Is it especially notable that he relocated with Butler? Consider: "After relocating to Los Angeles in 197X, he recorded his only solo album, the poorly received Two Sides of the Moon", or similar.
  • Construction. - "On several occasions while touring with The Who, he passed out on stage and was hospitalised." This would be better off following the "Moon the Loon" statement, ala: "which earned him a reputation for decadence and dark humour; friends nicknamed him 'Moon the Loon'. On several occasions while touring with The Who, he passed out on stage and was hospitalised."
  • Prose. - "By the time of their final tour in 1976, and particularly during filming of The Kids Are Alright and recording of Who Are You, the deterioration of his condition started to show." 1) This sounds like the Who toured several times in 1976.
  • I'm hesitant to review this further. There are so many prose issues in the lead that I am a bit surprised to see that you've already earned supports from Cas Liber and John; they have always been much harder on my work! lol. If you find my review of the lead helpful and address most of my concerns I may be tempted to run through the rest of the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, interesting. Funny how this happens. I just got into the swing of it and enjoyed reading, which I generally take as a good sign....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Prose. - "Moon was born to Alfred Charles "Alf" and Kathleen Winifred "Kit" Moon[1][2] on 23 August 1946 at Central Middlesex Hospital in north west London, and he grew up in Wembley." 1) Since the article has not yet mentioned Moon, you should to start with "Keith John Moon was born". 2) Whenever you use a full date you should have a comma separating it from the following prose, e.g "on 23 August 1946, at". 3) the clause "and he grew up in Wembley" seems tacked on with an inappropriate conjunction. Consider: "Keith John Moon was born to Alfred Charles "Alf" and Kathleen Winifred "Kit" Moon on 23 August 1946, at Central Middlesex Hospital in north west London; he grew up in Wembley", or similar.
  • Prose. - "He was hyperactive as a boy and had a restless imagination, with a particular fondness for the radio series The Goon Show and music." This is clumsy and awkward, IMO. Consider: "As a boy he was hyperactive with a restless imagination. He was fond of music and the radio series The Goon Show", or similar.
  • Prose. - "His art teacher commented in a report on Moon: 'Retarded artistically. Idiotic in other respects'". "in a report on Moon" is excess. Consider: "His art teacher described him as "Retarded artistically. Idiotic in other respects".
  • Prose. - "while another teacher remarked that Moon 'has great ability, but must guard against a tendency to show off'.[4]" Moon should be he.
  • Prose. - "Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band at the age of twelve playing the bugle," Did Moon own a Sea Cadet Corps? Try: "Moon joined a local Sea Cadet Corps". Also, "Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band at the age of twelve playing the bugle" is clunky prose, IMO. Consider: "At the age of 12, Moon joined his local Sea Cadet Corps band as a bugle player", or similar.
  • Prose. - "but found the instrument too difficult to learn and decided to take up the drums instead." Consider: "but he found the instrument too difficult to learn, so he instead decided to take up the drums", or similar.
  • Awkward prose. - "He also took an interest in practical jokes and home science kits, with a particular enthusiasm for explosions." Consider: "He developed an interest in practical jokes and home science kits, and was particularly enthusiastic about explosions", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Often on his way home from school, Moon would go to Macari's Music Studio on Ealing Road to practise the drums there, where he learned his basic skills on the instrument." Consider: "On his way home from school he would often stop at Macari's Music Studio to practise drumming. There he learned his basic skills on the instrument", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Moon left school at the age of fourteen, around Easter 1961." Consider: "He left school around Easter 1961, when he was fourteen", or similar.
  • Focus. - "The money earned from this job was used to buy his first drum kit." 1) The focus of the sentence is money; it should be Moon. 2) There is no need to specify "from this job". Consider: "He used the money he earned to buy his first drum kit", or similar.
Early years
  • Prose. - "Moon took lessons from one of the loudest contemporary drummers, Screaming Lord Sutch's Carlo Little, at ten shillings per lesson." 1) I don't think loudest is the best word choice here. 2) To call Little a contemporary drummer is misleading; he died 8 years ago. I know what you mean, but I don't think the prose is clear. You need to make it obvious that Little was a contemporary of Moon.
  • Comma splice. - "His favourite musicians were jazz artists, particularly Gene Krupa (whose flamboyant style he subsequently copied).[10]"
  • Excess Modifier. - "He also enjoyed singing, with a particular interest in Motown.[13]"
  • Prose. - "During this time Moon joined his first serious band: the Escorts, replacing his best friend Gerry Evans.[16]" 1) During What time? Is the date know? If so, include it. 2) "his first serious band"? Were his previous bands comedic?
  • Prose. - "In December 1962 he joined the Beachcombers, a semi-professional London cover band playing hits by groups such as the Shadows.[17]" 1) You sometimes use commas after introductory phrases such as dates, but other time you do not. Make consistent. 2) Your use of playing is awkward here. Consider: "a semi-professional London cover band that played hits", or similar.
  • Prose. - "During his time in the group Moon incorporated theatrical tricks into his act, including "shooting" the group's lead singer with a starter pistol.[18]" 1) You use "group" twice in the same sentence. 2) You should avoid using scare quotes around shooting. It would be better to explain that he was faking the shot with a started pistol rather than rely on scare quotes to alert the reader.
  • Prose. - "The Beachcombers all had day jobs; Moon, who worked in the sales department at British Gypsum, had the keenest interest in turning professional." 1) "The Beachcombers all had day jobs" is clumsy. Consider: "Each member of the Beachcombers had day jobs", or similar. 2) keenest interest is awkward; recast.
  • Cites. - "In April 1964, at age seventeen,[19] he auditioned for the Who as a replacement for Doug Sandom. The Beachcombers continued as a local cover band after his departure.[20]" Why are there cites mid-sentence? Why not slide them to the end?
The Who
  • Pronoun clarity. - "These antics earned him the nickname "Moon the Loon".[26]" There are several pronouns already used in this graph, but since the last person mentioned, albeit parenthetically, was Marsh, this him should be Moon.
  • Split infinitive. - "since it was his only chance to regularly socialise with his bandmates".
  • Excess modifiers. - "Sandom had generally been the peacemaker" and "and was generally restless and bored when not playing live."
  • Why? - "A commonly-cited (although disputed) story of how Moon joined the Who is". So is this an accurate story? Why is it disputed if it's the commonly accepted version? This is quite awkward, IMO; it leaves the reader unsure if they know the true story or not.
  • Clarity. - What is a "ginger vision", and why is it notable to this story? Was Townshend lusting after Moon, because that's what it sounds like?
  • Clunky prose. - "he claimed to his would-be bandmates that he could play better". 1) Per WP:CLAIM, avoid the word claimed. 2) Who did Moon claim to be able to play better than?
  • Prose. - "that he could play better; he played in the set's second half". This is awkward to say the least.
  • Prose. - "Moon later claimed that he was never formally invited to join the Who permanently". 1) Avoid claimed. 2) "formally invited to join the Who permanently", is awlward.
  • Linking/given name use. - "when Ringo Starr asked how he had joined the band". If Starr has already been introduced then we shouldn't use his first name here and if he hasn't been previously introduced then the article should link to the Starr article.
  • Awkward prose. - "Moon's arrival in the Who changed the dynamics of the group." Did he really arrive in the Who?
  • Prose. - "the group now had four members frequently in conflict". Consider: "the group now had four members who were frequently in conflict".
  • Prose. - "'We used to fight regularly', remembered Moon in later years." Consider: "'We used to fight regularly', Moon later remembered."
  • Prose. - "'John [Entwistle] and I used to have fights'". Has Entwistle been properly introduced at this point? I don't think that he has.
  • Prose. - "Moon also clashed with Daltrey and Townshend: 'We really have absolutely nothing in common apart from music', he said in a later interview.'" Was this quote directed at both Daltrey and Townshend. because the way the sentence is constructed implies that it pertains to both of them.
  • Pronoun clarity. - "Although Townshend described him as a". Since the last two people mentioned in the text are Daltrey and Townshend the pronoun, him, should be Moon.
  • Confusing jargon. - What's a "musical structure"?
  • Excess modifier. - "Moon was particularly fond of touring". This word is used numerous times throughout the article; it adds little.
  • Confusing prose. - "This would later carry over to other aspects of his life, as he acted them out (according to journalist and Who biographer Dave Marsh) 'as if his life were one long tour'.[25]" Acted what out?
  • Confusing. - "These antics earned him the nickname 'Moon the Loon'.[26]" What antics? There are no specifics mentioned and this seems to be referring to the adjectives restless and bored, but adjectives are not antics.
  • Is it just me, or does the chronology break at the beginning of this section after only four paragraphs? I don't see any narrative whatsoever in this section. In fact, most of the article reads like summary style sections with no over-arching narrative. Does the chronology start anew at 1965 at the beginning of each section? It seems like much of this material should be integrated into the section on the Who, and others. Maybe then there would be a story to follow throughout Moon's life.
Musical contributions
  • Unattributed quote. - "Contemporary critics questioned his ability to keep time, with biographer Tony Fletcher suggesting that the timing on Tommy was 'all over the place'." You need an inline citation after all direct quotes.
  • Split infinitive. - "At one show, Townshend and Entwistle decided to spontaneously stop playing to hear Moon's drum solo."
  • Verbs should be followed by gerunds, not infinitives. - "Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the track.[47]"
  • Prose. - "Moon's style of drumming was considered unique by his bandmates". Why are Moon's bandmates authoritative sources on his drumming abilities? Are they experts on drum technique?
  • Pronoun use. - "Entwistle noted that he tended to play faster or slower according to his mood.[28]" → "Entwistle noted that Moon tended to play faster".
  • The whole first paragraph needs a re-write. It relies too heavily on Entwistle's confusing description and Daltrey's vague personal opinion.
  • Confusing? - "Who biographer John Atkins wrote that the group's early test sessions for Pye Records in 1964 show that "they seemed to have understood just how important was ... Moon's contribution".[29]" Wat does this even mean?
  • Attribution needed. - "Early recordings of Moon's drumming sound tinny and disorganised;[30]" According to who? Atkins I presume, but this text-string is not stating a fact; it is stating an opinion, and as such should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. It should be attributed to Atkins and rolled into the previous material sourced to him regarding the early sessions.
  • Colloquial. - "no-nonsense production techniques". What does this mean to the casual reader? It needs some context.
  • When? - "Early recordings of Moon's drumming sound tinny and disorganised;[30] it was not until the recording of Who's Next, with Glyn Johns'" Why not include a date for Moon's best drumming?
  • Colloquial. "Moon hated drum solos and refused to play them in concert". In formal writing, Hated is a poor word choice. Consider using disliked.
  • Prose. - "At one show, Townshend and Entwistle decided to spontaneously stop playing to hear Moon's drum solo. Moon immediately stopped too, shouting 'Drum solos are boring!'[32]" 1) Which show? 2) Awkward: "Moon immediately stopped too, shouting 'Drum solos are boring!" Consider: "Moon immediately stopped and shouted 'Drum solos are boring!'", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Although not a strong vocalist, Moon was enthusiastic about singing and wanted to sing lead with the rest of the group.[34]" Did Moon lift weights? Consider changing strong to accomplished, or similar.
  • Repetitive. - "Moon would attempt to sing backup (particularly on "I Can't Explain")."
  • Prose. - "his desire to sing lead spawned lead vocals". Spawned is not the best word choice here.
  • Clarity. - Will the casual reader understand what "high backing vocals on other songs" means?
  • Scare quotes. - "saw him abandon 'serious' vocal performances". Avoid this; omit quote marks.
  • Excessive parentheticals. - The second to last paragraph in this section, which starts: "Moon composed "I Need You" (which he also sang), the instrumental "Cobwebs and Strange" (from the album A Quick One, 1966),[40]" uses too many brackets. Copyedit to smoothen the prose, which currently reads like a list.
  • Clarity. - "The setting for "Tommy's Holiday Camp" (from Tommy) was credited to Moon;[44]". Will the casual reader know what you mean by setting?
  • Prose. - "The drummer produced the violin solo on "Baba O'Riley".[46] Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the track.[47]" 1) This is awkward as a final paragraph, and too short to be it's own graph, IMO. Also, if it's a new paragraph then you should use a noun, not anaphora. Plus, its clumsy anyway. Consider: "(add date), Moon sat in on congas with East of Eden at the Lyceum, and afterwards suggested to violinist Dave Arbus that he play on the Who track, "Baba O'Riley". Moon produced an Arbus violin solo which features prominently in the song.[46][47]", or similar.
Equipment
  • This section uses inches throughout and meters parenthetically. Inches is an American term to avoid in BrEng, per WP:ENGVAR.
I don't think this is appropriate here - firstly, the sources use inches, secondly inches was very much a British term in 1965, thirdly drum / cymbal sizes are still referred to in imperial - the first example I searched for here advertises a "20 inch bass drum". That's a British shop trading today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might be right; it's a minor point anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "This setup did not have a hi-hat, since Moon used crash and ride cymbals instead." Consider: "This setup did not have a hi-hat; Moon instead used only crash and ride cymbals."
  • Attribution needed. - "Moon replied: 'Dear boy, do exactly as you feel it should be, but that's the way I want it'." Always follow direct quotes with an inline citation.
  • Clarity. - "The kit was eventually fitted with copper fillings[52] and later given to a young Zak Starkey.[53]" Will the casual reader understand what "eventually fitted with copper fillings" means?
General
  • Why does the chronology end at 1965? Moon lived another 13 years. Cas Liber, I know you are a stickler for an unbroken chronology; did you notice this issue?

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can point to a root cause as to all the problems here. The article has had about five or six different people come along since the FA review's been open and fiddled with the prose. Some of it's been good, some of it's been not so good. What it does mean is that the version you've looked at is not the same one that John supported. The Guild of copy editors are looking at this now (indeed, the first prose issue you reported appears to have now gone), but unfortunately at the same time an IP is changing things elsewhere and citing unreliable sources to do it. I am concerned we've got a serious stability problem here and trying to review this is like hitting a moving target. Then again, this is a popular article with about 750K annual views, and FAs getting full protected due to instability (Brad Pitt being a recent example) is nothing particularly rare or unusual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished a copyedit, including the lead and the next two sections on Moon's early life and career. Miniapolis 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - With regrets, but strong conviction. The prose is not at all brilliant, IMO. The article has decent bones, but it's far too clunky to be said to meet the FA criteria overall. There are issues with comma usage, sourcing, internal consistency and a choppy and redundant narrative that inexplicitly breaks at 1965 despite the fact that Moon lived another 13 years. This article needs a top-to-bottom re-write before returning to FAC. I urge any delegate who considers passing this nom to first read several random sections. Sorry, Ritchie, but I think that the article is poorly written and awkwardly organized. Consider smoothening the prose and integrating much of the sub-section material into the chronological narrative. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear, the reason I'm slightly annoyed is nothing to do with the recent developments in the FA review (all of which is fair comment and backed up with legitimate interpretations to policies) and more to do with the fact it would have been nice to settle all this stuff about six months ago (or earlier) when it passed the GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, Ritchie. In fact I've often been concerned that the gap between what passes at GAN and what passes FAC is far too great. With all due respect, I wouldn't have passed this at GAN either, but that's me. My major concern with the article at this point is the chronology. I've never seen a bio pass FAC with such a broken narrative. Why isn't there an unbroken chronology from Moon's birth to his death? Why is the section on the Who only three paragraphs long? Most of the details that appear in the other summary sections should be integrated into the section on the Who, IMO. That's the first place I would start if I planned to bring this article back to FAC in a more prepared state. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Gabe and I don't always on what constitutes problematic prose but I believe he's raised many valuable points above (not just related to prose) and I think there's enough to warrant archiving this nom and re-working the article away from the FAC process. I noticed some clunky expression myself when I scanned the article last week and was hoping it would get another serious going-over. I understand the nominator's frustrations but better it happens now than that the article gets promoted, perhaps appears at TFA, and is torn to shreds then. I hope you'll go through Gabe's points, perhaps collaborating with him as you progress and/or with Miniapolis assisting on prose, if that works for all of you. I'd suggest you then take to peer review again before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Peru national football team

[edit]
Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article has already been nominated a couple of times in the past. The article meets FA criteria, especially when compared to Scotland national football team (the other FA national football team). All the article needs is support votes. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comments - There needs to be one consistent system for citations, per FA criterion 2c, WP:CITE and MOS. The article currently employs two methods...full citations and short citations. If you choose to use full citations, I find the {{rp}} template useful for noting differing page numbers over repeated citations. The article at first glance looks to be quite informative. I will take a second look over the next week if/when the citations are addressed and brought into one consistent system.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I am a tad confused by the recommendation. I am using the Chicago Manual of Style for citations (same as what I did in the Pisco Sour article). There the footnotes (or "references") have this mixture. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this very unfriendly comment you recently made towards me (see [32]), it might be for the best if you please do not review this article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an acceptable referencing style, and has been used on several FAs (reason why the websites are further below is because they're only cited once). I note, however, that the Virgilio Roel book has no citations leading to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: - I would disagree, but our reasons would likely be subjective. I've seen other FA reviews over the years that have considered this referencing style inconsistent and I believe it inconsistent. I withdraw from further participation in this review because MarshalN20 has been belligerent with me in other areas, but my comment stands for further discussion wherever it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHenry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 September 2013‎
  • Marshal calls Henry "unfriendly" and Henry calls Marshal "belligerent". I'd say the score is one all and you should probably just stay out of each other's way for a while and let this FAC continue in a collegial manner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Crisco. I remember renting the Roel book, which is why I listed it, but I seem to have not used a single piece of information from it. I cannot even recall if I read it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why do some flag icons link to the relevant country while others don't?
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Sotil_Cubillas_Challe_1973.png: when/where was this first published?
  • The stadium image is quite blurry; would you consider using File:Puertaestadionacional.jpg instead?
  • File:Raul_Toro_y_Lolo_Fernandez.jpg: this appears to not be a photograph, and so the licensing tag would be incorrect
  • File:Peru_1970_National_Football_Team_(digital_restoration).jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:PER-URU_1927.jpg: with the given licensing tag, this is vulnerable to deletion at Commons, as it isn't free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not sure what flag icons are the problematic ones.
  2. Yes, that can be promptly fixed.
  3. The image was published in 1973 (in a qualifiers match for the 1974 FIFA World Cup), in Lima sports magazine Ovacion. The funny story here is that Peru did not qualify for the World Cup (which, I guess by now is not unusual).
  4. The suggested image is a picture of the old stadium (prior to the renovations). Here are three other good ones (File:Estadio Nacional de Lima, Peru 01.jpg, File:Estadio Nacional de Lima, Peru..jpg, and File:Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg). I personally like the second and third, but which do you like best?
  5. I have contacted the original uploader at Wikimedia Commons (see [33]).
  6. The image was published in 1970 in Peru. The match was prior to the World Cup of that year. Some of the players in the image were later benched during the World Cup.
  7. Yes, the PER-URU_1927 image should be removed.
Thank you for the review Nikkimaria.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria, the uploader of the "Toro y Lolo" image file has replied to me at Wikimedia Commons. He assures me that the picture in question is a colored photograph (please see [34]). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Rose, User:Nikkimaria, User:Giants2008. Do you guys think the article is now ready for FA status? I really think this article cannot get any better, and it is a great model for others to follow. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The article is quite clear and easy to read, regards. ----Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Unfortunately this nomination has not generated a clear consensus for promotion and I will archive it in a few minutes. It is important that reviewers express unqualified support based on which of the FA criteria they have addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Wishology

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the introduction gives out detail of the episodes. It shows why it's notable. There is no poor grammar or poorly worded statements. I like how the plot is split into parts, and there is outstanding reception and production sections. Mouseinphilly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Broken reference templates, far too much referenced to primary sources (at a minimum, none of the Nickelodeon or Frederator Studious sources are independent), dead/mistargeted links (reference 18, at least), and several sources about whose reliability I will need some convincing. Outside of references, the quality of the plot summary prose is perhaps the greatest concern; while there have certainly been changes made since the second FAC, the fundamental objections about readability and tone still apply. Additionally, other prose is short of the expected brilliance for FAC (one particularly striking sentence from the lead: "The film centers on the show's main character, 10-year-old Timmy Turner, his fairy godparents Cosmo and Wanda, and his baby fairy godbrother Poof, all of whom grant Timmy's wishes.") and the level of detail in the Cultural References section exceeds what policy would suggest (especially as it is all, or nearly all, referenced to primary source material only). There is no discussion of home media releases. In general, this article needs to more closely regard WP:MOSTV. And finally, File:The Fairly OddParents- Wishology.gif appears to be improperly licensed; this is an advertising poster but the use rationale and license both treat it as a screenshot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose -- the nominator has made 0 edits to the article, and has not demonstrated anything that could convince me that he/she will see this nomination through to the end. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal Clearly not ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Peeters 1989, pp. 31–32; Thompson 1991, pp. 24–25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2013&oldid=583923989"