Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2010

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:07, 28 October 2010 [1].

Battle of Ollantaytambo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Victor12 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because even though it is small (12kb prose size) it seems to me it reasonably covers most available information on its subject, has images that follow Wikipedia's guidelines, is properly written and throughly referenced. The article was nominated at WP:FAC about a year ago and failed, mainly due to its prose. Since then it has undergone some serious copyediting and, hopefully, it can meet 1a this time. Victor12 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The order of sections looks a bit odd at first glance. Other battle articles seem to prefer background -> start -> battle -> aftermath -> additional info. I understand "battle site" and "sources" provide valuable information, but would it be better to put them after "aftermath" to avoid splitting the actual battle itself? Just a suggestion, please feel free to disregard, if it was already discussed. GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of a Sources section before the Battle section stems from common practice in academic history articles to discuss sources before the actual subject of a text. As for the Battle site section it seemed right to discuss the details of the controversy about the battle location right after a description of the battle because the arguments are derived from battle accounts. Anyway, it wouldn't be too complicated to change the order of sections if reviewers at FAC feel it's necessary. --Victor12 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c: Malden is a sufficiently unknown location to require a country / US State. Notes and references formatted beautifully. Terminal full-stops in citations? Dates at the end? Hooray! (I am a Chicago Manual of Style bigot). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've just added the US State for Malden (it's in Massachusetts). --Victor12 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1c: - An open question, as I'm not a specialist on the Inca period. Does the article capture "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"? I ask because the article draws predominantly on John Hemming and D'Altroy's two books; both are solid and reliable pieces of work, of course, but I don't know if there are other important articles or academic books out there on this battle beyond the four used to support this article. Very happy to be told that these four are a good cross-section of what is no doubt a fairly specialist field. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although there are plenty of books dealing with the Incas and the Spanish conquest there are very few references in English or in Spanish about this particular battle, which is something of an obscure event. In English, it is mentioned in Hemming's super detailed account of the Spanish Conquest and in Protzen's monograph on Ollantaytambo both of which are based on very thorough academic research. For some details not mentioned in these sources I've added Vega's work, which is in Spanish. Besides these three one would be very hard pressed to find any more academic sources on this battle. As for D'Altroy's it's only used to provide background info on the Incas and it seems to me it's enough for that task. Thanks for your comments --Victor12 (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a good justification of why the article meets standard 1c. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, support? ;) --Victor12 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I think this article needs a map of the area, especially given the controversy over the battle site. I've been to the area, so I can sort of picture what's being discussed; I can imagine people who haven't been there being unclear on what's claimed. The background and battle description are good enough, but in this sort of situation, a picture is worth a thousand words. Magic♪piano 14:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the need of a map, but it seems to me it would be hard to find a suitable one which complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. There are a couple of maps produced by the Hiram Bingham expedition to Machu Picchu which could be used: 1 and 2, which seem to be public domain but they'd probably need to be modified to be used in this article. I'll keep searching. --Victor12 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all surprised by the lack of an adequate period (or even near-period) map; a more schematic SVG map, based on more recent maps, might be in order. Magic♪piano 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unable to find an adequate period map. It seems to me that the most feasible option left is to use a template such as {{Location map many}} and fill it with the locations mentioned in the article such as Cusco, Ollantaytambo and Vitcos. For this we would need an equirectangular projection map but the only one available at Wikipedia is File:Peru location map.svg. At that scale the sites that interest us would be to close to be shown appropriately, see User:Victor12/Sandbox. So we'd need a different equirectangular map, one of the Cuzco Region perhaps. The problem is, where can I get one of those? --Victor12 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, or the author of File:Provinces of the Cusco region in Peru.svg. Magic♪piano 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:22, 28 October 2010 [2].

Chennai Super Kings

[edit]
Nominator(s): A.arvind.arasu (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Chennai Super Kings is the richest cricket club in the world with a brand value of more than $48 million.The club also having secured the IPL Trophy and the Champions League title in the same year has also been the most successful domestic club in the world.The Club has been producing larger no. of fans for cricket thanks to their high-profile marketing skills.The club remains to be one of the most favourite sporting franchises worldwide.Hence,I'd like this article to be featured by Wikipedia.

A.arvind.arasu (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, unfortunately - although I'm sure the club is an important one, the article is not at FA standard. It has only 5 references, 3 of which are bare URLs. I recommend trying for WP:PR or WP:GAN to get some feedback before heading back here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:22, 24 October 2010 [3].

Leva-me aos Fados (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Salgado96 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a good article in my oppinion, it features a good text, good resolutioned images and sound galleries. It is important for the portuguese music and for me as well, because I would like to know how far can I go with my editings. Salgado96

This review was not transcluded to WP:FAC; transcluding now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:48, 23 October 2010 [4].

Hong Kong

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 05:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the past FACR concerns have been addressed. In addition, other issues raised in the recent PR have all been addressed, and the PR is now closed. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 05:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFA, has been on mainpage SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... I failed to see any difference between the uploaded the image and one on that site. I even downloaded the picture off that site, converted it to svg, and compared with the uploaded image. They look exactly the same. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 02:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we have an independent ref to say that all these citizens' rights are actually respected. A primary source by a communist government is hardly persuasive; many communist countries have freedom of political association and speech in their constitutions, which are patently just lip service YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the stuff cited to teh primary source on the Basic Law. Simply signing a pledge to allow this and that doesn't make it true, especially in this part of the world YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Mainly nitpicks:-

  • Ref 14: "BBC News" not a print source, should not be italicised
  • Ref 26: NetLibrary provides an electronic book service. It is not itself the book's publisher, which is Emerald Group Publishing
  • Ref 48: A publisher's name is a single entity, and you should not link a proportion of it.
  • Ref 52: Global Times should be italicised (print source)
  • Ref 91: See 14
  • Ref 97: See 52
  • Ref 116: "Brand Hong Kong" is a Government public relations programme, The fact cited to it is non-controversial and is covered by another citation. Do we really need Brand Hong Kong?
  • Ref 121: Globality Magazine is not your source; it is the source for your source - it looks like an abstract of the magazine article. Your source is GlobalAutoIndustry.com
  • Ref 150: See 14
  • Ref 151: See 52
  • Ref 175: Suggest spell out MTR (unfamiliar initials), It's linked, but why force people to use it? (cf. "Hong Kong Tramways")
  • Ref 179: see 14

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (note: I didn't check references because I'm assuming everything I noted at the peer review has been fixed)

  • "6,480 people per square kilometer" - for consistency, use UK spelling (and should this number be converted here?)
  • "special administrative regions (SAR)" - acronym should be plural
  • Last paragraph of lead needs editing for flow and clarity
  • "believed to have been used to pacify bad weather" - wording
  • "Modern Hong Kong is located in Nanhai commandery (modern Nanhai District) and near the capital city Pun Yue" - reword for clarity. Pun Yue is not a modern capital city.
  • "After his settlement" - wording is unclear. Did he found a settlement here? This is not explained.
  • Don't link the same terms multiple times, especially not in close proximity
  • "to open limited trading on a regular basis" - wording, and make it clear that this refers to trade with foreigners
  • "Hong Kong Island became occupied" - "was occupied"?
  • Why does "Nineteenth Century" include information on the 20th century? Also, don't capitalize "century" in the section heading
  • "In the 1950s, Hong Kong's rapid industrialisation was driven by exports: Textile and other manufacturing industries expanded as the population grew and labour costs remained low; living standards rose steadily" - split into 2 sentences
  • "main source of foreign investment to China" -> "in China"
  • "It also enjoyed high rates of growth..." - does "it" refer to Hong Kong or the service industry?
  • Post-war, is the nation controlling Hong Kong called the UK or Britain? Also, always use "the UK / United Kingdom"
  • "People's Republic of China (PRC)" is included in the lead, and thus does not need to be repeated later in the article
  • "Hong Kong was severely affected by the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome" - replace "severely" to avoid repetitious phrasing
  • Don't repeat information between Governance and Legal system
  • "It is headed by the President of the Legislative Council" - does "it" refer to the Legislative Council, the "other half", or the smaller electorate?
  • "Magistrates' Courts" or "magistrate's courts"?
  • ""district council model" blueprint" - redundant phrasing
  • "The document proposed the enlargement of the Election Committee" - you haven't told us what the Election Committee is
  • "Destined to be voted down once again by pan-democrats, a significant breakthrough came when the proposals were revised at the 11th hour, by making the new functional seats subject to direct election – the Democratic Party then broke ranks with the other pan-democrats and voted in favour of this first change in the annexes of the Basic Law since the handover" - not clear whether this change was actually successfully made or not
  • "to be elected by elected" - repetitive
  • British colony or Colony?
  • "territory" under Military is erroneously pipelinked to British overseas territories. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hong Kong indeed was a British overseas territority. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, technically not. It was a dependent territory (as is stated in the article), but the British overseas territories did not come into existence until after Hong Kong was "repatriated". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everything is fixed now... Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 06:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your quick work! I'm still not entirely pleased with the last paragraph of the lead, although it has been improved. However, "believed as a form of weather worship" is actually poorer wording than the original. Terms are still linked multiple times and close together. I appreciate that you've specified what had high rates of growth, but the sentence now seems to conflict with the preceding sentence. The sentence about the pan-democrats is now clearer in meaning, but needs rewording for grammar and flow. "Elected" phrase is less repetitious, but should use "voted for by" or "voted in by". Anything not complained about here should be assumed to be fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some copy-editing on the places you pointed out. I hope they sound better now. As for linking, I tried improve this area by removed duplicate links within the same section and direct related links in area I see a "cluster of blues". I also tried to stick with the one unique link per section rule, so duplicate links in different sections were left alone. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The History section seems to incur in WP:RECENTISM because there's much more detail on Hong Kong's history after 1997 than prior to that date. For instance, is there any reason to mention the 2005 and 2007 elections or the East Asian Games? They don't seem particularly important. In general, I think the History section could use some summarizing with details going into the relevant subarticles. --Victor12 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have to respectfully disagree with your assessment here. The sub-sectional division in the History section is based on distinct periods in Hong Kong history, and 1997 represented the start of the current period, marked by the city's return to Chinese rule. The 2005 and 2007 elections were the only two elections for Chief Executive of Hong Kong so far, and the East Asian Games was the largest international sporting event that Hong Kong has ever held. So these are important details. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with what Victor12 says above. I would also point out that the pre-colonial history section seems to be grossly disproprtionate in size to its importance. Most of the material in that section applies to the South China region generally where Hong Kong happened to be located. But there seems to be very little of note which happened in the territory of Hong Kong prior to 1841 that would warrant such a large section. I read quite a way through that section before I came to the first bit which actually concerned the actual territory upon which Hong Kong would later come to be situated. That bit was about a school being opened. Hardly an incident of note. David Tombe (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tavatar, I don't have an agenda at all. The Weihaiwei thing was purely a side issue. I inserted the bit about Weihaiwei as a good faith edit to improve the article. I was surprised to see it removed with no satisfactory reason given. The prolonged discussion which followed on the talk page was because of your sheer determination to justify your actions. It was important to let you know that people can see right through such empty arguments. As a result, I came to the conclusion that there is a group who have an agenda to play down matters relating to Hong Kong's colonial period, and to beef up the pre-colonial period and the post-colonial period. The Weihaiwei issue is merely symptomatic of this agenda. The group clearly had no desire to draw attention to the existence of another British colony further up the China coast. David Tombe (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media - It is not clear why the anthem is in the public domain, this metadata needs added to the file page. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the media if it's going to be an issue. I thought it would be ok because other FAs like India has done similar thing. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine it has a similar status to the flag, it just needs to be clarified on the page Fasach Nua (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the template "English-speaking world" used in this article is bizarre, dividing the English speaking world into "Regions where English is an official language and spoken by a significant population" and "Regions where English is an official language but not as widely spoken" screams lack of quantification Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where this "English-speaking world" template on the article? Or are you referring to the category? ... maybe you are referring to another article? Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta-Va-Tar, it's at the bottom of the article, under "Language" - you have to click "Show" to see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:43, 23 October 2010 [5].

Tracheal intubation

[edit]
Nominator(s): DiverDave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is finally ready, after having gone through the GAN and Peer review processes. DiverDave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I cannot find any other link to this article, and I do not know how to use WebCite to re-establish the link, so I have simply removed the dead url link. DiverDave (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources query: Can you clarify the status of the "General references"? Some of these have specific citations to them, others do not. Would some of them be better described as "Further reading"? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and excellent observation. On 17 September 2010, I split out a large section of text, creating a subarticle: History of tracheal intubation. The two sources in question (Classen (2002) and Vilardell(2006)) are cited in the subarticle, but not this one. Accordingly, I have just removed them from the list of "General References". All the sources that remain are associated with specific inline citations. DiverDave (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had started to do a detailed sources review, but Jimfbleak (below) posted first (that's fine by me), and he and Colin (review below) have identified some of the same points that I was noting. I agree that the long reference strings supporting single facts are inappropriate. There is a general tendency to over-cite; for example there are 26 citations in the second, short paragraph of the Laryngoscopes section. Also note that I had no difficulty opening 121, and 130 linked to the full page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 52 of the original 190 sources, including nearly all of the primary sources (although I did actually consult most of these). I have removed most cases where multiple citations support a particular statement, retaining only those cases where it is useful to do so. DiverDave (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • cricothyrotomy, tracheotomy, RAE — why italics?
I have removed all italics, and substituted quotation marks in most cases for the first use of these terms. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reliable (and most risky) — Isn't this a contradiction?
Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this. The idea I am attempting to convey to the reader is: Tracheotomy was for centuries considered the most reliable method of placing a tube in the windpipe, but patients were also likely to suffer a high incidence of morbidity and even mortality after undergoing this operation. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laryngoscopy and non-surgical techniques — Section is very listy, almost every sentence begins In (year),
I agree; this needs to be fixed. Give me a little time.... DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • O2 should be O2 throughout, I would have thought
I have replaced all instances of O2 with O2 DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (FiO2) — what is Fi? PaCO2 — undefined
linked "FIO2" term, defined PaCO2 as arterial partial pressure of CO2 DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • academia — no link and no gloss
Sorry, but I do not understand this comment DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oops, meant acidemia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the term "acidemia" DiverDave (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complications. — Rather parochial, I don't believe there are no studies outside the US
Again, I do not understand this comment. In addition to the US, I have cited studies from Austria (von Goedecke et al), Netherlands (Van Heurn et al; Polderman et al), Spain (Añón et al), and Europe (European Resuscitation Council). How many countries need to be included to avoid parochialism? DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Flickr upload bot image review tag": I do not know what this is, much less how to upload this. Can anyone help me with this? DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this, you'll see the green tick after the licence box confirming the copyright status at upload. The point is that the original photographer might change the tag later, so we need to know the status when it was added. i don't know how to do it either, but it's not a problem at present, I'll see if I can find someone to fix it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a problem as it was uploaded to Commons by the Flickr user anyway, but I've added the template myself. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • It's not good practice to put retrieval dates on the on-line copies of real books or magazines, just web-only data needs the dates
I have removed accessdates for all sources accessible by hard-copy only DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • journals, eg Saudi Med J, Anat Anz, should be spelt out in full
all journal titles are now spelled in full, no abbreviations used DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are listing major sources as General References, what's the point of repeating the full cite in references. eg, ref 65 could be "in Doherty (2010) 157–172"
Barash, Benumof, Doherty, Levitan and Miller (General References): citations have been abbreviated when repeated in Specific References section DiverDave (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGraw-Hill Medical — needs location
McGraw Hill Medical: location=New York DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wayne, PA — please spell out states in full, we are not all American
I have disambiguated all cities, full spelling of Pennsylvania, etc. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 5, 18, 19 pp for one page ref
all single-page cites are now p. (not pp.) DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 33 needs page numbers
I have added page numbers (pp. 99-132) and a url to reference #33 DiverDave (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*ref 100 and other link to Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia etc. — dois do not lead to an abstract, just a sign-in page. If this is subscription only, should be stated. Similarly any other non-accessible abstracts.
added (subscription required) for sources where this is the case: completed task for all references DiverDave (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 172 I would add "self-published"
added (self-published) to Hawking and Martins sources DiverDave (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've despammed EL
Thanks. I had included the spam at the suggestion of another reviewer. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will attend to all remaining items in red font ASAP. Have to get some sleep now.... DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • more sources stuff I've started going through the links; I'm concerned how many apparent url links go at best to an abstract (which can be linked from the doi/pmid anyway) and at worse just to commercial pages offering to sell the publication without even an extract. I would only link to full text sources. This may take some time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1,4; neither the doi or url links go to an abstract, even if signed in. This is just a site trying to sell the publications, so I'd kill the links
these links open into "The Journal of Laryngology & Otology" site. If you then click on the PDF icon, a PDF file of the entire article will open. DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not strike queries yourself. It's for the reviewer to decide It makes it difficult for me to keep track of what I am happy with, and what has been struck by you. I can't find the pdf link for these refs. Why not put the link to the pdf directly? If it is free, that should be possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. This is my first time undergoing an FA review and was not aware I was violating a convention. I was just trying to find a way to keep track of what issues I have addressed (to my satisfaction), and which ones remain. This will not happen again. DiverDave (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 3, 20; no text or abstract linked from url, kill the link
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 8 links only go to spam pages, please kill
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 9 correct link is this
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*ref 27; link only goes to non-preview Google book page
link goes to fully searchable/readable Google book page DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 62; non-text link
removed link DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 112; shouldn't Eschmann be capped?
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 121; Why is Sheridan fully capped? Incidentally, couldn't get this to open
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 130 link goes to sign in page only
  • Oppose. Thanks for working on this important topic. It is clearly written by someone who knows their stuff. I haven't studied the references but superficially things look promising (though see below). However, I don't think this is FA yet, sorry. Here are some of my concerns.
  • Lead doesn't summarise the article. We have two lead paragraphs on history but some other sections don't appear at all. For example, the complications and likelihood of complications aren't covered by the lead. A lay reader will wonder what all the fuss is about and why anyone would have considered cutting a hole in one's throat to be a better technique than sticking a tube down one of nature's two already-made air passageways. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the lead section. It now summarizes the article in 4 paragraphs:
  1. What is tracheal intubation, on whom is it performed, and why? What routes are available?
  2. What is the sequence of steps in tracheal intubation, and why? What equipment is used to perform it?
  3. History (tracheotomy used to be the only way to intubate, until nonsurgical methods were developed in the 19th century)
  4. Complications (it can be difficult, and it can result in serious complications if it is not performed correctly) DiverDave (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is much improved in this regard. Colin°Talk 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many citations. Some appear to be present for the purpose of supplying the seminal or historical work that introduced some discovery. This is not what Wikipedia references are for, though that practice is common in academic papers. If you feel that listing the historical works (particularly in the history section) is of encyclopaedic value, put it them in a Notes section (see ketogenic diet for an example). References are for sources that you consulted and which establish both the factual accuracy of the statement and also the weight given to the body text they support. Other times, there are multiple citations, in one string of numbers, for apparently single facts. Please find which of these is the best (preferably secondary source such as a review) and eliminate the others. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 52 of the original 190 sources, including nearly all of the primary sources (although I did actually consult most of these). I have removed most cases where multiple citations support a particular statement, retaining only those cases where it is useful to do so. DiverDave (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement here. Just slightly concerned there may remain some primary sources in the history section that don't fully support (or best support) the text. For example, is the Galen statement citing commentary in the book or citing Galen's own words (which are in themselves unable to prove he "clarified the anatomy of the trachea and was the first to ...". Jackson's tracheotomy paper is unable to prove it "is used to this day". (also, wrt "to this day", see WP:DATED). The sentence beginning "Despite the many recorded instances of its use since antiquity" is probably unsourced as the next citation probably doesn't cover it. Can you find a review/history that makes this assertion? I'm unable to check them all but make sure that when we say "was the first" that that claim really is supported by the primary source. Using secondary sources often let us say more than just "X published a book describing Y". However, I should say that the History section has plenty examples here where secondary sources are used well for this purpose. Colin°Talk 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a lot of facts that only an anaesthetist would love. I don't think the list of makes of laryngoscopes is of interest to many of Wikipedia's readers. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can reword this section a bit. This is not merely a list of laryngoscope models. Rather, each of these devices represents a different approach to solving a fundamental problem of laryngoscopy—the need to see around the acute angle between the oropharynx and the glottis. DiverDave (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section begins abruptly with Tracheotomy. This procedure isn't defined in the lead so the reader will wonder why we spend three long paragraphs on this topic. More is needed up front on why modern tracheal intubation methods weren't used historically. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this important observation, which has led me to make extensive changes to the lead section. Tracheotomy is now mentioned, and linked, in the first paragraph of the lead section. The third paragraph of the lead now contains the following text:
For centuries, tracheotomy was considered the only reliable method for intubation of the trachea. However, because only a minority of patients survived the operation, physicians undertook tracheotomy only as a last resort, on moribund patients. It was not until the late 19th century however that advances in anatomy and physiology, as well an appreciation of the germ theory of disease, had improved the outcome of this operation to the point that it could be considered an acceptable treatment option. Also at that time, advances in endoscopic instrumentation had improved to such a degree that direct laryngoscopy had become a viable means to secure the airway by the non-surgical orotracheal route.
It should now be apparent to the reader that modern tracheal intubation methods weren't used historically because the instruments and devices necessary to accomplish it were not developed until the late 19th century, as now discussed in the third paragraph. DiverDave (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't particularly engaging I'm afraid. Even the history section, which is often the most accessible and interesting to a lay reader, is mostly just a collection of facts in chronological order. What is the story you are trying to tell? Tell the story and eliminate the facts that aren't necessary to that story. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text appears to be written for a medically trained reader. Gratuitous jargon includes mentum, epistaxis and adipose tissue to list just three. Another example: the distal and proximal terms used in the lead could easily be avoided. Other jargon will require more work to eliminate but blue links are not a solution. They supply a link for the reader wanting to learn more, not for the reader trying to understand the sentence. Every time a medical term is used, consider whether the lay reader really needs to know that term in order to understand the article topic. Can a lay description/word be used, with the medical one in parenthesis? The reader is not learning to become a physician. They just clicked on the main page article on Wikipedia, which is for the "general reader". Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Achieving a balance between using precise terms (medical jargon) and imprecise ones (colloquial words) can of course be tricky. We certainly want the information to be accessible and understandable to the general reader (isn't that the whole point?), but we must not sacrifice accuracy or introduce any misleading information in trying to achieve this. I could really benefit from some assistance here, as I am admittedly a little blind to some of this. Anyway, I have made quite a few changes, including but not limited to:
  • There's some overlinking (e.g. disaster, wire, child, adult, human body). There are many links to articles on basic human anatomy a 3-year-old knows (head, teeth, etc). Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have delinked: adults, anesthesia, children, critically, disasters, Egyptian, gases, human body, incisors, infant, malleable, mouth, nose, tablets, teeth, tongue, wire. DiverDave (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would really benefit from more diagrams. There is only one, and it is quite far down the article. It would help the lay reader to see the tubes to the lungs and stomach and how insertion of a catheter might go down the wrong way. A diagram of the surgical methods would be good too. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two more diagrams. DiverDave (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the one diagram I have included: I have just improved the caption, enlarged the image, and moved it so that it appears immediately after the lead image in the article. DiverDave (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the picture of the child with a massive ameloblastoma is necessary for this article. I'm sure this is a rare cause of difficulty; therefore the weight given to that cause doesn't justify the use of a shocking image. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not intended to shock. While an ameloblastoma of this size is not a common cause of difficult airway management, many situations arise that present equal or greater degree of difficulty. I could easily substitute a less (or more) shocking image, but I felt that this image would convey the idea best. DiverDave (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the earlier comment about "reliable (and most risky)" being confusing. It might have been a reliable means of obtaining an airway, but not a reliable means of keeping someone alive and well. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, WP:MEDMOS does not require journal names to be spelled out in full. This is an editor preference and it is only important that the article is consistent in this regard, and use standard abbreviations if abbreviations are used. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it has that benefit and find the abbreviated form is often impenetrable, though I'm seldom that interested in the name of the journal anyway. But we can't mandate editors follow one citation style or another, as there is no consensus on WP for any citation style. BTW: I assume your comment on MEDMOS meant to say "free full text". Strictly-speaking, MEDMOS requests urls for free full text, but doesn't actually forbid urls for subscription-only text. Perhaps it should. We could suggest that over on that guideline? Colin°Talk 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer that non-free journal articles were not linked at all, which is a widespread convention. The editor with a subscription can get to them via the DOI or the PMID so adding a third link isn't needed. It is very helpful to readers without journal access to be able to see, at a glance, that they won't be able to read the paper. The PMID link will give them access to the abstract.
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article title "Tracheal intubation" is a procedure, not the equipment used for the procedure or the special situations or complications. Shouldn't we have a section that describes the procedure in normal or common situations, in its various forms? Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The normal or common situations in which intubation is performed are described in the Indications section, which I have just now completely rewritten. The Special situations section describes other circumstances under which intubation is performed. I do not see how we can describe a procedure without describing the equipment necessary to accomplish the procedure. DiverDave (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you make it clear why sticking the catheter down the wrong tube is fatal. What happens? Is it just that the airway is blocked, or does inflating the stomach do bad things? Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the following text to the Complications section:
...unrecognized intubation of the esophagus, is...likely to result in a deleterious or even fatal outcome. In such cases, oxygen is inadvertently administered to the stomach, from where it cannot be taken up by the circulatory system, instead of the lungs. If this situation is not immediately identified and corrected, death will ensue from cerebral and cardiac anoxia.
DiverDave (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I would direct you to the article Miniopterus griveaudi, which isbased almost entirely on non-free content. The article made FA last week. The reason the cites were allowed was the lack of comparable free sources. Similar situations often occur in medical articles, so please consider this before citing that particular issue. Ronk01 talk 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I didn't say not to use non-free journal articles. Just to not link their URL via the article title. This is a very common convention, mentioned in MEDMOS. People use non-free sources all the time: books. Colin°Talk 05:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Source link for lead image is dead; pre-modern tracheotomy image is lacking source information and date; need author death date for Bouchut image to confirm PD-old; patent used as source for diagram should be checked for copyright notice (I can't seem to access it).
I have replaced the lead image, alt text and caption DiverDave (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the Bouchut image: the authors of the book were Angelo Mariani (1838-1914) and Joseph Uzanne (unknown dates). The actual engraving was made by Henri Brauer (unknown dates). I can replace the image if necessary. DiverDave (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the Bouchut image and the pre-modern tracheotomy image. DiverDave (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is tube removal properly referred to as "tracheal extubation" or "extubation of the trachea"?
Either term is acceptable. DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most risky" -> "riskiest" (and I agree with the comments above about the seeming contradiction here)
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the late 19th century, advances in the sciences of anatomy and physiology... Also in the late 19th century, advances in..." - repetitive phrasing, and remove "the sciences of"
Fixed ("By the late 19th century, advances in anatomy and physiology.... Also at that time, advances in endoscopic instrumentation....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visualizing" has a different meaning to the non-specialist reader - suggest rewording or explaining
Fixed ("...facilitated by using a conventional laryngoscope, flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope or video laryngoscope to identify the glottis, though other devices....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described the use of tracheal intubation in The Canon of Medicine to facilitate breathing" - change sentence order for clarity
Fixed ("Ibn Sīnā (980–1037) described the use of tracheal intubation to facilitate breathing in 1025 in his 14-volume medical encyclopedia, The Canon of Medicine....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "descriptions of", not "descriptions on"
fixed typo DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances of repetitive phrasing and of overly wordy sentences
I do not doubt you, but can you give some examples? I am having difficulty finding and correcting these. DiverDave (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the tracheostomy and tracheotomy the same thing? This should be made clear, or you should use only one term
Both terms are commonly used and should be used in this article. An -otomy refers to the making of an incision in an anatomical structure, while an -ostomy is the surgical creation of a "stoma", an opening which connects a body cavity with the external environment. The term -otomy typically implies an incision which is intended to be closed or repaired within a short time frame (minutes to weeks), while -ostomy implies the creation of a longer term or even permanent stoma. To my knowledge, there is no clear consensus on the precise distinction between the two terms, which are often used interchangeably in the literature. In the context of airway management in the acute setting, the operation is properly called a "tracheotomy", while the term "tracheostomy" refers to the stoma created by the operation. The tube that goes into the stoma is usually referred to as a "tracheostomy tube", but "tracheotomy tube" is also acceptable. DiverDave (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does one perform tracheotomy or perform a tracheotomy? Be consistent
fixed DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did Trousseau present his series? To what audience?
Armand Trousseau (1801–1867) presented a series of 169 tracheotomies to the Académie Impériale de Médecine. DiverDave (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make your text reasonably accessible to a non-specialist reader; where this is not possible, provide wikilinks (what on earth is "esophagogastroduodenoscopy"?)
I have piped the link for esophagogastroduodenoscopy --> upper GI endoscopy. DiverDave (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "austere conditions" - wording
reworded sentence: "...useful in certain emergency situations, such as natural or man-made disasters." DiverDave (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but yet difficult" - redundant wording
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5: why is some information repeated?
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't
OK, I believe it is finally fixed :) DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to include a retrieval date for some web versions of print-based sources, you must include it for all of them
As far as I can tell, I have included retrieval dates for all web-based sources DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed some - for example, refs 24 and 32
I think these are all fixed now. DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say "subscription required" for some refs but not others? For example, ref 44 vs ref 50
"subscription required" tag has been added to all sources where subscription is required for viewing the article, and only those sources. DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. For example, ref 44 requires a subscription to view, yet it is not so marked. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all "subscription required" tags. DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent of how the author/editor of the "main work" is listed (for example, "In Gerard M. Doherty" vs "In Miller, RD")
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not fixed - the formatting is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific; I am happy to fix but I cannot discern what you are looking for DiverDave (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate: "In Laurie J. Fundukian", "in Benumof", "in Doherty GM", "in Miller, RD". Each of these is formatted slightly differently, but should be formatted consistently (including punctuation). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 64: publisher location?
location = New York: McGraw-Hill Medical (see General References) DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include both categories and their subcategories
I thought I fixed this when I removed the category "Emergency medicine". What else should I remove? DiverDave (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anesthesia is a subcat of Surgery, Oral and maxillofacial surgery is a subcat of Surgery, Otolaryngoly is a subcat of Surgery...basically just remove Category:Surgery. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have finally achieved consistency in formatting of the references. This was much harder than I thought it would be.... DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you leave the striking to me - several of the strikes you performed were premature, as the issues had not yet been addressed. I've undone those. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. This is my first time undergoing an FA review and was not aware I was violating a convention. I was just trying to find a way to keep track of what issues I have addressed (to my satisfaction), and which ones remain. This will not happen again. DiverDave (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no foul. Just as a general point, don't modify comments on project or talk pages. At FAC, the general convention is to wait for or ping reviewers to revisit, but it's perfectly understandable that you didn't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At two weeks, this FAC is awfully long, no Supports, one Oppose, no feedback for nine days. I'm going to archive it, as a fresh start in a few weeks may give it a better shot at more review once Colin is satisfied. 21:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:31, 23 October 2010 [6].

Goodies (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Candyo32 08:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after transforming it from to [this to this, I believe it now satisfies FA criteria. Candyo32 08:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)|content=*Comment 1 dab link, no dead external links. Both Allmusic links redirect to [7]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead: "With Goodies, Ciara was hailed as the "Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B"." This seems quite important, but is not mentioned in the body of the article (and is also unreferenced).
Done.
  • Could you also mention the release details in the body? This would remove the need for the ref in the lead.
Done.
  • In the 'Background and production' section there are a few people mentioned (ie Garrett, Lil Jon, T.I. etc.). Maybe an image of one of them could be included?
Image of T.I. added
  • Some of the references' publishers are unnecessarily italicised (eg Amazon.com).
Done. Candyo32 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article you write certifications with capital letters, except in the lead "It was later certified triple platinum by the RIAA" and further on "...on the Billboard 200, and certified three times-platinum by..."
  • Succession boxes: title is 'US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums Chart'. Maybe add 'number-one album' to the end?
  • I disambiguated Sho'nuff → Sho'nuff Records, please check this is right
  • Ref 25 redirects to [8], which does not list credits. Is [9] what you are looking for?
  • I am not sure if allmusic have changed their site's style recently, but your styling of titles is not what is listed there.
Otherwise, looks pretty good! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It's seen to been fine in other FA/GA articles, published by The New York Times Company and work by notable critic, Bill Lamb.
I have no evidence, but it looks pretty reliable and the publisher seems reliable.
Please refer to WP:V and explain why it is reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
View the musicOMH article, where it noted Metacritic uses it and AOL and Yahoo! Music have used their reviews. Candyo32 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and explain why the source is reliable per WP:V, and high quality per WP:WIAFA, 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neither of the sound files have rationales for this use. This would, in its current state, quick-fail at GAC. Please add a detailed, specific rationale to each file (cleaning up the image pages while you're at it wouldn't hurt) and ask yourself seriously whether both are needed (not saying they aren't, just asking you to consider it). J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added detailed rationals to the sound files. I believe the "Goodies" sample definitely needs inclusion, but if needed "Oh" would be removed, but I have added rationale for it.Candyo32 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1b and 1c. It looks like you have a good start here, but I think more research is needed to be comprehensive. I did a cursory library search and found many good sources that haven't been used, and a lot of information missing from the article. For example:
    • You have very little about the release and promotion of the album—supporting tours, etc. I found several sources about shows she did in support of the album.
Could you share this release and promotion information? I know she performed the two lead singles a few times, but it is very hard to find reliable sources for this. Candyo32 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Critical Reception section is light, and your strategy for which reviews to include is unclear. Did you choose reviews that were available simply by internet searches? There are several important reviews that you have neglected, such as those from Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, and so on.
I only included these because these are the only ones that I could find after an extensive research. For the ones you named, I did a search at The Village Voice and could not find anything, and RS does no longer archive their past reviews. Candyo32 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of jrank.org looks unacceptable—if you navigate up to the top level entry page, they say they are a "site search engine" which means the content has been pulled from other unknown sources.
At the bottom of the Ciara discography page it indicates reliable used sources for the development of the article I suppose.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be able to do the research for this. I recommend you withdraw the nomination and access a library to find more sources and get the article to a comprehensive state. While I understand you believe you have done extensive research, I found much more information in just a brief search of library databases such as LexisNexis and ProQuest. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches for some good pointers—if you can't access a library, check with someone at the relevant WikiProjects and you may find a research collaborator. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:58, 23 October 2010 [10].

2012 phenomenon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Serendipodous 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC), User:Cosmic Latte, User:PL, User:Shii, User:HRIN[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone substantial expansion since becoming a good article and I believe it now meets the criteria Serendipodous 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Serendipodous 19:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • shouldn't there be a small section on popular culture (i.e. Hollywood making tons of money with the movie)?
  • while appropriate, the use of the term "eschatological" in the first sentence of the article should be accompanied by a short explanatory note (I would prefer in parenthesis)
  • None of the proposed alignments or formulae has been accepted by mainstream scholarship. seems to be aimed mostly at NASA's opinion and I think that is really not the case. Try to clarify "the proposed alignments" a bit
  • I would add a quick explanatory note for " b'ak'tun " at its first use
  • The writing system of the classic Maya has been substantially deciphered, needs a citation
  • Unlike the 52-year Calendar Round still used among the Maya, misses a "today" at the end
  • Many Mayan inscriptions have the count shifting to a higher order after 13 b'ak'tuns, or roughly 5,125 years. so there is another unit above baktuns? or you meant to say at the end of the 13th baktun? (or 12th?)
  • do baktuns start at 0 or at 1? (i.e. Gregorian calendar started at 1/1/1). If you say after 13th baktun, and then say that in 2012 is 13.0.0.0.0 is implied that the "first day" was 0.0.0.0.1 (and not 1.1.1.1.1)
  • it is not clear at all why would the 4th world end on 13.0.0.0.0. After reading the text, it would appear more likely to me to have 20.0.0.0.0 as the end of the 4th world. Try to clarify why is 13th important (is this a mixing of the American mythology with regards to the number 13?). I guess try to state clearly that in Mayan culture there is nothing special about 13 earlier in the article.
  • "Maya references to B'ak'tun 13" should probably be MayaN

Will add more later. Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 2c 2c is generally lovely in the References, it is inconsistent in the citations, these are extensive fixits. Someone really needs to do a 1c checking that unreliable sources are being used correctly to establish or illustrate opinions, and to delve into whether unbook published conference papers like David Webster (September 25, 2007). were peer reviewed. Someone needs to do a detailed check for SELF and FRINGE being used to support facts instead of attributed opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further reading: needs states for US locations for all locations (San Francisco may be notable... but so is New York)
    • Further reading: Jenkins Pyramid of Fire (2004), Galactic Alignment (2002), Tzolkin (1994) need to be cited correctly
    • References: throughout: publisher locations & States, ie: Argüelles, José (1975). Transformative Vision (1st ed.). Shambhala.
    • References: Extraneous period: Inner Traditions/Bear and Company..  ; Berkeley.: University of California Press.
    • References: McKenna, Terence and Dennis (1975). and McKenna, Terence and Dennis (1993). differ on the presentation of a title within a title, I Ching versus I Ching
    • References: Is Morsels a series? Probably needs [Series] behind it. Meeus, Jean (1997). Ecliptic and galactic equator. Mathematical Astronomy Morsels.
    • References: Citation incomplete: Van Stone, Mark (2008). "It's Not the End of the World: What the Ancient Maya Tell Us About 2012". FAMSI.
    • Citations: Vincent H. Malmström (March 19, 2003). is a SELF; why is it reliable.
    • Citations: Retrieval dates out of style: Retrieved 2009-11-03.
    • Citations, references: mix of pp.### ; pp. ### ; ###. Pick one, stick to it.
    • Citations: Citations like this "Schele (1992, pp.93–95)" are out of your style of "Coe 1966, p. 149"
    • Citations: Citations not being full citations of newly introduced works vary between terminal full stops and an absence of terminal full stops. Pick one.
    • Citations: Way out of style: The end of time: Maya calendar runs out soon, but don't panic, Rory Carroll, The Guardian, 13 October 2009, retrieved 22 October 2009. The Guardian takes italics. Rory Carroll appears to be an author. "The end of time:…" appears to be a title. (13 October 2009) appears to be a publication date.
    • Citations: ""The Great Cycle – Its Projected Beginning"" "Its Projected Beginning" appears to be a subtitle; use colon?
    • Citations: I am having great difficulty understanding how "[A man… tying a] date to astrology and the prophecies of the Hopi" can be explained by a citation to a work "et. seq."; there is no apparently sequence in "and the Appendix, in Waters 1975, pp. 256–264, 265–271, 285 et seq." Perhaps you mean 285ff. or 285—ff. depending on how you feel you ought to present it?
    • Citations: Spacing: McKenna&McKenna 1975
    • Citations: Multi Author Style: Foo and Bar versus Foo & Bar versus Leonhardt R, Fabian K, Winklhofer M, Ferk A, Laj C, Kissel C
    • Citations: Spacing: (the more specific date of December 21 appeared in the 1993 revision of The Invisible LandscapeMcKenna&McKenna 1993)
    • Citations: Multi Author Style for Initial Citation, compare to references style; New York Post surely is a print work? Philip J. Hilts, Mary Battiata (1987-08-16). "Planets Won't Attend Astronomical Celebration". New York Post. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
    • Citations: The work ""Teapot of Sagittarius points to galactic center". EarthSky. Retrieved 2009-11-03." is authored by Bruce McClure who would appreciate being acknowledged for his efforts.
    • Citations: SELF, CAPS, "Stross, Brian. "XIBALBA OR XIBALBE""
    • Citations: John Major Jenkins (2005). &tc published at alignement2012.com. Standardise your referencing of the containing site. Some don't have it, some do.
    • Citations: Name Order Consistency of newly introduced citations: Aimers, J. J., and Rice, P. M. (2006). compared to John Major Jenkins (2005)
    • Citations: What work is this work contained in? Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna (June 1983). "Dynamics of Hyperspace". Santa Cruz, California: Ralph Abraham. Retrieved 2009-10-14.
    • Citations: Hancock 1995, p. 499, ff. 27. do you mean Hancock 1995, p. 499 and 27 following folios? do you mean Hancock 1995, p. 499, p. 27ff.? Do you mean Hancock 1995, pp. 499–526?
    • Citations: Possible online magazines, if so, Italics for their publication title?: Sky and Telescope. Starry Night Times.
    • Citations: Italics please: San Diego Union Tribune. Month Day if possible.
    • Citations: How is "Universe Today" the publisher of this citation: "Questions Show: Alignment with the Galactic Plane, Destruction from Venus, and the Death of the Solar System". Astronomy Cast. Universe Today. October 10, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-14. ?
    • Citations: Michael Szpir. [undated] was actually published on a date, in a particular volume and issue. Find out.
    • Citations: David Morrison (2010). lacks a publisher when there's a publisher indicated (astrobiology.NASA judging from the hosting domain, check the publication and its context)
    • Citations: Does Universe Today and Universe Today deserve italics or not? Ian O'Neill (June 21, 2008).
    • Citations: SELF being used to support fact: Mike Brown (February 2, 2008).

Further comments, leaning oppose

  • Check formatting per MoS (dates) - dates like "the 21st of October" should be expressed like "21 October". Also, date formatting should be consistently either "day month year" or "month day, year"
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • Don't duplicate main-article links in article text
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, simple concepts like Earth should not be wikilinked, and all terms should not be wikilinked more than once or twice (particularly not in close proximity)
  • "In 1987, the year in which he held the Harmonic Convergence event, Arguelles settled on the date of December 21 in his book The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology,[46][47] in which he claimed on that date the Earth would pass through a great "beam" from the centre of the Galaxy, and that the Maya aligned their calendar in anticipation of that event" - split into 2-3 sentences for ease of reading
  • "suspicion towards mainstream Western culture" - source for this quote?
  • Why are some shortened citations linked to their corresponding references and others not?
  • Missing citation details for Schele 1992
  • Need to maintain a consistent reference format
  • Several sources in References do not appear in Citations
  • Image check: Is the Timewave Zero software copyrighted? If so, that screenshot cannot be PD. Please verify licensing. Other images appear unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: No input for nine days, extensive cleanup needed (we've been over the issues before with formatting of citation-- pls bring back when these issues are corrected, in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:58, 23 October 2010 [11].

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fits all FAC criteria. I recently re-constructed the entire article, this being my 5th album page to do so, so I feel pretty confident its of good quality. Thanks to everyone who leaves comments, and yes, even you negative bimbos :p CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Mainly nitpicks

  • Ref 4: Vibe should be italicised (print source)
  • Ref 22: Likewise, Entertainment Weekly should be italicised. If the review doesn't come from the print journal, then show work as EW.com
  • Ref 23: New Musical Express - italicise
  • Ref 25: If "Slant" is purely an online mag, with no print version, the name should not be italicised
  • Ref 32: Indicate that the site language is French
  • Ref 49: Indicate that the site language is Italian
  • Ref 53 is not formatted correctly
  • Ref 56: Language (Portuguese?)
  • Refs 57, 59, 61 and perhaps others: Languages?

Otherwise, sources/citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Its all fixed! =)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 01:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Reviewing... TbhotchTalk C. 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
WP:ALT text would be added.
The only image I have has that already
  • Background and album title
Butterfly -> maybe Butterfly (1997)
While not having time to record an entire studio album from scratch, Carey -> already mentioned
songs that weren't released -> not "in quotes" so...
I don't understand
Is the word "weren't" encyclopedic? TbhotchTalk C. 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carey, on her disappointment in the singles chosen, during an interview with Vibe. -> Vibe.
It is that way already
I started my review days ago TbhotchTalk C. 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing and composition
All samples lack of fair use rationale. As copyrighted works you are not able to put it anywhere you like on Wikipedia without a proper rationale.
Comment to talk page
One of Carey's most inspirational ballads -> [by whom?]
Ones was a collection of Carey's US number one hits, as well as four new songs. -> Already mentioned
Consistency needed ( "All I Want for Christmas Is You,")
it was the album's official remix, -> is not the song remix?
and holds the the -> typo
therefore earning a place on the album as well. -> POV?
as an R&B artist -> didn't mean as an R&B artist?
street Hip-Hop music -> Hip Hop music has not been mentioned, a link would be added
These thirteen number one songs comprised most of the album, and were what gave the album's title, Ones, meaning. -> WP:OR?
Nope, I wrote that myself :)
So you must read WP:OR. If you wrote it, those are your thoughts, not other though. TbhotchTalk C. 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
her 1995 album Daydream -> I'm confused, first, overlinked, second already mentioned, and third "her 1995", in the section above it says "Carey's 1996 release"
Moses -> who?
Music Box -> overlinked
Vibe -> Vibe
We have a problem here, unlike the section above where you made a good work giving short description of the songs, you are giving two complete paragraphs of information that go onto When You Believe:We have a problem here, unlike the section above where you made a good work giving short description of the songs, you are giving two complete paragraphs of information that go onto When You Believe
Well her old work isn't the most important here. Its the new work she featured on the album
So why the other three songs are not balanced equal? TbhotchTalk C. 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
Since TopTenReviews is a collector it should be removed from the template
  • Chart performance
Ones was released in the same week as several other albums by high-profile musicians such as Garth Brooks, Jewel, and Method Man, as well as Whitney Houston's My Love Is Your Love. -> and Ice Cube? and why Houston's album is the only mentioned? Just because her name was written before?
Million award.[35][34] -> Million award.[34][35]
The album was certified five ... million copies worldwide. -> do you believe that is enough for a paragraph?
in the US[37] To date -> typo
only reached number twenty five on Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. -> [citation needed]
All fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well her old wrk can be read in full in her older articles. If I write only basic summaries for her new as well, there isn't going to be a place on Wikipedia were a reader can fully read up on the new stuff. The article is mainly talking about the album, and of course the old work as well, but its important to put more emphasis on the new work, as it is the first place in Wiki they are being mentioned.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singles
due to the song's cancelled commercial release -> comma the song's cancelled, commercial release
due to the song's cancelled -> [citation needed]
Done :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite reaching solid ... where the song reached the top-ten. -> citations needed Additional citations added
Heartbreaker and Rainbow -> overlinked They are only mentioned once
That's the idea, no need to link them everywhere. TbhotchTalk C. 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your understanding. Overlink is when you list the same article various times and link them. It is only necessary to link them once. The same applies to a term that in mentioned only once, it must be linked as well. Not linking it will result in Underlinking.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards and accolades
Billboard -> Billboard - They are that way already
When You Believe" was nominated for the Grammy..., and the Academy Award? Already mentioned in the lead
Per lead it shoud summarize the article, the Oscar should be mentioned again.
Added
  • Album credits
Unsourced (obviously are the liner notes, but this is for the reader). How would I source this? I have the liner notes in front of me, I could source them from different pages in books if you'd like
E.G. (no need to be small) TbhotchTalk C. 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • See also
List of best-selling albums worldwide -> This is not listed on them, let's wait 3 million copies for add it. Removed
List of best-selling albums in Japan -> Was mentioned before Removed
  • Notes
In ref 1, 4, 6, 15, 17, 20, 27, 28, 38, 54, 63, 64, 66 -> who are the publishers? Added
In ref 10, 12, 36, 45, -> Billboard Fixed'
Ref 21 someting better than RobertChristgau.com Done
Ref 22, as above Done
Ref 39, as above Done
Ref 43 -> As an online source, where is it? Also access date needed Done. Had accessdate already
Ref 46 -> leslharts -> typo Fixed
Ref 48 -> consistency needed with the Hung Medien Done
  • Categories
Albums released in Super Audio -> Nowhere discussed Done TbhotchTalk C. 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed everything mentioned :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Tbhotch! And thanks for the help/advice =)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. TbhotchTalk C. 04:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost at three-week mark, no consensus to promote; please try again in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [12].

Old St Paul's Cathedral

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bob talk 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I started in 2007 about the lost medieval cathedral of the City of London. It was listed as a Good Article in 2007, and expanded again in 2009 for a GA reassessment. I have recently been working on trying to get it up to the FA standard, with regards to referencing and so forth. It was recently given a peer review, where it was also looked over by Wikiproject:Architecture, and has been given a copyedit by the league of copyeditors. Bob talk 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm going to have to withdraw this candidacy. After pretty much being accused of plagiarism, inaccuracy and inconsistency, I've lost interest in even attempting to sort it out. Oh well, thanks to those editors who were complementary of my efforts. If anyone has the £74 book about the cathedral from 2004 in their possession, please feel free to make it into a much better article. Bob talk 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I couldn't find an archive of this page or a new equivalent, so have changed the reference to a book cite. Bob talk 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment. I'll add notes here as I go through the article; I don't think I'll have time to finish tonight.
    • A couple of infelicities in the lead: "work was delayed in another fire" -- surely you mean "by another fire"? And I think "At its peak" is an odd phrase to use in the context in which you have it; shouldn't this be something like "when completed"? "In addition to its purpose as the mother church": could this be shortened to "In addition to serving as"? And is "mother church" a standard way of referring to the cathedral church of a diocese? If so, it's fine, but I haven't seen the usage before and it sounds a little informal.
      • I've changed a few of these. I've kept "at its peak", because it refers to the period at about 1400 when it had a huge spire and before many of the interior furnishings were destroyed at the Reformation. I think the term "completion" may be a little ambiguous, due to later additions like Inigo Jones's weird classical porch. Would "seat" be better than "mother church"? I was avoiding "Diocesean" as it would repeat the reference to the "Diocese of London"
        I think "at its peak" is just confusing; I see what you mean but it implies a trajectory of growth and diminishment which I don't think the reader grasps at this early point in the article. Could we just take what you said and give it literally: "Between 1400 and the Reformation"? Or whatever precision in dates is warranted by the sources? Re "mother church", yes, I think "seat" is better. I don't particularly like "purpose", which is why I suggested "serving as", but if you don't like it I won't argue. Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The composite picture is a beautiful piece of work, but I wonder about the encyclopedic value. I think it might help the reader if you were to clarify that this is not intended to demonstrate how the cathedral would look (or would have looked) in the London skyline. Perhaps change the caption to say "...composited with a modern city background", which makes it clearer that this is not a representation of London?
      • I have to agree it's perhaps a bit, um, original research, but I was just trying to make it seem a bit more "real" than the old black-and-white engravings. (I get a bit bored with everyone saying Wren's cathedral is so great- this gothic one was much better![citation needed])
        I think it's probably OK, though others may differ, but I would like to add that "modern city background" if you're OK with that. Mike Christie (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the infobox say "Londinium"? And does it need to repeat the word Diocese against the Diocese line? Could we just make that "Diocese: London", with "London" linking to "Diocese of London"?
      • Changed.
    • I think it would be good to have the date (1916) in the caption to the engraving that starts the first section; a reader will naturally wonder if the engraving is contemporary.
      • Changed.
    • I checked the first reference to Milman on Google Books, and the page number disagrees; I think it should be p. 23, not 21. It looks like the same edition. Can you check this? I also think "bequeathed" is the wrong word here; when Milman says it may have been the Conqueror's last act I don't think we can assume he means the stone was willed. If I don't misunderstand him, Milman is also saying it's not clear that it was William who gave the stone -- if that's right, the article should reflect that uncertainty. Although I just noticed that William isn't linked and you don't say which it is! So maybe you are hedging. Either way I think this should be clearer. P.S. I just noticed that Benham (p.3) is not ambiguous about this; it's not a bequest, and it is definitely William I.
    • I just checked the first Benham cite and the page number isn't quite right; you need pages 3 and 4, not just 4 -- page 3 is the one that mentions Maurice. Can you check the other cites and make sure they're accurate? It's a bit concerning to find the first two incorrect (though this one is admittedly only slightly wrong).
      • I think what's happened here is that I've been using the Gutenberg HTML version of Benham's text, which puts the page number in the middle of the paragraph, but looks like 4 instead of 3-4. Bob talk 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, that makes sense. I would suggest you change them to use the page numbers visible in Google Books, though; that's the actual page image and if Gutenberg doesn't match it I don't think those numbers are usable. Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at what you're sourcing from Benham p.4 and there is a mistake there: Henry didn't grant tithes of the fish; he granted all the fish and a tithe of the venison. Same paragraph, separate point: can you get rid of one of those "also"s?
      • I'm not sure this is really a mistake, as Henry didn't physically give him the fish, but the rights to them (i.e. anybody catching one would have to pay him), which is essentially the same as a tithe (presumably fish are slightly different to deer, in that they're not enclosed). I was also just trying to mention some of the ways Henry assisted, rather than a detailed breakdown of finances. Anyway, I've made this into one (rather long) sentence now, to remove the "also". Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that the cathedral is the fourth church on that site is cited to Milman, but I can't find it there; can you confirm?
--More as I have time. Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to Oppose above. I'm still only a couple of paragraphs into a detailed review, and I'm concerned that there are just too many places where the material drawn from the source has been inaccurately rephrased. (There's one case at least where it's barely rephrased at all, and I've asked a question about that at WT:FAC, but that's not the problem I'm talking about here.) For example, Benham says that Fulk Basset's appeal was because "the church had in time past been so shattered by tempests that the roof was dangerous"; the article says that the roof had been damaged by "a series of storms", which implies a recent connected series of storms leading to the appeal. I don't think we can say that. Again, Benham says that the builders, working on the partially completed cathedral after a delay of some time, would continue in whatever the current style of architecture was, removing some heavy Norman pillars and replacing them with Early English clustered pillars, though it appears that Norman pillars that were still firm were left untouched. In the article this has become "During this period, the style of the building transitioned from heavy Romanesque into Early English Gothic. Although the base Norman columns were left alone ..." I am not sure if Romanesque is a reasonable usage for Norman, as I know little about architecture, so I'll let that go, but I think Benham's sense has changed somewhat here -- not all Norman pillars were left alone: some were replaced and some were not. (Benham adds that in fact the clustered pillars encased the Norman ones rather than replaced them, and says that this was demonstrated by Christopher Wren, an interesting tidbit I'd suggest adding, by the way.) There was at least one more example that I pointed out above that has been corrected; and there's another above that I added a few minutes ago for which I can't find the information at all in the source. All of this was in the first three paragraphs of the first section. Plus, it appears that the page numbers are to the Gutenberg version rather than the book itself; that makes source checking harder for anyone using the book. Sorry to oppose, and I'll revisit if asked, but before I do please assure me that the sources really do support the text in the article with the page cited. It does like look a good (and entertaining) article, and I don't think these are fatal problems, but they need to be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Norman architecture; it is the traditional local name in England for Romanesque architecture, so that at least is not a worry. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bit miffed about this oppose - on one hand, you're implying that I've plagiarised a source, on the other hand you're saying it's not close enough to the source material and are complaining when I've completely rephrased it - you can't really have it both ways. I'm also not sure why you're opposing several sentences - for example, a tempest is a storm, this is just Benham's slightly flowery, high Victorian style. And as Johnbod's noted, "Romanesque" is the correct, recognised term for Norman architecture. If you look at the engraving of the nave, you can see the lancet arches over the rounded Norman columns. Bob talk 07:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not accusing you of plagiarism -- I don't like using that word for this situation because it implies an intent to deceive, which is clearly not the case here. I also take your point that it's annoying when I complain about a rephrase and then complain about a direct quote; but I think the answer is that you either need to rephrase in a way that doesn't change the meaning in any important way, or else use a direct quote if nothing else will do. (OK on "Romanesque"; I suspected that was just my ignorance.) Re tempest; I think Benham's admittedly flowery style just means that over the years, storms had damaged the roof. "A series of storms" is a change in meaning: small, but not there in the source. If that sentence were the only issue I would not be opposing; my concern is that I've found multiple small issues in a very short sequence in the article. Sorry if the oppose is annoying; I would like to support because I like the article and think the subject is well worth an FA, but I am a bit concerned by what I've seen so far. Mike Christie (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should also add that it's a really nice article and I'm enjoying reading it! I didn't mean to leave you only with a grumpy point about formatting. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One question - I originally wrote this as "St. Paul's", but it was changed when it was a DYK to "St Paul's". However, I notice the FA on St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery has the period. Looking at GA church articles, we even have St. Mary's Church, Chesham next to St Mary's Church, Nantwich. Is there a right or wrong way? I notice there's this, but it doesn't seem very conclusive. I'd rather check before going through changing it one way or the other. Bob talk 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are different rules depending on which standard you're following. There's some information at Abbreviation. Personally I avoid periods so at least that way I'm being consistent, and I notice the St Paul's website does the same. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says you can do it either way, though it does say that dropping periods is the more common BrEng style. Mike Christie (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for the dropped periods, except where the original work uses it. Also sorted the periods in the citations. Bob talk 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another niggle. With your shortened refs, sometimes you use period, sometimes comma. The usual thing is Smith, 2010, p. 1. Or Smith, p. 1. Or maybe Smith, 1 (though I'm not keen on that), or Smith: 1. But I have never seen Smith. 1. Perhaps you should check that that's a recognized style, but it needs to be consistent throughout, whichever you choose. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused what you meant, changed them back now. Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1c: SELF: Cummings, E. M. (1867). Please explain why we should accept a self-published work as a high quality reliable source? Comments 2c: "Hibbert,C; Weinreb,D; Keay,J,." "(rev 1993,2008)" spacing and punctuation issues throughout citations. Dugdale, William (1658): extraneous right parenthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Ostovich 2001 is miscited. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E.M. Cummings was the dean's verger, so he's a reliable source. [13] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose, accepting expertise argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dugdale sorted, the London Encyclopedia ref is replaced by Benham. I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the Ostovich citation. Would you be able to elaborate, or perhaps correct it, please? Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have "Ostovich, Helen (ed.) (2001). Every Man Out of His Humour by Ben Jonson. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719015588." However, Worldcat, and a cursory examination of the featured image at Worldcat indicate that it is: "Jonson, Ben (2001). Every Man Out of His Humour Helen Ostovich (ed.). The revels plays [series]. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719015588." May even have a series editor. Unless you're citing Ostovich's scholarly introduction, in which case you're citing "Ostovich, Helen (2001). "Introduction." In Every Man Out Of His Humour Ben Jonson (author); Helen Ostovich (editor)..." or " Ostovich, Helen (2001). Annotations to Every Man Out Of His Humour Ben Jonson (author); Helen Ostovich (editor)..." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this now. Bob talk 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Huelin) needs page numbers.
    • I never used Huelin's book as a reference, that was derived from the Paul's Walk article, and unfortunately no page number was given by the editor.
  • Consistency in the ref formatting - you mostly do books as "Author (year publication) Title Location:publisher" but some (including current ref 11) do "Author Title Location:publisher, year of pub". Please standardize.
  • Jones ref - the isbn as given doesn't work with World Cat, can we double check it please? It's a reprint of an 1880 work, what makes this a reliable source? It should also note the original publication date.

It works with Google: http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=9781103109425. I gather William Jones was a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, so would seem to be a reliable source. I think he's only quoting the earlier Dugdale book, anyway, which I haven't been able to find. I've linked to the Worldcat entry for the 1880 print after the ISBN.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Ealdgyth, unfortunately, I don't have access to the 2004 book through a library (I live sortof in the middle of nowhere), and no longer have access to a university Athens login either, so I haven't been able to consult journals and so forth either. Is there anything in those that I have missed or that is a massive ommission? (I know recent scholarship is preferable to older works, but it's all a matter of access/cost, etc). The two web citations aren't citing anything particularly controversial, really, merely saying that's where Donne's tomb can still be seen - I will replace it with [14] I think. The other website seems to be a reasonably reliable art website (?), as far as I can see. Bob talk 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bob, not every source listed as a short ref is listed again in citations. For example, these appear in footnotes but not in bibliography. Is that deliberate?
  • Huelin, G. Vanished Churches of the City of London. London: Guildhall Library Publishing, 1996. ISBN 0900422424
  • Reynolds, H. (1922). The Churches of the City of London. London: Bodley Head.
Also, you need to decide on a consistent way to write them. Year in brackets or at the end. Both are fine, but you can't mix and match. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a little bit busy elsewhere tonight, so I might not be able to correct all of the above points until tomorrow. To answer a few questions, what I think has happened with some references is that bits and pieces have been added with a different style either by different editors, or perhaps when references from related articles have been used (i.e the Paul's Walk article). I'll have another look into those later. Bob talk 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've hopefully managed to make these consistant now. I've had to lose a few, unfortunately, as I didn't have the page number. Bob talk 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice, readable article which I think covers the topic very well. Just a few comments.

  • "It was begun by the Normans following a devastating fire in 1087 which destroyed much of the city." Minor point, but this reads like the actual building was built by some people called Normans. How about "Work began during the Normal period, following a devastating..."
    • Changed to mention reign of William I.
  • Similarly, I doubt Bishop Maurice did the building work, so could "Bishop Maurice began the building" be rephrased?
    • Rephrased.
  • "Beaumis was assisted by King Henry I, who gave the bishop stone and commanded that all material brought up the River Fleet for the cathedral should be free from toll, as well as rights to fish caught within the cathedral neighbourhood and tithes on venison taken in the County of Essex to fund the cathedral." Slightly long sentence, which makes the end confusing. I assume the rights on fish and venison funded the cathedral? It is not clear if this is what was happening.
    • Clarified.
  • "During this period, the style of the building transitioned ..." Is transitioned a verb?
  • "The cathedral had one of Europe's tallest spires": Could it be compared to others? I.e. was it the tallest, 2nd tallest, etc. Or how does it compare to the tallest?
    • Mentioned Lincoln, which was taller until 1549. Interestingly, as Lincoln was only completed in 1319 and the spire at St Paul's lasted until 1561, so presumably for a few years, it was the tallest building in the world.
  • "The finished cathedral of the Middle Ages was renowned for its interior beauty." I think this needs more than a comment from 1902 to justify it. Are there any contemporary opinions?
    • The Chaucer and St Erkenwald hint at this. This line is more of an introduction to aspects of the interior - shrines, windows, etc.
      • Hmm. I'm not sure there is enough there to justify "renowned for its beauty". Renowned by who? Really, there should be more than hints, it should have a contemporary opinion saying how beautiful it was, or reporting how much everyone loved it. And if it is an introduction, what follows should have more opinions in it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nave's immense length was particularly notable..." To whom?
    • Longest in the world, called "Paul's Walk", a notable meeting place for London.
  • "The cathedral's stained glass was reputed to be the best in the country..." Again, who held the opinion? (Rose window covered by Chaucer, but not this part)
  • "nothing liker Babel": Forgive the silly question, but I assume this is how it is written in Microcosmographie? (Had to check!)
    • I wondered about this - this is accurate, but I have to admit, I don't know what he means. This is correct, although it makes a lot more sense in the full context, which I've added to the article, now. Thanks. It's quite an interesting little portrait. Bob talk 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the then bishop of London Edmund Grindal" Don't think "then" is necessary, as it can be assumed he was bishop at the time.

I will have another look later, but will be happy to support when these points are checked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the building gothic or Gothic?
  • "At its completion in middle of the 14th century" - grammar
  • Paul's walk or Walk?
  • Beamis or Beaumis?
  • "To fund the cathedral, Henry gave Beamis rights to all fish caught within the cathedral neighbourhood and tithes on venison taken in the County of Essex. Beaumis also gave a site for the original foundation of St Paul's School" - second sentence is awkwardly phrased, and was it Beaumis or Henry who gave the site?
  • St Faith or Faith's?
  • What is "the Jesus chapel"?
  • The "New Work" or "The New Work"?
  • "1916 engraving representing Old St Paul's" - not possible, as the source for this image was published in 1913 (according to image description page)
  • Paul's Cross or St. Paul's Cross?
  • Specify "Elizabeth I" (as you do for other monarchs)
  • Be more consistent in when you use cathedral vs Cathedral - seems a bit arbitrary at the moment
  • Why do you use both <blockquote> and {{quote}}? Also, don't use either for quotes of less than about 3-4 lines
  • "by demolishing a familiar landmark without being able to see..." - phrasing
  • "demolition of the remains of the old cathedral began in 1668. Demolition of the Old Cathedral" - repetitive and inconsistent in capitalization
  • "Wren initially used the then-new technique of using gunpowder" - repetitive
  • Second-last paragraph and last 2 images are tangential to this article and could be removed
  • van Eck is out of alphabetical order
  • Use ndashes for page ranges consistently
  • Check titles for refs 11 and 29
  • Ref 17: date?
  • Why is Jonson & Ostovich called Ostovich in footnotes?
  • Ref 50: page(s)?
  • Missing publication details for Downes
  • Oggins, Huelin, Harbens, Cook and Kerry are in Bibliography but not in footnotes - perhaps create a Further reading section? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [16].

Hurricane Celia (2010)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a continuing effort to keep the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes featured topic alive, I've quickly brought this year's addition to the group up to higher standards fast. As with Hurricane Rick (2009), there was a three month period given from the date the Tropical Cyclone Report was published for the article to be promoted to GA/FA and added into the topic to avoid the topic being delisted. As such, I now present Hurricane Celia, a very powerful, early-season hurricane in an unusually quiet season (for the Eastern Pacific). Since there was very little to add to the article outside of the Tropical Cyclone Report, there is no need for further research and thus I've nominated the article for Featured Status. I hope everyone enjoys reading this article and all thoughts and comments about it are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the dead link and fixed the dab. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I see that all but one of the English sources are cited to one or other pages of the National Hurricane Centre. Most hurricane articles I've looked at recently have used a range of sources, including newspaper accounts etc. Is there any reason in this case for not looking beyond the NHC? Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The storm stayed mostly away from land, so there was minimal media interest in the storm. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, subject to that being OK, sources look all right, no further queries. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at it currently stands. There is no need to have 1,000 words, or 14.7 kb, on the met. history. That seems too long (ie failing FA crit. 4), particularly for a storm that isn't very notable. Also, why the local time? Most tropical cyclone articles do not use local time, since it is unnecessary for meteorological phenomena. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from your opposition to the article's length, could you list any other concerns with the quality of the writing (if you have any)? I would greatly appreciate any help you could lend. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You use the word "Celia" six times in eight sentences in the first paragraph of the lede, and not "Hurricane Celia" but just "Celia". What, are you friends that you can refer to her only by her first name?
    • "Once this shear lightened the next day" - you really shouldn't use phrases like that when it has been more than one sentence away from the last date reference. You do this in the first paragraph of the MH (Operationally, the depression was not warned upon until early the next morning).
    • It'd be good to mention some locations in the first paragraph of the lede, such as where it formed and peaked.
    • I think in the lede you should mention that it's one of X Category 5 hurricanes in the basin, as well as first since Rick. That's an important fact that might draw in more readers, so they don't think it's some generic hurricane.
    • I'd like if there was more explanation on why things happened in the MH. Examples:
      • "and little development was expected to occur"
      • You say development was anticipated within 48 hours, but then a few sentences later you said development was "expected to be slow due to moderate wind shear in the region of the low." So 48 hours is pretty quick for tropical cyclone development. I feel the flow is disrupted when you say this, then that, and then the next sentence say "Oh wait, it did become a tropical cyclone."
      • You mention major hurricane without any indication of what it is.
    • What does it mean for convection to wrap around the center?
    • "Satellite overpasses of the storm revealed that Celia had already begun developing an eye-like feature at the surface, an indication that rapid intensification may ensue." - fix the tense issues. You use past perfect in the first portion (had begun) and then present in the latter (may ensue). BTW, you should clarify that rapid intensification didn't happen.
    • The infrared satellite loop isn't working (unless it's supposed to stay on the one image in the article).
    • "by the afternoon of June 21, by which time" - could you change the wording so you don't have the "by" so often?
    • "During the late morning of June 25, Celia started a rapid weakening trend as it began to take a more northwesterly track into a more stable environment with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones.." - whoa, big sentence. Could you reorganize a bit? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although out of the storm's projected path, a precautionary alert was issued for Socorro Island. However" - why the use of however?

That's all I see. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the value from the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've gotten to all of your comments Tito, thank you very much for the review. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of extremely minor things left. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is impact from the storm. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal, though, and I believe the article could be better treated as a MH article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have longer article titles when we don't have to. I support this article being featured as the IMO it does not fail criteria 4a. I loved reading this article from the start and I have read ltierly 60 times since its creation. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning weak oppose based mostly on prose concerns

  • The Hurricane Celia disambig link should probably be in a template at the top of the article rather than in See also
  • Need some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity (and "impeeded" is not a word)
    There was some arguing about this here, so I'm not sure which one is better in this case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make the article as accessible as possible to non-specialist readers
  • "the storm rapidly intensified to attain its peak intensity" - repetitive
    Switched. RI is a specific technical term so I switched the second occurrence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "degenerated into a non-convective remnant low that evening. The remnants of Celia" - repetitive, and first part should be explained or linked for non-specialists
  • "waves from the storm prompted storm advisories" - repetitive
  • I won't go through any more, but read through and reword to avoid repetitive phrasing as much as possible
  • "in the region of the low" - the low what? You have not identified this as a region of low pressure
  • What do you mean by "operationally"?
  • "That evening, the storm further intensified into a Category 5 hurricane, the second storm to reach this strength during June in the Eastern Pacific basin on record" - "on record" should either be placed earlier in the sentence structure or removed entirely. Also, reword for clarity
    "The second storm on record" would be ideal, agreed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stacy or Stacey Stewart?
  • Ref 34: formatting should be in English
    Good catch, fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: check date
    It was in UTC, which made it confusing. Switched to local time.
  • Ref 26: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've only looked at the Meteorological History section and have only got a few minor suggestions:

  • "The precursor to Celia was first identified by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) as a disorganized area of disturbed weather associated with a tropical wave on June 5, 2010 off the western coast of Africa in the Atlantic Ocean."—The date in the current position reads oddly to me. Is it better after "first identified"?
  • "...the disturbance moved slowly towards the west-northwest and little development was expected to occur."—It'd be nice to know why little development was expected, but the source for that statement doesn't say.
  • "By June 18, scatterometer data..."—Which scatterometer?
    ASCAT on MetOp-A. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...however, it lacked deep, central cloud cover."—Development is related to deep convection, not central cloud cover. Central cloud cover is related to convection, but it's possible to have the cloud cover without the convection.
  • "...slow due to moderate wind shear in the region..."—moderate vertical wind shear, although this almost certainly implied
  • "...the system had become sufficiently organized for the NHC to designate it as a tropical depression"—As far as I'm aware, NHC doesn't designate a depression based on being 'organized'.
    There have been a few instances recently where the NHC has decided to not designate TDs based on insufficient organization (they say that organization is part of the definition of a tropical cyclone; see Tropical Storm Erin (2007) and its associated Tropical Cyclone Report at [17], Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the depression was not warned upon..."—Oddly worded. Better as "...there was no warning issued on the depression..."?
  • "...deep convection wrapped around the center of the system, prompting the NHC to upgrade the depression to a tropical storm..."—Again. Designation based on deep convection wrapping around the system? Seems wrong.
    It also has to do with the designation being based on the Dvorak technique, in which intensity is determined by the perceived organization (usually the amount of convective wrapping) around the surface center. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Celia had already begun developing an eye-like feature at the surface..."—Satellites can't see eye-like features at the surface
    I believe (I'm not sure) that has to do with microwave passes seeing an eye structure at low altitudes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random ponder: why does "central dense overcast" redirect to eye (cyclone)? I guess it's related to the outflow from the eye, and there is one sentence there.
    Mostly because no one has bothered to write a decent article on the CDO. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it failed to fully consolidate by the afternoon of June 21..."—"consolidate" seems like the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one offhand
  • "Only modest strengthening took place during this time as the system's outflow was being restricted by continuing easterly shear."—An over-simplification. Outflow was only restricted on half the storm, that's how they knew there was shear.
  • "A secondary eyewall..."—If it had a secondary eyewall, it underwent an eyewall replacement cycle, even if it wasn't noted in the discussions. You could pipe secondary eyewall to eyewall replacement cycle, since you already have eye (cyclone) linked plenty of times elsewhere. Hmmm, actually, the source doesn't seem to mention that this is a secondary eyewall, just that the eyewall was reforming.
  • ...indicating that the storm would further intensify once this feature further developed"—Quibble. Not all storms with secondary eyewall will intensify. Most do, but some don't. But referencing above, if it was just the eyewall reforming, the original wording would be correct.
  • "...allowing Celia to re-attain Category 2 status..."—no need for the hyphen in reattain
  • "...Celia started a rapid weakening trend as it began..."—'trend' is an unneeded word
  • ...into a more stable environment with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones..[24]"—True, but not in source. Dunno if it's considered common knowledge enough to not have a source. Also, two periods.
    Probably should be linked to tropical cyclogenesis, which should mention that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "as wind shear impeeded significant development." Is "impeeded" British English? If not, it may be a typo of "impeded".
  • Meteorological history: "with cooler water temperatures and higher wind shear, all of these conditions are highly unfavorable for tropical cyclones.." There's a double period, and the comma should probably be a semi-colon.
  • "Most of convection associated with the system...". Needs one more "the", I think.
  • No need for multiple Baja California Sur links in this section.
  • Impact and records: "This ranks it as the second-strongest June hurricane on record as well, as the eighth-strongest in the basin". Move comma to before "as well". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [18].

Enugu

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ukabia - talk 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Enugu for featured article because I believe it has what it takes to be on the front page judging from its Good Article review. The article has as much information as there is possible for each subject, there aren't much reliable references and research tools focusing on the subject, especially online, so it is a bit smaller than other featured city articles, but I believe the article is engaging and is very informative. Ukabia - talk 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it may be a bit too decorative, but it does relate to the city's history marking the 100 years passed from it's incorporation. Ukabia - talk 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed. I think it's going to be rare that city articles warrant NFC. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed. Ukabia - talk 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • a few quick comments
    • The lead could use a thorough readthrough to improve flow and it's summary function for the article, including:
      • "It is located in the southeastern geopolitical section of Nigeria and it is largely populated by members of the Igbo ethnic group, one of the largest ethnic groups in Nigeria." ==> Replace geopolitical section(?) with "area" (or explain the geopolitical sections later). Second "it" can be removed. First "ethnic group" can be removed (Igbo should be ok as a stand-alone name).
      • "Enugu lies on what was originally the Nike (English: /niːˈkeɪ/ nee-kay) village of Ogui; a layout (neighbourhood) in the city still retains this name." ==> Nike are explained only later in 2nd paragraph - would it be possible to move that sentence there and merge it with the second paragraph?
      • "Enugu has long..." ==> Since when? Can a year or century be given? (the history section is vague as well on this point).
      • "before the establishment" ==> when? Lead should "stay on its own", so i'd suggest to add atleast the dates of the most important historical events.
      • "Today there is no significant coal mining in the city." ==> Add a "left" or "remaining" at the end of the sentence or even better merge it with previous sentence and it's related context.
      • "There are a range of industries" ==> "range"?, consider rewording awkward phrase.
      • "Enugu's main airport...., which is being upgraded to suit its international status." ==> tone and/or slightly inaccurate. The transport section states, that the upgrade is for "wide-bodied aircrafts", not for "status". Reword in a more neutral manner.
    • The article itself is informative and, as far as i can tell, comprehensive. I would like to see some more images as a reader of a town article though (maybe the stadium, a government building, a university, the main road, ... - anything to give a better visual of that town would be most welcome).
I have contacted some of the sources with pictures of the city. I'm waiting for their reply. Ukabia - talk 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done everything, but I don't know when the Nike settled the Enugu area. Most sources just say they became relevant when the Atlantic slave trade started around the 17th century. I'm not sure what to write. Free images are also hard to get. Ukabia - talk 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments? Ukabia - talk 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The section "government" deals a bit too much with the state level for my taste. From my understanding the article focus is on the city not the state, so the state information should be trimmed to the really essential bits, all the rest (election dates, governor name, ...) belongs in the state article. Still checking for some minor tweakings in the main text, though i will most certainly not alter structure and content itself.
  • For images have you tried contacting people on your source websites? Seems like some of them have really nice ones, though i have no idea how their copyright situation is.
  • If you can find a 3rd person for a complete readthrough, i'd definately recommend it. The prose is ok, but could use polishing from a more experienced English editor. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • some rough edges' to attend to
    • Religious affiliation? Given the history of the country, this is rather important
Done. I put a sentence in the Demographics section about the religion of the majority. There haven't been any notable events regarding religion in this city as everyone mostly of the same faith. Ukabia - talk 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Politics- What about seats in the federal and state parliament. Which party/ideology is strong here?
Done. I've added information about the Local government chairmen being the representatives state wise and then information about the federal representatives. I added the political affiliation of the federal representatives and the governor. Ukabia - talk 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referencing: If you use a book multiple times, you should list the book separately at the bttom and in the inline notes only use "Udo, p. 4." as an example. See Wally Hammond
Done. Ukabia - talk 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ukabia - talk 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Economy - The Nigerian Coal Corporation has been based in Enugu since its creation in 1950 where it controls coal mining". ==> Should it be past tense "controlled"? The linked article states, they went almost bankrupt. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to 'controlled'. Ukabia - talk 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sports: "The stadium remained ... until the Nigerian-Biafran War broke out, leading to the stadium's damage. At the war's end the stadium was refurbished." ==> Citation 92 doesn't state the damaging part, also the link between war damages and refurbishments is not given explicitly in the source. Could you find a more detailed source or match text with source more closely?
Done. I removed the information that implied war damages. Ukabia - talk 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sports 2nd para: Too many details about the Rangers, though i am sure they are great :). Consider trimming and maybe even combining both sports paragraphs into one para (both deal with stadium and it's inhabitants). GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the details about Enugu Rangers and have combined the paragraphs. Ukabia - talk 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • header "Modern History": all following paragraphs are modern history. Consider replacing, maybe "Industrialization"?
Renamed to ;Industrialisation'. Ukabia - talk 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • section "Climate": Replete with heavy showers.... Too detailed - rain and dry period are obvious terms (linked to sub articles anyway). Sentence should be removed.
Removed. Ukabia - talk 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • section "sports": "Association football is the most popular sport in Enugu". This should be sourced, if possible.
I couldn't find any reliable sources, so I removed the sentence. Ukabia - talk 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an interesting article on an often-neglected topic, but unfortunately I don't feel it's quite up to FA standards

  • "the Igbo, an ethnic group in Nigeria" -> "the Igbo ethnic group"?
Done. Ukabia - talk 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enu and Ugwu meaning "top of the hill" or Hill top" - why the different formatting between the two translations?
Removed the 'and'.
Okay, but that doesn't address the question. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared it up in case of confusion. Ukabia - talk 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the city have any newspapers? Any information on visual arts, music, dance, theatre?
There is no information about theatre. Other information is under the 'Culture' section.
No it isn't - there's no information about newspapers; the only information about visual arts is that an art gallery exists; the only information about music is that masquerades are accompanied by music; there is no information on dance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The city doesn't have any formal orchestras, or theatres or Opera halls and things like that. The city has the festivals given, and then everything else is informal, like if there are any other celebrations or events. I have added newspapers published in the city. As for visual arts, there are the galleries, and then other visual arts are found in rural towns in other parts of the state. Ukabia - talk 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose concern: Needs some general copy-editing for flow and clarity
  • Early history section should be re-organized - as it stands, it's a bit scattered
I have reorganised the section. Ukabia - talk 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anything happen with European contact/administration prior to 1903? Europeans arrived in the 1800s - did any visit Enugu? When was it incorporated into a colony/territory?
No Europeans visited Enugu before 1903. The article talks about the expedition led by the British to explore Enugu's resources. The information of the arrival of Europeans to Nigeria has been left to the main Nigeria article or the History of Nigeria. This has been left out because Enugu didn't exist before 1903 as a city.
  • You should probably give a bit more context about Biafra - the story is difficult to follow without it
I added more info about Biafra and the war. Ukabia - talk 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Format references more consistently
Can you give an example?

11. Nwauwa, Apollos (1995). "The Evolution of the Aro Confederacy in Southeastern Nigeria, 1690–1720: A Theoretical Synthesis of State Formation Process in Africa". Anthropos (Anthropos Institute) 90: 353–364. ISSN 0257-9774.
12. Horton, W.R.G. (1954). "The Ohu System of Slavery in a Northern Ibo Village Group". Africa: Journal of the International African Institute. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 311–336.

These are both journals, but their citation style is considerably different. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. Ukabia - talk 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing concern: Avoid tertiary sources like encyclopedias and dictionaries wherever possible
  • Combine identical refs
I have combined all I could notice. Ukabia - talk 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All print-based sources need page numbers
Do you mean newspapers as well?
Where you're citing a printed newspaper, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. Ukabia - talk 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are recent featured articles (2010) that have referenced it like Ceres_(dwarf_planet), Umbriel_(moon), and even really important articles like Sirius.
  • Okpara or Okapara Avenue?
As the source says, Okpara Avenue. The file has a spelling mistake.
  • Image concern: Ok(a)para Avenue image - I don't see where you got that licensing from. In fact, the linked site specifies that "The Website contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information of The Coal City and its licensors. Except for that information which is in the public domain or for which you have been given written permission, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary information.". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permission has been given. Ukabia - talk 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Provide evidence of said permission on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ukabia - talk 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [19].

Stark Raving Dad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination failed more due to a lack of reviews than any serious problems, but I think the article has improved quite a bit since when I first nominated it. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Sources comments:

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion0422 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Comments: I'm a little surprised that this article doesn't seem to have had a thorough review before now, as the Simpsons are normally good value. The article is not bad at all, though the prose could do with some further work. Here are a few suggestions:-

  • In the opening lead paragraph there is too much sketchy detail that does not illustrate the plot well, and in fact provides a confusing picture. I'd cut out most of this, and replace with something simpler and more general; after all, the detailed plot section follows immediately after.
    • Okay, I tried making it more simple, and cut out the bit about the pink shirt. Is that better?
  • "'Stark Raving Dad' was the final episode in the season two production run, but aired as part of season three, over a year after it was completed." This is confusing. Do you mean it was intended as the final episode in season two, but was aired as the opening episode for season three? Please clarify. Also, what was the reason for the long delay in its transmission?
    • Episodes of the show are produced in batches depending on their intended season. The batch for season 2 included 24 episodes, and usually the majority of those episodes are completed before the season airs. However, that does not necessarily mean those episodes are all going to air during their intended season and some get held-over until the next season. Stark Raving Dad was one of those episodes. The reason for the delay is that there were simply too many episodes for season 2. I can try to clarify it, but its tough to do so without going into a lot of detail.
  • "...creator Matt Groening and co-executive producer Sam Simon contributed a lot as well." This is not professional language. You could say "also contributed significantly".
    • Done.
  • "singing-parts" is two words, not hyphenated.
    • Done.
  • "The producers had to screen "Stark Raving Dad" before it was broadcast because it was an old episode." What does this mean?
    • I'm not sure who added that bit, but the source doesn't really give a reason why it was screened.
  • In the "Alternative opening" section, you need to be clearer about who "Bush" is, since both George H.W. and Barbara have been mentioned just before the first "Bush" and George H.W. just after.
    • Well, considering that the sentence is immediately after one that identifies Barbara Bush, and the next line is "Bush immediately sent a reply in which she apologized", I think the reader can figure it out.
  • "However, each episode of The Simpsons takes more than six months to produce..." How can this possibly be?
    • It takes a long time to animate the show. The animation is done in Korea, then sent back. This is standard for most animated shows.
  • "to never be produced" → "never to be produced"
    • Done.
  • "It was the second highest rated show on Fox the week it aired..." Not clear what "It" is referring to.
    • Well, it could either be the Cosby Show or The Simpsons, but only one airs on Fox. But, I changed the "It" to "The Simpsons"
  • Overuse of "as well" as an emphasiser, as in "There have been some less positive reviews as well." Check elsewhere.
    • Yeah, that tends to be one of my weaknesses as a writer: I tend to overuse certain words. Fixed some of them.

Enjoyable, as are most things connected with the Simpsons. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion0422 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just working through the "Reception" section and I noticed an issue. One para begins with "Jackson's performance received much acclaim." and what follows doesn't really back up that statement. About the nicest thing said is that his performance was "heartfelt". If it really did receive much acclaim, that para should be full of examples of acclaim. More later. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I did enjoy reading about the episode but I find the writing to be overly casual in places, awkward in others, and sometimes just incorrect. This never received a proper peer review and I think it's suffered from lack of a good independent copyedit. I've provided some sample problems, but it is not a comprehensive list. The whole text needs a fresh pair of eyes.
    • I find the writing in the Plot section to be overly casual not in an suitable tone for an encyclopedia. There are many questionable word and phrase choices. Examples:
      • There are many colloquial, informal phrases like "best present ever" and "strolls off down the road". If they are directly lifted from the dialog in the episode, they should be in quotes.
      • You hyphenate the modifier "20-question" but why not "free thinking"?
      • "When Homer and Michael bid farewell" is strange usage. Normally you bid someone farewell.
      • "excitement is deflated" is very odd to me. A level of excitement can be deflated, but how so excitement itself?
      • The end where you describe how the guys started imitating Michael Jackson seems like an awkward paraphrase of another source—it doesn't flow well at all.
        • It is, it's paraphrasing the episode. The explanation is a bit complex, so its hard to describe it thoroughly but briefly. I've gone through and copyedited the section. This is a very complex episode, so it is rather difficult to write a summary that is brief, to the point and not long-winded but still informative.
    • "while creator Matt Groening and co-executive producer Sam Simon also contributed significantly" Contributed to what? The idea? The pitch?
    • "Homer began acting crazily" The adverb isn't descriptive in any useful way to the reader. Later, committed to what? Rehab? Why would a crazy person be committed to rehab?
      • I'm actually not sure, that's all that is said in the description.
    • "It was later changed to Homer being hospitalized for wearing a pink shirt, an idea pitched by Brooks." The last phrase modifies "pink shirt" as written.
      • How so?
    • "He had called Groening one night and offered to do a guest spot." This is set oddly in the narrative. Is it meant to come after the script was written, or before?
      • Before. I added "so an episode was written for him" to the end of the sentence.
    • Why "read-through" and then "read"?
      • It's the common term for "read-through", just calling it a read sounds less repetitive than using "read-through" in consecutive sentences.
    • "Jackson showed up for the recording session alone and did not use the special trailer that was set up for him." Seems undue detail.
      • Possibly, but I find it interesting that a huge star like Jackson would stipulate in his contract that a trailer be provided for him, but then he wouldn't use it.
    • "Jackson could not take credit for his work on the song because of contractual reasons." Grammar
I stopped reading here—lots of work is needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I'll work on a copyedit. -- Scorpion0422 16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat. What's the source for the plot? It's unsourced right now, and simply saying that "it came from the show" borders on original research. Some sort of secondary source would be good. Other than that, I was pleased with the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. We used to include a number of references to summaries of the episode. However, inevitably, our summary would include details not listed in those summaries, thus making those details "unsourced". I'm not sure how sourcing the plot to the episode is original research, since the summary doesn't say anything not in the episode (if it included analysis, THEN it would be original research). Besides, there are a number of links on the page that will take a user to an online summary of the episode. -- Scorpion0422 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Hink, it's standard for Plot sections to lack citations. The citation is assumed to be the work itself. See other literature, TV, or film FAs for other examples. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't agree with that, but oh well. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, largely per Andy Walsh. I think the prose is weak. The first paragraph of the Production section was quite hard to follow as it jumped around in time; I've reorganized it so that the elements are more or less in chronological order. I think that's an improvement but it could do with a bit more polishing, and I'm not sure that I have everything right -- for example, I'm assuming that the sequence is Jackson calls and makes the offer, it's accepted, the idea is pitched, and the script is written; though it could also be that he called, the idea was pitched, and then accepted, or even that the script preceded the pitch or acceptance. (You can tell I am not an expert on TV writing although I think I've corresponded with Mike Reiss in another context.) Feel free to revert the edit of that article if you don't like it, but regardless I think the article fails on prose. Mike Christie (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:11, 19 October 2010 [20].

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it appears to pass all FA criteria and the article has gone through an extensive peer review with help fron User:Brianboulton. Comments are highly appreciated. Guy546(Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be renamed, this alent American people to make Wikipedia an American place. British subject, British title. TbhotchTalk C. 01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - I always like to see film articles trying to make the cut for FA status, but this one falls short for a couple of big reasons right off the bat. First of all, rule number one is, you can't use the user-edited IMDB as a reliable source. The Awards section contains that kind of content. Next, the Reception section containing Critical Reviews is almost non-existent. It's only a handful of critics. For one of the biggest grossing films, and for a film that was released in the last 5-10 years; it should be much larger in content. Like a page and a half for differing critical viewpoints. I'd have to take a look for more problems, but so far, that's what I see. DeWaine (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You think those few things you mentioned are worth a strong oppose? I'm sorry but I find that a bit ridiculous.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Comment - It would appear also that there are almost no books that were used as sources for the content. I believe there's only one novel in the list. Everything else looks like it was sourced using only internet sites. Also, reference number 27, looks like it needs to be cleaned up with the HTML. DeWaine (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed the imdb link. I'll work on the other objections later. Also, I have "Ultimate Edition" thing for the film, so do you mind if I use that for reference instead of a book? Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Well, I'm not familiar with what you call the "Ultimate Edition". I'm just trying to advise you that not all pertinent information for the film will be found online. There are numerous facts surrounding production elements for the film that might be found through books. With the Awards section, you should be able to source the information by going to the official websites. Placing the individual citation next to each award as was done with the first entry for the 74th Academy Awards is best. As far as the reviews are concerned, it needs a major expansion. Two small paragraphs of critique for a film that grossed close to a billion dollars is not going to cut it for FA status. When adding reviews, mix up different viewpoints; both positive and negative, even if the film received mostly positive feedback. It's important for a reader to hear both sides of the story. DeWaine (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll look for more reviews through Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.com. Guy546(Talk) 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok good luck with the reviews. Make it plentiful. So far, everything else content-wise is looking good. But just one quick note, with the Plot section, can you trim some of the details to make it more concise? It's teetering on the border of being a little too long and overly detailed. Also, with the provided plot link at the top which expands into the details; it would make the reduction sufficient for it's shortened length. DeWaine (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 I think this is a great article, and very well written. I would be happy to support it after a few things are addressed. While I won't appose for using it, IMDB really should not be used. Also, I think the lead should be expanded a bit, at least to have 3 full paragraphs. After that I'll take a deeper look and possibly support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am missing the imdb source. Where was it used? I already removed one of them. If you could tell me where it is I would be happy to replace it. Also, I will work on making it three full paragraphs. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - The IMDB sourced content is citation number 18 in the References list. Mr. Nathan, the reasons for my oppose encompass as you can see a few major points:
  • Expansion of Critical Response.
  • Properly sourced citations in the Awards section where it's lacking.
  • A reduction in an overly detailed Plot section.
  • An expansion in perhaps the Digital Effects section with Books if possible.
  • And as you pointed out, an increase of content in the Lead.

Those are some pretty hefty corrections to make in a limited time frame. I hope Guy546 finishes it and succeeds. DeWaine (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I also may say, looking at the Awards section again; it has about 3 listed citations. The rest of the entire section is completely unsourced. As I mentioned earlier, I would recommend you insert an individual citation next to each of the awards as is currently displayed for the first accolade by the 74th Academy Awards. DeWaine (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Could the British units of currency be converted to the American equivalencies and vice versa? I'm an American and the British units mean nothing to me. There are Brits who probably feel the same way about American dollars.
  • The first sentence in the box office section tells us the film had its world premiere in London then we're told at once of its box office success in the US. Could the British box office stats follow the first sentence and then the US stats? How much did Mamma Mia! rake in? Could you tell us if it wouldn't be off-topic or a digression?
  • I'm a general reader and I don't know what "unadjusted" means in the last sentence of the box office section. Could it be explained here or linked for people on the other side of the world reading this with no idea of what this means?
  • In the first sentence of the Cast section it tells us Rowling insisted on keeping the cast British. Why? It tells us the reason in the lead but not here where it belongs. Did she define British? If a kid had an English father and a Italian mother would the kid be British? Would the kid be eligible for a part in the film? Maybe she just meant British citizenship. I don't know, I'm confused.
  • Where were the auditions held? London or in various sites around Britain?
  • Figgis left because the thousands of children auditioned were "unworthy". Were Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint part of this "unworthy" group? Were some of the "unworthy" children cast in other roles?
  • I'm wondering if the Speilberg quote "It's just a slam dunk" could be explained or linked. I don't know what a "slam dunk" is and there are probably readers around the world who don't.
  • The term "put back" confuses me here: "Warner Bros. had initially planned to release the film over a 4 July 2001 weekend, making for such a short production window that several proposed directors pulled themselves out of the running. However due to time constraints the date was put back to 16 November 2001." I think "put back" has a casual, American conversational tone to it. Wouldn't "was moved forward four months" or "rescheduled for a November 2001 date" or something similar be clearer and more encyclopedic, especially for those around the world who have little experience with the complexities of American conversational style?
  • Also, "pulled themselves out of the running" has the same casual tone. Can these casual, conversational American expressions that were possibly picked up from the sources be recast into something encyclopedic? At times I feel I'm reading a pop magazine rather than an encyclopedia.
  • Is there a another way to say "non-author-written sequels" that isn't quite so eye-agitating-and-sterile?
  • "American actor Haley Joel Osment to provide Harry Potter's voice,[29] or a film incorporated elements from subsequent books as well" -- grammar, tenses, or something?
  • There's a lot going on visually in this sentence that makes reading and understanding it a bit of a chore. Could it be slimmed down for fools like me? "[a]nyone who thinks I could (or would) have 'veto-ed' [sic] him [Spielberg] needs their Quick-Quotes Quill serviced." Quick Quotes Quill serviced? It sounds naughty.
  • Could "over a 4 July 2001" be made clearer with something like "over the weekend of 4-6 July 2001" or "release the film on 4 July 2001, a holiday in America...etc."? I think Americans are expected to translate "over a 4 July 2001" as "over the Fourth of July" but people around the world won't translate this and won't know that this date is a hot time for movies in the US. The film was released in Britain on Nov. 4. Nov. 5 is Guy Fawkes Night. Was the British release date chosen because of its nearness to Guy Fawkes Night?
  • There are other casual, American expressions that could be recast as something encyclopedic for readers around the world who may struggle with all the Americanisms: "searched Hollywood", "a cool idea", "pitched the idea", etc. Revamp everything in the article that smacks of a casual American conversational style reminiscent of a pop magazine. Make it encyclopedic. I read pop style stuff everywhere all day long. Encyclopedic style is a breath of fresh air.
  • If the article wants to be British, put the British poster in the box. If the article wants to be American, put the American poster in the box. Marketing maybe?
  • I thought I was something of an informed person until I read this article. What's a "teaser poster" and a "teaser trailer"? I'm completely out of it and need some linking or explanation. I think there's a lot of this "film community jargon" in the article that's a mystery to a fool like me.
  • The article seems to be written only for fans or those who've saturated themselves in everything Harry Potter. Who's Fluffy?
  • "a poltergeist who likes to prank students" I checked an up-to-date online dictionary. "Prank" is defined as to dress outlandishly. Is this what is meant here. I don't think so. This article has just too much casual American English in it. Rewrite the whole using an encyclopedic style.
  • I agree with another reviewer who thinks books should be cited here. What makes all these sources reliable? Some appear to be celebrity-leak sorts of things and pop gossip and publicity publications. This film is almost 10 ten years old, its book even older. Have either one been tackled by scholars and academics? If so, I'd prefer seeing them cited rather than pop magazines and publicity websites.
  • The article as it stands has a very superficial feel about it. It's listy, is anecdotal here and there, and has little depth of analysis. It seems mainly a list of the sort of trivia that sets fans drooling. That's OK but can't the article be moved to the next level -- scholarly analysis, investigation, and comment? Has the film had any impact on filmmaking for children since its release? Are there other legacy aspects? Get some books and scholarly input on this.

Hope this helps and Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:21, 15 October 2010 [21].

Juwan Howard

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high caliber article that failed the previous nomination without significant unresolved outstanding issues. I have requested that the current PR be closed. For me this is a WP:CUP-eligible nomination and I hope it can be closed by month end.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CANVASS; reviewers of older basketball FACs were asked to review, but all opposing reviewers were not contacted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably missed a few supports and a few opposes inadvertantly. I even omitted you because, I don't think you really review anymore now that you run the process, but I think you supported on one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you omitted Sandy because she "run[s] the process", why include me? This causes me even further concerns over canvassing...Tony, you need to check the FACs where you got reviewer names very closely again and make sure you include everyone. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found one person who opposed one of the three basketball FAs he participated in.
I also contacted 1, 2 omitted people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, leaning oppose

Question: Second nom from this nominator today: was this a special sanction? Brianboulton (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am only a co-nom on one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you are technically within the rules, I find it in incredibly poor taste, Tony, that you would nominate two articles, about similar topics, on the same day. Please note also that my promotion/archival schedule is completely independent from the Wikicup (and Sandy has recused from your nominations, so you're stuck with me!), and I will not look favorably on requests on my talk page to adhere to the Wikicup schedule. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topics are not that similar. I contacted past reviewers of the two college football season FAs and the four FAs of basketball players who played in the NBA overlapping with Howard and found noone overlap among reviewers. Regarding Sandy's recusal, she is prominently involved in both discussions already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The prose is pretty awkward in places. See if you can find someone to help you with a good copy-edit. Here are some examples:

Apology accepted. Might I suggest a simpler sig with fewer clickable options? I see now that "T" means talk and that I must have clicked on "Bio" and then "Discussion" to get to the other talk page, but I did not see that before and have gotten lost in your sig more than once. Finetooth (talk)

Other thoughts:

  • "In November 2003, Mitch Albom released his book Fab five: basketball, trash talk, the American dream chronicling the recruiting of and first two years of play of the Fab Five." random trivia
  • The Rob Pelinka stuff is trivia.
  • There's a lot of extraneous information in here, this is but one example:"Michael Jordan, who had become part-owner of the team, traded Howard, Obinna Ekezie, and Calvin Booth to the Dallas Mavericks for Laettner, Loy Vaught, Etan Thomas, Hubert Davis, Courtney Alexander and $3 million on February 22, 2001, at the NBA trade deadline." Do we really need to know every consideration of the deal? Just find who the two main players were (Laettner and Howard iirc and say "Michael Jordan, who had become part-owner of the team, traded Howard and several teammates were to Dallas for a package centering around Christian Laeetner." or just "Michael Jordan, who had become part-owner of the team, traded Howard was traded in a package deal to Dallas."
  • Also, this might be idiosyncratic but I think some of the info in the high school section is redundant. We get that he was highly recruited player so after a while it becomes a little monotonous. The prose is the biggest problem though. I'd help you but I'm not that fantastic a writer myself. Quadzilla99 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dincher comments
Lead

  1. why just one reference in the lead. I favor more or none.
    Generally, this was an attempt at an uncited WP:LEAD. However, due to the wide-ranging nature of the University of Michigan basketball scandal and the common misperception that all of his seasons were wiped out, I felt that this one citation was necessary for the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough. Dincher (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although most Michigan Wolverines men's basketball records and accomplishments from 1992 to 1998 have been forfeited because of NCAA sanctions stemming from the University of Michigan basketball scandal, Howard's 1993–94 All-American season accomplishment has not. extremely long sentence, should be fixed.
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After one season as an All-Rookie player and a second as an All-NBA performer, he became the first NBA player to sign a $100 million contract. Although he continued to be a productive starter, he never again performed at an All-Star level. ditto.
  4. In 2010, he is entering his 17th NBA season, including five during which his team reached the playoffs. I don't see the need for including his years in the playoss. Seems like he's played for some lousy teams.
    Basically, the lead is attempting to summarize his individual and team accomplishments. Saying, "he's played for some lousy teams", to use your words, is not so encyclopedic. However, Saying he played 17 years and only on five playoff teams serves the encyclopedic purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that adding the word lousy to the article is not a good idea, what I am calling for is the exclusion of years in the playoffs. I don't think it's notable. Dincher (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The aggregate playoff performances of his teams is non-notable. However, in terms of an athlete's bio, playoff performance is defining, whether it is flattering or not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. During his NBA career, he has developed a reputation as a humanitarian for his civic commitment. of course it's happened during his NBA career, he's still playing and before that he as a kid.
    Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  1. which recognizes achievements in scholarship, leadership, service, and character. a click on National Honor Society would tell the reader this, no need to include it here.
    removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Howard was brought up by his maternal grandmother, Jannie Mae Howard, who adopted him and who died a few hours after he announced that he would attend Michigan. jumbled mess
  3. By his sophomore year - redundant, the title of the section is sophmore year.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments - I was asked to review this by Tony. I quickly read the whole article and am slowly working my way through a detailed review of it, so my comments will come in sections.

  • Lead Looking at the infobox and table of contents, I think the lead should mention that he has played for 8 different NBA teams as of 2010. While I don't think all 8 need to be named in the lead, Houston is named in a section header and should probably be mentioned in the lead. I may have more to say about the lead once I have reviewed the rest of the article.
  • Early life is almost entirely about his high school career, so would a better section title be something like "Early life and high school"?
  • Overview If the section title is changed as suggested (or to something similar) I am not sure this subsection needs a title (but am OK with the title as is).
  • I find the organization here a little puzzling - why not start with his birth and adoption by his grandmother and proceed chronologically? If so I would rearrange it as something like this:
Howard's single mother was 17 when he was born and did not want to raise her child. Howard was brought up by his maternal grandmother, Jannie Mae Howard, who adopted him. He grew up in a three-bedroom apartment on 69th Street on the South Side of Chicago.[5] His biological father, Leroy Watson, Jr., wanted to name him Howard Leroy III, but his grandmother decided otherwise.[4]
Howard attended Chicago Vocational Career Academy, where he was named a 1991 All-American basketball player by Parade magazine and won McDonald's All American honors. He was also chosen for the National Honor Society, which recognizes achievements in scholarship, leadership, service, and character.[2][3][4] During recruiting visits by college coaches such as Lou Henson, Joey Meyer and Fisher, Jannie Mae Howard did most of the questioning.[4] His grandmother died a few hours after he announced that he would attend Michigan. After her fatal heart attack, Howard moved in with his high-school coach, Richard Cook.[4] Howard has no siblings and is not close to his biological parents.[6]
  • Sophomore year I find it odd that there are no stats on his play or his team's performance in his sophomore year. What was his team's record? Did they win any sort of championship? How many points / rebounds/ whatever on average did Howard have that year? How often did he play (every game?)

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Ruhrfsich

  • Sophomore year - I think it would help to add his age and the year at the start of his sophomore year (15?) to help provide context to [At the start of his sophomore year in 1988], Howard was [15 years old, and] already expected to be a 1991 blue chip recruit, highly prized by college basketball coaches.[7]
  • I really don't get the whole basketball shoes at training camp incident. Was he accused of theft? Or was it one of these weird "these are amateur athletes so we can only give them one free pair of shoes" or they become paid professionals and ineligible for college scholarships things?
  • Looking more at the whole Early life and high school section, there are several mentions of other basketball players that seem like they could use much more clarification.
    • Howard attended other camps that summer and had a goal of surpassing Deon Thomas, who was the reigning Chicago Tribune basketball player of the year,[15] as the best big man in the state.[13] Although Thomas is linked, the link did not make it super clear to me what Thomas was doing at this time in Howard's career. It would help to say where Deon was at this point - my guess is he was either a HS senior or more likely a college freshman.
    • Even less info is given on Kelinschmidt (not even an article on him here to link) As Howard and Tom Kleinschmidt entered their junior years, some sources listed Kleinschmidt as the number one junior in the state.[17] I would add Kleinschmidt's high school and position played.
    • So when Junior year starts, Kleinschmidt is the competition, then it is Glenn Robinson (whose city is given, but not his position). What happened to make this change?
  • If I have read it right, there is only one game mentioned in his whole high school career He had a sub-par performance against King High School in the Chicago Public School League semifinals,[23]... and even there we do not know if his team won or lost. For an article on a player, it seems very odd to have so little information on how he did in high school. There is also some information on how he did in the McDoanld's All Star game as a senior, but that is not one of his high school team's games.
  • Playing stats are only given for his senior year in high school - can they be given for his junior and sophomore years?
  • Is anything known about where he learned basketball? Playground, YMCA, Boys Club, grade school?
  • Article is inconsistent on Parade magazine (italics or not) and should probably link it. Similarly the McDonald's All Star game could be linked.

This is looking pretty rough for FAC. More comments to come. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have struck the items addressed, but there have been no comments on what I consider the most important issues I raised. I am not going to do any more reviewing until some responses on my concerns are made. It has been over three days since I first asked why there were so few specifics on his actual play in high school. Could I have some answers please? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two issues are at work here. 1.) He never really won any important (State championship level) games in high school. 2.) He had no monster games that stuck out in newbank blurbs. In almost all cases where I chronicle specific high school games for an athlete bio, it involves state championship level competition. Writing about lower level competition is not so encyclopedic except in terms of merely chronicling his schedule of play. Although many better writers than I exist, for sports bios I tend to write some of the most extensive high school sections you will find. City league playoff games are not tremendously important in the grand scheme of world class athlete bios, IMO. Basically, when I write these articles I look at article blurbs for monster games and otherwise try to find important post season performances. I may be able to find some Public School League performances if I trolled through the Trib archive again or went back to newsbank. The feedback that I am getting so far is that this article is going to need more hands on deck to get to FA and my time is pretty divided up trying to get things converted into WP:CUP points. I appreciate your time and sort of feel that you and I could spend our time better elsewhere right now. You are right to stop further review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply. My thought is that there has to be some more material somewhere - perhaps not on specific games, but overall stats or soemthing more specific. If he was being discussed as a top college prospect as a 15 year old, and being invited to ABCD camp, it just seems like there should be something somewhere that says why. My guess is that an article saying he was given an honor (named to a team or invited to play in a particular game) would probably be a good place to look for this kind of information. Something like "Howard, who was named to the __________ team has had an avearge of X points, Y rebounds, and Z assists per game in this, only his sophomore season." Since it sounds like you are giving up on the article for now, I will switch to oppose - sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - see above, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:40, 10 October 2010 [22].

Thirty pieces of silver

[edit]
Nominator(s): StAnselm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of all the articles I've started, this is the one I'm most pleased with, thanks to the help of a number of other editors. But it covers the topic nicely, and looks good as well. Indeed, I believe it meets all the FA criteria. And it just so happens that it puts me in line for a Four Award. StAnselm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1c/2c related from References section. Generally, many of these are uncommon presses and need location details. There are missing bibliographic details, and in particular a stylistic change between (Publisher, Year) and Publisher, Year. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this, I've made a start fixing the easy stuff. I'm indenting responses - hope that's OK. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it our habit to prefer the NIV on Wikipedia? Delink, or link to a multiple translation source.
Linked to multiple translation source.
  • Eerdmans is a non obvious publisher, location please.
Done
  • And a correct citation of Eerdmans, "Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing"
Done
  • Location: Liturgical Press
Done
  • Did you read Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889. or did you read this indexed exerpt you quote
    • If so, fully cite the one you used, either "Thayer's Greek-English... as indexed by..." or give the publisher and location details with page numbers
    • 1c: Hasn't biblical concordance research moved on since 1889?
This reference was added by User:Radagast3 (who has since retired), and I don't know whether he had Thayer's in front of him, but I don't imagine scholarship on that particular word has developed any. I'll follow this up, though.
  • Location: Tyndale Press,
Done
  • 1c: Michael E. Marotta (2001). "So-called 'Coins of the Bible'" was Originally in The Celator "Letters", Jan 1995 what makes this a high quality reliable source?
Marotta is a regular columnist in The Numismatist, and would qualify as an established expert in the field (WP:SPS).
  • Location, spell out in full: BST [publisher]
Done
  • Fully cite the edition you used, including translator and location found in source: John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
  • Edited by whom? Craig L. Blomberg, "Matthew," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
Done
  • Translated by whom? English trans from German
Done
  • What was the title of the article you referenced? Was the article individually authored, if so by who. What makes this a High Quality Reliable Source? James Hastings and John A. Selbie, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 6 (Kessinger Publishing, 2003), 703
Yes, I've got title and author now, though no particular views on it being a High Quality Source.
  • Location: Uitgeverij Verloren
Done
  • Out of style for publishers in parentheses: E. Stock, London, 1906,  ; Wordsworth Classics, 2000, ; Cambridge University Press, 2002, ; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing ; Howling At The Moon Productions, 1998 ; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1946
Done, except that I'm still looking into how I can use the citation template to get the Jeffrey reference consistent with the others.
  • Location: Howling At The Moon Productions,
Done
  • Location: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Done

Comments: An interesting and unusual article. A couple of issues:-

  • The article does not address an obvious question arising from the biblical narrative: why did the high priests find it necessary to pay Judas to identify Jesus for them? Jesus had drawn a lot of attention to himself in the previous few days: a triumphal entry into the city; overthrowimg the moneychanging tables and other trading posts in the temple court; daily preaching in the temple. He was one of the best-known figures in the city, so why did Judas have to be paid to identify him, and "betray him with a kiss? I don't expect an answer to this theological conundrum, but the point should be raised. I can't believe that none of the theoloical sources mention it.
  • I can't see any basis for claim that the first line of "The Lost Leader" has anything to do with the payment to Judas or the betrayal of Jesus. Read the last lines of the poem.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be something in why the chief priests were interested, but the scholarly explanations are awfully prosaic. For example, Craig S. Keener says of the kiss, that "others around Jesus, the shade of olive trees, and the importance of getting the right person immediately... demanded that Judas specify the right person." StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see from the history that I am the third largest contributor in terms of edits - the 2nd is the nominator and the 1st has recently retired. I was not notified - not sure if I should have been. I must say I never saw the article as FA material, & still don't. As it is so short the Gospel texts should at least be given - the GA review may have sent it in the wrong direction here. The ultimately rather tedious question of what sort of coin was used should be gone into more thoroughly; various types get hyped by coin dealers on this score. The formatting of the references is not a style one often sees at FACs these days, but I leave that to others. The article should explain that the Browning poem is about William Wordsworth; I think an allusion to the 30 was probably an element in the first line, but I'm not sure it's worth having here. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objections to the Browning poem being removed. In any case, Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare provide enough evidence of significant literary allusion. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the referencing system with parenthesis around the publisher and date inappropriate? E.g. William J. Leatherbarrow, The Cambridge Companion to Dostoevskii, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 98. I'm getting that vibe with these comments, (and the fact that the citation templates don't support it), though I've always had the impression that one system was as good as another. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - I'm not the one to know that sort of thing. I was thinking more of having all the sources up in the notes - usually they are split into "notes" & "references", especially for books as opposed to websites, and those used more than once. As it is, when you see "Schilder, Christ in His Suffering, 71", you have to go back through the earlier refs, which don't even begin with the author's surname. Mind you, if Brianboulton hasn't mentioned it it may be ok. The article is not long after all. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention it because I thought Fidelfoo was dealing with sources matters in this review. However, I will say that the references here are arranged unhelpfully, as Johnbod points out above (particularly the surnames issue), and a number of them are incomplete. Ref 1 is a bare link to a menu of biblical translations; 5 lacks publisher details and retrieval date; 11 has no publication information, and "Even John Calvin" is straight POV. Why are the links in 15, 16 and numerous others formatted through the page number whereas in say, 19 the link is via the title? Book publication dates should be formatted consistently. Locations and ISBN information are optional, but in each case it's all or none. The referencing should have been sorted out before this FAC nomination, not during it. I think the decision to bring it here was perhaps over-hasty; GA is not a reliable quality guide. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Ref 1 to that bare menu because Fidelfoo said "Delink, or link to a multiple translation source". StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo :). Given that standard biblical texts are available in n+1 translations; Wikipedia shouldn't preference on particular translation. Especially as some religious groups feel strongly about One True Versions. I've never seen (Location: Publisher, Year) except in Chicago where it comes up sometimes in Contained Author, "Contained Work" in Work Editor (ed.) (Location: Publisher Year), range. But consistent is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the above is saying that the references, as they stand, are OK, then I'm afraid I have no option but to register a definite Oppose. The refs section is, as I have indicated, a mess than needs tidying up. I suggest you consult WP:Citing sources and work from there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Your intro mentions that the thirty pieces of silver story is found in Matthew. Your "Biblical narrative" section states: According to the gospel accounts, Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Jesus. Before the Last Supper, Judas went to the chief priests and agreed to hand over Jesus in exchange for thirty silver coins. The "thirty pieces" is found only in Matthew, correct? Is that worth mentioning? While Mark states that Judas was promised money for the betrayal of Jesus, Mark 14:10-11, and Luke states money was offered for that betrayal, Luke 22:3-6, only Matthew contains the story of the thirty pieces of silver. See Brown, Raymond E. (1994), The Death of the Messiah, New York: Doubleday. Vol. One, p. 59 (Special Matthean Passion Material). ISBN 0-385-19396-3.

In contrast to Mark and Luke, only Matthew has Judas asking for money, which "dramatizes his iniquity". Id., pp. 119-20, fn. 5. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:31, 10 October 2010 [23].

Norman Wisdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dweeby123 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that he should be featured as Sir Norman Wisdom, was a legend in his own right —Dweeby123 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this nominator, although probably well meaning, has misunderstood the criteria for featured article. The actual article isn't too bad, but I don't feel it's quite there yet. There are quite a few "citation needed" templates and other problems. Lack of references to his autobiography suggest it's probably not going to meet the "comprehensive" criteria. Perhaps with a little bit of tidying, it could be tried for GA, but it's probably not FA material yet. Bob talk 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said, that, it's probably as good as the FA pages about Austin Nichols, Jake Gyllenhaal and Steve Dodd, so I don't really know. Bob talk 15:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: apart from the above awkward fact (if true), this article is nothing like featured standard. It has not had any kind of review, and might be considered a reasonable first shot at the subject. It's probably worth the B which it has and with some significant work it could be a worthy GA. The main issues:-

  • There is no critical assesment of Wisdom's career. It's basically a list of shows and tributes.
  • Lots of uncited statements. One citation tag in place, could be many more.
  • Ridiculously overlinked, inc. everyday terms such as "waiter", "telephone operator" – and a redlink on "errand boy"
  • Should be in British English but includes various Americanisms, e.g. "grocery store" and "movie"
  • Structured with far too many short sections, some of only a single line. Likewise, many of the paragraphs are very short, sometimes single sentence.
  • General fanmag rather than encyclopedic tone.
  • Why are there two infoboxes?

That's probably enough. It should be withdrawn; perhaps an unblocked editor will be able to knock it into shape. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:49, 8 October 2010 [24].

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Cbl62, Jweiss11

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the finest college football season articles on WP. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify co-nom status: [25] [26]. Please do not add co-noms to avoid the one-nom-at-a-time rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jweiss11, see User_talk:Jweiss11#1997_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team. Note his 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) comment. Still looking for CBL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For CBL, User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_48#Remy_Hamilton notes that he is willing to help out on a co-nom on any Championship season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: For me this is a WP:CUP eligible nomination and if it is to be promoted, it would be helpful to have it close by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used the dab tool and it shows no disambiguation links. Dincher (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I only have time to check the lead tonight. I will do the rest on Thursday evening. Here's what I have found so far.
Lead

  1. why just one reference in the lead. I favor more or none.
    I have gone with none.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. in the Woodson sentence is 'rusher' the best word? I guess, but it's not often used in football. 'rushed for a touchdown', yes, but not rusher, was he lined up a runningback?
    No. He was a rusher on end arounds and reverses. Would you prefer ballcarrier?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Dincher (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted this change back to "rusher". A player is a ball carrier whether he's rushing, receiving, or returning. "Rusher" is perfectly acceptable football lingo; see: [27]. Rush/rusher does not necessarily mean that the player in question was a running back or lined up as a running back. Rush (American football) makes that point well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 11:33, October 6, 2010
  3. Did Woodson score on any of his interceptions?
    No. Team stats are at the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. On offense, .... I don't really like prepositions at the beginning of a sentence. suggest - The Michigan offense or the Wolverine offense.
    Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With 437 receiving yards,.... another preposition at the beginning of a sentence.
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The last sentence is very long, it's a run on sentence. Dincher (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not a fan of "rusher" I have watched countless hours of football in my life and rarely have a heard the word rusher except when preceded by pass. And that is a whole different position and side of the ball. Maybe you could say had touchdowns on receptions, runs and returns or something like that. Dincher (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is "touchdowns via pass reception, runs from scrimmage and punt return"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Dincher (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. So where do you stand on this nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only looked over the lead so far. I can't get to the rest until tomorrow. Dincher (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are too many issues with the nomination and article. This is a fine article, but I just don't think it's ready for FA. I feel like this should still be at peer review and that it is being rushed for the WikiCup. Dincher (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the issues with the nomination are resolved since Cbl62 has edited most of the things he felt needed addressing in the last 24 hours. It would be helpful, if you could at least point out substantive issues with the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • I have to ask the standard complaint again.... Why is there no information on team tactics/gameplan/strategy/footballing philosophy/playing style? Apart from one sentence in the first match about the defensive tactic, it doesn't go into any detail on how the gameplan was implemented, unless one is to believe that all teams play in the same way, and suppose even if they play in the same structure, there are variations from team to team. Obviously there are some stats about being the most effective in certain measures of performance, but how did they achieve this? Suppose they had the most effective attack. Did they achieve this with 1) bulldozer-tactics and squashing the opposition? 2) attacking in the air 3) lots of speedy players who can sidestep defenders? Different sportspeople have different skills so they achieve their statistical success by different means.
    • Also, what's with the flamboyant prose "razzle-dazzle" and other bits of informal language?
    • If you use "Fighting Irishmen" shouldn't you explain which team is nicknamed as such before just writing it down as a standalone?
    • In one place 21-3 is not dashed properly YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Comments from cbl62. A few comments on some issues that still remain unresolved from the prior peer review here.
  • Tony has done a great job compiling the facts. I've worked on several of the sections over the past couple months to improve the flow and focus it on the truly key points. It still requires some work in that regard. The sections IMO that are in the greatest need of trimming an honing are the Penn State, Ohio State and Rose Bowl game summaries. At my suggestion, Tony has done some trimming, but more is needed. One example of an extraneous fact that can be dropped is the discussion of the Florida State/North Carolina game that does not involve Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Penn State and Ohio State game summaries lacks opening sentences that describe the game; I have added introductory sentences to prior game summaries. Some sort of introductory clause or sentence helps the reader place the section in context. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the 1998 Rose Bowl in this article remains far longer than the actual article on the 1998 Rose Bowl. I suggest moving the bulk of the discussion to the main article on 1998 Rose Bowl and having a significantly streamlined discussion in this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just the length. IMO the Rose Bowl summary needs further work. I've spent about four hours on the article today, and that's about all I have for it today. I'll keep pitching in as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates with respect to one-digit numbers. I was taught that one digit numbers should be spelled out ("seven") and multi-digit numbers should be displayed numerically (11). Currently, the article uses a numeric display for most one-digit numbers. Is there a Wikipedia style preference on this point? Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be traveling over the next several days but will try to do further clean-up as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when a co-nominator says the article isn't ready, the FAC is withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will monitor feedback from others. I think the article is pretty close and that I may be able to address the remaining issues. I will watch the nom over the next few days and decide about withdrawal by the end of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way about having "co-nominator" status. I have spent many, many hours trying to improve the article, and I think it's one of the most important Michigan football articles. IMO it's still not the best it can be, but I'm willing to keep helping as time permits. I know Tony wanted this to be processed this month so he can get credit for WikiCup. I don't want to hold him back from that, so if it helps Tony accomplish his goal, I'm happy to withdraw as a "co-nominator" and let the review proceed on the merits. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for you to withdraw. The hope is that this nom will help us focus on bringing the article to the highest standard. I hope the reviewers will return to an analysis of the content and not whether procedural hoops were properly jumped through.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did some more editing. Are you satisfied with the article now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It does not appear that one of the individuals named as a co-nom in fact explictly agreed to do that, and in any event does not believe it is ready. Finishing touches and cleanup should occur before nomination. Co-noms should not be added without all nominators joining in. This article should be archived. Kablammo (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As “a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate . . . a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn”, and one of the persons listed as a co-nominator has indicated that the article still requires some work, it may be archived. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive43#Allow_FAC_delegates_to_quick_fail_unprepared_articles.
No one should be listed as a co-nominator without explicit consent. This does not appear to be the only article where that has occurred. [28], [29], and especially [30] A co-nomination is voluntary, not a draft. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He had been a co-nominator at FAC1 and did not properly contact me to express lack of continued interest.
It would help me to determine the preparedness of this article if you had substantive issues that I could determine the difficulty of resolving. I am going to watch for three or four days of feedback and determine whether to withdraw based on substantive feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to Cbl62 and request for third party opinions.
  • First off. Thanks for getting involved again. I hope we can get this cleaned up by the end of the month.
  • Week 9: I continue to feel that "The day was notable as only the fourth time in the 62 year history of the AP Poll that 4 of the top 5 teams in the poll were facing each other as 8–0 Florida State and North Carolina met in an Atlantic Coast Conference battle." adds context to the season by describing the landscape of 5 unbeatens about to be whittled down to 3 late in the season.
  • Week 11: Similarly with Since 1935, when the annual Michigan – Ohio State rivalry game was moved to be the last game of the Big Ten season for each team, 36 previous games had the potential to determine the conference champion, making this game the 37th time. This was the eighth time that both schools were ranked among the top five entering the game. In each of the prior two seasons underdog Michigan teams beat undefeated Ohio State teams to conclude the Big Ten season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object largely for the reasons stated by YellowMonkey above. The article is heavy on tabular data and sports-page synopses, but extremely light on strategic and tactical detail, coaching/team philosophy, and so on. It's about what I would expect from picking up the weekly game programs but not doing much serious research. It's clearly been lovingly compiled by a Michigan fan, but it's not enough to meet the criteria for comprehensiveness and quality of research. Am I reading correctly that this is being pushed through for some competition? I don't think that's a good idea. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:37, 6 October 2010 [31].

U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps

[edit]
Nominator(s): GWillHickers (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded October 6 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because It outlines all American presidents who have appeared on US Postage stamps. The article outlines all US presidents, the designers and engravers of the stamps they appear on and at the same time is a general outline of American history. The various presidential accounts are linked to corresponding presidential and other history pages and serves as a major bridge (link) between American history and the many articles of philately here at Wikipedia. GWillHickers (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 1a plus other criteria. Best to withdraw this, forge collaborative relationships in this field, and resubmit later.

I see from a google search that they're in a tizz about when to follow the Chicago MoS's reversion: before, must use dots; now, must not use dots. Even sillier, the postal services uses "U.S." but "USPS". Usage is divided among third parties. It will need to be changed here at some stage.
  1. U.S. Postage stamps—here, why the P? This occurs elsewhere, too.
  2. "U.S. Post Office"—that was its former name, was it? If you're going to use it as well in the opening, you'll need to put in parentheses (the USPS's name until [year]).
  3. "were the ones"—this is not good.
  4. Logic problem: "The presidential theme on U.S. Postage stamps is so prevalent that entire series of stamp issues have been released in their honor."
  5. Two redundant words: "22 years after the first postage issues were released"
  6. Huge winding snake: "However in 1869, 22 years after the first postage issues were released,[4] the Post Office issued a series of 11 postage stamps that were considered at the time to be a break from the tradition of portraying only Presidents on postage stamps when it issued stamps that turned out to have less than favorable non-presidential themes."
  7. The lead is one great paragraph. The caption at the top is humungously long. Tony (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1c / 2c issues, sourcing requires extensive work, to appropriately attribute and cite materials referenced and the location found within the material referenced. Why is there a massive grey div boxing the content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 04:56, October 6, 2010

Query, Should this be at Featured lists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - not to be discouraging, but this clearly isn't of the caliber required for FAC. Sandy makes a good point - the article is rather listy, although I'm not sure whether an improved version would fit better at FLC or FAC. In any event, the current version does not meet the standard of prose required for FA (as explained by Tony); referencing is poor, with many sources missing retrieval dates, some less reliable sources used, and some sections lacking sources entirely; fair-use rationales need improvement (source is a photo? What photo? Who took this photo? What was being photographed?); it's too long, and incorporates too much details on the presidents themselves and not enough on the stamps. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seemed to me like a list as soon as I saw the title and the article content pretty much confirmed it. I'd say "yes" to Sandy's quiry. And like Fifelfoo, the grey box is mighty confusing. Peter Isotalo 12:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not ready. In addition to above, a number of spelling and usage errors as well as factual errors (at one point, the article says that this is the only stamp featuring a certain president, I think Hayes, but forgets the 1986 AMERIPEX issue which depicted every president up to LBJ. And the article later mentions that issue! Also massive copyvio problems as all 1978 and after US stamps are copyrighted by the USPS. I bet the tags for the pre 1978 ones are wrong too, they should be "no notice". Not only that, footnote 8 is to the entire Scott's Specialized catalog volume for US stamps. That was a large volume years ago, I bet it is bigger today. Need page numbers and edition. Needs work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:28, 5 October 2010 [32].

Leonid Brezhnev

[edit]
Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my best work to date. --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a co-nom for one of the two, you're only allowed one nomination at FAC at a time. Courcelles 07:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed... --TIAYN (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article seems to missing a lot in comprehensiveness/research. My Vietnam War books have a lot about the wheeling/dealing between USSR/PRC/US, and they discuss Kosygin/Brezhnev in quite a lot of deal, including the USSR/PRC split and how the US tried to play them against each other etc, and in the peace negotiations. Both Kosygin and Brezhnev were mentioned a lot, and there are even books specifically on USSR/PRC and how they competed over N Vietnam. But the internal communist politics and heavy funding for N Vietnam is almost not mentioned at all, nor China (apart from the fact the US lost). The article is generally nbot very long for the leadering Soviet leaders for 20 years. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working --TIAYN (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1c. Incomplete research. I'd like to see more source diversity, I am particularly concerned with the reliance on a popular Penguin work, even if from a scholar, which lacks a specialist focus on Brezhnev. I do not believe the article is currently sourced adequately, post Soviet Russian works? Where are the University Presses expected here? There are a couple of NPOV issues with wording (assuming the reading subject is American, use of words bound up with American ideology in the cold war). The language also needs polishing. There are structural problems with the presentation, the time narrative jumps around. This is a good article, particularly in terms of economics in the 1970s; but it needs some more work.
  • In more detail: If he rolled the anti-party faction, it is almost essential to discuss his position on Hungary 1956, particularly because of Czechoslovakia 1968. Early life is underwritten for a politbureau grade bureaucrat. Essential biography here would include his factional position and graft network. Was he slated for purging in the purge of dead memberships? Do we know who he shopped in the mid to late 1930s? "He graduated from the Dniprodzerzhynsk Metallurgical Technicum in 1935" As a 5 in 4 graduate? "In 1963 also, Brezhnev succeeded Frol Kozlov," how did he manage this? "While a minority headed by Mikoyan wanted to remove Khrushchev from the office of First Secretary but retain him as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers," how did Mikoyan get rolled, admittedly outmanoeuvring Mikoyan is as easy as buying a bottle of milk, but? Many people saw him as a bit of a Zhou Enlai in the day. Your narrative fails to give contextual meaning. The why questions are left unanswered. "including the intelligentsia," technical or cultural? Finally some why, "T.H. Rigby argued that by the end of the 1960s, a stable oligarchic system" but it is a single source buy into a very complex topic, you should at least deal with the SWP(UK) line, and the 4th International line, both of which form major historiographies of the failure of the Soviet Union. NPOV issues, "and clamping down on cultural freedom." You actually mean freedom of political expression. The term "cultural freedom" is associated with US funded right wing exile juntas and occasional paramilitary organisations, it is a technical term in this context, avoid. Mischaracterisation, "state security service (the KGB) regained much of the power it had enjoyed under Stalin"... so they ran an independent counter economy in extraction and manufacturing? "and Stalin's legacy remained largely discredited among the Soviet intelligentsia." dubious. The Soviet social category of intelligentsia formally included the technical intelligentsia, military intelligentsia, the bureaucratic intelligentsia.
  • "In Socialist Poland, " was there another Poland in the late 1960s? Misordered, Poland 1970 first, then Czechoslovakia in 1968. Table "Economic growth until 1973" should be GNP _growth_ no? Original research, "although it was really a restatement of existing Soviet policy, as Khrushchev had shown in Hungary in 1956." Political Committee documents have been analysed in scholarly sources from 1956, Khrushchev's policy was a result of international consultation, and most parties consulted wavered, including the CP USSR. Perhaps, "amplified the policy decided in relation to Hungary in 1956."
  • Other Random Comments less related to the oppose: Quality of prose, unencyclopedic, "Brezhnev was lucky that he was re-called in 1956; the harvest in the following years proved to be disappointing and would have hurt his political career if he'd stayed.", misordered chronology, "He joined the Communist Party youth organization, the Komsomol in 1923 and the Party itself in 1929." happens after he graduates in 1935. I doubt he would have got a tech education without being a full party member. Out of place: "Khrushchev was removed mainly because of his disregard of many high-ranking organizations within the CPSU and the Soviet government." This sentence needs working to reach encyclopaedic prose, "and they happily helped him in his task ". The split between biography and policy in article structure is artificial, and could well be improved by integration of the narrative. The story ends up being told twice over. And 1968 comes _way_ too late in the article. I read "Repression" and expect Czech'68. "This was true despite the advantage the United States had—the USSR was hampered" WP is not the story of the United States. "This was seen by some as proof that de-collectivization was necessary" weasel, who, citation needed. Reword, "which led to minor increases in public support." Intended where, "skilled workers still had to be paid more than had been intended," Different to the 1950s how, "with unskilled labourers having to be indulged regarding punctuality, conscientiousness and sobriety." Actually different to the West how? Context comparison to say the FDR, "common Soviet living on 13.4 square metres". "The détente had rested on the assumption that a "linkage"" When in 1970? Did they start funding the DRVN/NFL in 1970? "funding the communist guerillas who fought" mischaracterisation. 2c "Reeves, W. Robert; Green, William C. " are the wrong way around in short citations. 1c: Given but not cited, "Ulan, Adam Bruno (2002). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765808854. http://books.google.ca/books?id=wgtCaPUPIlwC&dq.", get rid of it, it is Transaction. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [33].

Ezra Pound

[edit]
Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound is the biography of a complex and controversial 20th century modernist poet. Thanks to Ceoil and Malleus for the copyedits and Elcobbola for a preliminary image review. This was a difficult page to tackle - thanks to Ceoil who had my back all the way, and to Modernist for a preliminary read-through. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Smallman

[edit]
  • Comment - You've done an excellent job on a very difficult prominent poet. I'd suggest that you add additional notable works to the "Selected list of works" section. I'd also suggest that you add additional quotes to add some pizazz to the article (for readers with short attention spans). I'd still like to see a mention of the fact that he was tone deaf. I'll do a copyedit when I get a chance...the article is 8.6k words...Smallman12q (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this notre dame review, The Cambridge companion to Ezra Pound. I'll do a more thorough review when I can.Smallman12q (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have that source - but the essay mentions that he has a bad singing voice, not that he was tone deaf, so doesn't quite verify that fact. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the first few lines of the notre dame review?Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would like to think about adding additional text boxes - the quotations that are in the article would have been in as block-quotes, but as far as adding more, I'd have to review a few biographies and decide what specifically to pull out. Will revisit this after a little more thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this quote

He doesn't know a damn thing about China ... That's what makes him an expert. He knows nothing about music, being tone deaf. That's what makes him a musician ... And he's batty in the head. That's what makes him a philosopher.

Smallman12q (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the reference above is from Dictionary.com which isn't of the caliber of sources in the article. However, one of the biographers quotes the Williams piece which I've added to article about music that I intend to expand once done with this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com provides a source William Carlos Williams (1883–1963), U.S. poet. First published in Ezra Pound in Melbourne: Helix 13/14 (1983). quoted in Humphrey Carpenter, A Serious Character, pt. 5, ch. 6 (1988).Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smallman, the page is already very large, and a lot of thought had been put into what should be included. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no longer room for petty blue boxes with quotes?Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have in a request at New Directions Publishing who own copyright to the Pound material for copyright information on a couple of images that might be free. They are researching for me, but it may take up to two months, but I'm slightly hopeful we'll get at least one more image at some point. My feeling is that there are enough blue boxes, but if consensus is to add more, then more can be added. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...as such, I respect your efforts Truthkeeper and won't push this request any further...Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is significant. As it happens I left out mention of that particular trip to Italy to keep from having the choppiness of he was in New York and then Paris and then Italy. I'd very much like to expand the section about troubadour poetry and music in the Arnaut Daniel section of Le Testament de Villon and have it add there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria continued

[edit]

Further comments as promised:

  • "From 1912 until the mid-1920s he lived in London and Paris...In 1908 he moved to London where he lived until 1921 before relocating to Paris" - contradicts itself, did he move in 1908 or 1912?
  • "his work included the poems Hugh Selwyn Mauberley" - according to the linked article this is a single long poem. Is that not the case?
  • St. Elizabeths or the St. Elizabeths? St. Elizabeths hospital or Hospital?
  • "In 1907 he left the University of Pennsylvania" - didn't he transfer to Hamilton College back in 1903? When did he go back to Penn?
  • How did Yeats win a prize for a poem submitted by Pound?
  • "He helped finding publishers" -> "He helped find publishers"?
  • "established Gaudier's reputation" - be consistent in using or not using the hyphenated name
  • The Little Review or the Little Review? The New Age or the New Age?
  • "In 1921 Boni and Liveright published his Poems 1918–1921 and in 1923 earn money by translating" - grammar
  • The Waste Land or "The Waste Land"?
  • Fenellosa or Fenollosa?
  • "A number of Pound's books were published in the 1930s including an American edition of A Draft of Cantos XXX, Eleven New Cantos, the English edition of The ABC of Reading, English editions of Social Credit: An Impact and Jefferson and/or Mussolini; and in 1938 A Guide to Kulchur" - why the semi-colon?
  • "on the first he was denied passage on by plane" - grammar
  • What happened to Omar after he met Pound?
  • "When Pound found Mary he chose at that time to admit he had a wife and a son who lived in London" - isn't his wife in Italy at this point?
  • "Hugh Selwyn Mauberley" or Hugh Selwyn Mauberley?
  • Ref 26: need year
  • New York Times or The New York Times? Period or comma between newspaper and date (in References)? Month Day, Year or Day Month Year formatting for dates in References? Use a consistent formatting for news sources
  • Use a consistent formatting for retrieval dates
  • Ref 46: title?
  • Surette and Carson are not in Sources
  • Stock: 1970 or 1973?
  • Wilhelm or Wilhelms?
  • Meyers: 1980 or 1985?
  • Xie Ming or Ming Xie?
  • Ref 88: which Carpenter?
  • Nichols or Nicholls? Witmeyer or Witemeyer?
  • Kenner: 1971 or 1973?
  • Hyde and Perloff are not in References
  • Micheal or Michael Witkoski?
  • Why do you use the a,b system for Carpenter refs but not for Sieburth?
  • Be consistent in including or not including publisher locations
  • Check references for typos
  • Page numbers for Perloff?
  • Why do you include a retrieval date for Reynolds and not other web links to print-based sources?
  • New Directions or New Directions Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice job & good catches! I've done about half of them. Will finish tomorrow after work and post comments. Thanks for reading. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed per comments above and hope I've caught all the errors. A few responses below:
      • Hugh Selwyn Mauberley consists of groupings of short poems. I've tweaked the lead a bit anyway.
      • Omar stayed in England after his grandmother's death.
      • I used the a, b system for Carpenter because both works have long titles but not for Sieburth which can be differentiated with a single word title. Am happy to make these consistent if you think necessary.
      • The Carson book shows a location for printing, but not the location of the publisher (Yale University Press). I can guess that it's New Haven or use the printer's location. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin (includes image review)

[edit]
  • Oppose. Truthkeeper, I'm going oppose this for now, with apologies because it's clear you've done all the heavy lifting as Ceoil put it. But I think you brought it too soon to FAC. In trying to copy edit it, I keep finding material I don't quite understand and I have to check the sources before I can edit it. There's a lack of a strong narrative flow, where the reader is carried from event to event with an increasing understanding of his life and thought. Instead, several sections are just lists of facts. He went here, he went there, he met this person again (he had already met them), this person gave him a lot of money (we don't know why), and so on. Also, I wonder whether the article is clear enough about his mental illness. He was ill for a long time, not just after 1945. I think you need to go back to the sources to make sure you're very familiar with them, then go through the whole article—a top-to-bottom edit, not just tweaks—reading it as though it's the first time you've heard of any of it, and try to impose a structure on it that will allow what's important to be understood by a first-time reader. I think shorter subsections would help a lot.

    Bring out some of the colour, things that make him three-dimensional for the reader. Sentences like this are good because they bring him to life: "He would spend his mornings studying in the British Museum library, then would have lunch at the Vienna Café on Oxford Street, presenting himself as an aesthete, serious about his art while affecting a distinct flamboyance—he dressed in brightly colored capes, wore an earring and hand-painted silk shirts." But sentences like this are dull: "He established himself within the literati of London, and his talent was realized as his poetry, reviews and essays were published."

    And I think this work needs to be done by you alone, because with lots of people copy-editing it (people like myself who don't have easy access to the sources), there's a risk of errors appearing and things becoming even less clear.

    I'm really sorry I can't support it this time round! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. You've given a good review, which ultimately is what this process is for. It's a complicated page that presents quite a bit of difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
  • Having trouble understanding this: "In 1944 he and Dorothy were evacuated from their Rapallo home. He intended for Dorothy to live with his mother Isabel in Rapallo, while he joined Olga in Sant'Ambrogio. Instead Dorothy chose to live with Pound and Olga." Is that saying he wanted Dorothy to live with his mother, who was also in Rapallo?
  • "On 2 May 1945, when Dorothy and Olga were out on errands, armed partisans arrived while Pound was at work on a translation. He stuffed the copy of Confucius in his pocket and allowed himself to be taken "to their HQ in Chiavari, where he was soon released as possessing no interest". " Is there a reason those words are in quotation marks, and who is being quoted?
  • "Unable to renew her passport, Dorothy did not arrive until June 1946, when her 'legally incompetent' husband was placed in her charge. She was allowed infrequent visits until his move to Chestnut Ward the following year ..." In what sense was he placed in her charge if he was still in hospital? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading and for the comments. Replies:
  • Isabel and Homer Pound moved permanently to Rapallo in 1929; have clarified this point. Yes, he wanted Dorothy to live with his mother while he lived with his Olga.
  • Added the reference to the quote - thanks for catching it.
  • Reworded to clarify that Dorothy took charge in a legal sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TK, the quote is still odd-looking even with a ref tag after it. Why is it in quotation marks, and who is being quoted? It's sometimes okay to leave quotes unattributed, where it's obvious why and who, but when it's not we need to signal to the reader why we're quoting the phrase. Same with "deprived of all reading matter" a few sentences later. Also "the copy of Confusius": why "the" and not "a"? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that SlimVirigin - I misunderstood. The first quote is from Hugh Kenner's description of the events; I've added an in-text attribution. The second is from a paper about Pound's experience in the prisoner of war camp. After re-reading the paper I've reworked the section and left in a quote from the psychiatrist's report with an attribution, although it might be bit redundant now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that quote, as it just seemed a bit odd. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the bit about Pound having been placed in Dorothy's charge legally work now, or does it still require expansion? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what it means—something like she was given power of attorney—but I wonder if it could be spelled out. It's a minor point though, and it's okay as it stands. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about it being believed that he had a nervous breakdown in the cage: first, that's a very imprecise thing to say—it's not clear it means much. I can only see the first page of the source, [34] but it seems to say that Pound's lawyer's description gives the impression that Pound had a serious mental breakdown while in the cage, and that this information came from Pound himself, and was compounded by the lawyer's desire to make the most of it. That's not quite what our article says. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looking at it now and agree that it's too vague. A few pages in the psychiatrist's report states, "the prisoner apparently developed transitory anxiety state" while in the cage. I'm happy to reword accordingly and to fix the lead as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also confused about his demanding to be taken to the Americans after the Italians released him. Who did he demand it of, if he had been released? And he asked "to be allowed to finish a prepared radio broadcast that recommended a post-war policy of leniency toward Italy and Germany. His requests were denied and the broadcast forwarded to J. Edgar Hoover." If the request was denied, how did he manage to make whatever broadcast was forwarded to Hoover, and what is a "prepared" radio broadcast? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked the piece about the script. Also reworked the section about turning himself in. It's a bit overwritten now, but the details conflict in the sources and I decided to document that and added two sources. Feel free to tweak or trim as you see fit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the steel cage: this source (p. xiii if the link doesn't go there) gives a description of it, and explains why it might have caused a mental health problem. I think this issue either needs to be described properly or left out, because just saying he was kept in a steel cage raises all kinds of questions, such as what is meant by a steel cage, and why it was different from a normal cell. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cage was actually outside and was in fact a steel cage. I'd like to re-work the entire section - he was dehydrated from having been left outside, according to the army reports. I will also rework the points you raise above - essentially the partisans were executing people but released Pound. He feared another group of partisans might arrest him, and asked to be taken to the Americans. I can switch out the sources and clarify the events. The article underwent a great deal of trimming, and I'm thinking perhaps some important points were trimmed away. Will take me a few days to do this, though. Btw - yes, the Sieburth introduction is one of the sources used in the section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added this own description of what happened to him to the lead, using this source. I'm hesitant to try to add a footnote, as you're using Harvard refs and templates, so I don't want to mess it up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the footnote. You've raised some good issues - it's a difficult piece and hard to get right. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the difficulty. Please don't mistake my input for overall criticism or not valuing your work, by the way. I don't like doing FA reviews for this reason, because they necessarily focus on the bits that might need improving. Overall it's clear that a tremendous amount of work has gone into it, for which you're to be thanked and congratulated. I'm sorry that there's a need to be picky! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - honestly I've had difficulty getting eyes on this article, so any feedback is more than welcome. Picky is good! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead: I'm not sure that this acts as a stand-alone section explaining why Pound is important. The first paragraph is okay. The second—what his father did, where he studied, who he married, his children, that he lived in Italy until his death: they don't tell us why he matters. Why are the Pisan Cantors important? Why was it controversial that he won the Bollingen Prize? Why is he influential? The lead should gather together the most important points about him, or the most notable or interesting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will rework. I'm somewhat busy workwise for the next few days, so it may not be immediate, but will get to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the lead. Might need to cook overnight and be tweaked a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No rush for any of this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better. More detail than you wanted maybe, but it's engaging, and it tells the reader what happened. There's a danger with being so succinct that the reader loses the significance. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations without in-text attribution: I'm noticing this a fair bit throughout the article, and they're still being added, e.g.

DTC's temporary commander placed Pound in one of the camp's "death-cells"—"a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements, which had been specially reinforced".

I think this should always be avoided, unless it's clear from the context who is being quoted. But it's not clear at all who is saying "a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements, which had been specially reinforced," or why it needs to be in quotation marks, because it's a straightforward description. Providing a source in a footnote doesn't tell the reader who is being quoted, because even if you look at the citation it's still not clear whether the author is being quoted, or whether he is quoting someone else. But above all it's not clear why the words need to be in quotation marks.
I agree with this; quotations should only be used in an article like this if they express an openion or are particularly colourful. Otherwise paraphrase. Am on it. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things in the early-life section are unclear: (a) he "took private lessons in Provençal," linked to Provençal dialect. He was taught the dialect (is this possible?), or he went to Provençal to take private lessons in something else? (b) His being forced to leave college because he rescued an actress: not clear what that means unless you already know. (c) "Thaddeus Pound owned mine-holdings in Wood River Valley, adjacent to Hailey, and his father ran the local United States Land Office": Thaddeus's father did? (d) He travelled somewhere (where?) on a postgraduate fellowship (did you mean studentship/scholarship?) Who paid it and to which institution did it send him? The studentship was to study X for his PhD, but in fact he started studying Y for his PhD, and only did it for a year: that's a bit confusing.
  • Does the article need a section on his antisemitism? It's the issue that has coloured his legacy, and it was very extreme. An example from the broadcasts:

    The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process.

    It is an outrage that any clean lad from the country—I suppose there are STILL a few ENGLISH lads from the country—it is an outrage that any nice young man from the suburbs should be expected to die for Victor Sassoon, it is an outrage that any drunken footman's byblow should be asked to die for Sassoon ... You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew ... And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into. [36]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very conflicted about this. There is absolutely no doubt about of his antisemitism, but also no doubt of his contribution to 20th century poetry. The article has always been difficult for me as far as walking a straight and narrow line between emphasizing one over the other. I'd like to leave this to consensus. If consensus is to add, then I'll add. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting caught up and just had another look at the quote above. I'll swap out the stuff from the existing quote box and replace with the material above to give a better flavor to the nature of the broadcasts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Truth and SV for adding the quote, I'd prefer to not see a whole section on his antisemitism; it is the overdone ravings of a deluded nauseating bitter fool who ultimately went mad; on the other hand it should be emphasized, it cannot be understated or brushed under the rug either; he made art; he was a prick; I personally think his art is overrated however the issue is so cold that it is best that it stays that way - in my opinion...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about citation style: I recently added two sources to the lead, a primary source (his broadcast transcripts) and a secondary source discussing them:

<ref>Doob, Leonard W. (ed.). ''Ezra Pound Speaking: Radio Speeches of World War II''. Westport: Greenwood, 1978.

*Also see Gill, Jonathan. [http://books.google.com/books?id=ttMlqGMYCsIC&pg=PA115&dq=ezra+pound+radio+broadcasts&hl=en&ei=F9WmTIu8FsaUnQfQy5mRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ezra%20pound%20speaking&f=false "Ezra Pound Speaking: Radio Speeches on World War II"] in Tryphonopoulos, 2005, pp. 115–116.</ref>
You changed this to two citation templates:

<ref>{{Harvnb|Doob|1978}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Tryphonopoulos|2005|pp=115–116}}</ref>

I was wondering (a) why do the refs have to be separated, given that they go together and are addressing the same issue; and (b) why did you remove the author, Jonathan Gill, from the second? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear that they go together and haven't a clue how to do that in the Harvard style but can try to figure it out. Tryhonopoulous is already in the sources - I will reformat to reflect Gill's piece in the book. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just put them between one set of refs tags, the same as without the templates. Can you check when you cite Tryhonopoulous elsewhere as editor that you're also citing the authors? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source request: Can you post here what Hugh Kenner said when he called him the most influential poet of the early 20th century, with a page number? I looked through Kenner but couldn't see it, though Google books isn't letting me see much. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's strike or reword. I've had to send Kenner back and it will take weeks to get it again through ILL - can't find it in Google books. Might be in my sandbox, but otherwise we can paraphrase the information from the legacy section if that's fine with you. On second thought, I believe it's in a biography - will look.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW - the source you found is fine, but I'm fairly certain this came from one of the biographies. Will start plowing through them now before they get sent back to the library. I used very little from Kenner because his book isn't strictly a biography. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actress issue is still unclear: "In November he was admonished for sharing a meal in his room with a traveling vaudeville performer. During the winter his behavior was considered scandalous when he rescued a stranded and hungry vaudeville actress during a snowstorm, leading the college to dismiss him for immorality." Were these two vaudeville performers or are both sentences about one incident; and what did he actually do that was scandalous -- have the woman in his room? I think it needs to be rewritten, not tweaked. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actress incident is very unclear. There was an actress in his room for which he was fired. The first incident may or not have occurred - he wrote a letter and perhaps exaggerated. I'd prefer to leave less information than more here, if that works. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist

[edit]

Comment: Overall, the writing is of very good quality, but there are some issues of stylistic consistency (all of the following references are to the lede):

  • What is your numbering style? We have "fifty days" but "25 hours". Please choose either figures or numerals for numbers over ten and apply consistently throughout.
  • What is your comma style for introductory adverbial phrases? We have "After World War I" but "In the early 1970s,"; "Following his arrest for treason in 1945," but "On his return to the United States". You have three choices here: (1) place a comma after every introductory adverbial phrase; (2) place commas after long introductory adverbial phrases, but not short ones; or (3) do not place a comma after any introductory adverbial phrase. Please make a choice and apply consistently throughout.—DCGeist (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The truth of the matter is that I worked on the article during a period when I was experiencing problems with my vision and couldn't actually see the commas. Am recovering from eye-surgery performed two weeks ago. Have since tried to go through and fix the problems and had hoped a copyeditor could help. Will go through again, but perhaps I was hasty in submitting the article to FAC. I will ask to have it de-listed and return when I'm in a better situation to fix these problems. Thanks for having a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hold off on that request until tomorrow night at least Truthkeeper and I can give a hand (bad week....) Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested before I saw your edit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to DCGeist, my general preference is not to have commas after short introductory phrases, and I'll try to go through the article and make that the consistent approach if Truthkeeper agrees. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Malleus. I appreciate the offer. I prefer not to have commas after the introductory clauses either and have tried to remove them. I wouldn't worry about the lead as it needs to be reworked entirely per SlimVirgin's suggestions above, but I'm taking a break for a few days until I feel better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo there is absolutely no need for consistency here at all, in fact as an aim it is a bad thing, as placing a comma may depend on the length and meaning of the whole sentence, and the degree of emphasis desired for the introductory phase. Everyone has their own style, but I would firmly ignore any demand for consistency for consistency's sake here. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, certain forms of consistency are expected of writing that aspires to a professional standard. This is one of them. As I noted, an author has multiple choices of what sort of consistency to apply, and only a narrow-minded reader would insist on absolute consistency at the expense of good expression. However, where we encounter inconsistency of the sort I identified, where there is no apparent logic to the inclusion or exclusion of commas after introductory adverbial phrases, whether short or long, and especially—as here—where we encounter multiple examples of such inconsistency in even brief passages, there is the impression of a sub-professional effort.
  • Given how "firmly" you wish to dismiss the issue, why don't you prove your point using the examples I provided. Please formulate a compelling literary rationale for why the third paragraph's inceptive adverbial phrase ("After World War I") currently doesn't get a comma, but the fourth paragraph's ("In the early 1970s,") does. Please similarly formulate a rationale for why one sentence in the third paragraph begins "Following his arrest for treason in 1945, he...", while another in the very same paragraph begins "On his return to the United States he..." I'm fascinated to see what you come up with.—DCGeist (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may apply to technical manuals or something, but there is simply no need to be consistent on this point in normal prose. I haven't looked at the context of the examples and have no intention of doing so; your premises are just wrong as a general rule. If anything professional writing might want to vary the treatment to avoid monotony. Having said that, I'm more likely to remove such commas than add them, but I refuse to accept that this is a matter where consistency should be an aim, and oppose such matters of personal taste being brought as a requirement into FAC comments. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but its moot now anyway. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Johnbod has "no intention" of actually backing up his plaint. So that's moot to boot. "I haven't looked at the context of the examples"—that's exactly why your input is vacuous, my slacker buddy. Guess what: professional manuals of style for "normal prose" address this issue specifically and invariably argue for stylistic consistency generally. The fact that you don't want even to "look at" deviations from such norms suggests that you lack competence in the matter.—DCGeist (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or whatever. Its outside scope, a stylistic matter, and as I say moot. I will say though, Johnbod is one of the best writers has on wiki, look at the mans contibutions on visual arts. But again, whatever. The probs you hightlighted have been resolved, or to put it another way, the inconsistencies I introduced have been removed. I know full well how good a writer you yourself are Pulp Fiction, so can I ask that the stuff above is put to bed and you engage us with fresh eyes. As its a lit article I'd like the prose to be just so, and I already know you are fairly good at that yourself. Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been copyedited or tweaked by multiple editors in the past few days, which may explain some of the inconsistencies....and honestly, I simply made a mistake by not removing the comma after 1979s. It's really that simple. I'll fix the lead now for punctuation consistency, and re-work later per SlimVirgin's comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably fair to say TK is light on commas, I'be been adding them to bits like "In the 1940,...". Can comb through the article any remove any that are left. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist

[edit]
  • Support - The lede looks tougher and more to the point, it still seems a little dense but it is much closer to seeing pound as pound the poet and pound the p..ck, and well done TK, MF, Ceoil, Deor, SV and the rest...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've seen that and read most of it, but ended up leaning on the synopsis from one of the critical essays. Will take another look at it. Thanks for the encouragement. I think we're going to give up this time around, after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [38].

Thistle, Utah

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a subject that has always fascinated me and I think would make an interesting main page article someday. There is also a personal motive, those of you who are frequent contributors of this forum may remember me as a roadgeek. While I'm sure this article has some roadgeek tones to it, I'm writing about another subject to prove to myself I can write about more than just roads. Dave (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Map is based from GIS data, which is public domain. I will ensure that is added. I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean by "what sources were used for the railway lines?" With a few exceptions, all sources used for this article are clear that the affected rail line was the D&RG's main line. However, most sources used pre-date the 1996 acquisition by the Union Pacific Railroad. Is that your concern, that I need a source that explicitly mentions the acquisition? If so, that should be easy to find. Dave (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the Thistle landslide image, I added links to each of the shape files used. Also, after double checking the State Geographic Information Database, I found a notice that the files are considered to be PD, so I changed the license to reflect that. –Fredddie™ 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fredddie, Commons consider that geographical data (bunch of numbers) is ineligible for copyright protection. Regardless, thank you for providing the links to the data (which are needed). Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source for the 1996 Acquisition by the Union Pacific. I hope it's clear that the UPRR source only covers the fact that the line was acquired by the UPRR, while the rest of the paragraph is using other sources. Dave (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is embarrassing. I checked this before nomination I promise =-). I'll get to work on it. Thanks for the observation. Dave (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think this has the potential to become an FA but it still needs quite a bit of work and the help of a good copyeditor; a few examples from the lead:
  • "Remnants of the Thistle schoolhouse, built in 1911". So the remnants were built in 1911?
  • "In April 1983, a massive landslide (known as a slump) moved part of the mountain ...". What mountain?
  • "... and blocked the Spanish Fork River, forming an earthen dam". What other kind of dam could it have been? Why not something like "damming the Spanish Fork River"? And does "dam" really need to be linked?
  • "... until they were rebuilt on a higher alignment that overlook the area".
  • A few general points on the rest of the article:
  • I'm unconvinced by the ordering of sections. As this is an article about a town (or is it?) I'd expect to see the usual cities structure, with the History section first.
I borrowed the article structure from another FA ranked ghost town article. However, I agree that the article reads better with some of the technical details at the end. I have re-arranged some sections, although I have kept Geography first, as this section contains the location information that sets up the history section.
  • "By the 1980s, Thistle was home only to a few families." We were told in the lead that Thistle was a ghost town, which I take to mean that it has no inhabitants, and that was 20–30 years ago anyway. Does anyone live there now?
Re-worded. To answer your question, no, the townsite is completely abandoned.
  • "As temperatures warmed ...". Temperatures don't "warm", they increase. Similarly "the temperatures were too cold".
  • "The residents argued the maintenance workers knew the ground was unstable in the area years before landslide began; however, implemented measures that had no effect in preventing it." I just can't make sense of that.
Unfortunately the wording of the source is confusing too. I had to play with this several times. I think I have something that works. Better now?
  • "It was noted that Thistle's oldest resident celebrated her 90th birthday at the evacuation center in Birdseye." It was noted by whom? Why not just "Thistle's oldest resident celebrated ..."?

Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the copyedits you've made to the article. This is good feedback. I have implemented your suggestions verbatim, except where noted inline. Dave (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my own copyedit of the article. You suggested I recruit someone to copyedit the article. While that would be the easier way, I'm trying to force myself to be more careful about grammar and punctuation errors. As such, I'm going to try to fix my own messes. We'll see how that goes. =-) Thanks again. Dave (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Just a couple of small points:-

  • Inconsistency: "United States Geological Survey" in ref 1, "U.S. Geological Survey" in 4
  • Ref 25: Link Deseret News

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for checking. Dave (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [39].

HMS Speedy (1782)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Benea (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of a large number of small cruisers active during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Speedy went on to have a more charmed life than most. She served under a number of notable commanders, fought on many occasions against heavy odds, and was almost always triumphant. This article has progressed through the quality ratings, recently passing an A-class review, and I believe satisfies FA criteria. Benea (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dabs or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three queries/observations:
  1. I'm a little confused as to how the article can be comprehensive, when the class article is a redlink still. See HMS Calliope (1884) for an exemplary FA that might serve as a sample for how to write this one, with design text included in the class article.
  2. Was Dank consulted on this nom?
  3. We've had a trend lately of 15 to 20 percent of FAC noms being ships, and there are currently six up, yet they are getting little independent (non-ship editor) review. This is concerning me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I never need to be consulted on noms, and in particular, I didn't do any significant work on this one. I tend to make a lot of little edits so that I can leave copyediting notes in the edit summaries, mostly to draw in other copyeditors and spark discussion. I don't have a feel for pre-20th-century ship articles, and stuff may be missing, but it's got more charm and less technical detail than some of the other ship articles. Hopefully this one can attract some reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sandy for your comments, but I confess I don't understand what you are driving at? 1: The class article is no longer a redlink. 2: I didn't know consulting Dank was a requisite for featured article nominations. He was good enough to do some copyediting for the A-class review and I assumed he would be aware of the nom, and welcome to help out or not entirely as he saw fit. Is there anything you feel he would be able to do that I would not with regards to this article and review? 3. I have no connection with any of these previous articles, which I assume are all to do with the current battleship article project. Are you saying the concern is too many ship articles or too few reviewers? Would you rather ship articles not be nominated at FA review? Benea (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandy was saying that it's polite to ask people who have done a lot of work on an article if they see anything else that needs doing before FAC and if they want to co-nom. I didn't and don't; I only had a lot of copyediting edits to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Not too experienced with FA procedure, I thought he was saying I'd missed a step somewhere. Sorry if I violated any etiquette, it was purely unintentional. Benea (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Colledge is in the references, but isn't cited, should be in a "further reading" section instead.
  • Same for Lyon and Vale.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colledge is cited, Lyon replaced by Winfield, and Vale removed. Benea (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat my comment from the talk page: the sections Cochrane, Speedy and Gamo and Later actions and capture neatly summarize the plot of the book Master and Commander in the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels by Patrick O'Brian, with Jack Aubrey as Cochrane and Sophie as Speedy; you can use Sea of Words - Google Books version as a source. The novel Hornblower and the Hotspur also features a ship (HMS Hotspur) very similar to the Speedy and similar encounters and clear parallels between the main character and Cochrane (I don't have a source handy for this comparison). All popular culture sections are problematic but probably this is an example where it would be helpful for the reader and I don't think those two are the only examples of Speedy in Fiction, just the ones I know about. I don't see this article as being comprehensive without recognizing the (arguably more famous) fictional representation(s). Kirk (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, p. 148 in Sea of Words (at the given link) says: In Cochrane's "account of his 1800–1801 cruise of the Speedy (the inspiration for O'Brian's Sophie), he flies a Danish flag and claims to have the plague on board to escape a superior foe, he floats a raft with a light at night to deceive a pursuer, and before attempting to board the much stronger El Gammo (the Spanish Xebec Frigate that is O'Brian's Cacafuego), he has his men blacken their faces to intimidate the enemy." (Btw, anyone have a WP:COPYRIGHT problem with quotes of one sentence or less to support a point made at FAC?) - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a brief note about O'Brian and Forester's use of events from Speedy's career as plots for their books. Note however that they were drawn from Cochrane's exploits, rather than meant to be about Speedy, and Geoff Hunt makes the point that O'Brian's vessel matches Speedy only in terms of her spar measurements, and indeed that she corresponds to no known actual ship of the period. Benea (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better; I'd like to see that sentence in the article (I'd put it in as a note, but I'll leave that up to you) and I'll remove my objection. Also, sorry about the confusion but I did review the Hotspur sources and its not the Speedy so you can remove that part of the sentence. Good article! Kirk (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped in Hunt's brief commentary on the fictional vs the real. Hope this satisfies. Benea (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:

I write as a non-ship specialist, so read the following minor points with that lack of background in mind:

Design and Construction:

  • "Speedy was one of a two-ship class of brigs built..." The "two-ship class" read really oddly to me - I know what it means, but it didn't feel like natural English.
  • I've reworded this a bit. Ship classes in this period were not quite the same as they are presently, saying they were built to the same design is a trifle more accurate anyway.

French Revolutionary Wars:

  • "Once Diadem had been repaired Sutherland returned to Genoa, and was surprised to discover Speedy still there patrolling the port, not once having left her task. While single-handedly maintaining the blockade, she had even captured several vessels." - I'm probably misunderstanding, but isn't the idea of a blockade to deter or stop vessels trading with a port? Or were they enemy warships?
  • The implication is that such a small ship as Speedy, operating in such bad weather as to force the larger ships from their station, was not expected to have remained on station in the gales, let alone chase down, stop and search other vessels without the support of the rest of the squadron. I've removed the 'even' from the sentence though.
  • "the French hurried back to Gourjean roadstead, taking Speedy and the captured British crew with them" - Gourjean roadstead is red linked, and I'm not sure it is a place or a port or...? The sentence earlier said the French fleet came from Toulon.
  • A roadstead is a sheltered area of water where ships can anchor, Gourjean roads lie off the south coast of France outside of Toulon. I suppose it could be made into a sub-stub, or would you be able to suggest a different wording?
Could you go for the "Gourjean roadstead outside Toulon?"

French Service and Recapture:

  • "Speedy was taken into French service but enjoyed only a brief time sailing under the French flag" - surely such a patriotic vessel would have not have enjoyed French service at all! :)
  • Quite so, have changed to 'spent only'.

Cochrane:

  • "On 11 May a strange sail was spotted capturing one of the ships in the convoy, at which Cochrane chased and forced her to surrender." "a strange sail" - I'd sort of expect this to be a "a strange ship"?
  • Changed.

French and Papal career:

  • It seemed a bit odd to talk about a "diplomatic war", and then note that the French gave their enemy a gift of a ship; is there any word other than "war" you could use?
  • It's a phrase used in the sources, but I've gone with 'a pawn in Napoleon's efforts at diplomacy' instead.

I enjoyed the article, incidentally, especially the complaints by Cochrane about the size of the ship! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made some alterations in line with your comments, please let me know if they address your queries. Best, Benea (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. A suggestion on the roadstead noted above. Best of luck with the rest of the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered it per your suggestion, thanks very much! Benea (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm all for getting into the measurements for a time period or specific field, but is there a chance we could convert the old measurements present in the construction section to include a metric/standard measurement? People in general have a better grasp of the latter than the former, and it would probably help article comprehension. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I think you can be referring to is the use of tons burthen, an estimation of the tonnage known as the Builder's Old Measurement? No, this would be inappropriate in this case, tonnage is a notional rather than a physical value. A discussion where metric conversions of tons buthern was firmly deprecated can be found here for reference. Benea (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I'd feel better about having the metric units and the standard units in the article, but I am not going to oppose the article's promotion on such a trivial matter. All the important criteria are met, and in the end that is all that really matters at this level. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Closer to Support This is a great little article about a great little ship and the kind of think I'd like to see on the main page. I have a few issues but they're pretty picky (even by my standards!). I've refrained from too much editing however, in case I'm missing something.
Lead: Fought actions with or against the Spanish? I'd use against personally.
Changed
Lead: Leaps from successful history to being broken up (and from 1798 to 1807) very quickly . Could this be delicately expanded? What happened to her after the French recaptured her?
I've added some dates. 1798-1801 is Brenton and Cochrane's time in her, with the exception of the Gamo action she was mostly involved in battling gunboats, cutting out merchants, making shore landings, etc. Small beer in the scale of naval warfare at the time, and I'm not sure if any one of her numerous little actions ought to be expanded for the lead, as they are about equal for significance. Could you suggest examples of what you would like to see expanded? The French gave her quickly away to the papal navy in 1802. The papal navy sits out the Napoleonic Wars, and indeed practically every war of the period, as spectators, and there is no record of Speedy, or San Pietro as she was named by then, participating in military or political events.
The simple expansion you've made to the final sentence is perfect. Sorry, I should probably have clarified that it was more of a flow and prose thing than hard facts. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: There's a lot of commas....
If you want to give this a look Dank you're welcome to, I bow to your copyediting skills, and I haven't got time at the moment for more than a cursory glance. Otherwise I will take a look in the next few days.
Sorted. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design: Could the first 2 sentences be rewritten a bit to avoid writing design and King's name twice?
I've reworded this slightly
Sorted Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Design: Its interesting that she was coppered after she was launched and not during her construction. Anyway, I might include a brief summary of what coppering was to avoid actually needing to follow the link to understand the sentence.
I've reworded this slightly. It was common practice for coppering to be carried out this way, and in the Royal Dockyards rather than the civilian contractor's, along with the rest of the fitting out.
Didn't realise that (seems counter productive to launch a ship and then plate the hull). Sentance is better now anyway. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early Career: Ditto Humber, for those not familiar with the estuary.
Added 'estuary', does this work?
Indeed. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French Wars: What was Pierre Martin's rank at the time?
Rear-Admiral
Sorted. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French Service: Do we know what Shore Battery it was?
No name is given, other than it occurred during a cruise off Oneglia.
No problems then, just wondered. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French and Papal career: Is there any way Speedy's legacy in fiction could be expanded a little - perhaps enough to justify a separate section? That the adventurous career of the ship bears a close resembelance to the fictional story deserves a little bit more detail I think (within reason).
I'm wary about expanding this too far as O'Brian simply lifts the entirety of Cochrane's service, and uses it for his fictional Aubrey. Everything from Aubrey's unsuccessful trialling his 12 pounders and finding the ship can't take them, borrowing a spar from Genereux, his recapture of a merchant from his first convoy after it had been taken by a galley, his cruises against privateers, his impersonation of a Danish ship and officers, the capture of Gamo (though she is renamed Cacafuego in the book), his attack on the merchant ships and burning them in harbour, the flight from Linois and eventual surrender, the fact he dines with Christy-Pallière who refuses to take his sword, and that he watches the Battle of Algeciras Bay from the Dessaix. The details of the set piece of the book (and Cochrane's career), the capture of the Gamo/Cacafuego, are also identical. The wearing of ship, the slipping under the stern, the boarding with blackened faces, the places they board from, the bluff with the call to the doctor for more men, the hauling down of the colours to dishearten the Spanish, etc. I have thought long and hard about this, and other than pointing out the fact that they are the same, it seems to me that a more detailed explanation must simply repeat the previous section. O'Brian used other naval episodes from history for his later books, and good and featured articles on those (The Mauritius Command-Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811) (HMS Surprise (novel)-Battle of Pulo Aura) note the fictional interpretations in a sentence or so. I'm very open if you have specific ideas about how you'd like this to expressed in the article though?
Perhaps not an entire section then, but just some of the facts you've mentioned above are fascinating. Could you include a sentence or two about the fact that O'Brian pretty much duplicated Speedy's career, so that its clear from this article as well as the others you list above. Maybe something like "Although the ship described by O'Brian matches Speedy only in terms of her spar dimensions, the adventures of his fictional captain Aubrey borrow heavily from the true life exploits of HMS Speedy / Captain Cochrane's service on Speedy, including example 1 and example 2." Assuming its reference-able of course. Perhaps its just the wording, but the fact that the fictional adventures are based on real service doesn't really come across that strongly in the first sentence of the relevant paragraph. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems perfectly sensible, I've expanded this a little with a couple of examples, based on Parrill's book about the navy of the period in fiction.
Otherwise, looks good. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I may be being extremely dense, but what is the "Annual Biography and Obituary"? I can't find a full citation for it anywhere.
    • Can't think how this was missed, but I've added it now.
  • In the lead, "Built during the last years of the American War of Independence". Although technically true, as far as I can see she had nothing to do with the Revolution. As there will always be some people who don't know the dates of the Revolution, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to just give the actual year?
    • I'd be reluctant to change this. She was ordered and built during them with the intention to serve in them, so in a sense they were the reason for her creation, her genesis. Her construction spanned two years so it would be inaccurate to name a specific year, and somewhat clumsy to give a range, which would also lack the added context the war then raging gives.
      • OK. Do you have a source that specifically says she was constructed for use in the war? If so, what would you think of adding a quick sentence to the Design and construction section - something along the lines of "she was originally meant for service in the war, but never saw battle before the war was over" (but obviously more formal and, you know, grammatical!).
  • Design and construction, "This is roughly equivalent to £403 thousand in present day terms.". Is there a reason this isn't written as "£403,000"? To me, the latter format is more readable (but that could just be me!).
    • I'll field this MOS question: if it were 100K, I'd be comfortable writing "one hundred thousand pounds", per this from WP:ORDINAL: "When expressing large approximate quantities, it is preferable to write them spelled out, or partly in figures and part as a spelled‑out named number; e.g. one hundred thousand troops may be preferable to 100,000 troops when the size of the force is not known exactly; write Japan has the world's tenth largest population, with about 128 million people ..." But I'm not sure about "four hundred and three thousand pounds"; that's quite a mouthful. I'm guessing whoever wrote it as given was trying to follow MOSNUM (either because they read MOSNUM or because they've seen other people do it that way). TLDR version: I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have come across this before, and my preference would be to write £403,000. The template however will not allow this, and removing the template means that it the sum will no longer be kept up to date, £403,000 would be the sum in 2010, but not perhaps in 2020. Unless the template coding can be changed to allow this rendering, I'm not sure what can be done.
        • Ah, I should have checked the edit screen; what I said applies to the people who did the template, then. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, I didn't think to check the edit screen either. Oh well, then. Perhaps a note to the template people would be nice, though.
  • Later actions and capture, "where her captain, Christy-Pallière, refused to accept his sword in recognition of Cochrane's achievements." This may just be because I don't know that much about ships, but this sentence is confusing. Did he refuse to accept the sword and in so doing refuse to recognize Cochrane's accomplishments, or did he recognize the accomplishments and because of this refuse to accept the sword?
    • The latter interpretation is the correct one, I've reworded this slightly to try to make it clearer.

I've made one minor tweak - please check. When the above issues are resolved, I look forward to supporting - overall, it's very nicely written! Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to address or otherwise reply to these issues, let me know what you think. Best, Benea (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. I've changed to a support, as the one outstanding issue is quite minor. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue: just File:HMS Speedy.jpg. What source verifies this to be a 19th century painting that is out of copyright? A 1899 painting is still 19th century, and a 20-year-old who painted it then could quite believably live to 1945, which would mean he has not passed away more than 70 years ago. The source never identified the date or author of this watercolour. Under UK copyright law, any unpublished art that has no identifiable authorship is copyrighted until 31 Dec 2039 or 70 years after its first public exhibition (if exhibited after 1 Jan 1969); see this leaflet from the National Archives. This work of art is likely still copyrighted in its country of origin (UK); please either provide proof of publishing (authorised distribution of copies to the public) or identify its author. Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang is right, though the hypothetical is a bit of a stretch: the painting is of an event in 1800, and is likely to have been painted in the first half of the 19th century: the likelihood of its creator having died less than 70 years ago is close to nil. Has anyone emailed the National Maritime Museum to ask: is the author of the picture known; is its date of creation known; is it an original painting or a reproduction (egs. an engraving, or from a book); and if it is an anonymous original, when was it first displayed by the museum (or when was it acquired by them)? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A very enjoyable and readable article. I don't know much about ships in general, but I have a passing knowledge of the period. Just a few minor queries.

  • In design and construction, I find "She was armed with 14 4-pounders and 12 ½-pdr swivel guns", a little hard to read with so many numbers. Would it be possible to have "four-pounder" and "quarter-pounder", or is this a big no-no in naval articles? (forgive my ignorance!)
Yes! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more details of her early career out of Humber? What kind of role did she perform?
  • Any details of the vessels she captured while blockading Genoa on her own? Presumably they were quite small.
  • When Eyre took over, was he still with Sutherland while part of the siege of Bastia?
  • "Having silenced the shore battery..." How?
  • "...and then re-floated and sailed the four merchant vessels they had been escorting, which had run themselves aground to avoid capture, back out to sea under heavy musket fire from the beach." This seems like an afterthought. Would it be better to mention this before the capture of the French ships?
  • What happened to Elphinstone; i.e. why did Dowman take over?
  • Just a personal thing: it seems a little disjointed to not mention Dowman protecting trade out of Oporto until saying he was given a letter of thanks. Could it be mentioned what roles Speedy performed under Dowman? But not a problem at all.
  • "After Defender headed out to sea, Speedy ran in and anchored within 30 yards of the middle ship." Isn't this a little ... reckless?? If so, is it worth a comment?
  • Do we know the name of the other merchant ship attacked by the gunboats off Algeciras? It may make that part slightly easier to follow.
  • I feel the part about the Intrepide is slightly too dramatic; rather than "a strange ship", why not simply say "the 6-gun privateer Interpide"? Or "a ship which emerged/turned out to be..." Feel free to disagree!
  • "He also found a Dane..." Repetition of found in this sentence, and I'd prefer simply "appointed a Dane as quartermaster".
  • "...on 22 January he was sailing with a convoy of Danish merchantmen under a Danish flag, pretending to escort them." Did the convoy approve of this? Was this a common practice at the time? And was Denmark neutral?
  • Presumably Gamo is the Spanish frigate that Cochrane was expecting?
  • One other minor point, following discussion above. From memory (I don't have the books available), several of Hornblower's exploits sound similar to Speedy's history. Can't remember if it was in the Hotspur or not. I don't know if there is any mileage in this, and I'm not well-informed enough to have a definite opinion!

No other problems I noticed, and I'll support when these points are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on the image? Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request on my talk page: I'm sorry, I have no idea how I'd even begin to answer User:Sarastro1's 15 questions. It's not my "period", and I don't have any of the books. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at two points, but I can't help with much else I'm afraid. Benea did say he'd be away when responding to my own comments, but that was apparently only for a few days... Ranger Steve Talk 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:28, 4 October 2010 [40].

Dreaming of You (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I just finished re-creating and expanding this article from 18,000 bytes to over 67,000 bytes. I would like this article to be my first featured article. I already did a good job with Amor Prohibido (song) and turned this stub article into a GA status. I continued to further expand Selena articles, and my next mission was "Dreaming of You" and so here it is after 2 weeks its ready. Thank you, also if there are any errors please let me know and I will fix them immediately. AJona1992 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Twelve links to dab pages and five dead external links; see the toolbox to the right. The prose is less than ideal: for example, "Critics received the album with mixed to positive reviews with many of them stating that Dreaming of You wasn't Selena's peak as an artist, while stating, Amor Prohibido is a more consistent release that it was an effective introduction, and showed why she was adored by Tejano fans alike." in the lead. The rest of the article doesn't seem to be much better. I recommend withdrawing this FAC, getting an independent copyeditor, and taking the article to peer review. (There may well also be problems in other areas, such as sourcing; I haven't checked.) Ucucha 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) & 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have corrected them, but please be aware that footnotes go after punctuation, except dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you SandyGeorgia, and I didn't know that but hey still learning. AJona1992 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well I was asking around and I nominated this article for a "Copyedit" project on Wikipedia but no one wanted to help so I felt that, in my eyes, the article is ready but I guess not. If you have anyone who are wiling to check it over that will be great but like I said I don't really like asking because every time I ask no one wants to help. And I know they don't have to. AJona1992 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick driveby note to Sandy: that's not actually true. WP:FN says "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides.[5][6] Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it."—that is, either they all go before the punctuation or they all go after, but all the policy says is that they be consistent. – iridescent 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has problems, but I don't think I'm in the position to criticize the article, given my past problems with Ajona, unless Ajona wants to hear it. Thanks Secret account 22:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK comments would have opposed but I'm being kind, I could help out with whatever sourcing my book has on the article if that becomes an issue later on to be fair.
  • Explain Caribbean remix
  • "Critics received the album with mixed to positive reviews with many of them stating that Dreaming of You wasn't Selena's peak as an artist, while stating, Amor Prohibido is a more consistent release that it was an effective introduction, and showed why she was adored by Tejano fans alike." - run on, not explained elsewhere in the article as her peak, needs a couple of citations, little bit orish,
  • Top ten best-selling debuts of all time - source, explain, wikilink is much different.
  • Dreaming of You also became the highest ranking Spanish language album to chart Billboard Top Latin Albums.highest-ranking in what?
  • Behar's request for a major crossover was denied and was told that in order to sell a major record, Selena needed a bigger fan base. Source?, not in my book source nither.
  • During a lunch break in 1994, Selena began crying due to the pressures of the press about her album to Jose Behar. Source?
  • Prior to the albums recording sessions, Selena's family weren't allowed to produced songs for the album, which gave in more pressure on Selena who spoke about her feelings towards the decisions made to her family. Why? and Source
  • Selena's husband Chris Perez and brother who was the producer of her music, A.B. Quintanilla III told Selena that they both dislike the song.... prose and run-on
  • EMI Latin and EMI Records wanted to transformed Selena's musical styles from Tejano and Latin Pop to Pop and R&B. It's transform first of all not transformed, and why?
  • Selena was surprisingly - remove surprisingly
  • I don't think you need a description of the book the article is long as it is.
  • Artwork, use of styles is original research even though it's sourced, (with a primary source which FAC doesn't prefer) remove the section, no other album FA that I see has a description of "artwork".
  • Other unsourced sentences around, but I saw them in my book source so I'll add them if they become a concern in the FAC.
  • Alot of repeat links, remove per WP:MOS
  • In the months following the albums release, Selena became more known due to her songs, "Dreaming of You" and "I Could Fall in Love" had heavy airplay throughout major English language speaking radios, preferably Adult contemporary music radios run-on, prose.
  • the #1 and #2 spot on their "Billboard book of top 40 hits". Top 40 in what?
  • Many critics who review the album agreed that producers Keith Thomas and Guy Roche who envisioned Selena as a dance-pop diva similar to Pop recording artists, Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey, but with a Latin twist. Prose, which critics?
  • Dreaming of You became the Amazon.com's top 4 "best seller" in Latin music while the album became #22 as the "best seller" for Mexico's World music. The album is also #64 for North America's world music.[55] Not explained in the source, and amazon isn't a reliable source anyways, remove.
  • Personnel section is listy, remove to only the most important personnel. See other Albums FAs as an example.
  • That's what I have to say, I want to see the article promoted, being my mom's favorite artist (that's why I got involved in Selena in the first place) but there are way too many concerns that I can't fix. Thanks Secret account 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source is citation 7 ("Top ten best-selling debuts), I didn't want to like add it everywhere so I always add it at the end. What do you mean by Wikilink is much different? For "DOY became the highest ranking Spanish album to chart Billboard Top Latin Album" is citation 8 and I don't know what you mean by "highest-ranking in what?" but the book says "DOY became the highest ranking Spanish language album to chart Billboard's Top Latin Albums" so the information given I only re-word it into my own words, I think I might of confused people when I did that. "Behar's request for a major crossover was denied and was told that in order to sell a major record, Selena needed a bigger fan base." This was told in the "Selena: Queen of Tejano Music" special that is featured on the tenth anniversary of Selena the movie, I need to fix that right there because it says "Selena Remembered". This statement "During a lunch break in 1994, Selena began crying due to the pressures of the press about her album to Jose Behar." is citation 11. Ok before going on I would like to discuss these I mentioned above so we can work at it easily then keep going. AJona1992 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikilink doesn't explain the content Top ten best-selling debuts, and add the citations, you can multiple add the citations at the same time. With the highest ranking Spanish album, it needs to be explain further, like highest-ranking in most records sold, that sort of thing. Secret account 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing Be Here Now (album) has a section that talks about the artwork and it's a featured article. I wanted to keep the two sections "Artwork" and "Styles of use" so that the image for "Captive Heart" can still be here on Wikipedia and plus its on that section so others can see what I mean when they read that section. But if anyone believes that its too much or it is better to remove it then I will happily. Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea but it uses a book and a reliable magazine as a source, not the album booklit. Secret account 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will be searching for more sources on that one before removing it. So is the lead and production sections ok or do I need to fix them still? AJona1992 (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While you're fixing the above mentioned akward sentences, here's one that needs help, "were previously released prior to the album's release". Dave (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will begin fixing. AJona1992 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will still work on this article but major work will begin in two days as my mentor is currently away for the moment. But I will try my best and everything else that I cannot do I will do with my mentor, thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:24, 4 October 2010 [41].

Lady Gaga

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rackshea

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it is well written and Lady Gaga is a very popular entertainer. People should know about her. She is a very caring and nice person. She cares about other people before herself.


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:37, 2 October 2010 [42].

The Ex-Girlfriend

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's finally ready to be promoted. I don't spend as much time on wikipedia as I used to, but this is one of the articles I left behind, and I think it has a good chance. A copy-editor has taken a look at it, and I now think it is ready.--Music26/11 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is little evidence in the edit summaries of any significant copyediting since this article was last archived on 15 November 2009. A few changes have been made, but I'm afraid the prose is still a long way from featured quality. In the lead and plot sections alone, I found the following:-

  • "...once she begins to annoy him as much as she did to George..." "Once she begins" is vaguely tautologous, and you don't annoy to people. Since this clause relates to what follows, you need some connection. I would say "even when she begins to annoy him as much as she had George, he finds himself..." etc.
  • "remaining" is an inappropriate word in the penultimate lead sentence. "Others" will do.
  • "irritates him to no end." Doesn't make sense - delete the "to"
  • "he realizes he had" - tenses conflict
  • "He wants to break up with her, but is unable to because she has a "psycho-sexual" hold on him." How is this psycho-sexual hold conveyed? Do we see it in action? Or does Jerry confess it, and if so, to whom?
  • "Jerry is unable to decide whether or not to tell George" - "or not" is redundant.
  • "After being informed, George informs..." Awkward repetition
  • Aside from the prose issues, the plot section looks incomplete. How does the scene in the chiropractor's office, mentioned in the lead, fit into the plot? Also, in your summary the episode appears to fizzle out, when in fact the ending has a little bite. When Marlene says she didn't find Jerry's act funny, he pleads that he has "other stuff". When she says she can't be with someone if she doesn't respect what he does, Jerry cries "You're a cashier!"

Despite two FACs and a peer review in October 2009, the main problem is to bring the prose up to an appropriate standard. It needs the commitment of a competent copyeditor, rather than occasional contributions. This will take time and effort, and cannot in my view be achieved during this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2010&oldid=393476265"