Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2013

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sarnia

Nominator(s): There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have had a thorough peer review by Brianboulton, who has successfully contributed to more than 70 featured articles. I have implemented 99% of his recommendations in revamping the article so that it is leaner and meaner. I've put in more hours that I can remember on the article and am making my second try at FA status. Thank you for any and all constructive and polite help! I sincerely appreciate it. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Chris857

First sentence -- we have "...Ontario, Canada (2011 population...", but there is no closing parenthesis. Chris857 (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattximus There is a lack of Canadian cities at FA status, but I believe there is quite a bit of work needed:

Lead

"Sarnia is a city in Southern (Southwestern) Ontario, Canada" - I would say choose either southern, or southwestern. Having both is a little redundant.

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a better way of saying " It is located where the...", perhaps a more technical geographic term (at the junction?)

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

45-tonne barque "Le Griffon" is mentioned in the lead but not in the history section. Lead should summarize history, maybe this part is needed *only* in the history section?

Added a mention of La Salle and the Griffon to the history section.

I'm not sure if you need "when he had horses and men pull his 45-tonne barque "Le Griffon" up the almost four-knot current" in the lead. Lead is a summary of the text. It's not really about Sarnia itself, but I suppose fits as trivia in the history section.

Same for "of the St. Clair River on 24 August 1679." But this statment needs a source

Added the reference and corrected the date to 23 August 1679. Hey, that's 334 years ago today! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ontario Heritage Trust considers the voyage worthy of note, as shown by the photo of the sign." Not an encyclopedic sentence.

Fixed this by rewording. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is fixed. "As shown by the photo of the sign" is not convention in wikipedia.

Grammar: "Because of this economic dependence on the petrochemical industry, Sarnia has the highest level of particulates air pollution". No, it's not the dependence that causes pollution, it's the industry.

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are fixing a specific criticism without looking at the bigger picture. The writing needs work and unfortunately I do not have time to go over every sentence (although I do want to see this article at FA level!). For example "Because of the petrochemical industry, and Sarnia's resulting economic dependence on it, the city has the highest level of particulates air pollution of any Canadian city." This is a passive sentence, consider starting with "The city has the highest level of particulates... because...". I'll see if I have time to catch more later.

It's not passive, but I changed the structure to remove the dependent clause. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: "In the winter, Sarnia does experience" - >Sarnia experiences

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References: Culturally, Sarnia is a large part of the artistic presence in Southern Ontario. Where in the reference is this stated?

Pages 7-12. Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think a list of bands that once played in the city has any place in the article, let alone the lead.

Sorry, I have to stand firm on this one. Sarnia Bayfest is the one of the biggest music festivals in Southern Ontario, and the fact that such big names have played here is important to the artistic presence mentioned above. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Sarnia was simply the venue of these bands, it did not generate an "artistic presence". For example, you wrote (in the lead mind you) that a country band called Rascal Flats, from Ohio, once went to Sarnia to play an hour long concert. How does this make Sarnia an artistic presence? Did this band not play 100 other cities that year? This may sound sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely.

I have moved the list of performers out of the lead and put it into the Culture section. One question, however ... if the bands had played at the Hollywood Bowl instead of Sarnia Bayfest, would that not have been significant in the history of that venue? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Bowl perhaps, but not in the Los Angeles article.

I'm not sure how important it is to say that in 2013 the music festival was cancelled due to lack of funds in the lead.

It's very important because Sarnia Bayfest did not happen this year, thus affecting the economy of the area. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the sources, and they the cancellation is due to years of low attendance and that the festival in its current form is essentially done. Could not find any firm plans for return in 2014 as stated in the text. In light of the cancellation I'm sticking with my recommendation to remove, especially from the lead.

There are no firm plans for permanent cancellation either. If and when such plans surface, or plans to continue, then I'll modify the article appropriately. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the "organizers canceled the event because of money troubles" have 5 references?

I put all the references regarding Bayfest at the end of the paragraph. It's not just the cancellation.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be made more clear.

Shouldn't matter since the sentence should be deleted, but in Canadian English is it not preferred to write cancelled instead of canceled?

Fixed the spelling. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General impressions: The lead seems imbalanced comapred to the focus of the rest of the article, with perhaps too much history and not enough summary of the rest of the article.

I included history, arts, weather, Chemical Valley, and the discovery of oil. To me, that seems well-balanced. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"graced the stage" is not encyclopedic.
"The largest event that happens in Sarnia is Sarnia Bayfest, which is a popular music festival that takes place during the summer." tense issue, should be past tense (happened, took place).

Name

The name section is not a very clear read and probably too long. For example:

"The Channel Islands lie between Southern England and Northern France, as indicated by Selden.". You've already mentioned the Channel Islands, what purpose does this sentence serve? Why is it important that Selden knows where the Chanel Islands are, isn't it assumed?

Fixed this by combining the two sentences. Also, the name section is not too long. I've already shortened it by 40%. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Berry elucidated the difference by stating "... and thus applying Sarnia to Guernsey ..."" Elucidate means to make clear, how is that short quotation making the difference clear?

It's clear because he also states that Guernsey is Sarnia, spelled with an "n" instead of Sarmia, "spelled with an "m," which is an older name of the nearby island Sark. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose definitely needs a good copyedit. For example, first sentence: "The name "Sarnia" is Latin for Guernsey, which is Channel Island", do you mean "which is a Channel Island?".

Yes, that is what I mean. Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed in infobox for settlement date, incorporation date, etc...

That would mean a double citation, one for where those things are mentioned in the text, and one for the infobox. Is that not over-citing? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough this is fine, I had to go searching a bit but I found the reference.

Going through the lead again, it looks much better now, but still the prose is far from polished. For example "Sarnia rests on the eastern bank of the junction between the Upper and Lower Great Lakes where Lake Huron flows into the St. Clair River and is across the Canada-United States border east of Port Huron, Michigan." This sentence needs rewording to make it more clear. As it stands, it doesn't follow logically, but I know what you are trying to say. Maybe something like "Sarnia is located on the eastern bank of the junction between the Upper and Lower Great Lakes where Lake Huron flows into the St. Clair River, which forms the Canada-United States border, directly across from Port Huron, Michigan". Is that more clear?

Made the change. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the two-week limit for FAC is enough to fix the writing. I've only scratched the surface of this article so far and found many issues. What do you think?

Well, I'm going to give it my best shot! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, will continue to review when time permits!

Why is Port Sarnia italicised?

Dunno. Removed the italics. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You state there was a vote to rename the village, but who voted? Does this number matter? Does it even matter what a few settlers wanted the village to be called?

The citizens voted. The material comes from the quote itself, which I am loath to change. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"adopted the title "The Imperial City" on 7 May 1914". This needs clarification. What is meant by title? Did they rename the town? If so when was it renamed Sarnia?

The clarification is there in the sentence. Connaught visited the city. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did it go from Port Sarnia, to Sarnia?

1857, which is also stated in the article. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable to list the number of log houses, brick houses, frame houses in the section on the name of the city? Population would suffice I would think.

It is notable because it is part of the quote; therefore, I am, as stated before, loath to change it. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? "Colborne also named "Moore" " Is Moore another village nearby? There is no link, or any mention of this before. Very confusing.

Yes, Moore is a nearby village, and it is sourced in the reference. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

OK, so the demographics section is out of date and needs to be updated. Stats Can released the national household survey which should update much of the statistics relating to language, religion, etc. for Sarnia. It can be found here: [[2]]. Just text is fine but maybe consider a demographics table like the one found in Hamilton, Ontario?

Redid the demographics section with the most recent available data. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now!

Prose issues in the demographics section include:

"28.38% professed no religious preference or were atheists." Aren't atheists individuals who profess no religious preference? Why the "or"?

It's "or" because atheists don't believe in any religion. "No religious preference" means they're religious, but don't really care which religion. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then the "or" makes sense. Are you sure "no religious preference" means religious but don't care which?

I'm not sure what "median cost of a home in Sarnia" is doing in the demographics section

Removed. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(nitpicking) need a space between of and Jewish

Actually, it was "or" and "Jewish," and I added the space. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A median income that differs by 20% is considered "roughly the same"?

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" In 2011, 89.31% of Sarnians counted English as their mother tongue, 2.46% listed French, 0.87% counted both of those languages, and 7.37% counted another language as their mother tongue" I count "counted" 3 times in that one sentence. Maybe synonyms would make it less jarring?

I quoted the text used on the original 2006 Census, which used all the "counteds." Changed them this time around. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography:

This sentence needs rewording: "Despite this high percentage of clay, the soil is remarkably rich for growing and planting because prior to the Ice Age, when glaciers covered most of the area as can be seen not only by the existence of the Great Lakes themselves but also of alluvial sand deposits, terminal moraines, and rich oil reserves, the entire area was submerged and plant and animal matter formed many layers of sediment as they settled after the waters receded."

Suggest breaking it up into smaller sentences, or remove the passive nature. Also: what is the distinction between growing and planting? Don't you mean the soil is "good for cultivation"?

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seems out of place for the geography section: "The village of Blue Water was built to house workers and their families in Chemical Valley during the construction of Polymer Corporation and at one point had nearly 3,000 residents, many of them French-Canadian.[citation needed] In 1961, all the residents were relocated, mostly to the North End, to make way for expansion of the chemical industry. The village was demolished, and all that remains now is an historical marker at the corner of Vidal Street and Huron Avenue. This neighbourhood was largely forgotten until historian Lorraine Williams penned two books about it and was instrumental in the dedication of the plaque.[65] [66]"

Since it no longer exists, should it belong in the history section?

Absolutely. It is an integral part of the development of both Sarnia and Chemical Valley. I removed the part about French-Canadian because it's not in the source. The Mayor's Honor List Source has all the information about Blue Water, so there is no need to list the same source twice. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"means it is mild by" -> "is mild by". There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and bring with them" -> "bringing with them"

No, the participial version is weaker than the direct version. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A Windsor Star article printed 15 December 2010" -> "A 2010 Windsor Star article" (actually I'm not sure about the relevance of this source to a geographic phenomenon) is this even needed? Could you just cite this article as justification for Sarnia being in the snow-belt?

Added as reference. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Otherwise, as also shown by the National Climate Data and Information Archive, Sarnia has very little regular snowfall;" This needs reworking. Possibly include the national climate data as a citation for the statement "Sarnia has very little regular snowfall"? No need to include it in the text itself.

Removed. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section is pretty good, please consider my changes above. I'm not yet done with the last paragraph though!

Government

Is it possible to include a little on the history of the elected political parties. Is it a traditionally held Tory riding? Or has it wavered in the recent past? Maybe just a sentence or two on this I think would add a bit of encyclopaedic balance instead of just the current mp and mpp.

Added historical election results. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions

There is quite a bit of trivia that is not really appropriate for a city page IMO. For example, it's not notable that the name of one of the 100 parks "was chosen by Mrs. W. J. Hanna, who in 1932 helped to purchase the land." All three paragraphs on parks could probably be neatly summarized in 1 paragraph

Frankly, I don't know why details of history of the parks is considered "trivia," yet a history of which political party was in power over the years is considered necessary. In any event, I removed the sentence, even though it's directly stated in the reference. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the readers of this page when gauging notability. What is more likely: 1. A user wondering during an election time, if Sarnia is a traditional Tory stronghold or 2. A user wondering the name of the lady that sold the land to the city in 1933 creating one of the 100 parks. I think most would say the first is important, and the second is on the trivial side. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. But in the interests of compromise, as stated, I removed the extra sentence about Canatara Park. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added electoral history. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "Outdoor Fitness Equipment" have capitals? Also I checked the ref, and those three words are not mentioned.

Removed the capitals. In the reference, the following paragraph appears:

As a result of this recommendation, staff worked with a local company Active Playground Equipment (APE) to utilize City parks with installations of active play equipment. APE has agreed to test prototypes of their active equipment in Canatara Park for two years to gather feedback and measure performance of their equipment in a municipal park setting. There is no cost for the City for this equipment and the City has been indemnified for insurance purposes by the installer of the equipment. Because "Active Equipment" is a company name, I did not include it in the article because it could have been seen as advertising. Also, because the fitness equipment is in a park, it is self-evident that it's "outdoor equipment." There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very long quotation that has nothing to do with Sarnia, and I do not know why it is there: "There is one single, unifying element that defines our Canadian culture in absolute terms, a skein that runs through the warp and weft of the Canadian psyche. It's not our language, not our universal social programs. ... It's not even the animosity we hold each other in — the bipolarization of English versus French, east versus west, everyone versus Ontario. No, — it's the chip wagon. Yes, the glue of our national identity is the grease of the french fry."

"Fries Under the Bridge" are part of Sarnia's city identity. The quote is there to support that association. Between 50 and 100 thousand people visit the fry trucks every year. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is not about that particular store. It's about how French Fries and chip stands form part of the Canadian identity. Nothing to do with Sarnia specifically.

"Fries Under the Bridge" is not a specific store. There are generally five fry establishments under the Bridge at any one time. One of them is a brick-and-mortar location, and the other four are chip trucks. The trucks and the regular location have been part of Sarnia's cultural identity for 57 years. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that quotation is not about the five fry establishments under the Bridge. It's about how French Fries and chip stands form part of the Canadian identity. I'm not sure why this specific (random?) quotation was chosen. Is there no references to the importance to the chip trucks in Sarnia specifically? If not, I would venture to say they are not notable.

Added back two other citations that another reviewer suggested I remove during the peer review stage. On reflection, they are important, so I added them back to the article. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This chip section is really strange. You mention how a food writer was "blown away" by the Sarnia waterfront. "Blown away" is not encyclopaedic, and I'm not sure why the waterfront is mentioned in a paragraph on chip trucks (or the importance of a food blogger in determining the quality of a waterfront). Are there more sources on the fries actually being notable? For example I could find a food blogger that likes fries anywhere. Some reference that states the Sarnia fries are special in some way would be perfect. Then there is a long quotation which does not have to do with Sarnia, just chip trucks in general, which I believe is rather out of place.

"Blown away" are words used in the article. It may not be encyclopedic, but a quote is a quote and must be maintained. Ms. Ogryzlo also mentioned in the source that she felt the reputation of the fries as "the best" had merit. So, there is a source already there about the quality of the fries. Also, if I remove the Chadwick quote, you don't then get to say in the future "what is the relevance of chip trucks? Why is this included? They're not notable." There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

Paragraphs shouldn't have just one sentence. Suggest merging?

The one sentence paragraphs were constructed that way by other reviewers during the peer review process. I am loath to change them because the reviewers have successfully contributed to more than 708 featured articles. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education

"all classes are conducted in French". This can't be true. French immersion means that there are some classes in French and some in English (I've attended one). At the very least, english classes won't be taught in French. Suggest cutting this part of the sentence.

Cut the sentence entirely. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very last sentence of this section seems like an add-on. I wonder if it can be incorporated into the first sentence of that paragraph? (This is not critical)

The sentence regards college education and would be out of place in a paragraph about elementary and high school education. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was suggesting that the last sentence of the last paragraph be merged with the first sentence of the last paragraph, as it feels like an add-on where it is now. But this is not a critical suggestion anyway.

I believe it is written "enrolment" in Canada, not "enrollment".

Fixed this. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion (thus far into the FAC)

I'm sorry, there are simply too many prose issues in this article at the moment. I've been trying to catch them but I'm maybe 10% through the article, and even then it could use more than a cursory glance. Also I've not had a chance to review the "bigger picture". I don't think this will pass in the 2 week limit. Suggest a thorough copy-edit.

Mattximus, after implementing all your suggested changes, I've run the whole article through readability.com. It's at grade level 11-12. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article is looking better, and thanks for considering my changes, but as you can see there were a lot, and that was only a section or two. I alone cannot go over the whole article in two weeks. It really needs other eyes. I'll keep trying to improve prose as much as I can in the mean time.

Oppose as is (unless prose is considerably improved) Mattximus (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of work was done on this article at the peer review stage, and there has been some further improvement since. However, the judgement that the prose needs further work before the article can pass FAC is a fair one. I will do what I can over the next week or so to help knock the prose into shape, and request that the delegates allow this time before considering closure. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I have copyedited the sections following "Demographics", the best I can do. I have not tried to rewrite the article, though I have made a few rearrangements of the content that seemed necessary, and I have "lost" the bus picture, which wasn't particularly interesting and tended to overcrowd that part. It's now up to other editors to decide if the prose has been polished up to FAC standards. I don't believe I can do more. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra help, Brianboulton! I think we've done everything we can do. Let's just see what happens! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the demographics section is now much better, and up to date. I only have one last comment for this section: why are United Church and Anglican combined in the statistics? Aren't they fairly distinct religions? Mattximus (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the source, they were the two largest groups, so it made sense to combine them. The other groups were too small to list separately.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides Roman Catholicism? Still very strange to combine two arbitrarily like that, would suggest giving each their individual percentage. That shouldn't clutter the sentence up too much and be much more informative. Mattximus (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Editors: I am going to be translating this article into German for wikipedia.de shortly. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions need some editing for clarity, tone, and style
File:Sarnia_From_Space.jpg: there is no way this meets the "unique historic image" rationale. You might consider contacting Hadfield about releasing his photos for use, or check to see whether any of the NASA-published photos feature Sarnia. Similarly, File:Sarnia_at_Night_from_Space.jpg - try contacting him. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, when I posted the first photo by Chris Hadfield (the daylight shot), there was a big discussion about it. The caption that I put on the photo was the result of that discussion. Check the talk page of the photo, and you'll see. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"unique historic image" requires a stronger rationale than other fair-use tags, and this particular image was first published by the press (according to the image description). I suggest that a broader discussion about the image's inclusion is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Nikkimaria. Is there a way to change the tag to something else? Or, should I delete the photo and upload it again under a different tag? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I figured out how to do it and changed the type from historic image to newspaper image. The fair-use rationale remains the same. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ("name" section)

Most of the first paragraph is out of scope for Sarnia, the city (and would better fit into the Guernsey-article). The relevant etymology for the city name is only: "It was derived from an island with the same name". Guernsey is linked, all additional info about Guernsey and the island's etymology is available there - it's not necessary (and confusing for the average reader) to duplicate that info here and follow an inherited name completely back to its original roots (especially when that info is apparently disputed among different sources). The entire first paragraph should be replaced with "Sarnia is the traditional name of Guernsey, a British Channel Island." and merged with the second paragraph, continuing with the governor and details about his name choice. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bump Commenting here because there has been no traffic for almost a week and I don't want this archived with no decision. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Ashley Tisdale

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after four years since the last nomination, a lot of hard working has been done in this article. I feel it finally meets the FA criteria and therefore deserves the promotion. It is well-written, with relevant information only and everything is properly referenced. I assume it is ready. If you don't support, please let me know what your issues are so I can work on them. Decodet (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor
General

The lead is a bit long for such a short article.

I may reduce it a little bit but I am not sure about what can I remove, for me there's only relevant information in there. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

"certified gold by..." and "for sales exceeding half a million copies" basically mean the same thing. Get rid of one or the other, probably the first. Having both makes sense in the body text.

done. Decodet (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the 2006 soundtrack became the top-selling album in the United States that year" - can probably be left out of the lead, which already mentions the soundtrack albums; Tisdale was not a main singer on most of the singles from this album.

done. Decodet (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" the captain of a cheerleader team" - this much detail probably not needed in the lead of a short article (the character name is useful because people look at the lead wondering why they've heard of her).

done. Decodet (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might need more drastic cuts or restructuring, not sure. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm working on it! Decodet (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better! One extra thought - is "He Said She Said" the single of hers that has sold best overall? If so, it might be easier to just say that in the lead (or just as "her most successful single"), and relegate the details to the article body, because "her best charting solo single in the U.S." is not only longer, but, more importantly, seems to be trying to put across a lengthy series of qualifiers in order to make the statement true, which makes it very difficult to read to my somewhat worldwide-music-industry-ignorant brain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is! Thanks for the note, I'll rewrite that sentence. Decodet (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - what does the original source say, that the lead currently paraphrases as "among kids and tweens"? Tweens is a tolerably precise definition, but "kids" in such a context could variously mean only people younger than tweens, only people older than tweens, or all people between age 8-or-so and (potentially) age 25-or-so who don't fit into the "tweens" category. Either way, something is either wrong or confusing here. I can't seem to access the source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source actually uses those terms "kids and tweens". I'm confident they meant younger than tweens though. Perhaps we can remove the "kids" and keep only the "tweens"? Decodet (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The series was also nominated for eight Primetime Emmy Awards, having won two of them.[2] - winning, not having won

done. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the intense captain of a cheerleader team. - What does "intense" mean here?

done. Removed that word to avoid confusion. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The series, however, had only one full season as it was cancelled by The CW in 2011 because of low ratings. - ran for only one season. Also, does ratings indicate viewers or critical reception?

done. It was about the viewers. Fixed it. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she starred as Jody Sanders in Scary Movie 5, the fourth sequel to the 2000 film. - Why is this last part "the fourth..." necessary?

done. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

to Lisa (née Morris) and Mike Tisdale, the manager of a construction company. - Do you know her mother's career?

Actually no. I've tried to find out what her career is but I couldn't find anything. Apparently she's a homestay. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is very choppy. Some sentences should be connected together.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He sent her to numerous auditions for commercials, resulting in her placement in more than 100 national network TV ads as a kid. - As a kid is informal.

done. Replaced it with "child". Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tisdale toured for two years on Les Misérables[15] before landing a role in an international touring production of Annie[13] in Korea. - First of all, what role did she land? And if it was international, how was it in Korea? Based in Korea?

done. Removed the word "international". Nobody knows what role she portrayed in that production. Every single reliable source that I find about that says "a role". Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During this time, she simultaneously worked as a Ford Model. - Is this a common term (Ford Model)? I've never heard of it.

done. Replaced with "as a model for Ford Model" to avoid confusion. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For her role in Boston Public, she received a 2000 Young Artist Award nomination for "Best Guest Performance In a TV drama".[17] - What did she play?

done. Added the role she played. Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here. I have to oppose because I am sorry to say I fear the article is 1. not fully comprehensive, omitting important details such as her specific roles and 2. more importantly the prose needs a lot of work. I'll be glad to post comments here as the FAC progresses, but I think a lot of time has elapsed without review so it is unlikely we will finish in time. However, I have high hopes for this article's improvement! :) ceranthor 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I've fixed everything you've said and I'd be happy if you please continue your review! :) Decodet (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04-06

teenage candy-counter girl - What does this mean?

It means that the character is a candy seller. Is this sentence confusing? Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She later won her first award at the UK Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards for "Best TV Actress", due to her performance as Fitzpatrick.[18][10] - Due to is awkward, and later is redundat. That bit at the end should be switched to the front. It should read... "For her performance... , she won ..." Also, when did she win this award?

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack, in which Tisdale lent her vocals for several songs, - to which; which songs?

done. She sings in at least half of the album, isn't it redundant to list the songs she sings in? Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the popularity earned by Tisdale through her performance in High School Musical, - Not a well-written sentence, awkward and forced

done. I tried to rewrite it, is it better? Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007–09: Solo music career and continued success

in a selective number of countries that did not include North America. - what does this even mean? Can you just list the countries then say but not North America?

done. I removed this sentence, I thought it was redundant to list two singles that were released in Germany and Austria only. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with a three-song trilogy comprising music videos and a documentary about the creation of Headstrong. - comprising music videos?

Do you mean comprised of?

done. Yes, that's what it was meant. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She lent vocals for several tracks in the film's soundtrack[12] - On, not in

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

viewers on its premiere night.[30] - during its premiere, not premiere night.

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also in 2007, Tisdale was given the voice role of Candace Flynn, the series' secondary antagonist, in Phineas and Ferb, which became television's most-watched animated series among kids and tweens,[6] - Surely there must be more information on how she got the part. I cannot believe this is comprehensive.

I've tried before looking for more details about Tisdale's casting in that particular role. However, I will try to do that again later and see if there is anything I could add to that. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tisdale's debut as an executive producer and also in a leading role, - and as an actress in a leading role

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in which she played Mandy Gilbert, - ; she played ... - Get rid of the in which

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

captured 4.3 million total viewers - captured is not the right word

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 3 earned $42 million in its domestic opening weekend, - how much total?

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which became the biggest opening for a musical film. - Is this still true? If not it should be clarified.

It still is per http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm&sort=opengross&order=DESC&p=.htm Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and Billboard claimed the album "doesn't give the singer room to comfortably let loose".[42] - This should be a separate sentence first of all, and claimed is not the correct word here

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10-12

Tisdale's return into broadcast television occurred in 2010 - Tisdale returned to broadcast television in 2010

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that reported Tisdale had signed on to co-star on her first major broadcast series role as Savannah Monroe, the peppy and fiercely intense captain of the Hellcats.[47] - Separate sentence

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The series had its script based on the book - The series based its script

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She had vocal roles in several TV cartoons, during 2010, - why the commas around during 2010?

done. Removed them. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

desireble and high-priced escort.[55] - Typo

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to create, develop and executive produce a series. - Just produce... not executive, even if that is the case. If you want, you could mention serve as executive producer. Also, where is the serial comma after develop? You've used it everywhere else in the article.

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013

based on critical reviews, in both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.[68][69] - In?
s it received low scores, based on critical reviews, - Low scores based on critical reviews? Poorly written

done. Wasn't sure about what to do with that sentence, I hope it's better now. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After four years since the release of her second studio album Guilty Pleasure in 2009, - Four years after ...

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

, that included a mall tour in the US with performances in fashion shows hosted at each.[10] - why the comma?

done. Removed it. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she joined Got Milk? campaign.[73] - the Got Milk? campaign

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and in 2013's - and in 2013

Personal life

In December, 2012, she began dating musician Christopher French since December 2012; - ???

done. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just snippets, too. This is not a fully detailed review. There are just so many issues with the prose still. I'm sorry. :( ceranthor 22:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad about all that; English is not my first language so it's challenging to work in this kind of article. However, I'm doing the best I can and I'm happy that you're here helping me out. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are bits of information missing here and there throughout the article. The article could also benefit from a thorough third-party copy-edit.

There is no mention of Valencia High School, to which Tisdale went. [4]

I can add that without a problem but I'm just wondering if that is that really relevant? Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and Mike Tisdale, the manager of a construction company and her elder sister, is also an actress" Sounds awkward. The sentence needs to be split.

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""a little bit of both" of her parents' religions." What is her father's religion?

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She began her theatrical career by appearing in" What was her role?

I couldn't find anything about that. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"At the age of twelve, Tisdale sang at the White House for President Bill Clinton." What was the occasion?

Same here. Every reliable source doesn't give much detail. That's everything we know. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the meaning of the quote under "2010–12: Return to broadcast television and producing"?

It says actually "...on why he cast Tisdale". I can remove that if it's irrelevant for the article. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Her involvement in Dimension Films' Scary Movie 5 was announced in June 2012, by The Weinstein Company" → "In June 2012, The Weinstein Company announced her involvement in Dimension Films' Scary Movie 5" Remove passive voice.

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She played Jody, a late-'20s dancer, the leading role in the film, which also starred Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen." → "Starring alongside Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen, Tisdale portrayed Jody, the leading character of the film who is dancer in her late-20s."

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The film received an April 2013 release and grossed $15 million on its first weekend, making it the lowest-grossing opening weekend for a film in the franchise; it also became a critical failure." → "The film was released in April 2013 and grossed US$15 million on its first weekend, making it the lowest-grossing weekend for a Scary Movie film; it was a critical failure."

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"she is inspired" Was.

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In May 2013, TMZ reported that a man named Nicholas Fiore, who had sent more than 18,000 tweet messages to Tisdale's Twitter account ~~dating back to~~ since 2012, had shown up at her home in Los Angeles."

done. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he has threatened to shoot both her and her boyfriend," By the way, what was the man's reasoning for the threat?

done. Jealousy. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be standardized. For example, there are references that have the both publication and publisher names, while others lack both (FN 90 and FN 94).

done. Fixed not only those two but a couple more that missed either publication or publisher names. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I do not think the article is fit for the FA status. It lacks information and could be reworded to improve flow. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've solved your comments and I hope the article is better now. I'll try to reword some sentences later today. Decodet (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't include comma within date in lead caption

done. Decodet (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signature_of_Ashley_Tisdale.svg: as it seems unlikely that the uploader is Tisdale, authorship, source and licensing needs to be clarified here

I thought it would be better if I just remove it. That image was uploaded three years ago so there is no way to track those informations. Decodet (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maxim_May_2013_cover.jpg: the given purpose of use is inconsistent with the image's actual use in the article. The FUR in general needs work, as a stronger case is needed for the use of this non-free image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That image has been removed. Thanks for your review! Decodet (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the image as orphaned for deletion (in 7 days). Please update the image summary, if you plan to use it for some other article. GermanJoe (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiore

How is the Fiore person relevant to her career? Or her personal life? He sent her lots of tweets? She made various allegations about him? What else? TMZ is not a great source for this sort of thing, likewise similar publications. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This man stalked her and has threatened to kill both Tisdale and boyfriend - I don't know, I thought this was relevant to her personal life because it was a fact that received a lot of media coverage. Do you still think it's irrelevant to her personal life? If so, I may remove that paragraph without a problem. Decodet (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion doesn't matter much. I do wonder, has it changed her career? Affected how she chose to perform? Anything significant? Or just a lot of fuss at the time? If reliable sources still talk about it as a major thing in her career then it's worth including... you have to look at how important it is to her career as a whole. Compare with U2. Lots of nuts. How important is each nut? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. It was really just a lot of fuss at the time, not anything major in her career. It's been removed. Decodet (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source review.

What makes Celebrity Net Worth, Cliff.com, TV By The Numbers and The Futon Critic high quality reliable sources?

I never even knew why people added this Net Worth thing. I assumed it was a new Wikipedia standard so that's why I kept it - it's been removed now. TV by the Numbers is a reliable source actually. I've also replaced Futon Critic and Cliff.com for ABC and Los Angeles Times respectively. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced that TV By The Numbers is a high quality reliable source. The site gives no information on the qualifications of the writer/publishers nor does it discuss editorial oversight and fact-checking. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher notation is inconsistent for magazines: brackets or no brackets?

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher notation is inconsistent for newspapers: brackets or no brackets?

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italicization of websites is inconsistent.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "iTunes Store" is the work, why is it not italicized while other website names are? A standard I've used in articles I've written is to only italicize the titles of books, magazines and newspapers. For references that are exclusively online, the names are unitalicized, as they would be in article prose. Choose a style, but be consistent. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some typos in the refs (eg. 41, ref 78, ref 81)

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect publishers (eg. AOL publishers The Huffington Post, Time Inc. publishers Entertainment Weekly)

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid "Inc", "Ltd" and "LLC" in publisher fields unless it is there to avoid confusion. (eg. Viacom International Inc. can be simply Viacom).

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking of works and publishers needs to be checked. Link only on first occurrence, all occurrences or no occurrences.

done. I hope I didn't miss anything. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23: language?

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ref titles, double hyphens ("--") and hyphens used as dashes (eg. ref 76) should be replaced with en dashes preceded by nbsps.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also to avoid in ref titles are ALL CAPS.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks returned results for three dead URLs.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article prose also needs copyediting. Examples:

"In her childhood" sounds iffy. I think it should be "During her childhood".

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Two years later, Tisdale began to cultivate an adult image and mainstream pop sound and released her second studio album Guilty Pleasure (2009)." —you say "two years later", so the "2009" notation is not needed.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disney Channel's three-time Emmy Award winner animated series Phineas & Ferb as Candace Flynn..."—"winner" should be "winning" and there should be a hyphen after "Award". "Series" is also used twice in this sentence.

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy: "Tisdale ~~has also pursued a career as a film and television producer, working~~ [worked] as [the] executive producer on ~~a number of~~ films and television series including the ABC Family television film Picture This and the Bravo's 2012 unscripted series Miss Advised."

done. Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After being open for this long and there being no supports, I am a little worried about this FAC. There are still issues throughout that need to be addressed. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the issues you've listed. If there are any more, I'd like if you address them so I can fix them. Thanks for your review! Decodet (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Just a quick note: refrain from bold "done"s in FACs. This excessive bolding is distracting to reviewers and delegates. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment After six weeks here there is no consensus to promote this article and I will close it shorty. Please note that two weeks must elapse before renomination. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

George Juskalian

Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has great encyclopedic value and contains considerable amount of information on a famous Armenian-American soldier. The article is at GA status and also contains a picture which is now at FP. Last nomination did not go through because it was not copy-edited as much and it wasn't a GA then. Looking forward for the review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some very quick comments: lede is awfully short for an article of this length, paragraphs are somewhat choppy (many are quite short too, as are sections). May need some extensive polishing. Have you tried the MilHist project's A-class reviews yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have talked to members of the A1 Class review. They provided positive feedback. Only one user had a concerns of reliability with a source (#8 and #15) which I personally believe is not an issue. The source is paraphrased in accordance to first hand accounts of Juskalian and can easily be verified with other sources. All other people were willing to pass it, including AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) and Anotherclown (talk · contribs). So I decided to bring it directly to FAC. I can expand on the lede a little bit. I agree, the second paragraph needs expansion. The sections I personally believe are suffice since he didn't spend much time in some of those places. I can always combine them with other sections. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combining would be better, particularly to keep the TOC a bit more manageable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I combined/removed some section headers. Added a bit more to the lede. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Oflag caption shouldn't end in period
File:US-O6_insignia.svg: source link is dead
File:Arrowhead_device.svg:source link is dead
File:US_Army_Airborne_basic_parachutist_badge.gif: tagged as lacking author info, and as this appears to be a 3D object we'd need licensing for both the object itself and the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all issues mentioned above, with an exception to the last. I can't seem to have it reverted to the original graphic design which would free the photo from all 3D object issues. I uploaded a new graphic picture but it seems like it seems to go back to the 3D artwork. Quite strange. Can we have someone from commons check it out? Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending thorough spotchecks - after a connection was made from here to a DYK nomination, I did some spotchecking here and found problems with paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources. Examples:

"He was an active and respected member of the local St. Mary’s" vs "was an active and respected member of St. Mary's"
"On April 23, 2007, during a formal session of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Juskalian was recognized for his heroism and honorable service to the United States" vs "The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors recognized Juskalian for his heroism and honorable service to the United States during a formal session on April 23, 2007"
~~A quote from Webb is cited to this source, which includes no such quote.~~ Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issues. Also, the quote is on the second page of the article here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that, now struck. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get why a mere two sentences would constitute an oppose vote though. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a cursory check I noticed this close paraphrasing: "constructed from British biscuit cans and their handles made from the wooden slats of their beds" vs. "fashioned out of British biscuit cans with handles created from their wooden bed slats". And this inconsistency with the source, " In August 1942, Juskalian boarded the RMS Queen Mary, and along with the other 15,000 soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division, was shipped to Europe" where the source says "In August, the whole division — some 20,000 soldiers — boarded the Queen Mary and headed overseas." I agree that thorough checks are needed here. Graham Colm (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - At this level we shouldn't be having this many questions about sourcing and paraphrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw this and work on it later. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn by the nominator, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Waveguide filter

Nominator(s): Spinning Spark 16:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a sister article to Mechanical filter and Distributed element filter, both FAs, and I believe it has now been brought to the same standard. Spinning Spark 16:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments from JMiall

some comments after reading the start of the article:

Article scope: I'm not really happy with how you've approached this, first of all you say that waveguides are hollow metal tubes but then later have to clarify this and say that actually the term is used more broadly (personally I regard the broader definition as being correct with the common term for various types of hollow metal tube also being 'waveguide') and that this article will only deal with filters of one type. I think a better approach would be to start with a very general definition of a waveguide filter that is always true, then mention the caveat and say that the rest of this article will only deal with the case of filters in hollow metal tubes. I think the best approach would be to rename this article or make this article cover other types as well (eg Coplanar waveguide filters).

I'm going to plead WP:COMMONNAME on this one. Sources generally refer to hollow-metal waveguide simply as waveguide. It is the common name, ergo that should be the title of the article. It would usually only be specified to be "hollow-metal" where disambiguation is needed. Wikipedia can do the same and create Waveguide filter (disambiguation) should it ever be needed. 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mode is linked to Normal mode but would be better linking to Waveguide_(electromagnetism)#Analysis, or Transverse mode or even to a new article on Electromagnetic Modes.

I was working here on the principle that the lede should, in as far as possible, be understandable by an anyone and not be too technical. Normal mode gives a nice overview of vibrational modes and their numbering. Transverse mode is linked in the body of the article where modes are discussed in more detail. I agree that Electromagnetic modes would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first paragraph of History belongs in the article Waveguide (electromagnetism).

It may well be that it could be added to that article, but a summary of waveguide development is helpful background in this article also. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of History is about the history of lumped element filters which you've just said are outside the scope of this article

True, but it is significant to the history. Waveguide filters started off as, and still frequently are, direct equivalents of lumped-element designs. It is unlikely that waveguide filter history would have taken the path it did without the precursor of lumped-element filter design. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link Balanced pair

Done Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'during the war years'- which war?

Fixed. I was trying to avoid repeating WWII and thought the context would be taken from the previous mention. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Amongst the well-known scientists and engineers...' - did all these people actually work on waveguide filters though?

Don't really know the answer to that. My principle source for the history is Levy & Cohn and those are the names they mention in this connection (ie right in amongst the discussion of Rad Lab's development of microwave cavity filters). However, the only specific work mentioned is that of Bethe. It is problematic to determine who did exactly what as nothing was published during the war. Fano & Lawson published the technical results of the work after the war, but I don't know if they throw any light on who did what either. I would be cool with removing the statement if you think it does not add to the article. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Rad Lab developed waveguide cavity filters.' - very short sentence that has nearly been said already in the paragraph

Fixed. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

link characteristic impedance

Done. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'to be taken "as is" and transformed directly' - what does this mean?

It means lumped-element designs can be used without further modification other than running through Kuroda's transforms. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'kown'

Done. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'but it was some time before Kuroda's Japanese work became widely known' - anywhere or outside of Japan? Had other parts of his work become widely known?

added "in the English speaking world." Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the whole 'Theoretical work...' paragraph again isn't really in the stated scope of this article.

All things which became important in waveguide filter design. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the history section would really benefit from being nearer the end of the article so that readers aren't confronted with terms that aren't explained until much later in the article

I tend to agree with that, but articles of this sort have repeatedly been requested at peer review and FA that the history section be moved nearer the front. The thinking seems to be that the history is easier to understand and may be of more interest to the general reader than technical details. This article is consistent with the previous FAs Mechanical filter and distributed element filter in layout. I am not inclined to change it now that a format has been established by precedent - if I did it will end up being changed back and forth on every reviewers whim. If the community establishes a preferred layout, through a WP:WikiProject Electronics layout guideline for instance, then it would be time to change it, and all the others that previously gone through FA - all at the same time. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The first use of these in a filter was by S. B. Cohn in 1965 using titanium dioxide as the dielectric material' - citation for this? There was widespread use dielectrics in coaxial cables and capacitors before this so it doesn't seem much of a stretch to put dielectric in a waveguide.

JMiall ₰ 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is when putting anything like that in wartime radars would cause them to catch fire! The citation is in Nalwa, cited at the end of the paragraph. He references Cohn at this conference (1965) and this publication (1968). Nalwa is not the only source this claim can be found in. Hunter, for instance, makes the same claim in even clearer terms and I can see several Gbooks results for the same thing in in books that are not in my bibliography. Spinning Spark 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, as time is taken into account with FAC nominations: this nomination was not transcluded at WP:FAC until I added it today. Maralia (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image captions appear to be written as for a textbook, which isn't entirely appropriate for Wikipedia articles - for example, we don't typically use the "figure" label
File:PSM_V25_D738_John_William_Strutt_Lord_Rayleigh.jpg needs a US PD tag
File:Hans_Bethe.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information for both images has now been fixed. The image caption scheme is following that used in the previous FAs of Mechanical filter and Distributed element filter. Spinning Spark 06:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Hail to the Thief

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. It is already a GA and has been expanded and restructured since.Popcornduff (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It's clear you've worked hard on this article, but there are errors—both minor and major. As you wrote on the article talkpage, you should get a fresh pair of eyes to look at the article (at peer review or the league of copyeditors):

Minor

There are several [citation needed] tags in the article (even apart from the ones I added).
References are occasionally incomplete and/or inconsistently formatted. There's a bare URL and I also see "NME, 3 May 2003, p.27." and "Q Magazine, June 2003" (author and article names?). I also see author's inconsistently listed as "Chuck Klosterman" and "Edwards, Gavin". I recommend a thorough re-do.
"But personally it's probably my least favourite of all the [Radiohead] albums"—most such [inclusions] in the quotes are unnecessary. The quotes are understandable without them.
Dead links.
It's not hard to imagine that EMI will keep reissuing the album every five years until the end of time, with new "deluxe/bonus/exclusive" material. IMO there's no need to list all that here. Only the original tracklist is important.

Major

By having a subsection for every song, the Music section is too long and stubby-looking. Also when you have a lyrics section, what is the point of discussing it again? I suggest scrapping the songwise sectioning, and moving the best info to augment the music and lyrics sections.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the feedback! Popcornduff (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question - you've put a citation needed on the claim that HTTT is Radiohead's longest album. I'm never sure how to go about citing this sort of thing. I presume it isn't enough to just state it as a self-evident truth that readers can verify by comparing running times? Is there such a thing as a self-evident truth on Wikipedia? What would be sufficient as a source for this claim? Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd say its length is self-evident, maybe even that it's the longest. But, if no other reliable source discusses this fact, how do you know that it is important enough (i.e. it's not just trivia) to include?—indopug (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included it because it always comes up in discussion of the album's criticisms, particularly from the band and Godrich - "it's too long", "not enough editing" etc. With that in mind, it might make sense to move it to that area, or just delete it. Popcornduff (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, move it there along with the criticisms.—indopug (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

The last paragraph of the Background section is a bit a of a cliffhanger. What worked and what didn't?
"a years-long process of recording and editing drummer Phil Selway described as 'manufacturing music in the studio' " Funky wording here. Perhaps insert "which" after "editing", or change "drummer Phil Selway described" to "described by drummer Phil Selway", unless I'm misreading this.
Regarding the last paragraph of Recording: Quotes are cool here, but unfortunately Yorke doesn't do a good job of actually explaining what the arguments were about. Any clues in the sources?
Why is the Music section subdivided by song? There's not nearly enough material on each song for separate subsections, so it does little more than clutter up the TOC.
Regarding the last paragraph of the intro to Promotion and release: This paragraph is very short, and discusses two ideas which are completely unrelated to one another, and neither is fully developed. If these snippets can't be expanded upon, I believe they should be deleted. Catch-all paragraphs are no good.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! All helpful. I definitely agree with both of you, now, that the Music section should't be divided by song; I only did that because I'd seen it on other FAs, but clearly it isn't justified in this case.

Question about your last point (regarding the last paragraph of Promotion and release): it seems to me that Com Lag, the b-sides collection, should at least be mentioned. Are you saying because there's nothing more to really expand on, other than to say it exists, it should be deleted? 08:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Etymology of Wicca

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it gained its GA status back in May 2013 and has since gone through a peer review that ironed out any of the cracks. It's a comprehensive article on a relatively small topic, making use of all the academic studies on the subject, and I believe that it ably fits all of the FA criteria. It would be great if some reviewers could give it a look and see what they think. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Buckland ref is unused. PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking up on that; it has not been removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means it has now been removed. :) Helen Online 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Yes indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in Further reading, makes it easier to find if you need it again and gives readers more to look up. PumpkinSky talk 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd be a little hesitant about putting that particular book in "Further reading"; the work is by a Wiccan practitioner rather than an academic active in Pagan studies scholarship. As such it contains much historically erroneous information. Placing it in "Further reading" might imply that it is a good source for readers to gain further, accurate information, but quite simply it isn't. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That shouldn't be placed in a Further reading section of an FA(C). —Sowlos 09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true then it shouldn't have been a ref at one point either. PumpkinSky talk 00:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is understood. It was initially copied across from the Wicca article which is not focussed on etymology. The ref and associated content was removed from the main text as a result of a recent peer review but the ref details were accidentally left in the bibliography (now removed). Helen Online 07:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Mostly looking at references and reference formatting for the moment:

~~You reference some books by OCLC rather than ISBN, even when ISBNs are available. The Farrar source is 978-0432045701, and Janus-Mithras is 978-1881532026.~~
The Field source needs page number(s).
I'm concerned what makes a couple of these sources reliable, especially the Seims article, on which you lean quite heavily. I don't see anything at the parent website that suggests editorial control; the article being cited appears to be a personal opinion piece of the website's author.
From a comprehensiveness standpoint, have you considered the following scholarly sources, which appear on cursory examination to have something to say on the topic:
- ~~Doyle White, E. (2011). "The Meaning of "Wicca": A Study in Etymology, History, and Pagan Politics." The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, 12 (2): 185-207.~~
- Scarboro, A., & Luck, P. A. (1997). "The Goddess and power: witchcraft and religion in America." Journal of Contemporary Religion, 12 (1): 69-79.
- It would not surprise me if this topic had also been addressed in Nova Religio or Aries as well.

Other:

~~Alexandrian, in Definitions, probably needs a link to Alexandrian Wicca.~~

~~Leaning oppose, mostly on the reliability of the Seims source and possible comprehensiveness issues.~~ I'll try to make a more thorough prose examination as time permits. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my objections here. I've looked through Nova Religio without success, and don't think I'll have any better luck in Aries; despite my belief to the contrary, this does appear to be a comprehensive literature review. I wish we had access to the original publication of the Seims content and to more complete bibliographical information for the Daily Dispatch article (I wouldn't consider a handwritten date on a newspaper clipping the pinnacle of reliability), but so long as others are willing to accept that these satisfy WP:V as they stand, I'll not press the point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I disagree with the assertion that this article might not be comprehensive. Doyle White's paper is the only academic article ever published devoted to the etymology of the word Wicca; he states as much in his prose. Of course many other papers and books – including that by Scarboro and Luck, which you cite – discuss the religion of Wicca (from historical, anthropological, and sociological angles), but none discuss the word's etymology. In fact I think that the Scarboro and Luck article would be of very little use here, because it does not focus on the etymology or terminology, instead offering a sociological analysis of a Wiccan coven in Atlanta, Georgia. Interesting stuff, but not particularly pertinent here.

I also defend the reliability of the Seims article. This was first published in The Cauldron, a relatively influential journal in the British Pagan scene, albeit one that is not peer-reviewed or academic. Seims herself subsequently uploaded the article online so that it could gain a wider readership, but originally it did appear in print, and therefore fits with Wikipedia's reliable source policy. If its of any relevance here, Doyle White actually quotes Seims's arguments in his academic paper, in order to support or critique them.

Regarding the page numbers on the Field source, this was an issue that has previously been discussed at the article's prior FAC; to reiterate the argument here, it is no longer possible to ascertain what the page numbers were for the source, sadly.

I have added the link to Alexandrian Wicca and added the missing ISBNs. Thank you for your constructive comments! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa on calling out Doyle White, which is very clearly already employed by the article. I'll also concede reliability on the Seims article; I had not recognized The Cauldron as a periodical title, and had assumed incorrectly about that material's origins. I don't suppose there's any chance of a page number there, either? I do still have some questions about that Fields source, though. For starters, what Daily Dispatch is that? The most well known of them is indeed from London -- or, rather, East London in South Africa. If that's the source, we should make that more clear. Meanwhile, I'll try to take a closer look at Scarboro and Luck to see if its applicable, and check the back issues of Nova Religio in case anything's been missed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you for bringing up the comprehensiveness scholarly sources. I would be very happy if the article were able to include another academic source or two that support a large portion of the article. Of course, I expect that Doyle White's "The Meaning of "Wicca"" will stay (by far) the leading source for this article. As Midnightblueowl, there doesn't appear to be any other article that give this subject such a full treatment. —Sowlos 09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down a hard copy of the issue of The Cauldron in which Seims' article appeared, so have relied purely on the online version. In this instance, I don't think it would be possible to ascertain the page numbers. I will get back to you on the issue of the Daily Dispatch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Dispatch would probably be the defunct UK newspaper founded by Edward Hulton Jr: "a national popular title launched from Manchester in 1900 that sold in the hundreds of thousands and survived for five decades", red-linked in Sporting Chronicle. Helen Online 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Minor comprehensiveness and citation particularities aside, there is one other issue which I think should be raised here. On the talk page, there was some discussion about changing the lead image—to a collage of cutouts (literally or via Photoshop) of historical appearances of the word Wicca, a pile of books about Wicca and contemporary Witchcraft, something more closely related to words than a piece of jewelery or other religious artefact. —Sowlos 09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to the replacement of the image in question, however I am unsure as to whether images of text would be deemed fair use under Wikipedia policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have to be a copyright-free image uploaded to Commons. I don't think fair use comes into play unless we are using a copyrighted full illustrated book cover associated with a specific book, and such an image would normally only be used in an article about that book. Single words and book titles are generally not subject to copyright. Helen Online 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the problematic issues have been addressed, would any editors out there consider offering this FAC their support? Conversely, are there any other areas in need of improvement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Nominator(s): Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Some points:

Can you wikilink Nazi Holocaust?
"The intensity of the West Pakistani military action surprised international observers and Bengali nationalists, since the pro-democracy movement had been peaceful till then." I'd source this.
Link Chittagong.
Writing to The New York Times a group of women -add comma after Times.
Inconsistency in date formatting with two/four hundred thousand and 5,000 and 30,000 below, I'd rather you wrote it in digits.
Delink Nazi before Lebensborn and Nazi Germany wiki link it initially next to Holocaust further up as requested.
"After the conflict the victims went through a second ordeal: widespread sexual infections and feelings of intense shame and humiliation." Unnecessary use of a colon, simply "Many of the victims suffered from sexual infections and feelings of intense shame and humiliation, and a number were ostracised by their families and communities or committed suicide." will do.
"The list included members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, a political group founded in 1978." Seems unusual for you to mention just one party, and one which formed 7 years after the ordeal. I'd feel more comfortable if you mentioned some of the other alleged perpetrators (groups) for neutrality purposes.
Rising from the Ashes women's narratives of 1971 The first translation to English of the oral testimonies given by women who were not just abused, but women such as Taramon Bibi who fought in the war and was awarded the Bir Protik(Symbol of Valour)." Please rewrite this with appropriate punctuation and structure.
It would be good if you could find a photograph from 1971 of women in captivity or soldiers. I'd accept the upload of a fair use image from 1971 to illustrate something important in the article and I think you could claim it for encyclopedic purposes. Obviously a photo of an actual rape if it exists would be inappropriate, but something along the lines of women in captivity or some event from the period being depicted would really help the article I think.Something like this is worth a 1000 words.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had an image before but it was removed, license will I need if I upload one? This one is kinda brutal, but a good depiction of what they went through. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask User:Jmabel if you could claim use of a fair use image. I think either image would really improve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I uploaded and added it already

But thanks to the wonderful world of echo we shall still ask as expert. Jmabel if you have a moment could you advice please? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some would argue that fair use would require making some sort of commentary on the photo itself, but in this case I think minimal commentary indicating what it illustrates would suffice. Remember to use Template:Non-free use rationale on the image page. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used that with the upload wizard, so if the image is discussed in the article it is a definite keeper? Cos I am sure I saw this image in a book, I will have to trawl through my e-books and hard copies. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is currently a technical problem. Wen you converted refs to use sfn style, the conversion was incorrectly done. First, you don't need to mention page numbers within the complete bibliography, since you are indicating page numbers in individual citations. Second, for cite book templates, ref=harv parameter needs to be added for proper working of the style. I have illustrated a few examples in the article. However, for cite web templates, and in some other instances where author name is not available, there are some other methods of parameter. Please see an article that uses the style to understand that. Yes it does need some work, but the end result is aesthetically more soothing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shit man, I spent about three hours faffing about with that ( Will go fix it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I got them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwaipayanc: The newspaper citation do not jump to the bibliography as no page numbers, do I did an experiment, and added for one p=BBC, (p-can be publisher?) and it works, is that OK? If so I can get the rest done. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have tried to go over the technical aspect of the citations, and corrected quite a lot. Most of them appear ok to me now. Exception: Hadden 1971 citation, which ideally should have connected to Hadden, Briton; Henry Robinson Luce (1971). "Time Volume 98". Time. However, that detailed citation seesm incorrect. Moreover, it is not available online, so not able to cross-check. Either give actual details of teh full citation (such as, page number, actual authors), or replace that. Also, the bibliographic entry Mannan, Abdul (December 2009). "People in people's war". Daily Star. has not been used as a reference. So, it can be removed.

Now, another big task. The bibliographic entries should be sorted alphabetically. For determining alphabetic order, consider first author's (last) name. If no author present, you can use the title of the work (title of the book, or title of news report) for alphabetic sorting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can do that tomorrow, I am off to bed it a little bit. And thank you BTW, you are teaching me a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia kicked in again so I did it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, don't sort stuff when you're in a state of insomnia. That list was still a complete mess. I fixed it some now, but I don't guarantee it's completely correct yet. Also, please don't forget those chapter titles I mentioned below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Woman_raped_and_killed_in_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War.jpg: can we be more expansive with the "not replaceable" rationale? Any more details on original photographer or publication? What steps have been taken to attempt to identify the original photographer? Have to be really careful with the "unique historic image" rationale, as it's stricter than most of the fair-use tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have tracked down who took the photo, it was Naib Uddin Ahmed. He died December 14 2009. I am now trying to find out who now has the copyright ownership. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A company called Drik picture library seem to hold the copyright, at least that is what I have figured out so far. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Drik is a commercial agency, this unfortunately puts it in the same class as images owned by other commercial agencies such as Reuters or AP: unuseable unless the image is itself the object (not just a vehicle) of encyclopedic coverage; otherwise subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7b. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about getting permission? If I mail them to ask if they would be OK with a single usage for this article and they retain copyright, is there someone on Wiki they need to mail? Or a special form they need fill? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, unfortunately, because our policy is an all-or-nothing thing: either a fully free release under a free license such ass cc-by-sa, or the full weight of the NFC critera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a non free image is discussed extensively in the article, then could one be kept? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would have to be sourced discussion of the image itself, i.e. as a notable photographic work (the history of how it was taken, its aesthetics, its impact on public opinion etc.), not just a discussion of the things the image shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two sources which discuss in detail a specific photo taken, I will add the text tomorrow and then, if you think it enough I can upload the image, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Can you look at what I added in my last two edits and let me know if I need to expand on the text so we can use an image please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, couple of points. First, the text as it stands is heavily ungrammatical, including bits that are presumably literal quotes. I can't find the "classical a pose..." bit in either of the two cited sources, and there seems to be a closing quotation mark missing; can you check that again? Second, are the two passages really talking about the same image? The one source seems to be talking about an image titled "Brave Woman", the other about one called "Shamed Woman". Are they the same? I assume one of them is this, but I don't find it that easy to think of that one as a "classical pose" like that of a Madonna and Child.

The other thing is, why are we discussing this image here? Right now, the text still seems a bit as if tacked on to the article as an afterthought – more like the text being there in order to deliver a pretext for showing the image, than the image being there in order to illustrate the text. Apparently Ahmed published quite a number of images touching on the topic, so why would we want to make this particular one a subject of discussion at that point in the article? Not quite convinced yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same image, two different names given. The text is tacked on. I wanted to know how much needs be added so we can use the image. I choose this image as it is discussed in two academic sources and is notable for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fut.Perf.

I removed this passage in the "Aftermath" section [10], for two reasons: first, it is quite off-topic, talking about some author's personal feelings in dealing with the atrocities. Secondly, it quite unnecessarily diverts attention from the main topic through a rather misleading and confusing comparison with the Nazi "Lebensborn" programme. The author of the quote clearly had no idea what the Lebensborn actually was. I'm irritated to find that the main author of the article recently clandestinely reintroduced this passage, after agreeing during a discussion last year that it was misleading [11].
- Update: disappointingly, User:Darkness Shines is now edit-warring to reinsert this passage. [12][13]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the "Aftermath" section, there is a statement saying "A doctor at the rehabilitation center in Dhaka reported 170,000 abortions of pregnancies caused by the rapes, and the births of 30,000 war babies". However, the very next paragraph says that "Estimates of the number of pregnancies range from 25,000[50] to the Bangladeshi government's figure of 70,000". These two statements are blatantly contradictory (the estimate cited in the previous sentence is almost three times higher than even the highest estimate cited in the next). These statements need to be put into proper context and related to each other, or be left out.
About the same citation: I can't check the source online, but did the Dhaka doctor really "report" these figures, or did he just estimate? "Reporting" entails that he had the means of accurately counting based on direct observation. This would be quite astonishing.
Structure and scope: the "Background" section is far too long. This would be a suitable "background" section for the Bangladesh War of Independence article, but not for this one. For this article, the war itself is only the background; its ultimate political causes (i.e. the background of the background) do not need to be rehashed here at such length.
- Regarding background, then do you suggest to remove (or, maybe summarize in two sentences) the initial two paragraphs? And essentially start from December 1970? I had a feeling that background is probably long, but was not sure where to start really. I would suggest Darkness Shines to hear what Fut.Perfect has to say in this regard. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the background is necessary to give readers a full understanding of what led up to this, and this has been discussed before and FPaS was wrong then just as he is wrong now, we cannot expect people to have to go read another article to try and figure out what happened when they are halfway through reading this one. The current background section was discussed before and consensus was that it was fine, and I have since then trimmed it myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formalities: chapter titles in edited collections are frequently missing, e.g. in Mohsin 2005, Khondker 2006 etc. If you are going to cite an individually authored chapter in a collection, then the title of the chapter needs to be cited together with the name of the author.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: Grammar and prose is poor overall (see copyedits I had to make here: [14], showing weaknesses in correct use of commas to set off grammatical appositions and distinguish non-defining from defining relative clauses). There are more such passages.
Overall structure of the prose: much of the presentation is repetitive and poorly structured, with statements being stacked onto each other seemingly more with a view towards maximising the rhetorical effect of the repeated accusatory statements than with a view to their precise logical relationships (see for instance the tweak I tried here [15], or the example about the estimates of pregnancies mentioned above). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting rather tired of your vendetta against me. I have restored the quote you removed, as it is very relevant to the article, what your personal beliefs on what the author knew is irrelevant, he most likely meant it in manner of the common belief of Lebensborn. The background section is needed, for background, so the readers get an idea of what caused this. Your point on the number of pregnancies shows you know little of the subject matter, 25000 is the number of estimate war babies, which I shall now make clear. Given your personal dislike of me you should not even be commenting here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll offer my constructive criticism of articles wherever and whenever I choose, thank you very much. Your "fix" to the pregancies estimates doesn't solve the problem. You first claimed [16] the 25,000–70,000 estimate was only the estimate of births (comparable to the doctor's figure of 50,000, which would be within a logical range), but then you changed it again claiming it was "other estimates" of the total of pregnancies [17]? In that case, you are still left with the problem of not having explained why you are first citing that outside estimate that is so exorbitantly higher. Has that estimate some special authority that would justify us giving it pride of place? Why then have the authors of the other estimates ignored it? – As for the "lebensborn" thing, I'm not going to discuss that with you further, having experienced your inaccessibility to logical argument too many times. It's absurd and has to go, and the article will not be featured while it's there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a comment from an editor up above who does not have an axe to grind saying the article is pretty damn good, and that quote was there when he looked it over. You do not get to decide that one quote stops an article from being FA. No other estimates are ignored, they are all there. I am citing all estimates per NPOV, which kinda says we have to. Why not go and pick on someone else and leave this for uninvolved editors to review. And if you will not discuss the quote you can remove the pointy tag you added, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on the "Lebensborn" passage stays. In its present state, the article not only reports Davies' statement, which presupposes that the Lebensborn was a place of "atrocities" comparable to the Bangladesh rapes (a piece of known historical falsehood, that is); it also, by failing to correct or hedge this presupposition, carries the implication that it is indeed true. This is historically misleading – and quite unnecessarily so, because the whole comparison is extraneous to the topic anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, as most people when they hear Lebensborn think "breeding camp" as that is what the term has come to be associated with, as can be seen in Spiegal The BBC and a host of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because that misperception is common is not an excuse for spreading it further, as the article is now doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a misperception, it is what the term has come to mean. I think you may have to learn to live with that. BTW, 2013 A Social History of The Third Reich discusses Lebensborn as a breeding programme. So even academic sources seem to have gone along with the masses. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys may want to add a footnote describing what Lebensborn is, about the misperception, or, the usage of the word.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An elegant solution, thank you, FPaS, you OK with that? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth it. It would be a sensible solution if the quotation was otherwise of some encyclopedic value, but it isn't. Such a discussion would only unnecessarily divert the reader's attention away from the main point, which is that people were raped in Bangladesh. Nobody cares about what some Australian doctor felt while working with them, and nobody cares about what that doctor mistakenly thought the rapes in Bangladesh were comparable with. The only reason to have this bit (and in a literal block quote, no less) is to gain the extra emotional power of having that comparison with the nazis; why would we throw that comparison at the reader when we are forced in the next moment to retract it and explain to them that these two things weren't comparable after all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again your thoughts on what the doctor thoughts being mistaken have no place here, it is obvious he meant it in the common perception of the word. I am happy removing the block quote and paraphrasing it if that would suit you better? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I still don't see why that part of the doctor's opinions and feelings is even relevant, even independently of the fact that they also happen to be factually wrong on that extraneous issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Doc is not wrong is he, you are. The links I gave you prove that. And if you are not willing to compromise then the lot can stay and I will remove your pointy tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Further attempts at rational discussion with D.S. are evidently hopeless at this point. D.S., continue edit-warring about this and you'll go straight to WP:AE for the topic-ban that has been long overdue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you will, if you will not compromise then this conversation ain't going anywhere is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this version, which does NOT have the quote by the doctor, reads good enough. For now, Darkness Shines, I think it is pretty ok to not have the quote, and move along. There are other things to take care of in this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{out}@Dwaipayan: I have already removed it, I will go with whatever consensus arrives from the RFC I initiated. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

In the recent literature there has been a well-known "revisionist" account of the events put forward by Sarmila Bose, who apparently calls into question the extent and the planned/deliberate nature of the rapes by the Pakistani military. Covering this minority view was recently suggested on the talk page but met with angry rejection from User:Darkness Shines [18]. Currently she is not mentioned in the article at all. Now, it may very well be the case that her views are a minority position (and undoubtedly a highly unpopular one in many quarters), and it may well be the case that most of the reactions to them have been critical, but still, she appears to be a bona fide academic researcher on the issue, and in light of the amount of reactions she has elicited even in the non-academic media her views are certainly notable. I don't see that simply ignoring her or treating her as pseudo-academic "fringe" is in line with NPOV requirements. Somebody will have to take up the challenge and add a fair and balanced discussion of her position, which maybe won't be easy (and somehow I have doubts if those editors who have been working on the article so far have what it takes to do this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bose id a joke, her book does not mention the rape victims so is of no use to us, I looked at one of the sources given on the talk page, Bose estimates a few thousand rapes in it. She also says there were only 30,000 Pakistani troops in theatre, it was 90,000, she is not just fringe, she is both way wrong and fringe. Her "work" has no place in an article on Wikipedia. She has got to be the most minority view of minority views anywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though a joke, she probably needs a mention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never going to happen, anyone who gets the number of troops on the ground wrong gets zero weight, anyone who says the rapes were only a few thousand, come on. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False/misleading citations

In several passages citing the ref "Totten 2008", claims and opinions are explicitly attributed in the text to Samuel Totten, who is listed in the author field of the ref entry. However, Totten is merely a co-editor; the author of the article in question is Rounaq Jahan (thanks to Smsarmad for spotting this [19]. He has partly cleaned it up, but there are other incidences of the same error further in the article). This is a problem that goes well beyond the one I noted above, about chapter titles not being named properly, because in this instance authorial opinions have been explicitly misattributed. All ref entries involving collected volumes need to be checked thoroughly to make sure editorial and authorial roles are correctly documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: similar misattribution in the case of "Totten 2009", falsely cited like an authored monograph but in reality also an edited collection. Same for "Totten 2004". And "Schulz 2007". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a major issue for gods sake, all one need do is change the refs so it says Tonnen is the Ed, I can give the actual author later. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, this is important. You need to be absolutely precise and correct about citation. It matters who actually wrote/spoke. So, please take care of this urgently.--Dwaipayan (talk)

I think I got the last of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With chapters in edited volumes, you cite the chapter names, not just the chapter numbers. You should also provide the page numbers (the one in the inline harvard ref is just the page reference to the specific passage you're citing; in the bibliography you give the first and last page of the whole chapter.) Also, please don't forget there's still the issue of numerous entries that have both editor and author names but lack chapter titles (I've fixed a few of them to show what I mean [20], but there are certainly more.) Another (harmless but cosmetic) issue: capitalization in titles is not consistent yet. Use either title casing or normal text casing throughout (or, for a fancy option, use title casing for book titles and normal text casing for chapters). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Faizan

The article is not upto the FA status, it has many neutrality flaws. Even the lead is not edligible for a Featured article. The article is Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, this means that it should describe the rape committed on all communities. But I regret, the current form of the article blames "Pakistani military" everywhere. Or more simply, the article is only for "Rapes of Bengalis during the Bangladesh Liberation War". The rapes and atrocities on Biharis, the Stranded Pakistanis need to be described too. The lead should also mention it, and the article needs serious fixing over neutrality issues. It seems a Nationalist encyclopedia's article here in Wikipedia to me. There is only one section of "Mukti Bahini actions" attribued to atrocities on Biharis, whereas the rest of the whole article is for the Bengalis. The lead can be brought on the lines of: "During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, hundreds of thousands of women were raped by members of the Pakistani military and the militias supporting them and the Bengali militants." Both of the major communities of Biharis and Bengalis were equally affected." I hope my rationale is understood. Severe need of improvement. Fai zan 07:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get real, this was discussed before, and there is noway in hell that both communities were "equally affected" That is so wrong it actually defies belief. The MB atrocities are mentioned in the lede per due weight. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Fancy comment by Faizan. Give me a break! Yes, of course for the sake of neutrality, rapes committed by Mukti Bahini need to be mentioned, and those are mentioned, both in the lead and the body of the article. Indeed I was surprised to see the mention in the lead, because the atrocities committed by Pak Army far outweighs those by Mukti Bahini. Anyway, if you really want to sound rational, Faizan, come up with some neutrally sourced statistics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to include the actions of Mukti Bahini in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, only the significant parts of the article must be summarized in the lead and the actions of Mukti Bahini doesn't really seem to be significant.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly yes, per the previous consensus, as it stands I believe due weight is given. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, you simply cannot react this way to any criticism of the article. "Get real, this was discussed before, and there is noway in hell" far exceeds the expected manner of candidates here. It's one of the main doctrines of FAC that you respect all input, however irritating and you've been nothing but insulting in return. I'm just waiting for Ian or Graham to archive this as you've overstepped the mark with at least two editors now to continue with this. I strongly suggest you take a look at how you've reacted here and try to respect the input. Generally I thought it was very good and an informative account which was easy to follow and I feel it has FA potential. However, some of the concerns about the prose may be valid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you gave them what they want, well done. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give anybody what they want. If editors are concerned about neutrality I'd take that very seriously. Your behaviour here has really let you down.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has yours, I mentioned above the issues between FPaS and myself, you said what about that exactly? So archive it and be done, so long as that guy is allowed to stalk and harass me then this article will never get to FA anyway, he will not have that cos he detests me, so ya, you have given them what they want. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a long history of disagreements with these editors? It is a very sensitive topic, and it doesn't surprise me it is disputed on here but if there are valid concerns with neutrality and prose then they need to be addressed respectfully.. And I haven't done anything Darkness, if Ian or Graham archive this is is because of your hostile attitude shown here which is completely unacceptable here, whatever your history with these editors is. If you can't understand this then perhaps FAC isn't for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on your talk page, let this get archived as it is obvious so long as those who have an axe to grind will quite simply not let it pass, I am sorry to have wasted you time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are long-standing issues with the article they really need to be sorted before nominating for FAC. If you simply cannot come to some form of an agreement with the others over it then I don't think this ever has a chance of passing. The conditions need to be completely calm and amicable between editors over the article to pass FA. Sorry to see, as a I genuinely thought that this has potential.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get the article fixed, especially for neutrality. It needs restructuring. Issues cited by me stand unaddressed. Or I can aid with edits on the article. Fai zan 07:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues were addressed previously, the consensus is that the atrocities carried out by Pakistan and the militias far outweigh the revenge attacks, the weight was given accordingly. If you wish to suggest an addition please use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then not going to proceed this way. Fai zan 07:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request a thread has also been started at talk. Fai zan 07:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize to all

Sorry for my loss of temper yesterday, four days without sleep sent me a tad loopy. I would like the review to continue if possible. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

~~I see quite a few issues here, including some unresolved since first FAC.~~

~~"it is today widely seen...". If i recall correctly, this use of "today" may not be consistent with MOS.~~
~~"The methodical planning behind the genocide drew comparisons with the Nazi Holocaust" - plural "comparisons", but only one citation.~~
The paragraph that begins "Between the middle of May and September 1971,..." needs some work. It appears to me that most of this para is intended to present an argument, that there was a racist motive behind rape as a tactic of war. If so, the first sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted. Then, a new first sentence should state this argument in general, then allowing the following material to lay out the evidence and the points made by those who put this argument.

"Owing to the scale of the atrocities, Archer Blood, the US Consul General in Dhaka, sent what became known as the Blood telegram, in which the signatories denounced American "complicity in Genocide"". This requires some unpacking - first, a concul would normally send his/her own telegrams, so the idea that it had multiple signatories seems strange. Second, I don't understand the relevance / meaning, in this particular sentence, of "Owing to the scale of the atrocities". Is this meant to explain the actions of Blood, or the fact that there were all the signatories... i just don't follow the argument here.
Estimates of numbers of people raped should not be in "aftermath", they go to the core of the article's subject, and should be included there. The estimates should be discussed in a bit more detail, and notwithstanding the fact that Davis was 'on the ground', his particular views are given far more weight than any others.

I revised the article to reflect my point here. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Estimates of those raped vary from 200,000[62] to 400,000" - except that later, the article states that the 1974 commission supplementary report estimated "hundreds" - which should presumably therefore form the lower end of the range?

I further edited a proposed revision, to reduce the emphasis on the Pakistani government figure (as it is not an independent source and lies so far outside other estimates. I also reorganised the paras to cluster together all the quantitative data, which strengthens the case for the 200K to 400K range being correct.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...by John Tulloch to be as "classical a pose as any Madonna and Child, however the image is that of a woman, it is not possible to determine age who had been raped repeatedly" Something wrong here - there is no close quotation mark and it does not appear to be a sentence.

~~The quote has now been closed, but the following phrase makes no sense: "...however the image is that of a woman, it is not possible to determine age who had been raped repeatedly."~~

"Abul Kalam Azad was the first person to be sentenced for crimes during the war." Slightly confusing, since we have already been told of the first person to be indicted and also sentenced (I realise there is a difference) but also, we have no context as to why we are being told about Azad, since we know nothing of what the crimes, or the sentence, were.

The man's name is wikilinked to an article on an unrelated person. And, while we now have text on what his crimes were, which is good, we don't have text on who he was. A commander? A regular soldier? A general? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Referencing issue - footnotes refer to Roy 2010a, but can't tell which is a or b from reference list?~~
If 2010a is the first of the two in the reference list, then my reading of it suggests it is not strong enough to substantiate the text "...but human rights advocates are of the opinion that the mass rapes and killings of women may not be addressed". The article quotes only two lawyers, one hopeful, one "skeptical": certainly not something that substantiates the text as written.

I fixed this myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some language which seems to me to sound too much like a news feature article or editorial and not enough like an encyclopedia article. Examples:

~~"indiscriminately killing Bengali civilians". If the source actually uses the word "indiscriminately", then put it in quotes;~~
~~"In what has been described as a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group..." the use of "entire" here is redundant and carries a POV; described by whom?~~

~~"entire" has been removed, but we still have the passive "has been described", which still needs a subject (ie. who describes it this way?) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Pakistani General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi claimed that thousands of men and women had been killed or raped in Chittagong". Only use of the word "claim/ed" in the article - can you explain why this is the only place it is appropriate that it be used?
~~"The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide" - if "widely viewed", then need more than one citation, otherwise we cannot be sure this isn't just Simms' view.~~
"Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called the victims birangona ("heroine"), but this only underscored the fact..." The expression "this only underscored the fact" in this context appears to me unencyclopedic and designed to emphasise the view expressed.

Tweaked this further myself.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my initial thoughts. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will get on all of that ASAP, but RE the genocide, this was resolved a while ago at a RM on the genocide article, here I presented this source "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[21] So that ought to resopve that issue. Should I add that to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are responding to with this comment. Assuming it is my comment in the last group - i am not trying to open up a debate about whether or not this was genocide, I am simply saying that, when a WP article says something is "widely viewed" as having a certain nature (in this case, genocide), we need multiple sources for the claim, thus assuring us that the view is indeed widely held, and not just the view held by the author of the one source cited. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was yes, I have copyedited it and added the academic consensus to the article. I have also gotten to a few of the other points you have raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: I thin I have gotten a fair few of the issues you have raised, however I am wondering where you think the estimates of those raped ought to actually go? I cannot see any other section they ought to be? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone:I think I have now gotten the lot? Other than the estimates, where did you think they ought to go? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to think about this more - i think it may reflect a broader structural issue in the article, but not sure. Regardless, the text is much improved. If I don't come back to you by Monday, ping me again. [User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further query re aftermath. It refers at one point to some figures "...before the state programme had even started". Re-reading the paragraph, i am not sure what the term "state programme" is referring to, as Davis's program appears to be international organisation, not Bangladeshi. Can you clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state programme was carried out by international groups, I will reword it to clarify that. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. The change you made however doesn't really help, and "abortion programme" sounds nightmarish - like a form of genocide. I suggest you revert those words to "state program", and split the second sentence of the para in two, to read: "In the year following the war, there was a Bangladeshi government-mandated victim relief programme, supported by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation. Dr. Geoffrey Davis, a physician who participated in the programme, estimated that the commonly cited figures were probably "very conservative" compared with the real numbers". Would that accurately reflect the sources in your view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your suggestion is accurate so I have done the edit, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand on this now? No comments for a while? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from Hamiltonstone

I have done some restructuring to attempt to group all text that related to description of actual events under the "Pakistani Army actions" heading, including the key line about estimates of number of rapes.
I have a couple of issues with the first para under that heading, regarding Tikka Khan. My view is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and we don't have this at present. The Chalk source for the first sentence is OK, provided that the WP article is not relying on a primary source document included within Chalk. The second citation is highly problematic. Bisvasa 2005 appears not to be a scholarly secondary source, but publication of primary documents from the Mujibnagar Government for reference purposes. If I have understood that correctly, then it is not a sufficient source for the claim, because we need a high-quality secondary source reporting the claim.

Leaving aside the sourcing issues, both sentences need to specify who is claiming that Khan said these things. First sentence: "He reportedly said... " (ie. who reported?). Second sentence: "Khan is also reported to..." (ie. reported by whom?)

Getting there. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sukumāra Biśvāsa is a professor, the documents in his book are press releases for the most part. Review here. I suppose we shall have to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second claim will have to be removed. I probably did not explain myself very well. The issue is not Biśvāsa himself. The issue is that the book is a compilation of primary source documents from the post-independence government, which was (understandably) hostile to Pakistan. That government, or an official or department within it, might have claimed that Khan said something. But we cannot rely on them for that claim as they are neither neutral, nor a historian assessing the validity of the claim. We need a scholarly assessment by a neutral source that, having weighed up the evidence, accepts that Khan said this thing. We do not have that at present because, in the case of this book, Biśvāsa is assembling primary documents, not writing a scholarly analysis. Regarding the first claim, (Khan saying 'I will reduce this majority to a minority') can we get a second source supporting this (or alternatively, a source indicating that Khan does not dispute that he said it)? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and added another ref for the first claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Frederick Russell Burnham

Nominator(s): Ctatkinson (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this well-researched article for FA. After considerable labor by Wikipedians over several months to address earlier issues, this former featured article was promoted to GA last month. After reviewing and incorporating recommended changes, I believe the article now satisfies the criteria for FA. I hope you enjoy the article and I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Ctatkinson (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time (Disclaimer: I initiated the FAR that removed this article's featured status)

Multiple formatting errors/inconsistencies in both short cites and bibliography: FN109 is missing page numbers, some books include locations while others don't

All books now include locations. FN109, The Days of My Life Volume II, is at Project Gutenberg Australia in text-only format without page numbers, so I've referenced the chapter. Ctatkinson (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but there are still inconsistencies: for example, whether page ranges are abbreviated, some missing info (ex date for Carr in Bibliography), etc

Someone ran a bot on the article a couple of days ago and I see it introduced a few small errors in the references. Carr was one of those, and I've just fixed it. I'll have this corrected this weekend. Thanks for letting me know.Ctatkinson (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Further examples include: no citations to Britt; References section is misordered (it's mostly alphabetical, but then I see Montgomery before Hough?); inconsistent in whether states are spelled out or abbreviated; some hyphens rather than endashes in page ranges; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of sources is useful to the reader, so I've added a new ref for Britt to the article even though it is a bit redundant. I've moved Montgomery to its alpha location, and I've spelled out the states. I've been through the hyphens several times, as have other editors, but I can't locate any new issues. Is there a tool you use to check hyphens, or can you show any examples in the article? Ctatkinson (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant WP:MOS cleanup needed in the article: hyphens/dashes, repeated links, etc

Inconsistencies have now been addressed. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some have, but others have not: for example "3 year old ...12-year old", Scouting in Arizona is linked twice in as many sentences, etc

Done. Thanks.Ctatkinson (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Further examples include MOS:ITALICS, spaced emdashes and other issues wrt MOS:DASH, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italics issues have been addressed. Question on dash posed in the above issue.Ctatkinson (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some material in the article is unsourced - for example, "he and Blanche settled down to tend to an orange grove in Pasadena, California, but within a year he was back prospecting and scouting"

Added reference. Ctatkinson (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you have, but that was only an example - the paragraph about Russell, for example, is still unsourced. Please check thoroughly.

The paragraph about his grandson Russell is cited. I'll check the article elsewhere to see if I can uncover what you mean, or please provide more detail if you can.Ctatkinson (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Found Charles Edward Russell (cousin) and added reference. Additional references added elsewhere to eliminate ambiguity. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other material is not supported by the cited source. For example, "Burnham and Armstrong waited until Mlimo entered the cave and started his dance of immunity, at which point Burnham shot Mlimo just below the heart" is cited to this source, which says that they tried to capture him alive and then killed him (and doesn't specify how)

Added more detailed reference from van wyk. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine for that instance, but that was again only an example. A quick check finds another, "Also buried at Three Rivers cemetery...", unsupported by the cited source.

Done. The newspaper ref already named the family plot, so I've added a reference from Lott with more details of the individuals buried.

Okay, again, only an example. Another is that this source does not seem to support "Burnham was put in charge of both the general organization and recruitment from the Southwest". At this point, a thorough check of the article is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The NYT article uses the term: Western. Southwest is an imperfect substitute; however, Western U.S. is already used in this same sentence. It would be redundant to state this same geographical reference again, so deleting from the Southwest seems like the best option. I've checked again and I don't see other issues, but point out anything you believe we may have missed. Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the phrasing used is not neutral or has an inappropriate tone - ex. "Ever the soldier of fortune..." Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have revised it to: As a soldier of fortune.Ctatkinson (talk)

Doesn't fix the problem, and isn't the only instance.

Davis wrote a bio on Burnham for his book Real Soldiers of Fortune, and soldier of fortune is how he describes Burnham. The term is synonymous with mercenary. Does this now make sense, or can you clarify your concern? Ctatkinson (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the term means, but the description outside of direct quotes is not a neutral one - although not specifically mentioned there, compare WP:W2W. Furthermore, this was only an example of neutrality/tone issues - others, if it would help, include "he struck it rich" and "it was said that he could read the face of nature as easily as most could read their morning newspaper" (the latter could be made a direct quote if applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added quotes and ref to fix the soldier of fortune issue. Substituted "struck it rick" with "found great affluence". Deleted to the unnecessary analogy about the newspaper.

On another look, finding more problems, including a dead link here and some instances of close paraphrasing (ex "His expeditions in Rhodesia were so important that the Royal Geographical Society elected him a Fellow" vs "His expedition was so important that the Royal Geographic Society elected him a Fellow").

The URL to minernews went dead during the FAC. I'll need to substitute. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added the archived link to the minernews article metadata, and simplified the text: After this expedition he was elected a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society.Ctatkinson (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, ~~I would suggest withdrawal to~~ allow time for a thorough check and cleanup of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have addressed the far more challenging issues you raised in the earlier FAR, and I think it would be most unfortunate to withdraw this outstanding former FA based on the few examples you have raised in this FAC. With little delay and only minor edits I speedily addressed the concerns you have identified. If you have new issues, I would be glad to take a look at those as well and I will continue to comment / address without delay.Ctatkinson (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the issues noted above. If you have still have any concerns, let me know. Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you pinged Nikki lately to see how she feels about the nom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria doesn't seem to be checking here, so I've left another message on her talk page. Did you have any comments on the article? Ctatkinson (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my suggestion for withdrawal, but I'm still finding more issues with this article. I haven't rechecked paraphrasing issues, but while reviewing I also found some prose issues, for example "always careful to keep a rifle within arms length". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've substituted with: she always kept a rifle nearby.Ctatkinson (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's opposed statement is now more than a month old. I have promptly addressed all of the actionable objections raised by the reviewer; however, this reviewer does not return regularly to check whether their objection has been addressed. Without clarifying and actionable feedback, I don't know of any action I can take to address this reviewer's objection. Ctatkinson (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ctatkinson. The problem with this review is that you address the specific examples I point out very promptly, but have not addressed the issues they exemplify. I can return time and again to give you more examples, but "The article has X problem as shown by Y instance" is not adequately solved by "I have fixed Y instance", because it misses instances ABCDE et al of X. So there are still problems with references, there are still issues with tone, etc, and my oppose still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nikkimaria: If you see continued problems, please keep listing the specific examples so they can be fixed. Either you'll run out of them and the article will be good, or they will remain not fixed and will be a valid reason to oppose. Just talking about generalities is not very helpful, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All issued addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Reviewing: An initial wikignoming glance raised the following minor issues for me:[reply]

the footnotes/bibliography have duplications with the "Works/Biographies" sections. The layout is also a bit atypical. My recommendation is that the works actually WRITTEN by Burnham be moved above the references into the article text and specifically identified as such. All remaining works/biographies not used in the footnotes/bibliography should be consolidated into (in my opinion) a "further reading" section, though if you wish to break out the biographies from the scholarly papers, that would be fine. DONE Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the lede bulked out a little more; it's a bit light. His military service is quite extensive and probably needs a better summary in the lead, WP:MOS wants a lead to not be too long, but I think three to four more solid paragraphs is easily doable here. DONE Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~I popped in "Citation needed" tags where I saw something clearly unsourced. Hope that's more helpful than "stuff needs sourcing." Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)~~ DONE[reply]
Kill all use of "whilst." It's just annoying. "While" is more modern use. (JMO, I suppose if we are talking UK English, it's more OK than in US English, but he is an American) Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC) DONE[reply]
One of the quote boxes overlaps the article text on my computer. I noted the location in hidden text within the article. It's the only one that does this, not sure why. Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC) DONE[reply]
~~I stuck some hidden text into the article where I found some issues or had specific questions. Feel free to remove when fixed or addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)~~ DONE[reply]
~~Work on cleaning up the deadlinks, the WayBack machine can sometimes unearth an archived version of a page.~~ DONE Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff: The quote box that begins "Burnham is the sufficient and heroic figure, model and living example, who inspired and gave..." is "sandwiching" text between it and the topographic map on my browser. That's also a wiki-MOS "crime" you now need to fix. Maybe you don't need two quote boxes in that section, hmmm...? DONE !!!!

Comment on Native American issues: First off, when possible to use tribal affiliation, that is nearly always preferable to just saying "Indian" or "Native American." In the examples above, if "Sioux" is as good as you have, then use it, even if you can't narrow it down to the Lakota branch or whomever. Second always capitalize Native American. "big N" Native is acceptable; sometimes "small n" native is viewed as condescending by some Native people today (no uniformity on this, but the ones who care are the ones who will comment, the ones who don't care won't get upset either way.) Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native American issues fixed. I believe all the issues have now been addressed. Ctatkinson (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review, Montanabw. I have worked on the issues you raised and I believe all are now done. Ctatkinson (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I supported earlier, so just reiterating that I support this FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Montanabw. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reviewed the article at GA and here, and seen the oppose and the actions taken in response. I believe it meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support. I made some copyedits and have a few questions before supporting:

- In "Klondike Gold Rush", it's a bit confusing about how many children he has.
- Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I think you could combine footnotes 60 & 61.
- In "Father of Scouting", you call Burnham "low-key". Really? His exploits sound fairly dramatic to me. It makes sense once you read the "Personal life" section, but seems out of place here.
- The "Oil wealth" paragraph is kind of short. Do you think it could be lengthened or, if not, combined with another section? Not a deal-breaker, but it does stand out, to my eye. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insights, Coemgenus. I have worked on the issues you raised and I believe they are now addressed.Ctatkinson (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

Support. After a lot of work I think this article now meets the FA criteria and should be promoted. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cliftonian (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Here are my thoughts on the article. I enjoyed reading it and hope the comments below help.

Infobox and lead

We don't need the semicolon after "The King of Scouts"

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we can fix the weird parentheses issue on the "buried at" parameter?

Done. Added a break after place of death. A bit of a kluge but it does the trick. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian Wars", while obvious from the context, should probably be "American Indian Wars"

Done. The redirection needed to be fixed anyway as the page name seems to have stabilized. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pleasant Valley War is mentioned in the infobox and lead but is referred to as the Tonto Basin Feud in the body. Perhaps we should make clear these are the same thing

Done. Pleasant Valley War is the modern name for the conflict. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Geronimo Campaign is mentioned in the infobox but nowhere else in the article

Done. I've added brief reference to this in his early life. I could add more depth, but Geronimo was not a particularly significant part of Burnham's life. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put years next to each wife

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need commas after each name in the relatives section

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other work" You don't need a full stop (period) at the end here as this is not a sentence. I'm somewhat bemused by this choice of words: "wealthy oil man". Do we really need to say he was a wealthy oil man? Why not just oil man? American spy should probably be U.S. spy

Done. I too was bemused when I re-read this. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"known for his service to the British Army in colonial Africa" He was initially in the service of the British South Africa Company, not the British Army. The two are not the same thing. My understanding is that he only actually joined the British Army in 1900, when Roberts took him on and gave him the formal rank of captain.

Done. You have it right and I've updated accordingly. It gets a little more complicated because The Bulawayo Field Force militia reported to Gen. Carrington / Maj. Baden-Powell once the regular army arrived in Rhodesia in 1896, but technically Burnham was never in the British army until he joined Robert's HQ in the Boer War. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Born on an Indian reservation in Minnesota, Burnham learned the ways of Native Americans as a boy" They were Sioux, weren't they? Why not say so?

Comment. I've left this "as is" for now, but I'm open to further discussion. The Sioux Nation was composed of various tribes, and Burnham spent part of his pre-teen youth with different native americans in California (Cahuilla and others), and later with native americans in Arizona (Apache and others). It is correct to say that he learned the ways of the Sioux, but I thought it might be somewhat more accurate and easier for the reader to say Native Americans. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Burnham had little formal education, attending high school but never graduating" Why not just say he "had little formal education, never finishing high school"?

Done. Nice improvement. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Valley War and Apache Wars should be wikilinked

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sensing the Old West was becoming too tame" "Sensing" implies that he was definitely correct, which I don't think is what we mean to say; perhaps "Feeling the Old West ..."

Done. Better. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

", in 1893, Burnham took his family to southern Africa where his background proved useful" This is awkwardly worded and I don't think the last bit really adds anything (we say in the next paragraph he was useful). Perhaps make clear why he went. Maybe something like "Feeling the Old West was becoming too tame, Burnham took his family to southern Africa in 1893, perceiving Cecil Rhodes' Cape to Cairo project as the next undeveloped frontier."

Done. Nice editing and application of your subject expertise.

"and became Chief of Scouts" but he was already a Chief of Scouts at the time of the Shangani Patrol in 1893? Maybe make clear the significant event was his becoming Chief of Scouts under Roberts.

Comment. The completed sentence is: "Burnham distinguished himself in several battles in Rhodesia and South Africa and became Chief of Scouts". I don't see where this sentence limits the use of his Chief of Scouts title to the Boer War, but I do agree that becoming Chief of Scouts under Roberts was a bigger deal than the use of this title in the Matabele Wars -- the Boer War was Burnham's first regular army gig and the number of troops and planning involved was significantly greater. I'm open to further ideas, but to try and keep this simple for the reader I've left this sentence "as is" for now.Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Boy Scouts of America

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Hammond his son's business partner or his own?

Comment. I've modified the sentence by removing Roderick, but to answer your question, John Hammond Sr. considered Fred Burnham to be a member of his family (he says as much in personal correspondence). Burnham Exploration Company was a joint venture between the Burnham and Hammond families, sons Roderick Burnham and Harris Hammond were included on the board, and Fred Burnham served as president. Roderick Burnham was by profession a geologist and an executive at Union Oil at the time the Burnham Exploration Company was incorporated; however, this relationship is probably too detailed and unnecessary for the lead. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"With the help of the BSA" Perhaps "With the support of the BSA"

Done. Better. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it with this section for now. I'll keep working on your comments about the other sections later today. Thanks again for your help. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Why not say what day he was born on?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what denomination his family was?

Done. Added background plus ref. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this was a Sioux Indian reservation?

Comment. Most sources say he lived on a Sioux reservation, but some say Winnebago. Both the Mdewakanton and the Ho-Chunk lived in southern Minnesota; however, I'm not sure if it is correct to say that either or both of these tribes are Sioux. Unfortunately, I don't yet know the exact location of Tivoli, Minnesota (a pioneer town, long gone), the 1860 reservation boundaries, or modern the tribal names adequately to answer this question. Little Crow attacked New Ulm in the Dakota War of 1862, but I don't believe he lived on the same reservation as the Burnhams, or at least it's not clear. I've left this as Indian reservation for now. Ctatkinson (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know where his mother came from in England? We do not need to say she immigrated to America as it is clear from the context; saying she immigrated from England is enough

Done. I've referenced and added her birth and immigration data.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We mention New Ulm, MN being attacked during the Dakota War but we have not made clear how this place is relevant to Burnham.

Done. I've added clarifying language.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rebecca (Elizabeth) Russell Burnham" Was Elizabeth a nickname? If so it should be in quotation marks: Rebecca "Elizabeth" Russell Burnham. Also her name should be given above where she is first mentioned.

Done. Elizabeth was her middle name, but she dropped it when she married Burnham. I've removed Elizabeth to avoid further confusion.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Once the Sioux had been driven away the mother returned to find the house burned down. Her young son was safe, fast asleep in the basket and protected only by the corn husks." I think we can merge these two sentences; "... burned down, but her young son was safe, fast asleep in the basket with the corn husks."

*Comment. I've added more context here and edited the passage. I hope this helps. Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wikilink Iowa

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wikilink LA

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to wikilink bandit to outlaw

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why not wikilink Arizona Territory

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He traveled in northern Mexico and the American Southwest, including Texas and Oklahoma Territory, earning a living as a buffalo hunter, cowboy, and prospector, and he continued working as a scout" Maybe "He traveled in northern Mexico and the American Southwest, including Texas and Oklahoma Territory, continuing his scouting and also earning a living as a buffalo hunter, cowboy and prospector"

Done. Yes, that's better.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The young Burnham eventually went on to attend high school in California but never graduated" Maybe "Burnham eventually went back to California to attend high school, but he never graduated"

Done. It's better. Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did he become a Freemason? Was he one from birth? Where/what is Excelsior Lodge No. 195?

Comments. The Mason's are a club and I've seen his 32-degree certificate in the archives at Yale, but I didn't make a copy and I don't have the date it was issued. Each mason is joins and is promoted at a particular lodge; however, his lodge is probably not important to the article, so I've removed this reference.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a "soldier of fortune,"—is this a phrase Burnham used to describe himself, or an appellation applied by somebody else?

Richard Harding Davis did a biography of Burnham for his book, Real Soldiers of Fortune, and he describes Burnham as a soldier of fortune. Here is the reference on p. 191 -- Library of Congress copy: http://archive.org/details/realsoldiersoffo00davi

That it with this section for now. I'll keep working on your comments about the other sections later today. Ctatkinson (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

"Burnham went on to oversee and lead the Northern Territories (BSA) Exploration Co. expedition" Perhaps "Burnham oversaw and led the Northern Territories (BSA) Exploration Company expedition"

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"R.I.: "Burnham & Armstrong after the assassination of Mlimo. Matabele warriors in hot pursuit." What is "R.I"?

Done. Not sure what this is. It was in a caption and I thought it might be a military term, but I've removed it now.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"due to the ill-fated Jameson Raid" Maybe mention was into the Transvaal

Done. I've expanded on this a bit.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not give Baden-Powell's full name? We don't even wikilink him?

Done. Bad oversight. His full name and wikilink are in the lead, but should be here too.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not give Frederick Courteney Selous' full name?

Done. I fixed the wikilink. 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we give Carrington's full name? Why don't we wikilink him in the body?

Done. Yes, indeed. I'm also disappointed by the brevity of his WP page. I'll need to correct this oversight at some point.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of places throughout the article we use abbreviations ("Gen.", "Maj.", "Co."); try to get rid of these

Done. I think I got all of them.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In quoteboxes you don't need to put a full stop (period) at the end of the attribution as it's not a sentence.

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Theodore Roosevelt

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"paid him a great tribute in his book" Which book?

Comment. This phrase appears in several references, but in none of the sources is there a cite for the title of the book.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say when the Boer War started.

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Field Marshal Roberts was appointed" Who is Roberts? Not even a wikilink?

Done. Big goof on my part. I've added wikilinks and a bit of background.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he left within the hour" Why not "he left immediately" or "he left within minutes"? Also, why "Although"? Considering the vast distance involved and the urgency of the appointment, one would surely expect him to leave quickly.

Agreed.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the wikilink to "Cape Town, South Africa" rather than just Cape Town? People know where Cape Town is.

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we link British Army?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Burnham would arrive at the front" Why not simply "Burnham reached the front"?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say when the Battle of Paardeberg was (Feb 1900).

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can say veld, not veldt. perhaps also wikilink veld and put it in italics as it's an Afrikaans word

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mielies, not mealies. perhaps "mealies" (i.e. mielies, or maize)

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"British March on Pretoria" why is "March" capitalised?

Done. Lower case is better. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"cut-off" → "cut off"

Done. 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"He had been scouting alone" → "He scouted alone"

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he had all but gotten away" → "he had almost escaped"

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few references have hyphens (-) separating page numbers rather than endashes (–). Check on this

Done. Another editor fixed these (thank you!). I think we've finally got this one out of the way. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't "Distinguished Service Order" linked? This is also not linked in the image caption or the lead.

Done. I've added the wikilinks in this section. The lead already has a wikilink from DSO (after Burnham's name).Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"March to Pretoria" again why is "March" capitalised?

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lovat Scouts" shouldn't this be "the Lovat Scouts"?

Done.Ctatkinson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention that he commanded the Lovat Scouts.

Done. I've also added more background and a couple of refs.

"Returning from the Boer War on the RMS Dunottar Castle, July 1900." Dunottar Castle should be italicised. The image caption here is intrusive and large; if you like I can try to make something similar to what we have on the directors image here

Comment. The directors image is a great piece of work. How did you do it? Ctatkinson (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Scouting

Charterhouse should have a wikilink. It is also not in London but in Surrey (it was based in London, but it moved in 1872). Perhaps put "one of England's most famous public schools", wikilinking public school as this means something very different in the U.S.

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is woodcraft italicised? Perhaps quotation marks are better.

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in these African hills" Why do we need to say African hills? We've already made clear where they are.

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he fondly told people he "sucked him dry" Oh my.

Done. Shame on you! I liked the racy quote, but I've modified the sentence to be more family friendly. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't proposing you take it out, I quite liked it and just pointing it out in passing. I wouldn't worry about its "family friendliness" as kids wouldn't get the joke; it should stay in, I think. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Both men recognized that wars were changing markedly and the" you need "that" after and and before the

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" so during their joint scouting missions," you don't need "so"

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps change the semicolon between the last two snippets to a full stop (period).

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did Baden-Powell write Aids to Scouting?

Comment. It was published in 1899. I've now added references and publication dates to the BP books. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"thusly" Is this a word? Shouldn't it be "thus"?

Done. I modified the sentence.

We mention the BSA, but we don't make clear what this is. (This is particularly confusing because to some eyes "BSA" is more associated with the British South Africa Company, which is also mentioned in this article). Put Boy Scouts of America, with a wikilink.

Comment. To make this less confusing, I've spelled out BSA a couple more times and added a couple of wikilinks. I've also avoided the use of BSAC for British South Africa Company in this article. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and he called him a "wonderfully able scout"" Who called who? Make this clearer

Done. I broke up the quotes into two sentences.

"Burnham — Baden-Powell" This spaced emdash should be an endash, without a space.

Done. Someone got to this before me. Thanks! Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mount Baden-Powell in California," put a comma after "Baden-Powell"

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Mount Burnham wikilinked?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and fought in World War I France" word missing here

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and was United States Army's Soldier of the Year in 2003" shouldn't it be "the United States Army's"?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this section. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later in life

Maybe just "Later life"

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Ghana then called the Gold Coast?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be the Upper Volta?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1902–1904" → "Between 1902 and 1904"

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't wikilink the names of modern countries like Kenya:
Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it Lake Rudolf rather than Lake Rudolph?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He was one of the original members of the first California State Parks Commission serving from 1927 to 1934" Shouldn't "serving from 1927 to 1934" be in brackets?

Done. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this section. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off for now, I will come back for more, hope all this helps —Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note most of the pictures lack alt text —Cliftonian (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, many thanks for the detailed and helpful comments and the generous investment of your time in reviewing this article. I'll get to work on your questions right away. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, don't worry, I will get back to it either later today or tomorrow. Well done on all the replies above! —Cliftonian (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt tags to all of the images. I think that does it for all of your comments, except for the tribal affiliations. Thank you for your insights on how we should address Native American issues. I work on this next. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That below wasn't my comment. It was Montanabw (talk · contribs) (who forgot to sign his post; I've moved it up to prevent further confusion). Good work so far, I will have some spare time later today so I will have another look through and comment on the later sections. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

"an old friend from Africa"; while most would realise what you are actually saying, some could misunderstand and think Hammond was actually from SA/Rhodesia, which of course he wasn't. maybe reword to "an old friend from his time in Africa", or similar

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some numbers here over 10 written in long form ("eighteen", etc), which should be just as 18, 19 etc (unless they are at the start of a sentence). Look through for these
"refused to make use of" → "refused to use"
Do we know why Wilson didn't want Roosevelt's volunteers?

Comment. I've added additional background to this piece and renamed the section: World War One.Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

"Burnham died when he was 86 on September 1, 1947 of heart failure at his home in Santa Barbara, California." maybe "Burnham died of heart failure at the age of 86, on September 1, 1947 at his home in Santa, Barbara, California."

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"At a private ceremony he was buried at Three Rivers, California, near his old cattle ranch, La Cuesta." → "He was buried at a private ceremony at Three Rivers, California, near his old cattle ranch, La Cuesta."

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to give his first wife's full name again here; just "Blanche" is sufficient

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in 19th century Rhodesia" maybe "1890s Rhodesia"; also don't think "for a time" is necessary here

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to say again who Roderick is

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the Montana cowboy "Pete" Ingram who survived the Shangani Patrol massacre along with Burnham" Maybe "and "Pete" Ingram, the Montana cowboy who had survived the Shangani Patrol massacre along with Burnham"
"Nada (May 1894 – May 19, 1896), Burnham's daughter who was the first white child born in Bulawayo, died of fever and starvation during the Siege of Bulawayo" Maybe "Nada (May 1894 – May 19, 1896), Burnham's daughter, was the first white child born in Bulawayo; she died of fever and starvation during the town's siege."

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She was buried three days later in the Pioneer Cemetery, plot No. 144, in Bulawayo, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)" Maybe "She was buried three days later in the town's Pioneer Cemetary, plot No. 144."

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"1897–Oct 3, 1905" space the endash here

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His brother was in California the night Bruce died and yet Roderick knew from a dream exactly how it happened. The night of the drowning Roderick awoke screaming and rushed to tell his grandmother about his nightmare." Maybe "His brother, Roderick, was in California the night Bruce died, yet claimed to know from a dream exactly what had happened. Roderick awoke screaming and rushed to tell his grandmother about his nightmare."

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a teen" → "During his teenage years"

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"went to Africa" is Americocentric. To African readers he would be coming to Africa! Perhaps "moved to Africa"

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to say Johannesburg, South Africa, people know where Jo'burg is

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Howard went to Africa and became a mining engineer in the gold mines of Johannesburg, South Africa and later wrote a text book on Modern Mine Valuation." → "Howard moved to Africa, became a mining engineer in the Johannesburg gold mines, and later wrote a text book on Modern Mine Valuation".

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wl Switzerland

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His first cousin" Whose? Fred's, right?

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All for now, more later —Cliftonian (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film and stage accounts

Have copyedited a bit here myself
"The picture was shot on location in and around Bulawayo by RPM Film Studios." Need a ref for this.

*Done Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit more copyediting earlier in the article as well. I think it is shaping up nicely now, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need footnotes in the lead per MOS, so I have taken them out. I will try to do the imagemap for the picture later today —Cliftonian (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the imagemap is in! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way cool! It is much better than the long caption I had to include previously. Nicely done. Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your review work and improvements. I need to take another look at the article tomorrow and see what I can do to work about a few small issues that we have introduced with these recent edits. Ctatkinson (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think that does it. Unless you see something else, I believe we are done. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm capping this and supporting above. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (OTRS, PD-age, PD-USGov-USGS). Sources and authors provided. ~~Just 1 request:~~

File:Burnham_nm_11may1941.jpg and File:RodFly.jpg - as most images in this article come from the same source via OTRS ticket #2013061810006694, those should be OK. However, could you get them tagged with OTRS-tags aswell (or alternatively add a publication date)?
All ~~other~~ images from the Burnham family have either an OTRS-ticket or additional publication details - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the images, GermanJoe. I'll review the two you mentioned. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket updated and the photos updated. PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1) "Film and stage accounts" and "Tributes" are in an unnecessary and MoS-unrecommended bullet point list. Please rewrite to prose. 2) Add Queen's South Africa Medal and British South Africa Company Medal to infobox. 3) The article should respect WP:RED; there are no red links but I see some terms that should have them, i.e. Northern Territories (BSA) Exploration Company, Wa Syndicate or Mlimo. Please consider adding more to encourage creation of new articles. 4) "Assassination of Mlimo" section mentions a sacred cave and a village, can we add their respective names? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent input, Piotrus. I've now addressed items 2 & 3. For item 4, although none of my sources provide names for the sacred cave or the nearby village, I did come across some additional information on the location -- not many miles from the Mangwe district. I've added this to the article and the a source reference. Tomorrow I'll work on item 1. Ctatkinson (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed the issues you raised. Thanks again for your help. Ctatkinson (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments This candidate has been here for a long time, but problems still remain and I will be archiving this in a few minutes. I see a mixture of dashes in the references, a template error with DeGroot, E. B. (July 1944), this odd looking citation Los Angeles Times 1900, p. I15 and inconsistencies in page ranges. These should have been fixed a long time ago. Graham Colm (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

HTC One

Nominator(s): ViperSnake151 Talk 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me and several over editors have put a lot of time and effort into this article. I got it up to Good status, and even after a peer review where literally nothing happened, a few more editors joined in to make further improvements to the article. But now, I think we're ready for the big time. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~for now, pending the changes below.~~ In restrospect, there are too many issues that would need to be addressed for me to even re-consider my stance. (edit) As the primary contributor of the Samsung Galaxy S III article, I can identify several similarities between that particular article and this. It takes a lot of effort in researching about a topic like phones and following up by writing and polishing an article such as this one. I wish you all best in your effort to get this to FA -- let's hope this would be the first phone article to get that distinction. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal This article has not been adequately prepared for the FAC process. While the article has been expanded, the references cleaned up, and the prose improved, there exist several issues that I believe cannot be adequately addressed in a reasonable amount of time. The article still lacks coverage in terms of software and sales, and could benefit from a third-party copy-edit, with a particular focus on "Reception", which I think could be synthesized to remove simply superfluous statements and duplication. For now my job here has come to an end. I would be happy to participate in a future FAC if this article is renominated. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assessment and suggestions for improvement. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out all your references. There are numerous references that are missing the author names and the dates of publication. Please stick to one date format.

Either include the publishers in all the references or, leave them out.

Please collapse the "Rear camera" and "Connectivity" features in the infobox.

I would replace File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg with File:HTC One black.png as the infobox photo, and move File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg to "Reception" where you could, in the caption, talk about how premium the finished product is.

~~Not yet.~~ File:HTC One black.png is very similar to File:HTC One.png -- I would remove the former, and reinstate File:HTC One Diagonal View.jpg under "Reception" where it would nice complement the positive reviews about its hardware. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"high-end Android smartphone produced by the Taiwanese company" Please define "produce". My understanding is that HTC, like Apple (through Foxconn), outsources the main manufacturing job to another company. If HTC is the designer and manufacturer of the One, please say so in the lead.

~~Not done.~~ Again, "developed" is ambiguous. Is HTC the designer and manufacturer of the One? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"on February 19, 2013 in New York City, as HTC's 2013 flagship smartphone, and is the successor to HTC's 2012 flagship smartphone," --> "on February 19, 2013, in New York City as HTC's 2013 flagship smartphone, and is the successor to the company's 2012 flagship model," Repetition. Make sure that all dates are followed by commas.

" its next flagship device ~~in order~~ to make"

"80 regions and countries" --> "80 countries and regions"

"pushed as far back as April" The way it's written tells me it's not really a significant delay. Say "late April" or something like that.

"For 2013, HTC planned to double its marketing budget in comparison to 2012." --> "Consequently, HTC doubled its marketing budget in 2013 as compared to 2012."
" networks (however" remove brackets and replace the opening bracket with a semi-colon. "LTE networks; however, it does not support T-Mobile's AWS-based HSPA+ services."
"The One was released by AT&T (with exclusivity on the 64 GB version) and Sprint in the United States on April 19, 2013." --> "AT&T (who had exclusive selling rights to the 64 GB version) and Sprint released the One in the United States on April 19, 2013."

"The HTC One was released on Australia's major carriers on April 23, 2013." --> Either mention the major carriers or simplify the sentence to "The HTC One was released in Australia on April 23, 2013."
Perhaps you could merge the third paragraph under "Release delays" into the first ie "Sprint and AT&T (who had exclusive selling rights to the 64 GB version) released the One in the United States on April 19, 2013; Verizon Wireless was the last major US carrier to offer the One, having finally released it on August 22, 2013."

"Android 4.2.2 in select regions" --> "Android 4.2.2 in selected regions"

~~Not done.~~ "have been released in select regions."

"camera module that contains a custom UltraPixel image sensor, which contains pixels that are 2.0 µm in size." --> "camera module that contains a custom UltraPixel image sensor, which is composed of pixels that are 2.0 µm in size." Repetition.

"While most high-end smartphones used 8- or 13-megapixel cameras at the time of the One's release, the size of the pixels in their sensors have ranged from 1.4 to 1.0 µm, both of which are considerably smaller in size." --> "While the One's competition typically use 8- or 13-megapixel cameras, their sensors ranged in size from 1.4 to 1.0 µm, both of which are considerably smaller than that of the UltraPixel sensor."

Not done. Compared to the current wording, my suggestion can shave off 13 words. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link over-the-air update

"Taking advantage of this ability, " --> "To exploit this ability"

Please put "" around award names.

"~~publicly~~ favored"

Please italicise the names of technology publications, where needed.
Please include this review by David Pogue in the article.

If I were you, I would replace AnandTech's review with that of TechRadar's, which is much more detailed and, in my opinion, more professional
- I would keep the reference to AnandTech's award and merge it with the other awards to form a paragraph and move that paragraph to the end of "Reception", just above "Sales".
I wouldn't use iFixit as a source for the article. It is a niche website aimed a selected group of repairers. Wired seems like a much better mainstream substitute. You can keep iFixit, but keep it to a minimum.

Please archive all the references using the WayBack Machine, or Archive.is, to protect the article from WP:LINKROT.

Actually, we fixed just about all of those. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviews are quite lengthy. For example, "considered the HTC One to be a device that would "give HTC at least a few more weeks in the spotlight" in relation to the company's past success and recent struggles" is not significant, since any high-end phone like the One would give any company a few more weeks in the spotlight. Compared with Walt Mossberg's review, the one written by Pogue has got a lot of coverage. You need to cut a lot of the wording and synthesize the praise into several paragraphs, and maybe bring the criticisms under one. At the moment there is a lot of duplication. You could also get rid of the review scores.

Since lot of the reviews praise the industrial design, display and camera features (Zoe), I would merge them in one paragraph. In another paragraph I would talk about the quality of the speakers, the benchmark tests, and one or two other praise-worthy features. In the third I would bring all the criticisms together -- namely the battery life, the arrangement of the buttons, the lack of battery or storage flexibility, and the camera software features. I would also talk about the bloatware in this particular paragraph. At the moment "Reception" is just a collection of reviews sourced from different publications without any seamless integration.

Please add the subheading "Critical reception" under "Reception".
You haven't talked about the fact that the One is the first HTCpro Enterprise Certified device in the United States.[24][25].
You could add the Citigroups' sales forecast for the One, the fact that the phone's outstripped sales of that of HTC's 2012 devices, yet still fails to revive HTC's overall sales numbers.

At the moment I am slightly leaning towards oppose, as I think the article has got several more issues. I would like to hear a few comments from one or two other un-involved reviewers, and see my points addressed, before I can shift my stance.--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced black front shot with File:HTC J One back.jpg, added File:HTC One on Apple keyboard.jpg, reformatted images
Replaced "developed" with "designed, developed, and manufactured"
Fixed "select regions" wording
For the rewording of the Ultrapixel sensor: there's a big difference here - the rewording makes the sentence inaccurate as it implies that the sensors are 1.4 to 1.0 µm, when it's the pixels that are that size. And "the One's competition" is unnecessarily vague and an awkward choice of words.

- M0rphzone (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Sunil Chhetri

Nominator(s): RRD13 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has greatly improved over the past few months.This article also passes all the criteria for FA.Also Sunil is one of the best footballer of India .RRD13 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest speedy closure/withdrawal. This is nowhere ready, as the grammatic horror that is the third paragraph and structural horror of the numerous tiny sections make clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me which section you are meanin? RRD13 (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Any section. The most blatant is Personal Life. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is almost nothing in "Personal Life", and the article begs a thorough rewrite. It is simply not ready. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's not altogether the nominator's fault that he/she was misled by a premature GA grading into thinking this article was worthy of FAC nomination, but it's a terrible advert for the GA process. The article is a candidate for a swift GAR, but is seriously misplaced here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Man. What happened with this one? The article was in alright shape when it was reviewed and promoted for GA. Due to the popularity of the player (I suppose) the article quickly unraveled. Needs a rewrite. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'll be archiving this shortly. In addition to the above comments, RRD13, pls note that information in a Featured Article (and indeed GA) needs to be fully cited to reliable sources, which this is not. If you are able to address the shortfalls, pls consider taking it to Peer Review before returning to FAC. In any case, per FAC instructions, pls do not nominate this or any article here for at least two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

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

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after leaving the article alone for a few years, I had found the time to perform much needed suggested pruning and general cleaning up. Also, the article has just completed a copyedit from the guild. It's ready for the final march... the final funeral death march, that is! (rofl) Red marquis (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of POV and conjecture in this article - original research technically. For example, one sentence says "Instead, they opted to use quiet web updates on their website while they worked on the record." Where does the source itself say Manson used "quiet" updates? Another from the same paragraph: "The band elected not to utilize the considerable marketing tools that a major label act has at their disposal early on." Says who? Not all bands signed to a major label have "considerable marketing tools" etc. This is more conjecture, and another thing which isn't supported by a citation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Red marquis hasn't edited since 3rd Sept. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal - That's 18 days now without the nominator active on-Wiki, suggesting that any review will go to waste. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Robert Madgwick

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, own work). Sources and authors provided (one unknown).

File:Robert_Madgwick.jpg - caption could be trimmed, especially for an infobox image: "Colonel Robert Madgwick as Director of Army Education, Melbourne, 1944" contains all necessary information (Toorak is not mentioned in the article, the exact day of year makes no difference for the image, Australia is clear from the intro). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this later but can you separate notes from the citations like Nostradamus? I just think it looks clearer and tidier. Retrieved dates aren't needed for books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have read the article twice, and support on prose. Suggestion: "Madgwick" appears more than 100 times in the article, at one place four times in three sentences. Can that be varied? I may have more suggestions but as a whole the article meets the standards for FA. In reply to the comments just above: the handling of explanatory notes and cites is a matter of personal preference, not FA criteria (and I don't read Dr. Blofeld to state otherwise), and I agree there is no need for accessdates on convenience weblinks to works in print. I would eliminate those links unless the website in use reproduces all relevant parts of the book, but that too is personal preference. Please review WP:HONORIFIC for use of "Sir"; it is not entirely clear to me, but "Sir" probably should not be in parens if used. Kablammo (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Combine identical cites like FNs 6 and 7
Be consistent in how you punctuate single footnotes to multiple sources (compare for example FNs 12 and 13) and footnotes that include an explanation (4 vs 27)
FN19, 38: page formatting
FN82: which Spaull?
404 error
Be consistent in how you deal with editions
Be consistent in what is wikilinked or abbreviated in References - for example, compare the treatment of Armidale. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

1924 Rose Bowl

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It received a peer review from WWB Too and an extensive copyedit from Baffle gab1978. It was listed as a good article back in February, and I have been working on it since. This is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic. This is also my first time at FAC.

A short background: The 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—focusing on citation formatting and sources at the moment only.

Footnote 1: normal practice is that for newspapers that don't include their locations in their titles that the location is provided.
- The OCLC doesn't match up. The one provided is for a newspaper in Providence, Rhode Island, not the newspaper in San Diego.

Location added and OCLC corrected.

Footnote 2 is apparently using "96 Years" as a location, yet that isn't a location reference in the linked webpage. Also, the website appears to be named "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", not what it is credited as.

Changed to "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", removed 96 years part.

Footnote 4: the Detroit Free Press doesn't currently include "The" in its title. Apparently it has never used the article on its masthead.

Well, this is from the edition that the article cited is in, and it uses "The Detroit Free Press" for its masthead, so I'm going to refrain from changing it for now.

Footnote 10: International News Service is a newswire agency; it should be included, without the abbreviation, in |agency= instead of |author=. This goes for the sources that credit the Associated Press (footnotes 13, 15 & 19). Also, footnote 10 should include a location.

Changed author stuff for refs 10, 13, 15, and 19 to agency parameter. Also added location to ref 10.

Footnote 11: like the Detroit Free Press, this paper also doesn't include "The" in its title. Also, the location should be included. Ditto footnote 24.

Fixed both.

Footnote 12: the publisher is linked here, but it's not the first mention of that publisher. If it's going to be linked, it should on the first mention.

Fixed. Sorry about this one, when I first added the footnotes, current ref 12 was the first occurrence. I forgot to fix this after it changed.

Footnote 16: the link to Images of America redirects to the publisher, and that name should be included in the |series= parameter and not the title.

Switched Images of America to series parameter.

Footnote 19: can you verify if the title of the paper at that time was The Gazette? It appears that the print edition (linked from the OCLC) never used the city in its name, but the electronic edition (linked from the ISSN) did. At the worst, you have conflicting identification numbers in your citation.

Corrected. It was The Gazette at the time. I messed up inputting the footnote. But it's fixed now, and Montreal is now added as the location.

Footnotes 20 & 25: these should include |format=PDF to indicate the format, as was done with footnote 14. Not all web browser can or will display the PDF icon with the links.

Added PDF parameter.

Footnote 21: I would omit the |at= information; the cited section is right up top on the cited link.

Removed

Turning to the specific sources used:

All of the newspaper sources are good.
The Sports-Reference citations, I will assume are ok. I will defer to others if necessary on the quality and reputation of the website.

Just for clarification for anyone else doing source checks: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources, College Football at Sports-Reference.com is "an incomplete but useful source" (and a reliable one, per its listing on the page).

Footnote 16 is a book from a reputable publisher.
The remainder are from various college- or Rose Bowl-related websites that also pass muster. It would be better to directly cite the book that is excerpted by the website in footnote 26, if possible.

All in all the sources are fine if the formatting glitches are cleared up. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all concerns above, save the Detroit Free Press issue, which might need further discussion. Thanks for the source and ref formatting check (although, just for the record, you forgot to include the book by John Charles Hibner [Ref 17] in the overview part above). Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I was excited to review this one because we haven't had a good bowl game article come through here in a while, and I have fond memories of reading strong articles in this category in my early days as an FAC reviewer. Unfortunately, I found too many problems early in the article to ignore.

In the infobox, note A 1 is causing Washington's record to not fully appear. I don't know if anyone else is having the same issue, but it is a problem for me.

I don't know how to fix this. It's displaying fine for me.

~~Records in the infobox should have en dashes instead of hyphens.~~

Fixed.

~~Bold links are discouraged by the Manual of Style. For the link in the intro, it will need to be moved to later in the first paragraph.~~

Moved the link to the end of the paragraph.

~~"which had first been played in 1902 but was replaced until 1916." As far as I know, it wasn't replaced by any other game; it just wasn't held during those years.~~

I changed the sentence, and tried to explain it more.

~~En dash in "two-yard" should be a simple hyphen instead. A couple of other stray dashes need similar fixes in that paragraph.~~

Changed the en-dashes to hyphens for all similar cases.

"before attempting a game-winning field goal. The field goal missed...". Try not to begin a sentence with something that appears in the conclusion of the prior sentence. Here you can use "The kick" as a substitute.

Changed to "The kick".

"For his performance in the game, Navy quarterback Ira McKee was named the game's most valuable player." The double use of "game" is a prose redundancy, and I can't see any need to have two of them. It should be easy to chop one.

Removed the latter occurrence in the sentence.

The "team named desire" nickname should be explained somewhere, preferably in the body of the article. I just looked down there and saw nothing indicating why Navy was called that. I can imagine non-college football fans feeling completely lost right about now.

I tried to give a short explanation of the nickname down in the aftermath section.

"with the Huskies winning three of the games." This is known as a noun plus -ing sentence structure, and is something that should be used infrequently in good prose. You could try the semi-colon plus "the Huskies won three of the games" as a fix.

Changed to "times; the Huskies won three of the games"

~~Looking ahead to Washington: I see "Rose bowl", which is improper capitalization.~~

Fixed the capitalization. I searched the page, and that was the only case of "Rose bowl" occurring.

I was surprised to find that the article was copy-edited before being brought to FAC. The lead didn't feel polished to me, and my impression is that the rest of the article needs another copy-edit. I just don't think that FA criterion 1a is met right now. I do hope that these issues are fixed and that the rest of the article is worked on because I'd like to see it succeed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the concerns you had above. I'm going to look back through the article and try to make additional copy-edits. I'm debating on whether or not to relist this at WP:GOCE/REQ, since the last time I listed it there it took a few months for someone to finally get to it. If you find more issues, I'll be happy to fix them. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't relist this at the guild. If you want this to pass FAC, it will probably take too long for an interested editor to finish work, and you don't know if the copy-editing will be up to par. If you know a talented writer, I'd recommend asking them directly for copy-editing help. If no one else comments in the next couple of days, I'll put more comments up, but I don't want to find a bunch of issues at that time. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Navy: En dash needed in "Army-Navy Game".~~

Fixed.

~~Statistical summary: One word too many in "but missed the his only field goal attempt."~~

Removed the "the".

Aftermath: Period needed at the end of the photo caption.

Added punctuation.

I still don't see any punctuation there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note 1: Another en dash is needed for the record.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for looking through again. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—As Awardgive mentions above, I reviewed this article earlier in the year, and I've been asked me to look it over again. I believe the article is carefully written and does an exemplary job of writing in detail about an issue for which sources are limited due to reasons of era, and it has improved since my last read. That said, I do have a number of recommendations and questions which should be addressed before I think this is ready, and I should add that my FAC experience is relatively limited, so I'll ultimately defer to others on whether this one should pass. For the record, I hope it does!

Introduction

Is a semi-colon the proper punctuation to place after "Washington Huskies" in the first sentence? I would typically think to use a comma here.

Changed to a comma.

Would it make sense to say, upon first reference to the stadium, "Rose Bowl stadium" to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the event and the building?

Added the word stadium after first mention.

I'd suggest commas around "nicknamed the 'team named desire'", as it's a subordinate clause.

Commas added.

Should most valuable player be capitalized here? It is capitalized in Statistical summary below. Perhaps this is a generic mention of the type of recognition, and the one further into the article is a specific reference to the award. I don't know what's best here, but figured it was worth flagging.

Capitalized.

Team_selection#Navy

"Navy were selected..." sounds like British English; shouldn't this be "Navy was selected..."?

Changed to "was".

I think "...were eligible to be selected." could simply be "were eligible." considering the word "selected" was already used in this sentence.

Shortened.

Team_selection#Washington

"Washington were selected..." again seems like British English, and should be "Washington was selected..."

Changed to "was".

Pre-game buildup

The sentence about how a Navy fleet was called to service the day before the game seems to me like it might work a bit better as a clause separated by semi-colon from the previous sentence. This would join the cause-and-effect that the two sentences produce, and would solve the small problem that the first sentence alone doesn't explain why the schools' ticket-selling led to lower attendance.

Combined with a semicolon.

Game_summary#First_half

Change "under 100–yards" to "under 100 yards"; no hyphen is needed, and anyway this is an en-dash.

Removed dash.

In fact, throughout this section, every construction describing the number of yards in a play uses an en-dash, though it should be a hyphen. Note, of course, this does not apply to the score by the end of the half, which should be an en-dash as it currently is. Also, "23–yards" should not include a hyphen, either.

Corrected all cases I saw.

Game_summary#Second_half

Same issue with en-dashes where hyphens should be is found here.

Fixed all hyphen issues I saw.

Statistical_summary

No en-dash or hyphen should appear in "175–yards", and "12–yard" should be a hyphen, not en-dash.

Fixed both.

I'd be happy to look at this again after these suggestions have been addressed. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of your concerns above. I'll be happy to fix anything else you point out. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, but I read through your changes and compared with the live article, and all of my concerns are now addressed. Great work. I would support this article for FA status as I believe it meets all requirements. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom has remained open for six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Sicilian Mafia

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it now meets the FA criteria, and is a fine article with no major failings. Kurzon (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid that this falls well short of the FA criteria. Substantial amounts of text are not referenced, and the article has a rather unfinished feel (for instance, the significance of the "Ten Commandments" section is unclear, the "Vote buying" section is amateurish and sexist and the "Protection rackets" section doesn't note the growing resistance to paying protection money). I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn given that the article is not ready. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and urge withdrawal. Referencing is really not adequate, including the presence of [citation needed] tags in several places. The lead isn't an adequate summary of the article, and the several citations and large quote included there aren't really in the spirit of MOS:LEAD. Tone and style issues are pervasive; many sections are simply not written to an encyclopedic standard, much less the brilliant prose expected of FAC. There are a number of problems with linking as well, from massive overlinking (I lost count of how many times Palermo is linked) to at least one self-referential link (violent succession). There are referencing issues as well, including a bare URL link to Youtube as Reference 125, but given the state of the article, I didn't do a comprehensive reference review. To meet the FAC standards, this article would require a sufficiently thorough rewrite that I would then oppose on the stability criterion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

You Lost Me

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) and 11JORN (talk), 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we thinks it meets the FA criteria. Several unreliable links have been removed, and more information has been added. Thanks — Simon (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal. This has not been adequately prepared. There are basic grammatical issues in the lead, and it appears that there is at least one other major contributor to the article that has not been consulted. That editor should possibly be a co-nominator as well. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've named the editor as the co-nominator — Simon (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—per criterion 1a, with sample from the lede

"'You Lost Me' is a song by American recording artist Christina Aguilera for her sixth studio album, Bionic (2010)."—not sure about "for"... maybe "from" instead?
"It was written by Aguilera, Sia Furler and Samuel Dixon, while its production was done by the latter."—"latter" refers to the second of only two items on a list, not three.
"The track is a pop ballad which talks about a cheating man, who has left Aguilera's world 'infected'."—misuse of "which". Also, "cheating man" is too unencyclopedic and informal.
"However, it failed to gain impact on charts worldwide"—I've never heard this before; can you "gain impact"?
"It was successful on the Hot Dance Club Play chart, where it reached number one."—why not just get to the point and say "It reached number one on the Hot Dance Club Play chart". From that, we can infer that it was successful there.
"The video gained positive feedback from critics, who sees it as a return for Aguilera..."—I'll assume good faith and say the "sees" is a typo? The tense is incorrect too; should be past tense.
"...who sees it as a return for Aguilera from the video for Bionic's lead single 'Not Myself Tonight' (2010)."—this is an odd construction in general.
"The song has been covered on numerous occasions."—I wouldn't say "numerous"; the article body lists five.

There are reference issues too, such as inconsistencies on how publishers are notated (parentheses vs no parentheses) for newspapers and magazines. Sorry, Simon/HD, but this needs a lot of cleaning up and polishing until it is ready. I know you've worked hard, but keep at it. You can get there. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it again. Please bare with me. — Simon (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section was fixed — Simon (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Simon, but this article needs work from top to bottom. English is indeed a difficult language, but nothing's unachievable. I have highlighted some examples from the lede, but there are issues elsewhere, like "Prior to the release two days, a sneak peek of the music video was revealed," and "According to Billboard writer Monica Herrera, the clip is opposite to the music video for Bionic lead single 'Not Myself Tonight'". These and many others are sentences that need to be rewritten to sound better and pass the first featured article criterion, which I quote asks for prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". From here on, I'd recommend that you work with an experienced editor, possibly someone who commonly works with pop music topics, and ask them to run an eye and help you tidy things up. And while this next suggestion is no obligation, I highly recommend you take this article to GAN after the copy editing is finished. This is a stepping stone to seeing how far your article has come. If you ping me on my talk page, I may be able to review this if it is nominated there.

TL;DR – There are issues throughout. I suggest this be withdrawn and be looked at by an experienced writer. Then take this to GAN, where I can assist you. I hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again, as per criterion 1a. Here are just some instances where more attention is needed:

"However, it failed to gain success on charts worldwide." Please rephase.
"peaking within the top twenty in both countries." I assume you're talking about the singles charts?
"The song was described as "the heart of the album" by Aguilera." The use of passive voice is heavily discouraged unless the subject is not present. "Aguilera described the song as "the heart of the album"."
"Aguilera wanted to collaborate~~d more~~ further with Furler ~~for~~ on the album."
"via her official website." It is not immediately clear who her is referring to, since the subject (Aguilera) is missing from the previous sentence. In that case I suggest you rephrase "On June 22, 2010, "You Lost Me" was announced to be released as the third single in the" to "On June 22, 2010, Aguilera announced that "You Lost Me" would be released as the third single in the".

I don't think the article is ready for the star. It failed to make it to GA status, and the PR I don't think has yielded much fruits. I suggest you ask somebody else, if you haven't already, to have a look at the article; I would recommend Nikkimaria and Jivesh boodhun, who also contributes to music articles and has taken Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) and Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) to FA status. I appreciate that you can only contribute to Wikipedia with an intermediate level of English. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

Botany

Nominator(s): Plantsurfer (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as a "vital" article. Several users have worked hard for months to get this article ready for featured status. It has just completed a detailed peer review. 512bits (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basic question: what is this article about, botany or plants? After the History section, the article goes on extensively about plants—their importance, their internal chemistry, their genetics, how they interact with the environment and how they are classified. But all this belongs to the plant article. The focus of this article should be the meta-aspects (for want of a better phrase) of botany. For eg: how is botany subdivided? (it is telling that branches of botany is relegated to the See also) what are the different approaches to studying it (for eg social sciences have a structuralist approach and a Marxist approach etc)? Are there any ongoing debates? What are the major prizes awarded for stellar work in botany? And so on.—indopug (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Indopug. The article covers aspects of botany and plants in depth while failing to give the reader the least idea of what the science of botany is. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Withdraw' I withdraw myself from this FAC and request it be closed.512bits (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Rapunzel (Disney)

Nominator(s): Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured article status because, after spending several months proofreading, referencing and completing it, I now believe that it is of substantial quality. I strongly believe that it is the most sophisticated Disney-related fictional character article on Wikipedia. Changedforbetter (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a nice article but the infobox—with its "Species: Human | Gender: Female | Title: Princess etc"—is, frankly, extremely silly. Those sections are better off for an animal's or an officeholder's infobox, not a cartoon character's. It also provides an overly WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. I feel removing the infobox would improve the article, but even if you disagree you should at least trim it significantly.—indopug (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the species, gender and title from the infobox. However, I must disagree with your idea to remove the infobox completely because I have yet to come across a well-written (FA, GA or B-class) article that does not use one.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I think none of the in-universe stuff (i.e. under the "Information" header) should be here. It overemphasises fictional aspects, which is discouraged by WP:WAF-INFO.—indopug (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding, nothing to see, move along please ladies and gentlemen. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you think that there are no FAs without infoboxes, you can think again (and perhaps ought to read the TFA more often, plug plug!) From August TFAs alone, we have Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860, British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War, Social history of viruses, Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, and Parity of zero. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were obviously offended by my previous comment which, by the way, was not my intention. What I meant to say was that I have yet to come across a well-written FICTIONAL CHARACTER article that does not use a FICTIONAL CHARACTER infobox. Please note that there is a difference between "there are no", which I did not say, and "I have yet to come across", which I did say.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not offended in the least, so don't worry about that. If you had limited your observations to fictional characters in the first place, I wouldn't have felt the need to comment. Anyway, on with the FAC and good luck. I'll hat this to avoid disturbing the FAC further. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - infobox:

Others may disagree, but the "title" parameter, or maybe better the "occupation" parameter, is useful here to summarize the character's general role.
A completely ignorant question, but is Rapunzel really depicted as "German" in the Disney franchise? Or is she merely a fantasy princess in a fairy-tale country? "Nationality" as infobox parameter looks strange here, it would be far more useful to note, that her "Origin" is Germany and the character is based on the Brothers Grimms' fairy tales. If i understand the infobox docu correctly, lbl1-3 may be used for such information (?). GermanJoe (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the character is not depicted as "German", the "Fictional German people" category should also be removed or changed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you, I will wait until the actual review process begins to further discuss the "title"/"occupation" infobox issue. And no, Rapunzel is NOT German; she is from a fictional kingdom from Corona. I have removed it from the infobox several times. However, an anonymous user (as in one who does not use an account) insists on re-adding it to the infobox despite the fact that I have explained to him/her why the information is incorrect several times. I will remove the information once again.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"German" is in there again. Have you tried directly talking to the IPer, talk page-style? If you have, and they refuse to discuss the issue, it may be worth contacting an admin. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments (leaning to reluctant oppose) I saw this on television recently and found the article was at FAC, so I will make some review comments. By the way, concerning the "I will wait until the actual review process begins" comment above, I would say the FAC review began with Indopug's first comment above.

I am an admin, if you want I can semi-protect the article so IPs cannot edit it. Please ask here or on my talk page if desired.

I believe that semi-protecting the article is unfortunately the best way to approach the situation. Thank you.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that there are no FAs on fictional characters without an infobox is pretty easily disproved. I looked at the first 12 articles listed at Category:FA-Class fictional character articles. About 41% (5/12) of these do not have an infobox: Brunette Coleman, Characters of Carnivàle, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (which has a navbox in the upper right corner), Flood (Halo), and Hardy Boys.
I have a lot of problems with the current infobox. It does not provide context to the reader - if all someone saw was the infbox (as can happen on some smart phones), it would not tell them this article is about a Disney character (as opposed to the fairy tale or even the version in Shrek films), and it makes it appear that the general character of Rapunzel first appeared in the world in 2010, sprung full-formed from the mind of Glen Keane. For an example of an FA infobox that does a much better job of making clear this is a character in a specific fictional universe, see Jabba the Hutt.
The current infobox also has problems from an in-universe perspective (see WP:IN-U). A reader who has not seen the film will not learn much from "Relatives: The King (father); The Queen (mother); Mother Gothel (adoptive mother)". Since there are no articles on her royal parents, what does it add to include the king and queen (and I think most readers will be sufficiently familiar with biology to know the king is her father and the queen is her mother). Since "Mother Gothel" kidnaps Rapunzel and holds her captive, I think calling her an "adoptive mother" is very problematic (since adoption is a legal process and kidnapping is not). I am not against an infobox here in general, but the current box detracts from the article it should add to (if included).
I am not going to comment on everything else in detail, but I do have some other pretty major concerns. FAs have to follow the WP:MOS and the relevant policies and guidelines. However, the lead here does not follow WP:LEAD; the lead is supposed to be a summary of the content of the article. My rule of thumb is to include each section / subsection in the lead in some way (even if it is just a sentence or phrase). The current lead does not mention the following sections (as far as I can see): Hair and technology, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Accolades and recognition (at least no awards).
The most difficult of the FA criteria for most articles to achieve is 1a 1.It is ... well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
- Just in the lead, the first two sentences could be combined, tightening the prose: Rapunzel is a fictional character who appears in Walt Disney Pictures' 50th animated feature film Tangled (2010)~~. The character subsequently appears in the film's~~[, and in its] animated short sequel Tangled Ever After (2012). The word "appearances" could be omitted from the next sentence to tighten it.
- Problem sentence Created and animated by Glen Keane, Rapunzel is based on the title character of the German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. First off, no one person does all the animation on a modern feature-length animated film. Second, since much of the character's story is taken from the fairy tale (long hair, held in a tower, falls in love with a man who climbs her hair into the tower, even being naïve), I am not sure the article can honestly say Keane "created" the character. Finally, the Brothers Grimm collected the fairy tales and edited them, but were not strictly speaking the authors of them (though they did make editorial changes and chose which version(s) to print). So perhaps this sentence would be better as something like Animator Glen Keane based the film's version of Rapunzel on the title character of the German fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
- Another problem sentence In the Disney film adaptation, Rapunzel, a princess born with long, magical golden hair, is abducted at infancy and raised by a vain woman named Mother Gothel, who exploits her hair's healing abilities in order to remain youthful. First off is abducted at infancy is not grammatically correct (infancy is not a single point or place). This whole sentence could be tightened too. Perhaps something like In the Disney film, the vain Mother Gothel abducts the infant princess Rapunzel and raises her, using the healing abilities of Rapunzel's long, magical golden hair to remain youthful.
- Although based on the heroine of the Grimm fairy tale, Rapunzel was developed into a less "passive" character for the Disney film adaptation. The lead has already said she is based on a Grimm fairy tale, why does this need to be repeated? Also, why does passive need to be in quotes? If it is a direct quote, then I think by WP:MOSQUOTE this needs a reference.
- Be consistent in how information is presented. The lead says Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon prior to Moore's involvement, Rapunzel's personality was inspired by those of actresses Natalie Portman and Amy Poehler. The article makes it clear that all three women were actually cast as the voice of the character (though the caption of the three actresses' photos confusingly says they were the top three actresses considered for the role of Rapunzel). Cast (in a role) is not the same as planned (for a role) which is not the same as considered (for a role). Plus the sentence is clunky Originally planned to have been voiced by actresses... could just be something like "Actresses Kristin Chenoweth and Reese Witherspoon were briefly cast in the role before Moore... and I think this could be tightened too Rapunzel's personality was inspired by ~~those of~~ actresses...
- Another problem sentence: Her physical appearance and personality have caused much comparison to be drawn between her and preceding Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), by whom she was also inspired. First off, avoid the passive voice where possible, so perhaps Critics have compared her physical appearance and personality to the Disney Princess Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), whom the filmmakers cite as an inspiration.
- Not from the lead, but just too bad to not mention here under failing to meet 1a As directors, Greno and Howard aimed to ensure that Rapunzel resembled a less "passive" heroine than how she is depicted in the original fairy tale.
Another FA criterion is that the article be complete - could a comparison between the Grimm fairy tale version of the character and this one be made? The fair tale character becomes pregnant by her suitor, her hair is not magical, but she does have magical healing tears.
While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, I am leaning to a reluctant oppose as it does not meet the FA criteria and it seems as if too much work may be required to get it to FA standards while at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I semi-protected the article. Sorry about the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to admit that you are right; there is far too much work to be done in order for Rapunzel to reach FA status. Please feel free to close/end the nomination process.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:48, 11 September 2013 [34].

Calculus

Nominator(s): Benison talk with me 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about one of the most important branch of mathematics. The article is complete, having good exemplary pictures, complete history of its development and the mathematical derivations on its major components. Benison talk with me 14:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This article is almost devoid of inline citations (as indicated by the tag at the top of the page), and is nowhere near being ready for FAC. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Sasata in urging withdrawal. This is not referenced in a way that meets current FA expectations. The prose needs work throughout. And there's a further reading section that includes more sources than are even cited! This is a big, complex, core topic, and I would love to see it reach FA level. This isn't it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing - As I told you after your previous nomination of a different article, nominators must consult with the principal contributors if they wish to nominate an article they have not edited. Nominators are expected to be intimately familiar with the article's content and sources, so that they can respond to queries and make any necessary improvements to the article; this is not possible if you have never edited the article and are taking a wikibreak for the next month. Please read WP:FAC and the featured article criteria before making any future nominations; this is not a productive use of anyone's time. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Sourav Ganguly

Nominator(s): DebTheGangulian (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article covers the criteria for FA and a good article.The person is also one of the most influential personality in cricket history.I have also contributed significantly to it.DebTheGangulian (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal This not yet FA-worthy material. There are several problems with the article, such as:

3 [citation needed] tags.
Poor prose, MoS inconsistencies and grammatical mistakes:

"he currently hosts a Bengali show Dadagiri Unlimited"
"Ganguly's place in the team was assured after successful performances in series against Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia, winning the Man of the Match awards"
"academics came in-between his love for sports"
"The magic of Indian cricket: cricket and society in India": book titles should be italicised per WP:MOS.

Sachin Tendulkar is linked thrice in the lead and five more times in Records.
Lack of comprehensiveness and flow of information:

"Ganguly's father Chandidas Ganguly died at the age of 73": extremely abrupt 41-year jump in the prose.
Surely there's more about his childhood and family than the short section here? Also "Born into an affluent Brahmin family" is not repeated in the body (per WP:LEAD).
"delivering messages, were beneath his social status.[16] Ganguly purportedly refused to do such tasks as he considered it beneath his social status": why the repetition?

What does " ICC sport critic" mean?
WP:COPYVIO: "With Sourav as the host, can cricket be far behind? Thus, the quiz rounds are named Selection, Toss, Power Play, Cover Drive, Googly, Slog Over and Bapi Bari Jaa (Ganguly's war cry after hitting a six)". Probably more as well.

Tragically, this article seems to have been in pretty decent shape when it got GA status. It has deteriorated significantly since then.—indopug (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reverted a huge amount of content copied wholesale from other websites by the nominator,—indopug (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closure – If we have the nominator inserting blatant plagiarism into the article, I don't see how this can possible continue. What other damage has been done to the article that we don't know about? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [36].[reply]

KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For good or for ill, KFC is a global icon and thus is a worthy and interesting topic for Wikipedia. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe I have addressed all complaints from previous nominations and that the article is now ready or very near to promotion to FA status. Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding a picture of the most recent store design. I swapped out the KFC/Taco Bell pic for one showing the most modern store design, but if you can find a pic of a recent-build standalone KFC to complement it, that'd be nice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the old style KFC in the UK section to a new style one.Farrtj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

"Whereas KFC management had previously allowed franchisees to serve any soft drink they wished, PepsiCo stated that it hoped it would be able to convince franchisees to stock Pepsi products". The sentence seeks to contrast two things, but they are actually the same: previous management had "allowed" franchisees to serve anything, while Pepsi said "it hoped it would be able to convince franchisees" to do something - implying that it remained a choice - they weren't changing the franchise contracts. So why "whereas"?

Edited to improve clarity.Farrtj (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Overseas operations often flourished while ignoring or even defying orders from Louisville headquarters: management attempted to force KFC Japan to switch from corn and cottonseed oil to cheaper palm or soybean, but local management refused to compromise the quality of their product with a lesser quality oil". I'm worried that a POV has been 'swallowed' by the source and then reproduced here. what evidence is there that the cheaper oil was lower quality? It was used in other countries without any problems? Perhaps "local management stated that they would not compromise the quality of their product with a lesser quality oil" at least attributes the argument to managers without elevating it to objective fact.

Changed.Farrtj (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"KFC also began a back to basics makeover of the brand image..." That phrase 'back to basics' is marketing magazine colloquialism that has no particular meaning. Edit it out and just describe the changes.

You're right. I've now removed the phrase.Farrtj (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"In December 2012, the chain was struck in China when it was discovered ..." I don't understand this use of the word "struck".~~

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting the whole para that begins "In April 2013, KFC announced the roll out of boneless Original Recipe across all of its United States outlets". First, the article should not be a platform for every single product announcement from KFC. Second, the first reference to "Original Recipe" is to a burger - which one would hope was boneless! So it cannot be being rolled out for the first time at any rate. Third, the Sanburn quote is classic 'nothing text': is describes the innovation as "modest" and then says it "may not" (and therefore by implication "may") be the latest in a long line blah blah. It is of no consequence and shouldn't be included. Then we have this concept store - a single store in a chain that has nearly 10000. See WP:UNDUE. It doesn't matter whether it is a concept store, it is still largely reproduction of KFC marketing announcements in news outlets - and it is so good to know it has a patio! Just delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed.Farrtj (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now addressed all of the above comments.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing those. I will come by later and see how things are progressing.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A quick glance suggests that this needs a good copyedit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

two spellings of travel(l)er

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

two capitalisations of Kentucky colonel

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica mentioned in the lead but not in the main text it is supposed to summarise.

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did KFC initially only open locations in England and not the rest of the UK?

I have no idea.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville, Kentucky, United States, which specializes in fried chicken—Is there another Kentucky not in the US? Why does the town specialise in fried chicken?

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pressure-fried

Removed hyphen.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"bucket", which has become a signature of the chain—can't literally be a signature, needs a noun

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the age of seven, his mother taught—she was very young!

Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

product hailing from Kentucky—is hailing not informal in the US, and applied mostly to people?

Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who didn't know —informal

Copyedited.Farrtj (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

restaurants East of the Mississippi—why cap?

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come

No responses for six days, is this nom still live? If not, no point my continuing review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to complete your copyedit.Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It will be a couple of days before I restart Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say thanks for the comments so far. They've been really helpful, and I really appreciate you going through an article of this size! Farrtj (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bulk of funding—in BE it would be "of the funding", is your version OK in AE?

sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re-branded with a distinctive red-and-white striped color pattern, cupola roofs and the company expanded—roofs can't expand, replace first comma by "and", add comma after roofs

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company also reneged on their contract with Sanders... their own operations there.—
until his qualms were met.—I think you address rather than meet a qualm

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zantigo stores were closed or converted to Taco Bell—in BE it would be Bells, is your version OK in AE?

Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His standards were high, commenting "perfection is just barely good enough",—standards can't comment

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

takeover weak franchises,—the verb is two words

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while in the U.S. sales were struggling, where the chain was the weakest link in PepsiCo's restaurants division.—the adverbial clause should follow its subject, the US

I think I've addressed this one.Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

through the growing El Pollo Loco restaurant chain, and also with the introduction of Burger King's BK Broiler, a grilled chicken burger, both of which were poaching sales from the company.—your two subjects for "both" are a restaurant chain and a burger, which don't sit comfortably together

I've changed this now.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have been protesting KFC's treatment—in BE it would be "protesting against", is your version OK in AE?

Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

take out, dine in, sit down, drive through—hyphenate all (not done consistently at present
research & development—Ampersand is informal (linked article has "and" too)

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China is one of the only countries—"one of" or "the only"? Doesn't make sense as written

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We're in the first inning of a nine-inning ball game in China".—in BE, it would be "innings" both times, is your version OK in AE?

Edited for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

three executives, that latter of whom—you need at least two different things to point to a "latter"

think I've sorted this one out.Farrtj (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this nom seems to have stalled after remaining open a month and receiving no comments since mid-August. Pls wait the usual two weeks before nominating this or any other article at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [37].[reply]

GateKeeper (roller coaster)

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets all the criteria to be a Featured Article. It has received a copy edit from User:Baffle gab1978 and was GA reviewed by User:The Rambling Man. This article was originally a draft in my user space months before it was announced and I have been contributing to it ever since. The roller coaster is very new so there are many sources available for the ride and most have been added. For only being open about 3 months, the article has just as much information that any other roller coaster article has. This is also my second FAC, my first being Millennium Force in which I learned a lot about the process. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—in full disclosure, I happen to have ridden this coaster back in June and enjoyed the experience. However, there are issues with the citations that need to be addressed.

There is no need to repeat wikilinks in the footnotes; The first time that a footnote cites the Sandusky Register is the only time that it needs to be linked. Ditto all other such links.
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some footnotes list items as the publisher when they should be the "work". Take footnote 6 for example. Crain's Detroit Business is the name of a publication published by Crain Communications. In footnote 2, Popular Science is also the name of a publication that is published by Bonnier Corporation. Please audit and correct these.
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The publisher names aren't needed in those cases though... You didn't list publishers for other notable publications, so there's no need to list them for Popular Science or Crain's Detroit Business. (I only mentioned them as part of the point that the publication names aren't the publisher.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well which ones need them?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I don't think the publisher is needed for Popular Science, which is a pretty well-known magazine. Crain's Detroit Business probably doesn't need it either. Additionally, you've included the publisher (person) for the Los Angeles Times yet that's not equivalent to the other publishers listed here which are companies... Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as publication locations are normally listed for newspapers that omit their location in the title, we normally would list the publication location for a TV station. Please add the missing locations, which allows others to help judge the reliability of the sources. (The location for a student newspaper would be the university, not the city where the campus is located.)
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footnotes 44 and 46 come from The Morning Journal out of Lorain, Ohio, yet you've forgotten to include that. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Double check newspaper titles; the current name of the paper in Toledo, Ohio, is just The Blade. The name was changed in 1960. (Yes, they use toledoblade.com as their website address, but the paper is still just The Blade.)
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the original links still work, you should add |deadurl=no to the citation templates so that we aren't sending people to the archived copies. (I would also advise that you continue to pre-emptively archive as many of the rest of the news articles as possible.)
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 57: the all caps should be reduced to match the case of the rest of the article title/headline per MOS:ALLCAPS.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 59 has the work (Mad Money) and the publisher (CNBC) backwards.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 61 as the TV station listed as a work, when the work would be a TV program they produce. The station itself is a publisher.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a vast inconsistency between listing TV stations as "WKYC", but "WWJ-TV". Either they all are listed with the "-TV", or other appropriate, suffix, or they aren't. Honestly, they should have the appropriate suffix applied.
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to double check... you should be citing these stations by their call letters consistently... and you aren't.
    - Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New issue introduced: I wouldn't link the locations in the footnotes. Judicious linking in footnotes steers readers to two things: the source itself (or an online convenience copy) or a wikipedia article to allow them to judge the credibility of the source. Linking to the name of a publisher, newspaper or a TV station does this second function, but a link to the location of publication doesn't. It's still valuable information to include, just not to link. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on reliability of sources:

Footnote 4: what makes PointBuzz a reliable source? This looks like a fansite/blog to me. The suitability of this source will impact many other footnotes.
- This has come up in the past, most notably here and here. In both cases, the decision was made that they were acceptable.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the next point below for the crux of this issue; the second FAC didn't address the reliability issue, and the first FAC didn't quite answer the questions posed below. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this article, PointBuzz doesn't really cite any content. Most of the PB footnotes are used to cite posters or pictures. Also, one of them is a Press Release. That is not written by PointBuzz, it is released by Cedar Fair/Cedar Point. PointBuzz is just the one that published it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then in that case, you have a bigger problem. I had looked at the first footnote to them that was an article published on their site. The posters, etc should not list them as the publisher because they are not. They are a re-publisher in those cases, yet you're attributing them as if they were involved in creating the content. I don't advise that people list Google Books when using convenience links to books hosted on that website; in this case, these are convenience links to a website hosting content originally published by others. (And that re-publishing may or may not be a copyright violation.) If you are citing posters, cite the poster, not the website. For the others, you still have the issue of whether or not Point Buzz meets our requirements for sourcing at the FA level.
        As a side note, I'm not in favor of listing PR Newsire as a publisher, since they're republishing press releases, not initiating publication. Press releases are truly self-published sources, so unless there is a specific person or department of the organization to attribute authorship, author = publisher. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have used a different cite template for the posters. What if we used Cite Interview for the videos with Rob Decker then didn't link it?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 5: what makes this a reliable source? (Also note, if the source is retained, it shouldn't normally be re-listed in the "External links" section of the article.)
- I guess I'll assume you didn't watch the video. The information that is cited in the video came directly from Rob Decker, the park's VP of Planning & Design.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen that video, but like the source above, it's about the reputation of the publisher. Do they have a history of accuracy in their publications? Are they known for providing editorial oversight of the items they publish? We're naturally quite skeptical of videos published on YouTube for a number of reasons as well. As for PointBuzz, it's not quite enough to state they're quoted in other media; an assertion like that comes with a ^{[citation needed]} tag for me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand being skeptical of items published on YouTube but this is an interview with Rob Decker. The information is coming straight from him. If you have an issue with that particular video, we can remove it because he says the same thing in another video that is used in the article. As for PointBuzz, see above.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the review of a candidate for Feature Article status; part of that is not just ensuring that articles use "reliable sources", as Wikipedia uses that term, but that they are using "high quality reliable sources". Inherent in that difference is evaluating the reputation of the publisher, not just the interview subject. You've used four videos on YouTube as sources, one of which produced by Cedar Point and three not. The reputation, quality and reliability of those other three creators are at issue. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I don't understand why it matters who creates the videos. How can a video of something happening or a higher executive saying something not be reliable? It happened or it didn't. He said it or he didn't. I don't get why it matters who posted it. The information is there, it is coming from a reliable person. Here's a quote from User:Figureskatingfan, "I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability... However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality." She made a very good point about comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I'm not trying to be a pain, I've just followed this article from day one. I wrote this article with all the sources available and I don't see the issue in the few YouTube or PointBuzz links that are used.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        See above for an idea about the Youtube interviews.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 17: the website is called Trademarkia, and it appears to be a wiki. Can we replace this with a better source for trademark data, perhaps something from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 24: this appears to be to be photos from a roller coaster fan posted online, which doesn't support the information in the article about the arrival date.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely removed the sentence.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Imzadi1979:, I just want to make sure you haven't forgotten about this review.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have much further to add here. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the reliability or suitability of videos and let the delegates make that final determination. FAs have to use "high quality reliable sources", but personally, I can't support some of the sources used here as meeting that standard, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"with the keyhole towers being the centerpiece." This is one of those pesky with ... -ing sentence structures that are often found to be 1a issues. Since this is in the lead, I'd recommend a minor rewrite to fix this.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History: "The memo also said the new coaster will have a 'Front Gate Statement'". Since the construction of the roller coaster is no longer a future event as "will" implies, that should be "would" instead.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Same goes for "A section of the coaster will go over the front entrance...". Not sure that "would" works here, but I'm sure another alternative can be found.~~
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Period after "Not even a Jumbo Jet soars like this!" is overpunctuation because of the exclamation point in the quote. That takes care of the end-of-sentence punctuation.~~
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the year is needed in "The auction ended on May 6, 2013." Based on the previous sentence, it's obvious to the reader that the auction had to end in 2013. I feel the same way about the year of the media day in the next sentence.
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Construction: "an United States Senator from Ohio". "an" → "a".~~
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Layout: "the first element of the coaster which similar to the dive drops on The Swarm at Thorpe Park and X-Flight at Six Flags Great America." Needs "is" after "which".~~
- Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bothered that the non-free image of the track layout says the purpose of use is "To show what the GateKeeper roller coaster at Cedar Point will look like once it is completed for 2013" when it is no longer uncompleted. Since it has been completed, other pictures could be taken, which calls into question whether the image is replaceable according to the rationale.
- I have removed it, I'll find a new image when I get some time.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Manufacturer: Space before the em dash needs removal.~~
- I assume you meant after?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Trains: Semi-colon before "a first for a roller coaster at Cedar Point" should be a regular old comma instead.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- This review has been open a month and had little activity for the past few weeks so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Ain't No Other Man

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets FA criteria. Plus, several users and I have done WP:COPYEDIT for it. I also added more information to the article, so I hope it will get the gold star this time. Thanks HĐ (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Laser brain's (talk) comments from the last time this was nominated (closed July 14) still apply: the prose is not close to being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".

e.g., 1st para: "with Roane and Aguilera serviced as co-producers" (very unusual verb choice); "Following the release of Stripped [...] in her next record" (unclear if Stripped was the album before ANOM); "The song was inspired by Aguilera's marriage with Jordan Bratman in 2005" (is "the song" the same as "her next record"? Did the marriage begin and end in 2005?); "It was serviced as the lead single from the project" (odd verb again; which project?).

e.g., last para: are these really cover versions if they were just on TV?; "of the eight season British" ('eight-season' or 'eighth season of the'?); "chose the song to perform at the show" (the song performed?); "making three coaches [...] turn their chairs" (what did that indicate?).

I've addressed all. I'm still fixing it. Please wait for me until it's done. — HĐ (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many of these: copy editing (to a higher standard) and/or peer review are recommended. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has many issues which should be fixed before it attains a feature level. Try a peer review editing. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: it would be very helpful if those suggesting a peer review would undertake to carry out the review. WP:PR is desperately short of active reviewers at present. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.