Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2007

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

The article was promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Ine of Wessex

[edit]

Another Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex. For comparison purposes, his predecessor Cædwalla of Wessex is now an FA, and Æthelbald of Mercia, a contemporary, is also an FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I have no idea on this one, but I know a couple of people I can ask. I'm pretty sure none of the references I'm using cover this. I've always assumed it rhymed with "wine", but I could be wrong. I'll post here again if I can find out more. Mike Christie (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of doubled consonants for short vowels gets regularized later, so the vowel could be long or short. If short, the logical pronunciation is "innuh." If long, the vowel would have been the "continental i" (η). The "i" of "I" and "wine" would be the least likely. If we have Latin authors writing it as "Ine," then it's likely the "eennuh," as Latin did obey the doubled consonant rule. It would be my best guess that it is the ήnuh. (If we found rhymes, we'd nail it down, but they don't exist from the period with the name.) Geogre 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't thought of looking at Latin versions. The only source I know for the Latin is Bede, and it's indexed there in my Penguin translation as "Ini". So would that be "eeny"? I don't have the original Latin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup note: at the AS prosopography site, they list Inus, Yny, and Yni as well as Ine and Ini. Yny and Yni come from charters. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| may be right. It is, then, "eeny," as in "meeny, miny, moe." The Yny would be "eeny," but the "Yni" suggests "Eenuh," so, when combined with the others, it's likely that the most common (and Bede is probably the "Ine" source) pronunciation was "een" with the /i/ we have in "thin" and "in," which would put it like the contemporary "Enid" but without the final stop. Geogre 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the above exchange to the article talk page. If Geogre had been certain of the pronunciation I think it might have gone in as uncontroversial, but since there is some uncertainty I've left it as a note on the talk page for when a reference can be found. Thanks to Geogre for the background and additional info on this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mo? -- !! ?? 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well written, referenced, and, as, far as I can tell with my abysmal knowledge of history, comprehensive. Only a very small quibble. Under "Christianity", there is a quick mention that Ine originally opposed the creation of the Diocese of Sherborne (Now Salisbury), but there is no further details on this anywhere in this or the diocese article. I'm thinking either the mention should be developed, or dropped. Circeus 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the reference -- it comes from the Blackwell encyclopaedia, and there's no more there about it. That entry is written by Barbara Yorke, and I checked her "Kings and Kingdoms" (as well as some other sources) and found nothing more. So I think it might as well go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a question since I know nothing about the subject. Does Christianity need its own section or could it go under another heading like "Internal affairs" since it is such a short section? Mattisse 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged, if commenters here think that would be better. I'd suggest keeping it separate though, because the influence and spread of Christianity through the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is a major topic of historical study for this period. A reader with some interest in Ine might well look for a section about Ine's relationship with the church. Also, it didn't seem a very natural fit in the other section, which is in itself somewhat a collection of miscellanea. But I can reorganize things if people think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's traditional in histories of the Anglo-Saxon peoples to follow certain narratives. This article reflects most of these themes. One is, "How do tribes become kingdoms and kingdoms become a nation?" Another is, "How does the church convert a pagan island and civilize a barbarous people?" Another is, "How does a financial arrangement emerge that leads to taxation and the eventual ability to defend the island against invaders (under Alfred)?" Yet another is, "How do the people begin to think of themselves as non-Norse and see the other Norse as enemies?" Therefore, a breakout of "Christianity" is a convention in any history of an AS king. Even if there isn't that much to say in a quick article, it's one of the sections that should be present in all the articles on AS kings after 600. I'm not one who believes in a great deal of enforced uniformity, but this is more scholarly tradition than conformity, so I'd recommend keeping the section. Geogre 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional oppose. Neutral. I've looked at the lead, and have the following issues.
    • Ouch: "under his overlordship"—Exposed at the top, so can you find another word for "under"?
    • "some but not all"—just "some"? But WP wants precision: "some two-thirds"? "more than half"?
    • "Ine retained some but not all of these territorial gains: by the end of his reign the kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex were no longer under West Saxon domination. However, Ine maintained control of what is now Hampshire, and consolidated and extended Wessex's territory in the western peninsula." The relationships between the sentences is awkward. Full-stop after "gains", then semicolon after "domination"?
    • "first began"—one of them, not both.
    • "though none are known that bear his name"—As soon as I see "are known", I feel like a reference: known to whom? Otherwise, just remove the "are known" here, as long as it's clarified in the body of the article.
    • "Trade is thought to have increased significantly during his reign, with the town of Hamwih (now Southampton) becoming important." Same here: "thought"—who'se thinking? I'd remove this and say "Trade increased", again, expecting greater detail and/or referencing below. Such hedging (explicit uncertainty) becomes intrusive, especially in the lead. "Is noted for"—same issue. Better to say that his code of laws was an important step in ..., or something like that.
    • "They shed"—remove "they" (this will be an ellipsis).
    • I like the stubby third para (except "move" instead of "go"?).

Please locate a collaborator to have the whole text copy-edited, after you've done what you can with the hedging/referencing thing. Tony 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the lead per your notes and will follow up when I've also done a pass on the body. Here are some comments on the lead:
  • under his overlordship -- I made this under his control, which is less precise but suffices for the lead, I think. I agree—not easy to think of a synonym for "under": "subject to his overlordship" is all I can think of.
  • some but not all -- changed to "was unable to retain all", which I hope eliminates the question of what proportion was retained. The loss of territory is covered in some detail in the body.
  • Ine retained -- I've restructured the sentences as you suggested. I'm tempted to make the two sentences into one very long one, since the structure is "statement: illustration; counterillustration", but I think it would be too long.
  • first began -- dropped "first".
  • none are known -- the issue here is that coins are being found all the time, and a coin may still be found with Ine's name. I've changed it to "none have yet been found", which makes it clearer why "none exist" would be an unsafe assertion. Except that "none" is always singular.
  • Trade is thought -- I dropped the qualification as you requested.
  • Is noted for -- I've left this as is since I'd like to clarify the intent here and see what you think. What I meant by this is something like "Ine's laws are much commented upon by historians", or "Historians have treated the laws as one of the most important facts of Ine's reign." I could just cut out the "noted" part completely, and leave it at: "Ine issued a code of laws in about 694," and possibly then join that to the subsequent sentence.
  • They shed -- done.
  • move vs. go -- I'm going to leave this as is, I think. Two reasons: one is that "'go" sounds more as if the journey itself is important, which is the case here -- there is an element of pilgrimage in Ine's decision. Second, to my ears at least, "move" has too many connotations of calling up the removal van company and arranging for your books to be shipped. I think "go" is more neutral.
As I said, I'll post here again when I've had a go at the rest. If any other copy-editing editor wants to have a go, please do; I agree with Tony that fresh eyes are usually best, but I'll also plan to do it myself. Mike Christie (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a pass and removed the inclemencies I could spot. Tony, please let me know if you see further issues. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike, thanks, good work. But I see little problems wherever I look, so can we find a third party to go through it? Search the edit histories of simliar FAs (England, histories) and other good articles to locate new wikicollaborators; this is potentially rewarding in the long term. "Reign": Remove "fairly" as vague and unencyclopedic. Remove the dot in the caption (MOS). Since there's a reference number at the end of the sentence, remove "is known to have" and make it a plain statement. "Comprised" rather than "consisted of" to emphasis wholeness (Fowler says!). "in either 704 or 705"—spot the redundant word. There's a lot of good in this article, but it needs polishing. I support it in the expectation that you'll locate the right collaborator(s).
I appreciate you having faith in me to get it done. I have approached one possible collaborator, and have one other in mind if that fails me; I could always ask my wife, whose professional writing experience exceeds mine, but that might be asking for trouble. Anyway, I'll post a note here when/if I get some help on this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your wife is by your side and not helping? Moral pressure, please! Tony 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My wife marked up a hardcopy, and I've entered those changes; plus Outriggr and qp10qp have both done substantial copyedits (thank you both). Would you take another look and see if the problems are resolved? Mike Christie (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it per your suggestion; I think it's gone back and forth a couple of times per different editors' preferences. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work once again! Minor points: repetition in the lead of "during [his/Ine's] reign"; sceattas = pounds or pennies?; death date is given as 728 at first but then "the following year" (after 726) at the end – should "728" read "in or after 727"? DrKiernan 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone else fixed the repetition; there are two occurrences left which seems acceptable to me, particularly since "in Ine's" looks so odd on the page. The date of death issue is fixed. Sceattas: they were probably known to contemporaries as pennies, per the WP sceat article (I don't have another source for that assertion) but the ASC uses the word pounds in the entry referred to for 694. It's "punda" in the B text, per this online version. The conjecture that the pounds are sceats comes from the knowledge of what a king's weregild would be. Does this need expansion on the page? Mike Christie (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I have some suggestions and queries, but I see no reason why this article shouldn't soon be another FA. After all, there's a finite amount to be said about this king, and, as always with Mike Christie's work, the ground is carefully and cautiously covered. I congratulate him on all his excellent Anglo-Saxon articles. The clear prose style is particularly impressive; this is an encyclopedic quality often overlooked by FA writers. I applaud the way technical and precise terms are unobtrusively explained en passant.

Please don't feel daunted by the number of comments: most of them can be addressed very easily, I imagine. And do ignore anything here that you feel is off target, of course. I'm already very close to supporting.

  • in the words of a contemporary chronicler. I suggest it would be better to make it clear that this contemporary chronicler was Bede. Otherwise, some readers may ask "what other contemporary chroniclers were there, then?"
  • On a similar point of making the nature of sources clear, I suggest the article should not risk implying that the Annales Cambriae were in any way more contemporary than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. "The Annales Cambriae record that in 722..." might give that impression, I suspect.
  • Ingeld/Ingild. Two different spellings.
  • Cuthburh. The article could perhaps mention here that she and Aldfrith separated and that she founded the abbey at Wimborne. (Annoyingly, I bought some scholarly pamphlets when I visited the minster and chained library there but can't blasted well find them at the moment.) She was a big cheese in her day, in her way: and she provides another piece of evidence for Ine's patronage of religious establishments.
  • It might be worth a line about the practice of and reasons for going to Rome at this time. Bede has something on it, I think.
  • Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've no idea, but if we don't know, we need to be cautious with the language, since so many Anglo-Saxon women also went to Rome.
  • further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. I think we need a touch more here, since one wouldn't expect the article to be referring to a land grant which was not thought to be genuine.
  • It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. There are plenty of examples of people giving up their throne, and we cannot always know how they were related to their successors. If this is based on Stenton, I think he means that there was no comparable example of co-kingship between father and son. But I wouldn't even make a big deal of that, as such, because Ine may have ruled a different area at first (Sussex, for example, given the interest he took in the Mul business and Kent). And off the top of my head, I'd say that Aethelwulf carried out a similar role at the end of Egbert's reign, as a sub-king. Certainly that sort of overlap was common in Europe.
  • The West Saxons had since expanded further down the Cornish peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall. Possibly Somerset, too, since Ine built at Taunton. I'm not comfortable with "Cornish peninsula" here. "Corn" means "horn" and only applies to the southwestern end of the southwestern peninsula. Although it is possible that the Cornovii had lived further east too, I believe that Devon had partly been evacuated by this time, to judge by the place names, with the Cornish retreating into Cornwall proper and Brittany in the sixth and seventh centuries. I would avoid the word peninsula here altogether and go for "further west".
  • He or his people campaigned across the Tamar in Cornwall, though unsuccessfully: the Annales Cambriae record that in 722 the British defeated their enemies at the Hehil, which has been identified as the river Hayle. I find this a little unclear. They were unsuccessful in 722, but do we know the result of the 710 campaign? And although it's true that some historians think Hehil is Hayle, I don't believe the spot has been identified. It is actually impossible to identify the site of the battle from the evidence; and historians have also suggested the Camel estuary, which used to be called Heil, as well as Hele, Jacobstow (near the Ottery), and Hele in Devon. In The South West to AD 1000, Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming say that both the Hayle and the Camel are "too far west to be taken seriously". Hayle is certainly in the extreme west of Cornwall. The Camel, however, strikes me as possible, because it is in north Cornwall, not far from the ethnic dividing line along the Ottery. On that point, I would add that fighting in Cornwall is not just a matter of fighting across the Tamar, because in the north, beyond the source of the Tamar, the boundary between the two cultures, which is pronounced in the name places, is along the Ottery. The battle was likely to have been fought around there somewhere, in my opinion, as may have been the later battle in which Egbert defeated the Cornish. It's the only part of Cornwall which doesn't possess natural defences (Cornwall's Achilles hehil, one might say). Extreme caution in the wording is needed, I think, even if the result is vagueness.
  • John of Worcester, a twelfth-century source, states that Geraint was killed in this battle. The casual reader might ask what a twelfth-century source would know, so might it be mentioned here that John had access to chronicles at Hereford and Worcester which have now been lost. I've a lot of time for John?
  • "Other conflicts" section: This is surely too short. It would be so easy to lose it by adding the Taunton incident to the Dumnonia section and the Cynewulf to the tail of the Ealdberht material. We don't know for sure if Ealdberht was an aetheling, but the incident seems to be of a piece and a time with the Cynewulf one. Admittedly, we don't know where the latter happened, and so it doesn't fit any geographical heading; but the article could say that it is not known where it took place and I'm sure no one would mind it being in the south-east section. Especially if it were the last item.
  • an exile fled. He sounds more like a fugitive to me. When a king sends someone into exile, he doesn't usually chase after him. And he couldn't have been an exile before he fled.
  • The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred is uncertain; most manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle record "thirty thousand", and some specify thirty thousand pounds. If the pounds are equal to sceattas, then this amount is the equal of a king's wergild (a criminal reparation) according to Mercian law. I think the explanation of what wergild was needs to be a little clearer. Also, it's not clear to me why Mercian law is mentioned here (presumably it's the source of the explanation), and I'm not sure it needs to be. In this context, we probably need to learn why Ine is thought to be the first known minter, which I presume is because of the mention of "pennies" in his laws (Kirby, 222; I think you were asking above for another reference). Nothing's easy, though: how on earth does one explain that sceattas might have been equivalent to pounds but called "pennies"?
  • Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey comes from the introduction to his laws, in which he refers to Eorcenwald, bishop of London—and hence of Surrey, which was in the diocese of London—as "my bishop". I was unclear about the status of Surrey in the article. I made a change which might not have helped. Did it have a status as an individual kingdom? If not, was it a part of Essex? If so, why did Ine control it separately? And if he at some point controlled Essex, why mention Surrey if it was part of it? Kirby says, "he was certainly regarded as king in Surrey early in his reign". But what does this mean? Why say this and not, for example, "in Hampshire", or whatever? Was Surrey perhaps a minor kingship, like that of the Hwicce?
  • By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control. Bede records that Ine held Sussex in subjection for "several years", but in 722 an exile named Ealdberht fled to Surrey and Sussex, and Ine invaded Sussex as a result. This point seems to follow from a much earlier letter and events of 704 or 705. Is that synthesis inevitable? How do we know that Surrey had passed out of West-Saxon control, from the evidence given? We are only told that Ine held Sussex in subjection, followed by some information about Sussex—nothing about Surrey. If the implication is that Ealdberht would only have fled to those places if Ine no longer controlled them, perhaps that should be brought out slightly more. And do we have any idea why Ine's control would be weakening in Surrey? Was Mercia starting to expand into this area yet?
  • The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex, and the first references to the shires they led. Were there mentions of these in other kingdoms before? It would be interesting to be told, for historical context.
  • It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds would have been easier to achieve via royal command and taxation than through any nascent market system. I felt this was one of the few sentences where the article lapsed from its clear prose style. I'm not sure "Nascent market system" will mean much to most readers, and it clashes unfortunately with the image of a "cattle market", at least in my mind. The sentence needs a strong verb, I suggest.
  • A fragment of Ine’s laws can also be found in British Museum MS Burney 277. Is this a separate fragment, or one of the bits from the fire? How many different copies have survived in whole or part? (I take it three, but if so, that might be best indicated).
  • I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. Did he incorporate them into his own laws, or combine them with each other, or what? How do we know which bits are Ine's? Why are we sure (I daresay we are, but I couldn't work it out) that the overlaps between Ine and Wihtred's laws weren't brought into play later, when Alfred was stitching different laws together (given that it says we probably do not have Ine's original version)? Do we know what kings' laws were "used" by Alfred other than Ine's?
  • ceorl. I'd suggest this is a technical term and requires a phrase of explanation ("Saxon freeman", or something?).
  • communally. I'm not sure this is clear. It seems to clash with the point that the ceorls owned individual pieces of land. The solution I would propose is to cut it.
  • it is probable that this was the prevalent agricultural method throughout the midlands. I can't work out what this means here. Does it mean the central areas of Wessex, given that the westcountry was different? It's not a normal term in England, except to describe the area in mid England, roughly where Mercia was.
  • does not occur. Does the present tense indicate archaeological evidence? I think that needs to be made slightly clearer.
  • yard. This seems to be a square measure in this context. Does it mean what we would think of as a square yard? A yard, in itself, is only a measure of length—at least these days.
  • The information about the prologue to the laws is repeated somewhat in the "Christianity" section. It might be worth varying the wording between the two.
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Ine built a minster at Glastonbury. This must refer to additional building or re-building since the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. It might be worth checking the wording in the ASC again, perhaps in more than one translation, to see what exactly was said. The passage sets up an opposition between minster/church/monastery that I suspect is not really needed. And it slightly questions what was probably just a report of new buildings in the existing foundation.
  • Bede's wording, as given, implies that Ine was still king when he died in Rome. The article, however, says that he had abdicated the year before.
  • Should Oswald be mentioned at the end, since he fought for the succession?

Anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and making these notes. Boy o boy, does this stuff bring me back to my schooldays, when I was Anglo-Saxon mad! I apologise for getting slightly carried away! qp10qp 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments; always a pleasure to get queries on content as well as form. I'll use your bullet identifications and sign each one separately so you can respond under each one if necessary. I'll do these as I get to them.
Neatly done.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scruple is worth it, I think.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cuthburh. Done. I can't actually find a ref that says Wimborne Abbey was at that time in the see of Sherborne, but it's in the modern see of Salisbury, judging by the map, so I believe it's the case. Mike Christie (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are safe with that, because even though Wimborne lies at the extreme east of Dorset, Dorset was all part of the new diocese of Sherborne at this time. It also lies just to the west of the New Forest (still a marked landscape feature today), which appears to have been the dividing line. By the way, I don't know if it was only a temporary measure, but I'm surprised you've cut the mention of the splitting of the Winchester diocese: to me that's a significant fact, as it suggests West-Saxon expansion to the west was expected to be permanent. It might be worth mentioning Aldhelm's name in that context, too; one suspects he was appointed, given his letter to Geraint of Dumnonia, for his expertise in the doctrinal issues between the Roman and Celtic churches.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wimborne, the map on p. 145 of Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England ("Approximate diocesan boundaries c. 750") shows it in the diocese of Winchester. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Angus. Re the cut sentence, qp, I cut it because I couldn't expand on the note on Ine's initial opposition -- see my response to Circeus above. I agree it is relevant. I'll put this on my list to re-add appropriately; if you can find a source on Ine's opposition, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it can be sourced without mentioning any opposition. And Wimborne can be mentioned without saying what diocese it was under.
On the diocese, little is provable for this period, of course: we can't even be sure that dioceses were run like they were later, and Wimborne may have been independent at that time. Wimborne seems to have been part of the diocese of Salisbury in the eleventh century, when the bishopric moved there (via Ramsbury) in the eleventh century. That the Sherborne diocese had jurisdiction "west of the wood", as the ASC says, is problematic. I doubt the possibility that "west of Selwood", as appears in one ASC manuscript, refers to the west of Selwood in Somerset, since Berkshire, well to the east, seems to have been under the Sherborne diocese. "West of Selwood" was a term more appropriate to Alfred's time, I suspect, when the chronicles were constructed, referring to the areas in the west where Alfred had retreated from the Danes.qp10qp 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the material with the above in mind. The map Angus pointed me at might be a useful one for me to reproduce, both for this article and others; I'll see if I can find time for that. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the edit.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've tweaked it to use "English" rather than "Englishmen". The source I cited, the Penguin Asser, does in fact say "Englishmen", but as you say this is not a safe assumption. Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. This is probably just excessive caution on my part, so I've cut the "thought to be genuine". I introduced it because Kirby makes a disparaging aside: "If the evidence, admittedly not here of the best, of land-grants can be accepted, . . . ." I wasn't sure whether he meant these land-grants were unreliable or that land-grants in general were a poor witness, but I don't think this needs to make it to the page so I've cut it. I did leave in the reference link to the charter in question. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. It is indeed based on Stenton. Here's what I was trying to paraphrase: "Primitive Germanic custom may well have allowed a son to secure the kingship of his people during the lifetime of an unambitious father, but there is no English parallel to the case of Ine and Cenred." Do I need to reword to make sure the sense is clear? Or is it still not worth including? Mike Christie (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I argued my case higher up. Stenton's point cannot baldly be applied in the following way: It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. This is because other kings gave up their thrones in favour of successors. And we do not always know the relationship between kings and their successors, anyway. Stenton may be right that there is no exact parallel, but there are near parallels, so one needs to be very precise about what there is no exact parallel to.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; after reading your comments again I decided to just cut the sentence completely. I don't think it adds enough to be worth being precise enough about to keep. Mike Christie (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The West Saxons had since expanded . . . I just cut the word "Cornish"; "further west" would have been three "wests" in about two lines, and I felt that would clank a bit. Could I just say "the southwestern peninsula"? On Somerset, I don't have a source that says Ine conquered it, or that Dumnonia held any of it prior to Ine's accession -- Stenton just says that it was probably in Ine's time that Devon was conquered, and doesn't mention Somerset. So I'd rather not mention that without having something to cite. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Southwestern peninsula" is fine. I think the chances that Dumnonia was exactly equivalent to today's Devon and Cornwall is unlikely, though. The Oxford History of Britain says, "Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset formed the British kingdom of Dumnonia...the inhabitants were pushed back by the Anglo-Saxons during the seventh and eighth centuries, though Cornwall held out till 838." But the context in the article wasn't whether Somerset was conquered by Ine but whether the region had been conquered since Ceawlin (To the west, Ceawlin of Wessex is known to have reached the Bristol Channel one hundred years before. The West Saxons had since expanded further down the peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall). My point is only that they must have pushed back some areas of Somerset, too, to get to this position. The Chronicle says that Centwine pushed the Britons back as far as the sea, and surely this can only mean that they reached the coast of Somerset, at the least. However, it's not a big deal and the addition of a word like "roughly" would cover all angles, I think.
I did some rewording here; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is surely unexceptionable now.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He or his people campaigned across the Tamar. I have edited the text to blur it somewhat, as you suggested. However, part is technically uncited now: the Stenton ref assert that it's the Hayle. Could you give me the page ref for the Todd/Fleming, so I can cite that? Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Hehil, the ref is: Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming, The South West to AD 1000, 1987, London: Longman, p. 273, ISBN 0584492734. The best references for Cornwall are that book and Philip Peyton's Cornwall: A History (Payton, by the way, opts for the Camel in the same way that Stenton opts for Hayle—and so the present wording in the article is judicious).
This is now cited from Todd & Fleming; thanks for the details. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can relax now. :) qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good. He may have had a Welsh source for the Geraint info as well. But the AS chronicles there were probably also using some Welsh annals, so the edit covers all possibilities.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other conflicts. Well, I'll move this if you really think it should go, but I have to say I'd rather not put the Cynewulf material in any geographically specific section. I do realize the section is small, and I spent some time considering other organizational approaches, but I don't like any of them better. One option would be to remove the headings at this level, and let the organization flow from the paragraph text. Would that be an improvement? Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would. At the moment the article is identifying the Taunton incident as a conflict comparable to the Cynewulf matter. I have always imagined it in the context of the southwestern expansion. Either way, we don't know, because, as Stenton says, the AS entry is "by no means luminous". The most likely conflict at Taunton, it seems to me, would be that Ine's fortess had been recaptured and so his queen burned it in reconquering and suppressing the region. Guesswork, of course, but no worse than the article's present guess that a quarrel had arisen in the royal family. I'd prefer a neutral, uninterpreted, noting of that incident—placing it in the southwestern context. But this is a small matter, and what you decide isn't going to affect whether I support the article.
  • an exile fled. As I understand it, the use of the term "exile" in secondary sources is often shorthand for someone who might have been a contender for the throne, or at least a threat to the existing king, and who cannot stay in the kingdom as a result. He is almost always a fugitive, I would think; Edwin of Northumbria was a fugitive from Aethelfrith when Raedwald took his part, but as I recall is described as an exile. So I would be concerned about implicitly losing information if I change to "fugitive". The information in this paragraph is compressed largely from Kirby, who conjecturally makes Ealdberht part of a narrative involving the destruction of Taunton and a rebellion; this is where Kirby brings in the possible Ingild connection. I'd left this out as conjecture that I hadn't seen repeated elsewhere, but it is reasonable and does provide a framework for covering this material. Would expanding this paragraph somewhat address your concern? Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. But an exile isn't an exile until he has fled or been sent away. It's not important to me, anyway: I leave it to you.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred . . . . Three issues here. I think I've dealt with the "wergild" problem; please take a look and see what you think. I dropped the reference to Mercian law: that's from Swanton, who gives a reference to an original and a translation in Whitelock's EHD. I don't have the original text, but from EHD it turns out to be a reference to CCCC MS 201, which includes a text called "Concerning the Law of the Mercians"; that text also appears in the Textus Roffensis. In that text is this: ". . . a king's simple wergild is the wergild of six thegns by the law of the Mercians, namely 30,000 sceattas, which is 120 pounds in all." (Whitelock adds a note pointing out that a thegn's wergild is defined in the preceding lines as 1200 shilllings, so that the total should have been 28,800 sceattas if we take four pennies/sceattas to the shilling.) I think this is too much detail, though, so what I've done is simply excise the reference to Mercian law--the relevant point for the reader is just that it's plausbile that the punda are here sceattas because Mul was a king and that's the amount of a king's wergild. Swanton presumably mentions it because wergilds did vary by kingdom (I assume; haven't looked) so the statement needed to be qualified in his mind. I can do the same if you think it's necessary; I think most of what I've just written above would be in a footnote rather than the main text, but that could work well. The third point you raise is that of Ine as first minter. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia simply cites supporting "archaeological and numismatic evidence", without giving references, but there's more support in Kirby. (I evidently have a different edition from you--p. 222 is beyond the end of my copy--so perhaps this is the same reference you're referring to.) On p. 126 of my edition, near the end of the chapter on the Southumbrian kingdoms, he says "By c. 700 the area of circulation of the sceatta [shouldn't he say sceat?] . . . was widening to embrace the Thames valley and Hamwic, near Southampton, was emerging as an important trading settlement . . . ." There are two references (53 and 54 in case that helps you spot this in your differently paginated edition), one numismatic, and one to do with early towns. Is an extra cite enough here, or is some text needed in the article itself? Mike Christie (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to tell you that I'd cocked that up, because the reference was actually to Stenton 222, where he mentions "pennies". This is what comes of having scribbled and jumbled notes! I think the wergild paragraph is now masterly: it conveys the complexities concisely. I do, however, feel that something is needed in the article saying why it is thought that Ine may have been first to mint coins. From your comments and what I have read, the deduction is made from the circulation and mention of the coins during his reign.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line based on the bit of Kirby I mentioned above. I looked at Stenton, but I think I don't need to mention the "pennies=sceattas" point; I don't mention pennies in the article, so I think we're OK without it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey and By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control: I'm going to combine these two points for purposes of commentary. Here's what I think are the facts about Ine, Surrey, and Essex; perhaps this can be reorganized into more coherent text for the article. With regard to Essex, there is no evidence that I know of that Ine ever controlled all of Essex; it's not recorded that Caedwalla conquered Essex or had influence on their kings. Surrey was never a kingdom, I believe, but is mentioned as a territory in early sources -- in fact the 722 entry is the first such mention in the ASC. The introduction to the laws imply that Ine controlled at least part of Eorcenwald's territory (Stenton makes that deduction explicitly); the letter of Wealdhere demonstrates that Ine did not have overlordship of the East Saxons, and had lost control of Surrey. As for why Ine's control was weakening, Kirby suggests that Kentish influence was growing, though it's conjecture on his part. I can add that if it would be useful -- it's part of the same conjectural section where he discusses Ealdberht's rebellion (mentioned above). Anyway, let me know what you think of this material and I can rework to clarify whatever is unclear. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is largely a clarity issue. It just needs to be written more sharply, I think. The article says that "Sussex, Surrey and Kent had all recovered their independence by the end of his reign". But in Surrey's case, what independence, if it wasn't a kingdom? The article says that London and Surrey were under the East Saxons but also that Ine lost control of Surrey: putting two and two together, one would deduce that the East Saxons took Surrey off Ine. But you mention that Kirby suggests Kentish power was an influence here. The point about Surrey's independence was never followed up. I just think the text needs simplifying, perhaps, to remove the conundrum.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of a rewrite here, but haven't mentioned Kirby's theory. Partly this is because doing so would require me to absorb the note on Taunton too, which would then force me to fix the "Other Conflicts" section. That would also conflict with your request to make the note on Taunton neutral and avoid mentioning the cause, since Kirby's conjecture is about familial rebellion. However, I would still like to find a way to mention the possibility of Kentish influence causing Ine trouble. I hope this is fixed enough for support; if so I'll work on the other points and come back to this last. Mike Christie (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your article on Aethelbald also seemed to imply there might have been Mercian influence here too. No one knows, is probably the bottom line.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex . . . . I've done a bit of poking around and I can't answer this. The ASC has a mention in 653 that I noticed, and there may be earlier ones, but of course that doesn't prove it was a contemporary term in 653. Charters would be better evidence if they survived from that period; the Blackwell entry cites charter evidence in support of Ine having created the shires. Anyway, I don't think I have enough info to expand on this, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ASC entry you mention, that refers to Mercia: on that basis this sentence just about holds. As you say, it's a messy business because the ASC is late ninth century, really, and a lot of the contemporary stuff was in Latin, which had all sorts of words for the same concept anyway. No change is fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds . . . . I have expanded this paragraph, using additional material from Yorke, and I've cut the problematic sentence. Let me know what you think of the rewrite. One specific question: I've been using "Hamwih" rather than "Hamwic" because the only source I have that devotes a substantial amount of attention to it (Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons) says that "Hamwih" is the convention when talking about the mid-Saxon site. However, the other sources seem to all say "Hamwic" in all cases. Any opinions about which to use? Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After I wrote that I checked Blackwell, and it says unequivocally that "Hamwih" is an error, so I'm changing it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen Hamwic, too. I'm glad the fancy sentence has gone.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear now, thanks.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. There are two things to be communicated: one is that Alfred says in his lawcode that "those [laws] which I found either in the days of Ine, my kinsman, or of Offa, king of the Mercians, or of Æthelberht [. . .] which seemed to me most just, I collected herein, and omitted the others." The other is that Ine's laws were appended to Alfred's. There is no indication whether the copied version represents the edited version, or if on the contrary the laws are Ine's original laws, and the process of creating Alfred's laws is what Alfred is referring to when he says he omitted some. The first reference to the source says Alfred "appended them"; would it be clearer to say "appended a copy of them"? The second reference, now that I look at it, doesn't even seem necessary; there's no reason in an article on Ine to mention that Alfred used Offa's laws. I've cut it; does that solve the problem?
Much better now, because the word "used" confused me before.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It save the reader from thinking too much there (me, anyway.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I understand now. I might just add a word or two there to clarify even further.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • does not occur. Unfortunately all I have from Stenton here is this: "A large part of England never came under the open-field system. It is not found in the far north nor the north-west, along the Welsh border or in Devon." I don't see how to make much more of this than I have; is there a wording you'd prefer? Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to the past tense; the present tense threw me.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well. I suppose we have to imagine what articles may be like in the future. That's a very helpful edit, by the way.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the prologue to the laws . . . . I've moved the extended quote to the section on Christianity and cut it from the laws section; does that do it? The quote was certainly too much to repeat, and I think it's more useful in the Christianity section. Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slicker.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle . . . . The text in Chronicle A is "7 he getimbrade þæt menster æt Glæstingabyrig"; it is apparently a marginal note added in the early eleventh century. Swanton translates it as "and he built the minster at Glastonbury". Swanton's note is what I was using as my source; he says "This . . . must refer to additional building, or re-building, since Glastonbury was the site of a British monastery; here as elsewhere Ine was completing or adding to what others had begun." Any thoughts on how to improve the article text? Mike Christie (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go along with Swanton. Compare that sensible sentence of his with the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. A church isn't a monastery. Monasteries have churches and other buildings in the complex.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now you point it out the word is clearly muddled. I've cleaned this up. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew.qp10qp 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a certain FA for me. There is a limited amount known about Ine, and what is known is comprehensively covered here. The article cites excellent sources throughout, but it goes further: it also compares the best sources and makes the most cautious assessments, avoiding the more idiosyncratic views of the leading historians on the subject. This makes it a highly reliable and valuable resource. Any reader who comes here without knowing much or anything about the subject will not only learn the essential facts but will also sense the limitations of the evidence and the complications of the primary sources. I see there's no opposition to this article in this review, and that is as it should be. I would raise my eyebrow at anyone who opposed, quite honestly. Apart from the history, the article is written in an unusually clear, explanatory prose of a type we could with more of on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Many congratulations to Mike Christie for all his diligence: something to be proud of here.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Very solid article. The one omission (which Mike probably wasn't aware of) is that 15 charters survive from his reign of varying degrees of authenticity -- per my count of P.H. Sawyer's Anglo-Saxon Charters. I think that this material should somehow be worked into the article -- after all, they are a substantial chunk of the scrappy materials for this period of AS history. I will admit, after glancing over the abstract's in Sawyer's work, I don't see an easy way to integrate them beyond offering some qualifications to Ine's patronage of religious houses & authoritative opinions on the authenticity of Cenred's problematic land-grant. -- llywrch 07:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a primary source link in the references to a query showing all of Ine's charters -- Anglo-Saxons.net agrees with your count of 15. I hadn't thought of doing this, and I think this would be good to add to other kings. However, I'm not sure about integrating them into the text, without finding a secondary source to reference them -- some already are referenced, of course, but I'm just concerned anything else I did would be original research. If you spot anything you think should be covered, let me know, though. Mike Christie (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work. Comment Ine's wife, Æthelburg, is only once mentioned in the article, and quite vaguely (under the section about other conflicts). As this is an article about royalty, should the name be stated somewhere near the lead? I read through this article and found nothing wrong concerning the prose; you have my support. HansHermans 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay she is hardly mentioned in the article because she is only mentioned once in the sources, and then enigmatically.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I read a few more of Mike's FA's and it seems that none of them mention these things. Does this information belong in the box, though? HansHermans 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
It does indeed; I added it. Thanks for reminding me on that. I also found a place to mention it early in the first section, which I hope addresses your concern anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Pilot (Smallville)

[edit]

I believe this article is basically knocking on the FA status' door, but that it needs some unbiased eyes to criticize everything that I've missed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:
    • The entire lead section is unsourced, which leads me to wonder if it's original research.
    • There are several grammar errors (e.g. "the WB" should be "The WB" (proper name) and there are commas missing on American dates).
    • I found the "plot" section non-fulfilling, it told me little about what actually happens in the episode (i.e. it's not comprehensive).
    • The grammar is inconsistent2 (commas and full stops inside and outside quotation marks).
    • IMDb is not a reliable source, the credits can be modified by any registered user (see the edit button here). The WGA does furnish crew credits to the IMDb, but even so only those marked with "(WGA)" could be taken as reliable.
    • The article relies heavily on the book Smallville: The Official Companion Season 1 and the DVD commentary "Pilot" commentary by Al Gough, Miles Millar and David Nutter. I believe this could be taken as a copyright violation. The information should probably be cited to other reliable secondary sources.
    • The article should primarily rely on sources independent of the subject.
    • This external link should probably be removed, I'm not convinced it meets WP:EL:
      1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
      2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
      3. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
    • I find some of the text to be awkward, for example "known simply as". It isn't "known simply as" as it "is".
  • Hope this helps. Matthew 10:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need to let me know what you're challenging, since i've always been a believer in the "leads don't need sources since they should summarize". Obviously I'm not summarizing good enough if something is challengeable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • I'm honestly not interested in Raul's opinion, what I'm interested in is what the policy/guidelines state. Nobody has presented one that supports your position. "If you'll let me know what you think needs a source, then it's fine", this is what I think needs sourcing: Any material that is likely to be challenged. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to play a teeter-totter game with you. Either tell me what you are challenging, or drop it. You cannot say "verify whatever is challenged" (since it is ALL stated in the body already, with sources) and then not tell me what you are challenging.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole lead, like I said "The entire lead section is unsourced". Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please point to specifics you think are controversial enough that they need citations in the lead; considering that the article isn't that it doens't take much to scroll down. WP:LEAD says it must conform to WP:V, but it also says that citations are only necessary for thing likely to be challeneged, or quotes. I'm sorry, but being an ass and saying "I challenge the whole thing" doesn't work. What do you feel is controversial enough that it needs a citation. The airdate (which I put a source in the infobox for ya), writers, directors, basic production information...none of that is controversial enough to need a citation. Though, I think I'll put a citation next to "Middle America", because that was a quote. [which I just did].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing the The WB and commas in the dates. I only saw one date without commas..please let me know if there were others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • The plot states the basic plot of the show, with very little details, since any neccessary details for context are mentioned elsewhere. It was heavily trimmed because of the peer review it had, where Awadewit through it wasn't succint enough. I mean, I'd rather it wasn't like "Pilot (House)", where the plot outweighs the real world content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • Well it's too basic then, so much so that it just seems like useless minutiae to me. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's you. Again, I'm not going to play this back and forth game. Either tell me exactly what you think needs a bit more explaination, or drop it. If I add more, you can simply go "that's too much". Tell me exactly what you think needs better explaination.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
        • I think the whole section would probably be better rewritten (500-1,000 words). But if you don't wish to do this, then you could try adding some more detail (like stating the important elements of the episode). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1000 words? LMAO. Film articles do not even recommend that, and you are saying that a 42 minute television show needs 1000 words? This is why we have the Wikia link at the bottom, it has all the words you'll ever need. I did state important elements of the episode, and just that. I didn't state tiny details. Again, if you have a specific thing you think needs better explaination, let me know, otherwise simply stating "put 1000 words there" isn't going to help or happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed all the quote marks and punctuation.
  • So you'd rather I use this IMDb link for Annette O'Toole's role in Superman III?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • "IMDb is not a reliable source", so no, I'm saying you should find a reliable source. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMDb is reliable for filmographies, as it's easily verifiable via the credits. If you like, I'll simply cite the DVD for that film. Her role in that film isn't even controversial, so challenging something that can be verified by clicking "closing credits" in a DVD chapter selection menu isn't really a concern of this article's quality or reliableness. But I've duplicated a reference that mentioned it as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
        • No it isn't, IMDb is user submitted. So, "Because IMDb watchers say so" isn't a good enough source. You could cite the movie, but it's a primary source. I'd preferably prefer a secondary source (they are preferred over primary sources according to policy). I've even gone to the trouble of locating two sources which appear to be reliable (click and click). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information is just interviews, primary sources, and not Paul Simpson's personal interpretations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • We cannot tell people "sorry, this doesn't fit Wikipedia, it should be transwikied to a Wikia or similer site"...but then say "but you cannot link to it from here".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Fixed this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Support This is what a single episode article looks like. It is well written, covers all major aspects, is well cited, neutral, and stable. It follows the relevant style guidelines, including WP:WAF, with an over all real world approach to the information. Even reading the plot section, it is clear that this is a work of fiction, especially since it includes the commentary about the writing. The only non-free image has an acceptable rationale, and the free image is quite appropriate. The article does not lose focus, and keeps the information very well organized. Jay32183 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jay. Cliff smith 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jay as well. Changed "made" to "rendered", but that was more a matter of personal taste than a fault. Not much else to say really, Jay summed it up in a nutshell. :) Paul730 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Bignole and Jay - the article is exceptionally well-written. Whatever clown thought cites are needed in the Lead needs some re-education before they contribute to discussions at this level. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My eye spies some copy-editing to be done, so I will do that. Otherwise, the article appears appropriately broad in content and also well-referenced. If there's anything that comes up during my c/e revision, I'll mention it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure any of the second paragraph is really notable enough to be in the lead. Buc 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments:
    • It says "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot's debut." Based on what the sources say, shouldn't it say "8.4 million viewers watched the series' debut" or "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot?" It sounds like 8.4 watched the first ten minutes and then turned off the television (which could be what happened). Then it says "3.9 million viewers" watched the pilot but I don't see a source.
      • Well, the pilot has aired many times, so "debut" would insinuate that it was the first time that got the 8.4. The 3.9 million is part of the source that follows the 3.8 million information. It would have been a bit overdone if I linked one sentence and linked the following sentence with the same source. Maybe we can trim the wording and put in a semicolon, so that it's known it's part of the same statement. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After viewing the pilot DVD, when it was released in Canada, Conrad stated,..." Does it matter where it was released?
      • Maybe not, maybe so. It wasn't released in the US as a single disc for a long time. I'll trim it down to just him viewing the pilot. I guess really, how he viewed it and when he viewed it are irrelevant to the basic idea that "he viewed it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • The single "further reading" link looks out of place. Could there be room made for it in "external links" or "references?"
    • There is no mention of the unaired pilot. (One of the guys I used to go to school with guest starred in Smallville as young Lex Luthor and was paid $500 CAD to shave his head. I believe it was in the unaired pilot, which I am downloading right now.)
  • Overall, it was a great article. Good work. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was a bit confused. It states that the pilot "follows Clark as he...attempts to stop a vengeful student from killing the Smallville High students." That's a bit vague. Whom does the Smallville High students refer to? All of them? And on a minor note: Smallville High School students might be better (and less informal). Since this was in the lead, I was led to believe that this was crucial in the plot of the pilot, and would be explained further. However, when I got to the Plot section, this was discussed in one throw-away sentence at the end, which doesn't really illuminate much more than the vague sentence in the lead. Also, it was a bit jarring to me to be reading about Gough and Millar in the plot section; those sentences broke up the narrative thread of the section. Finally, please copy edit the entire article. I don't think the best of Wikipedia should feature typos and simple grammar mistakes, especially comma abuse. For example:
Gough and Millar had five months for casting, but their primary focus was initially on finding an actor to play Clark Kent. They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, <-- no comma should be here for the role of Lana Lang, and liked it so much →that they immediately showed her to the network.[4] Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition for the role of Clark Kent, eventually accepted the opportunity to be apart of the show.[8] It was David Nutter who finally convinced Welling to read the script for the pilot, and found Welling's picture in a photo album at the casting director's office. <-- Huh? What's this clause doing in this sentence? Welling's manager did not want him to take the role, <-- no comma should be here because it could hurt his feature film career, but Welling liked the script and agreed to come in for an audition. 69.202.54.91 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the "vengeful student" attempts to kill all of them. If you think "school" would help, ok. It was a "B" story, that wasn't the focus of the episode. I've added a bit more explaining his motives for killing people, and why he was after the whole school basically. Took out the "initially". Removed those extra commas. That clause wasn't supposed to be there. It was supposed to say "after he found..." I've corrected that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Augustus

[edit]

All hail Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus! Savior of Rome! Tremble before his article! Beware ye frail and timid wikipedian plebs who dare not read and review this article, for you shall then serve as lunchmeat for the lion's den, shortly after a "eunuch snip" at the genitals with a rusty hedge-clipper while forced to 85 consecutive hours of listening to Cher's Greatest Hits! Augustus is one of the most important figures in human history, and his article deserves more editing respect than you all have been giving him. For neglecting his article all of you will be brought out into a Nevada desert where you will be beaten with baseball bats and buried alive, but I'll leave that dirty work to Joe Pesci. The article is very well-sourced, no POV statements that I can see, is a shining example of what "broad coverage" in a wiki article should be, has plenty of good pics that are copyright safe, yet do not overwhelm the article, and the article has plenty of great and entertaining detail without going off-topic or out of summary style. Therefore I nominate his article as a featured article candidate. Got a problem with that, tough guy? Then object to the article here! But if you're like "forget about it!" - then give your support.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support -looks good...but a few tweaks to brilliantize the prose....I feel we're over the line. I too am happy to leave the gallery to consensus; hence if no-one else objects - no problem. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


father.... and was governor of Macedonia - was --> had been - pluperfect tense better here as occurred prior to stream of events already in past tense.
When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was in Apollonia, Illyria, studying and undergoing military training. - reduce number of clauses by switching thus: "When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was studying and undergoing military training in Apollonia, Illyria." (3 --> 2)
Great suggestions, I will take those to heart and edit the article thus.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please make the good article nomination tag go away, since it's a featured article candidate? And take it off the GAC page?
Sure thing, it is done.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Octavian could not rely economically on his presently limited funds. - lose "economically" as redundant. (back again after dinner) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
funds that were alotted by Caesar in the intended war against Parthia.. -should the 'in' be 'to'?
Better yet, the 'in' should be 'for', as in 'for the intended war'.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..made no action against Octavian, since Octavian was later using that money.. - change 2nd 'Octavian' to 'he'
..dictator's assassins. The assassins were granted a general amnesty.. - change to "dictator's assassins; they had been granted a general amnesty.." (tense and reduce repetition)
Although Mark Antony was amassing political clout, Octavian still had opportunity to rival him as the leading member of the faction which supported Caesar. - clout? something a tad more formal, like 'support' or 'following'...also sounds a bit smother if replace "which supported" with "supporting".
this situation spelled opportunity for Octavian, - erm, "spelled opportunity" can you think of another way to phrase this?
Cicero was also known to defend Octavian against Antony's taunts that Octavian lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors, with Cicero stating of Octavian - change to "Cicero was also known to have defended Octavian against Antony's taunts that he lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors; he stated..."

You have several places where names are repeated often - the trick being trying to 'mix it up' a bit while not introducing any ambiguity on who is being talked about....I'm trying to figure examples wehre this can be addressed without amibguity.

..Antony left Cleopatra. Antony sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force... - try "Antony left Cleopatra; he sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force.." - I love semicolons
..Octavian sent only one-tenth of the amount of legionaries promised, .. -try "Octavian sent only one-tenth the number of those promised, "
Octavian had previously shown little mercy to military combatants and acted in ways that proved unpopular with the Roman people -replace "proved" with "had proven" (tense)
Once again, good suggestions that I find no objections to (except for one slight difference, 'for' instead of 'to'). Therefore I have changed each sentence in question.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok back to it - Marching into Rome, the Roman Senate appointed him and Marcus Agrippa as dual consuls. - erm who marched into Rome? Looks like the Senate did from the construction of this sentence.
According to Roman religious beliefs, the title symbolized a stamp of authority over humanity, and in fact nature, that went beyond any constitutional definition of his status. - tricky - the " and in fact nature" might be a good place to use mdashes to demarkate it better. Normally would shorten a sentence like this but reads clearly.
Additionally, after the harsh methods employed - I think we could lose the "Additionally" here - the sentence stands ok without it.
...change in name would also serve to separate his benign reign as Augustus ... - ok, playing thesaurus again, I feel it'd look a little more polished with 'demarkate', 'differentiate' or 'delineate' or something than 'separate' to really get teh essence of teh verb right.
In addition, Augustus was granted the right to hang.. - I think we can lose first two words.
This was a clever political ploy by Augustus; - can lose "political"
When, in 22 BC, Augustus failed to stand for election as consul, fears arose once again that Augustus was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate. - can change to "When Augustus failed to stand for election as consul in 22 BC, fears arose once again that he was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate."

The next two sentences both mention 22 BC, trying to reword to reduce repetition would be helpful but I concede it is tricky. You could try "the same year" or something.

Arminius, who fled that battle but was killed four years later in 19 due to treachery - I presume an AD should be added here?
In order to ensure stability, Augustus needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government. - try " To ensure stability, he needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government."

Even though it is obvious, may be a good idea to stick an OED reference for the etymolgy of Kaiser and Tsar.

It was under Augustus that the city of Rome was utterly transformed,.. - try "The city of Rome was utterly transformed under Augustus,"
..with Rome's first institutionalized.. - try "with its first institutionalized.."
Augustus wished to embody the spirit of Republican virtue and norms, and to level with the lay people. - to be level? Even then I'm unsure - be good to stick egalitarian in somehow.
In looking back on the reign of Augustus and its legacy to the Roman world, its longevity should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success - try "The longevity of Augustus' reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success"

smoother

In tax reform section I'm wondering whether describing them as 1st, 2nd 3rd is necessary - maybe just describing would be more succinct.

For the upkeep of roads, Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum - try "Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum for the upkeep of roads"

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.

In summary, an excellent read - prose is good but a little "clause-y" which I have highlighted examples found above. I'd be happy once all addressed but some other folks may find some more. Congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am addressing those concerns right now. There's one of yours I find a problem with, though, and that is putting "AD" after "19" when "AD" is already implied a few lines up with the date of the Teutoburg battle in 9 AD. The reader should understand that the following years of 13 and 19 are also AD, not BC.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AD's are harmless. If we're not sure, better to have too many than too few; confusing the reader is worse than a slight loss in elegance. But I'll get to that section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally addressed all of your concerns. However, there are a couple points of my own I must make:

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.—Casliber

Really? What better way is there to represent text than to illustrate it with a picture? I think it wraps up the section fairly well. 2 out of four of those buildings are not described and wikilinked in the section. How is it jarring in the text? I'd like to get a second opinion about the gallery. If others are displeased for the same or other reasons, then you have my word that it will be removed from the article.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.—Casliber

That's fine. If I had it my way, I would make this article twice as long as it is, with whole sections on Augustan literature, poetry, lifestyles, culture of the age, the types of beverages and hairstyles that were popular in his reign, etc. However, wikipedia states that an article cannot be any larger than 100 KB, and this article is certainly pushing the limit at 92 KB. Unfortunately, this article's waistline has already reached a state of near obesity; any further expansion would mean time for liposuction. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Splendid work. I wish I could have helped more but unfortunately, due to excessive downloading in the past month, my internet provider has temporarily slowed my internet connection, which makes editing, especially on large articles, somewhat difficult. Anyway, one thing I would still like to see incorporated into the text is the establishment of the Praetorian Guard. Military reforms under Augustus are covered in the Augustus' legacy section but it makes no mention of the Guard, which is kind of curious since the Praetorians were after all, one of the most outwardly visible symbols of Augustus' power, and an integral part of the principate itself. --Steerpike 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My God man, you're right. I'm not sure how I overlooked that "elephant standing in the living room," but I will add it. While thinking of Augustus and his many reforms, I was not thinking of the reign of Tiberius, where the Praetorian Guard under Sejanus actually became politically important. But yes, it would be silly not to mention it here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to announce that there are two shiny new sentences about the Praetorian Guard in the legacy section, as well as a mentioning of it in the introduction.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter now, I have gotten rid of that picture and replaced it with another from Commons, one that is a suitable replacement. Still object?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection withdrawn. --Carnildo 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! Unfortunately, this article is too big to merge that and create a new section, so I have just put it in the See also section for now. I might make it a "Further information" link at the top of the "Legacy" section. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is much too big to merge into the present article. I recommend that you make it a link from somewhere in the Legacy section, perhaps incorporating only the most important repreentations into the text (if any). I simply thought that since the popular culture is basically a sub-article the main Augustus article should link to it. Your suggestion is probably the best way to go.--Jackyd101 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I'd think about a one-liner in Legacy with something about his profile not being as high as JC (Julius not Jesus) but of his numberous depictions in film etc, then link to AiPC page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have moved it to the top of the legacy section under a "Further information" link; since it is an important sub-article, I think it deserves its attention there rather than being buried in the text of the legacy section as a "|" reworded link.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Now that that is sorted out, I give my support to this absolutely superb article. i do however have a couple of issues which, although they do not prevent me supporting the piece, should be changed. 1) Can we have a reference for the statement at the end of the fourth paragraph in Augustus' Legacy where it says that Trajan is often compared to Augustus? 2) Augustus' early life is a little weak, obviously its been split off due to size constraints, but whats left suffers from one line paragraphs, can this be tidied a little? (I would also prefer a bit more information about his young life, but given the size constraints thats probably not possible). Beyond these two things, this is a fantastic article on a very complex issue and I commend you heartily for your achievement with it.--Jackyd101 10:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad you support. As to your first concern: I never wrote that to begin with, that was someone else's doing. I don't think I'll be able to find a citation for it anytime soon, so I will strike it from the article until I (hopefully) do find something for it. It makes sense though, Trajan was one of Rome's greatest emperors, in terms of the monuments and buildings he left behind, as well as pushing Rome's borders to the greatest extent they would be (well into modern-day Iraq). As for his early life, you are correct, size constraints are already a problem, one of the reasons why I did not want to merge Augustus in popular culture with this article. I may add a couple more sentences in the beginning section, but to be honest, I already have! It was worse before.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Trajan stems from the fact that every emperor after Trajan was honored by the Senate with the prayer Felicior Augusto, Melior Traiano (may he be luckier than Augustus, and better than Trajan). See for example Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, Chapter 3, note 45. I think this deserves to be left in the article. --Steerpike 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a minor edit onthe early life section to merge a couple of the shorter paragraphs, leaving the text unchanged. I jut feel this looks a bit tidier, see what you think. In regards to the Trajan thing, I wasn't disputing its factual accuracy (in fact I agree with it), but it should still have a citation. The one from Gibbon wopuld be perfect. Great job, all the best.--Jackyd101 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. When I was writing it, the intent was to briefly mention the situation he was in that forced him to act, because he was one the eve of being decimated by Octavian's forces in Egypt. He chose a way out by killing himself instead of being captured or killed in battle. I'll reword that sentence and simply state: "Mark Antony committed suicide"...which he did.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, you can be forced to commit suicide. Think about it. If someone has you locked in a tower, refusing to feed you so that you'll starve to death, and says you can go two ways: jumping out the top window, or swallowing this poison given to you, than that would most certainly be forced suicide. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you don't listen to the guy, and choose to starve to death, he was responsible for the death (as he didn't let you have food), so it wasn't suicide. Cheers, HansHermans 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Good point. Thanks for the support!--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite yet. Well researched; largely well written. I will return with detailed comments; but it could use a copy-edit. I recommend a read-through by a literate editor who knows nothing about Roman history; this can be very profitable.
  • My major reservation is one of tone. The nominator has made clear that he has a strong PoV on Augustus; this is fine, but he should lean over backwards to avoid having it show up in the article. One way to do this would be to read Syme and include his data; one footnote and a dismissal as "revisionist" are unfair to Sir Ronald's position in clasical historiography.

Nitpicks:

  • Please consider consolidating multiple footnotes at the same point into one, citing several passages. It's much easier to read the article that way; and actually easier (when, as here, most passages in the sources are cited once) to follow what sources are being cited for a given point.
  • The phrase his borrowed name is clumsy and technically inaccurate. He didn't borrow his name, he was bequeathed it.

Much more follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus is an anthology. It should be cited as such or CCAA, not by the name of its editor. More importantly, the different articles should be cited, preferably by title and author. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have a section on Augustus' names. That would simplify both the first line and the beginning of Early life.
  • The intro is seriously flawed, including
    • garbles:due to his blood relation and reputation with his grand uncle Julius Caesar.
    • Dubious claims of fact:
      • Augustus ruled in actuality as an autocrat for 41 years (he wasn't an autocrat before 27 BC? or do you actually mean 28?)
      • Augustus used his political power and martial might to form the Second Triumvirate over Rome. Anthony had nothing to do with it?
    • Misleading statements: yet he never claimed to be an emperor or even dictator. Defensible only in the sense that Emperor was not an office, and Augustus never held the office of dictator.

Rather than present a full criticism here, I will take this to the talk page. See Talk:Augustus#intro. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I just want to make it clear, although I hold Augustus in high esteem, I do not want that reflected in any possible POV statements that might appear in the article. I will address your concerns as soon as possible, but I just started my first semester of my senior year of college, and already I am bogged down with reading assignments. I hope you understand if I am unable to frequently respond or make copy-edits during this week, as I will be busy. I agree, an experienced copy-editor should be summoned. Maybe we should take this to the league of copyeditors?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all present concerns on the talk page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have requested, I have converted all of the Galinsky inline citations to CCAA instead, with full title and author name of each chapter from that book, and edited the reference section to fit the new changes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the intro myself; but these are typical of the small flaws throughout the article. This will be FA; but not until they are fixed. That process is now underway, but the tone and the blunders must be fixed before I will support. (My other suggestions, here and elsewhere, are editing comments, not conditions for promotion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the few facts I've tagged with {{fact}} are referenced (I have no doubt references exist, they just need tagging). I've done a little copyediting, tidying up some of the phrasing, but don't have time to go through the article properly (I think it would need that before getting to FA). Neil ム 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy rusted metal, Batman! What are we going to do about those tags! Lol. Honestly, though, I don't have citations for any of the things you tagged, so I will be deleting them from the article until I can find proper references and cited pages. Furthermore, I don't want "citation needed" tags in an article I'm trying to promote as a Featured Article. I hope everyone understands that. Plus, the things that were tagged won't be sorely missed when deleted, they were more side-comments if anything (except for the part about taxes, I'll try the hardest to find citations for that)--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the tags. FA is worthless if it results in a worsening of the article; and any competent reviewer will recognize that this discussion explains the {{cn}}s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The article is worse without them? I beg to differ. This article is far too big, 95 KB, pushing it to the limit since 100 KB is outright unacceptable (meaning time to break the article into sub-articles, if not trimming it down to a manageable size). The uncited, tagged comments were useful, but were not as important as crucial information already stated in the article. Here are the sentences I deleted (which can always be reinstated if someone wants to find citations for them):
    • "Subsequently, they were even adopted by many invading Germanic tribes as insignia of their right to rule."
    • "His reforms are considered to have had substantial beneficial effects on both the fairness of the tax system and its effects on the Empire's economic prosperity."
    • "Its abolition was an enormous relief to the people."

I'm sure some of you could find citations for these, but I do not have time since summer vacation has ended and school has started this week for me. I have a mountain of other books to read right now, I don't have time to go to my library, check out more books on Augustus, and scour through them just to cite these. The article is fine without them. If you don't believe me, read the sections where they were deleted. There is already a ton of information for the reader to digest. Enough has been added, don't place the straw that breaks the camel's back, I say.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Ramón Emeterio Betances

[edit]

As was the case with Héctor Lavoe below this article was taken to Good Article status as a result of the work of some members of WikiProject Puerto Rico, most notably Demf. The article then underwent a Peer review that only received an automated review, after discussing the situation with Mtmelendez who was the original nominator we agreed that most adecuate next step was to take the article directly to FAC, as with Lavoe any points presented here will be attended ASAP by members of WikiProject Puerto Rico, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

1880 Republican National Convention

[edit]

This article was featured on DYK and then successfully nominated for GA at the end of June. I've basically done some copyediting of the article, and I think it's FA-worthy. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A well-referenced and interesting read. The balloting section may need either splitting or trimming, IMO.Bakaman 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me. Martinp23 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't think of any suggestions or comments to make. The article is well-written, well-referenced with what look to be good, reliable sources, and meets other criteria that's expected of featured articles. --Aude (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Aikido

[edit]

previous FAC

  • I am nominating this article for the second time. The first nomination closed without passing in late March which was a bit disappointing considering most of the points raised were addressed to the satisfaction of those who made them. I hope that those changes and those made over the subsequent months are satisfactory. The aikido article has been featured in the Portal:Martial arts and is considered to be a very good model for the martial arts articles. It is far more detailed than the Esparanto version and far better referenced than the French and Esparanto versions, both of which made featured article status. Aikido in itself is difficult to write about as there are a number of important styles that have their own take on the art. The specifics are detailed on pages relating to those styles and in my opinion the current Aikido article does an admirable job of representing a style neutral overview of the art. The developement of the article was a long slow process with contributions of practitioners and instructors from several styles of Aikido.Peter Rehse 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a number of requests for citations. As a rule try to make sure that every paragraph has at least one citation. The article is almost there, you just need to get extra citations in and watch out for double spaces after full stops. John Smith's 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All your requested citations (and a couple more) have been added.Peter Rehse 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article appears to be written from an informed martial arts viewpoint which is sympathetic to the practice of Aikido. Take the section "Spirit of Aikido", for instance, it mixes philosophy and critical assessment in an odd way. How is the notion of "moving" elevated when compared to "clashing"? Who considers aikido to be symbolic, outside of its founder? The history and technique sections seem well composed, but the troublesome trend appears again in "Mental training". To someone who is not well versed in the martial arts, the importance and effect of this is not clear. One wonders how the ability to relax the mind and body allow a practitioner to meet an attack with "confidence and directness" (and what do these terms refer to - getting hit, blocking, or countering?). Ueshiba's quotation is equally enigmatic, is there some criticism or analysis which could be included that delineates his intent?
I removed the word "elevated" - that was POV.Peter Rehse 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "some consider" statement is in need of clarification. Is this the majority view held by practitioners? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not write it, tend to agree with you, and don't see aikido in that way but some do. No idea about majority or not. Let me think about it. If it can't be supported one way or the other I will remove it.Peter Rehse 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entire sentence. It really adds nothing to the section and I agree with the problems it causes.Peter Rehse 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other points:
    • The history section ends abruptly in the 50s/60s, something notable must have happened to the field in the past forty years.
The history comment was quite good - the ending seemed pretty abrupt. Basically after that time period covered the history of Aikido is really the history of the independent styles which are covered in their own articles. However, the emergence of those styles, is part of the history. I therefore moved the Style section into the History section and expanded it a bit.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Physical training, mental training, & Ki tend to intersect in a few places, perhaps it would make sense to consolidate them.
Sure there is some intersection of physcial, mental and ki - since they all come together to form aikido. Yet they are distinct and should be kept separate.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, this was an outsider's appraisal of the coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the comment about "aikido proliferation in mainstream martial arts". It is pretty mainstream in its own right, something that has been demonstrated within the article. It has an international breadth and has been established over quite a long period.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This concern was ancillary to the point about the history section. The article has a better flow now that the two are merged and the development/spread of Aikido is easier to understand. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have not been a contributor to this article, but have watched its progress with interest over the past few months since the July attempt. I'm very impressed: it's a clearly written, well-referenced, inclusive article. The section on physical technique is excellent in distilling perhaps hundreds of techniques in the art to a dozen or so major attack types and response types. The descriptions avoid being too detailed, yet each is clear what kind of attack or response it is. I disagree with the comment above that the mental training paragraph is unclear; I think the average reader would understand that cultivating a calm presence of mind would be an advantage during an attack. I think this is great work and definitely worthy of featured status. BWatkins 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the obvious reason that there are {{citation needed}} tags left. That's an absolute showstopper for FA. Otherwise, it's very good - well structured, sensible use of images, meaningful citations, etc. Will change to support when missing citations have been inserted. 82.71.48.158 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is one left and of course the tags were added after the submission - the reference is availabe just that it might take a bit of digging to find an exact one.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All citation tags have been filled.Peter Rehse 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article would probably meet the GA criteria, but it has a very long way to go before it is representative of the very best of Wikipedia. The introduction is slim when compared to other FA articles and the general standard. The section currently titled "Spirit of Aikido" should be renamed for encyclopedic tone to a more sober title such as Etymology or something similar. Several potentially controversial statements, such as the statement of Ueshiba's goal in the intro, are not directly cited. I'm not sure if descendant articles exist (such as History of Aikido) but they should be linked under the headers for the appropriate sections if they do. The article is heavy on technical aspects such as technique execution and lexicography, and lacking in others. This is a general symptom of the basic problem with the article; it reads like it was plainly written for and by Aikidoka. An FA-class article needs to work harder to state the obvious and write for the previously uneducated reader. Examples of areas needing expansion to reach true comprehensiveness include: current events history, at least some mention of the tangible differences in every style rather than just dates and names, further discussion of the art's relation to and influence on any other martial arts, the article lacks a sufficient discussion of how Ueshiba's writings shaped the practice and theory of Aikido, and the article seems to lack a substantial discussion of why Aikido has not been morphed into a competitive sport like Karate or Taekwondo. Lastly, the article contains no mention of any criticism of Aikido, such as that to be found in martial arts circles. Despite what I feel is pretty obvious empirical evidence, not everybody takes Aikido's word on the effectiveness of the techniques and approach at face value. I forget exactly where I've seen it, but I have also heard criticism of potential for injury in Aikido training. VanTucky (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critism section has been started. Injuries were discussed in the article already with references but expanded in the Critism section.Peter Rehse 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the introduction section to more clearly define what AIkido is and how it is distinguished from other common martial arts.Peter Rehse 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differences in styles has been alluded to but is best expanded in the individual articles. The intro expansion I think further addresses the issue.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writings - well frankly speaking they didn't really. His relationship to his senior students when they studied with him is far more important. Most of the literature available was written once or twice removed.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Aikido section has been renamed.Peter Rehse 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving on most of these points. However, I honestly must say that for a martial art which is so widely popular and rich in complexity, the article still feels as if it isn't comprehensive enough for me to fully support it as part of the best of Wikipedia. I understand that having descendant articles for history and styles can cut down on the content of the parent article, but I'm just not comfortable signing off as it stands. Good work so far though. VanTucky (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been a minor contributor (mainly vandal spotting). From reading the article as someone who knows a minimal about about Aikido this gives a good introduction and overview and is well sourced. VanTucky's point about not being comprehensive enough seem more opinion, a complex subject cannot be covered comprehensively in an encyclopaedia, but it can be introduced comprehensively which this does. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Bupropion

[edit]

I think this is what you would call a "Featured Article Status", I am thus nominating it, so that it becomes official. Anyways research wise I like this chemical a lot, so if it is not at "FA level" yet, I will improve it based on the comments received I have done like just 4 edits after the FA review started. I am sorry. --Savedthat 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those rules you mentioned, but I cannot connect the dots, what exactly is this article not following? I have decided to go straight to FA candidate because it has a more stringent review system. Thus, I can start doing additional research immediately on this substance if it does not meet criteria.--Savedthat 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is head and shoulders above most pharm articles, but ... Bolding is used where it shouldn't be, the lead could be expanded to a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, there is incorrect use of hyphens where endashes are needed, all numbers and units of measurement need non-breaking hardspaces, there's a citation in a section heading, you should explain your use of trade names (see the footnote at Tourette syndrome), and section headings don't conform with WP:MEDMOS. Each citation that is not to a journal-published source should be scrutinized to see if it can be replaced with refereed sources. External links can probably be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT; is there anything there that can't be found in the DMOZ link or in the article and its sources? If so, the article may not be comprehensive. Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) is familiar with pharm articles and FAC; he might be willing to help out. (Speaking of comprehensive, I don't find the words tic or Tourette syndrome in the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for a sample article to guide you, but I'm afraid you're blazing new territory. Antioxidant is the most recent FA, but it's not a class pharmaceutical, so isn't really comparable. Neither is caffeine. Paracetamol is a very old FA, probably doesn't meet current standards, and needs review. So, there isn't really a pharm FA to compare to, but TimVickers (talk · contribs) could help you prepare for WP:GAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Poorly written and MOS breaches.

  • MOS breachs—hyphens/dashes; why are simple years linked? Read MOS on linking.
  • compared with for contrasts.
  • "have confirmed efficacy of bupropion"—"the" is missing

And tons more. Tony 10:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here we go:
  • The "History" section is excellent, way above average for pharm articles. It is asking for references, though; they shouldn't be too hard to find.
  • The article is quite heavy on stats; this is not a bad thing, but more prose would make it more readable. There are a lot of parenthetical statements throughout. It would be nice to rewrite some of these; get crazy with em dashes.
  • "Pharmacokinetics" is quite technical. I've no problem with it but it is probably above the lay reader. It also took me a couple of seconds to get acquainted with the metabolites table; its syntax could perhaps be improved to make it... prettier? :)
  • "Availability in the UK" should be expanded to "Availability" with country-specific subsections as needed; I hate to toot my own horn, but Orlistat does a good job of this. The list of trade names could go in as a subsection of "Availability" as well; making it two- or three-column, if possible, would help readability.
  • "only if you are able to get a letter from a smoking cessation clinic to your GP"... Second-person writing is a no-no.
  • IMHO there's nothing in "Additional information" which couldn't be rearranged within the rest of the article. "Overdosage" doesn't fit in with "Availability"; it could be a stand-alone section or go with Adverse effects.
There's more to come, but I'm off to lunch now :) Will see what else I can do later. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The smoking cessation paragraph under indications should be improved using the later cited cochrane review on antidepressants for smoking cessation.
  • Should a study showing equal effectiveness as placebo be included in the article?
  • The number of prescriptions in one specific year in one specific country does not belong to the lead section I think.
  • History: withdrawal from market, was this in the U.S. only or worldwide?
  • The suicide risk section should start with objective information about the suicide risk, not with "the FDA requires...".

--WS 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - go for it - this one is doable. Main thing is that WP is an encyclopedia not a pharmaceutical info pamphlet- so the prose should be richer. I am happy to help with copyediting. Only thing of substance I can't see so far is that it has a reputation for benig psychotogenic (at least in Australia) so evidnce refuting or supporting that would be importand.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Overall, I think this is one of the best drug articles I've seen on Wikipedia yet! I think it covers the topic quite well, is well-referenced, and interesting to read. I've made a couple of minor changes to the article. A couple of things still remain. Here's my detailed comments:

I am reviewing this version of the article.
The lead is a bit short. It should be a concise summary of the article. As a summary, it should ideally not contain any references (inline citations would be placed on the material later in the article that is being cited). WP:LEAD can help in this regard.
I like the indications section, as it is written out in reasonably good prose and not just a list, like a lot of other drug articles. This provides an excellent example for others to follow.
The metabolism image in the pharmacokinetics section seems a bit odd, with the drug on the right and the metabolites pointing back to the left. I would think that it should be the other way around. Also, the quality of some of the lines in the sketch seems a bit choppy. What chemical software was used to create it?
The pharmacokinetics section seems a bit crowded with the image and the table right next to each other. Perhaps the table could be moved to the bottom of the section, after all the text?
References are only indicated for one of the three bullet points under 'dosage'. With specific dosage information provided, a reference should be there.
While the colorful table in the 'availability in the UK' section looks nice and all; (a) it is unreferenced and (b) I am uncertain exactly what it is contributing to the article? It seems to go a bit beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide a listing and descriptions of each of the different pills of the drug; you can look up — perhaps a far more accurate version — on the manufacturer's official website. Plus, is the table specific to the UK? Where's the US version? I would recommend removing this section, and possibily moving the text at the beginning to another section of the article, and finding a reference for it.
"Recently, addition of bupropion to a mood-stabilizer in patients with bipolar depressions was shown to have the same effectiveness as placebo." -- This statement should probably be integrated with a different section. It seems out of place in its own brief subsection under 'additional information'. Once it's removed, I'd recommend renaming the main section to 'trade names' and removing the identically-named subsection.

Dr. Cash 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copy-editing has been done here [4], thank you Wouterstomp; and here [5], thank you Axl; and here [6] & [7], thank you Fvasconcellos; and here [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], & [32], thank you Derek.cashman; and here [33] & [34], thank you Outriggr --Savedthat 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The lead... should ideally not contain any references" — Dr. Cash (Derek Cashman)
With respect, I don't think that this is correct. Look at Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section. This indicates that references in this section are less important (because appropriate references should be present later in the article); "there is not, however, a citation exception specific to leads". Axl 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead. --Savedthat 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me on that. I often think of the lead section in wikipedia as similar to a scientific abstract, which should not contain references. Wiki does take a stand similar to this, but does not explicitly prohibit references in the lead. Dr. Cash 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savedthat, thank you for noting my contribution above. However, copyediting is not "done"—the article needs quite a bit of work in this area, and I've done maybe half of it so far. I am willing to continue if there are others also engaged in improving this to FA status. –Outriggr § 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've finished my contribution to the copyediting of this article... there is always room for improvement, but I feel it's in much better shape than it was, with the efforts of a number of us. –Outriggr § 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round 2 of copy editing has been done here [45], [46], & [47] thank you Outriggr; and here [48], [49],

[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], & [61], thank you Derek.cashman; and here [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], & [70], thank you Fvasconcellos; and here [71], [72], & [73], thank you Casliber --Savedthat 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note on Comprehensiveness - before this can pass, some work needs to be done on comprehensiveness. Rather than clog the page here I am leaving items on the talk page - they are a deal-breaker for me anyway so m vote is currently Oppose for the record but we are really nearly there (nice rhyme ain't it?) and I am close to supporting. The end is in sight.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm close to Supporting. The article has improved a lot, particularly with regard to referencing and thanks to copy editing efforts. There are still a few minor (dashes and WP:MOSNUM) and not so minor (a few under-referenced paragraphs) obstacles, but I think this is a strong candidate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has come a long way, and, as Casliber says below, I think we're "over the line". Any remaining concerns of mine are minor, and don't stand in the way of an FA pass. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: the content is impressive, but there seems to be something missing. Perhaps it is the structure of the content. I'm not greatly troubled by the quality of the prose as others are; it's really a matter of susbtance for me. Maybe it's the nature of the subject matter but the content doesn't seem to interlink between sections 100%. But all said I'm still voting support because it's very comprehensive and well-researched. Manderiko 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really like the direction this article has gone over the past couple of days, it has improved a lot. While I may not be as reliable on the copyediting and manual of style perspective as far as FA status goes (I'll defer to other reviewers there), from a scientific standpoint, I think the article is very complete, well referenced, and well written. Dr. Cash 07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



If it is nicotinic antagonist it will make people smoke more to get the same effect. I read some journal article that states when Bupropion is taken in higher doses it makes people smoke more.

Actually, it is postulated that nicotinic antagonists, such as mecamylamine (and to a lesser extent bupropion), reduce the urge to smoke by preventing nicotine from doing its thing. I can't find any such article; do you mean this small study, which used acute, therapeutic doses? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats the study I was referring to...It makes no sense: increasing the dose of Bupropion has an opposite effect in regards with smoking cessation? --1ws1 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fvasconcellos pretty much has it right. To be specific, bupropion is a competitive antagonist of the [acetylcholinergic] nicotinic receptor. What this means is that it binds at the same active site as nicotine and prevents nicotine from interacting there. So in other words, smoking cigarettes or obtaining nicotine in other ways prevents it from having any effect at its normal site, so it effectively neutralizes it. Dr. Cash 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bupropion is a non-competitive antagonist of nicotinic receptors. See the article. Still prevents nicotine from acting, though.Paul gene 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Bupropion improved ratings of "energy", which had decreased under the influence of the SSRI; also noted were improvements of mood and motivation" & "Bupropion is more effective than SSRIs at improving symptoms of hypersomnia and fatigue in depressed patients."

I have the opposite reaction when I take Bupropion. I sleep for hours straight. Aren't there any studies that say Bupropion makes people drowsy?

Agitation is far more common than drowsiness with bupropion. In clinical studies, there was no difference in the incidence of drowsiness between bupropion and placebo. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bupropion shouldn't cause drowsiness in patients; it's properties as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor should give it an effect similar to other stimulating drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, ritalin, etc. If bupropion is making you "sleep for hours straight" and makes you drowsy, I would think that you might be experiencing an interaction with another drug, or bupropion may just not work with you (drugs do have different effects on different people -- see pharmacogenomics). Anyway, it almost sounds more like you're seeking medical advice than responding to the article, so if you're still having drowsiness issues, I would suggest that you consult your physician. Dr. Cash 06:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If increasing the levels of dopamine & serotonin in the brain via Bupropion & Citalopram (Celexa) can cure depression, reducing the levels of dopamine & serotonin via Zyprexa can cure bipolar depression?

It's not that simple, particularly regarding the word "cure" :) Long story short, olanzapine is prescribed to treat the manic part of bipolar disorder, usually in conjunction with an antidepressant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they take anti-depressants along with anti-psychotics the levels of the dopamine & serotonin will remain the same as before as the medicines are now contradicting themselves! --1ws1 10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Bupropion being a dopamine reuptake inhibitor increases the level of dopamine in the brain right? So are there studies for Bupropion to treat Parkinson's disease which is caused by low levels of dopamine?
A single 1984 study found bupropion to be mildly effective in Parkinson's, though side effects limited its utility. I don't have access to the full text, so I don't know whether or not it's even worth a mention. (Good study design, relevance etc.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor study, claims to be double-blind but no protocol is described. Very poorly written, almost incomprehensible. I relegated it to a footnote in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Studies on the drug Modafinil (Alertec) have shown it to inhibit the reuptake of dopamine and, more potently, norepinephrine. While the co-administration of a dopamine antagonist is known to decrease the stimulant effect of amphetamine, it does not negate the wakefulness-promoting actions of modafinil.

What was my question again....I forgot... I probably have ADHD....lol--1ws1 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is relevant to the bupropion article, but I believe antipsychotics like Zyprexa are prescribed to treat the manic part of bipolar disorder. A lot of bipolar patients also take an antidepressant.
A friend of mine also reported sedation with bupropion. Can't find anything about it, but I'm not very good at searching for journal articles. --Galaxiaad 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are bound to be idiosyncratic reactions to any drug. I know of a person who gets very irritable and anxious from benzodiazepines.Paul gene 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose, not there yet, not comprehensive, not necessarily neutral, although it can certainly make it with a bit more attention. Wikipedia has to take care not to be an advertisement for smoking cessation or for GlaxoSmithKline. It doesn't appear that PMID 17685748 has been factored into the article at all. Causality and comorbidy of smoking with psychiatric disorders have to be sorted out relative to claims that the medication aids in smoking cessation. Whether the bupropion is actually treating underlying psychiatric disorders (ADHD, dpression) that lead to increased smoking, and reduces smoking indirectly via treating other underlying disorders, has not been addressed here. There are also case reports of tic exacerbation in patients on bupropion, which has not been mentioned. We shouldn't downplay side effects of medications or overplay their efficacy. Better attention to wikilinking or definitions is also needed; example only—it appears that Wiki has no article defining "placebo-controlled", so things like that need to be defined for laypersons who may not understand the significance (alternately, an article on placebo-controlled studies needs to be created). Please run through again and make sure all technical terms, not familiar to a layperson, are linked or defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's a very recent study. Regarding "Whether the bupropion is actually treating underlying psychiatric disorders...", we need to be very careful not to wander into OR territory, but I don't have to tell you that :) Is PMID 8428875 a good enough analysis of tic exacerbation? It's a case series and quite dated, but seems appropriate. Perhaps someone more adept at analysing the literature (hint, hint) could help out :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not an advertisement for bupropion for smoking cessation. Equal efficacy of nicotine patch is pointed out. The fact that the new medication varenicline is more effective is also noted in the article. Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not an advertisement for GSK. Personally, I hold a very dim view of GSK, but it has nothing to do with the fascinating pharmacology of bupropion. Please give examples to correct.
PMID 17685748 is included now.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tics have been reported only in children treated with bupropion for ADHD. Bupropion should not be used in children according to the recent FDA guidelines. And I do not believe anybody uses it in the USA. So the issue of tics is moot.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my Oppose since both of the items I was concerned about have been added, but the commentary above is surprising. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding since the way you interspersed your comments is confusing, but are you really saying that 1) bupropion isn't used in the US, 2) bupropion isn't used off-label in children, and 3) tic exacerbations are moot in a med used often to treat ADHD, considering the high comorbidity between ADHD and tics? <scratching my head ... as long as the article is accurate ... but these certainly are not moot points. Wiki pharm articles have to be comprehensive, and that means common off-label uses have to be considered.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O-ops, stupid mistake. Let me re-write incorporating the answer to your objections. Tics have been reported only in children treated with bupropion for ADHD, not in adults. Bupropion should not be used in children. Since 2004, it is not simply an off-label use, it is the use of the drug in a population where it is contraindicated. While it is possible that a very small number of psychiatrists would still use bupropion in children with depression as a drug of the last resort, it is inconceivable and highly improbable that anyone would use it for ADHD in children, since bupropion’s efficacy in children with ADHD has not been demonstrated. (In the largest double-blind study conducted bupropion was not better than placebo, for the review see PMID 9554326). Thus, bupropion for ADHD in children is in no way a common off-label use, and it is not necessary to include the tics issue in the article. By the way, do you think I should add to the article that bupropion is not efficacious for ADHD in children?Paul gene 01:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the article to placebo and blind clinical studies. The two latter articles contain explanations sufficient for understanding the concept of double-blind placebo study.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      • Recent, but a well-established phenomenon (something I happen to know because of the issue of self-medication with nicotine in Tourette syndrome); there probably is data to sort that out without getting into OR. If someone does the research and tells me there's no data, I'll strike, but there has been a lot of work on this concept with TS, so I strongly suspect there should be something. If the drug is actually treating underlying depression or attention deficit, it may not actually be acting as an effective smoking cessation med—did the studies showing that it helps with smoking cessation control for comorbid psychiatric disorders? Someone has to dig up the research, or convince me there is none; if they haven't controlled for other disorders, that needs to be sorted out somehow, if there's any literature. Similar on exacerbation of tics; people with TS won't touch the stuff because it has that rap. Is the exacerbation actually due to the natural waxing and waning of tics, and do controlled studies show bupropion increases tics no more than placebo (as in the case of stimulants as discussed at Treatment of Tourette syndrome? I really don't know; I don't follow bupropion studies as closely as I follow the stimulants, because people with TS avoid the stuff. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ps, on the hint hint, I would if I knew where to find these answers or if I had free full access to journal articles—I don't—and I'm up to my eyeballs trying to salvage Asperger syndrome at FAR right now. At least I can point others in the direction to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought of another idea that might help you track this down: are there trials of smoking cessation comparing bupropion to methylphenidate or other stimulants, or SSRIs? If the bupropion is actually working to control smoking because it's addressing self-medication of underlying psychiatric disorders via nicotine, we'd expect to find success in other medications that treat those conditions and comparisons between the types of medications. I just want us to take care in presenting it as a smoking cessation med without a full investigation of other studies; if it's actually working by treating self-medication of underlying conditions like depression or attention deficit, Prozac or Ritalin is probably cheaper, and we shouldn't become an "advert" for Wellbutrin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't been able to find evidence in the literature that suggests that the smoking cessation mechanism works by treating self-medication of underlying conditions like ADHD or depression, this paper (PMID 12044800), published in 2002, does challenge the earlier research that bupropion is a nicotinic antagonist. The findings indicate that bupropion exhibits a similar overall feeling as nicotine, but works by a different mechanism of action that doesn't involve inhibition of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Dr. Cash 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not work, please provide a formal citation or PMID Thank youPaul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC). OK. This paper does not present a problem. That study was done on rats. As pointed out in the article, "As bupropion is rapidly converted in the body into several metabolites with differing activity, its action cannot be understood without reference to its metabolism." And "There are significant interspecies differences in the metabolism of bupropion, with guinea pigs' metabolism of the drug being closest to that of humans.[74] Particular caution is needed when extrapolating the results of experiments on rats to humans since hydroxybupropion, the main metabolite of bupropion in humans, is absent in rats.[75]" In mice bupropion does antagonize the behavioral action of nicotine (ref [2] in the article). Later, the authors of the paper you quote (PMID 12044800), found that some metabolites of bupropion antagonize nicotine's action in rats acting through nicotinic receptors, and some partially substitute for it, probably acting through the NE and SER uptake inhibition (see ref 81). Also look at the receptor inhibition data in the Table 1. The bottom line is, if you see a study of bupropion in rats, disregard it - the researchers did not do their homework.Paul gene 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues are troubling me. There is a very high rate of comorbid tics in ADHD (and vica-versa as well), so the issue of tic exacerbation when bupropion is used to treat ADHD needs to be addressed. I don't have the full-text of the Spencer study Fvasconcellos mentioned; I've only seen reference to it in other journal reviews. And, the statement in PMID 17685748 that stimulant use affected smoking but bupropion didn't raises the question of what's being treated. If there's no data, there's no data, but I wanted to make sure someone looked into this (and can the new study be incorporated?). Will someone pls ping me when these are resolved so I can strike?? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PMID 17685748 is included now. Drop a note on my user page if you need more detailsPaul gene 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my experience, while taking Celexa a SSRI medication was more useful in smoking cessation. (While not taking Wellbutrin) Seriously, have the scientist done studies on this subject? --1ws1 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they did. Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also regarding "If bupropion is making you "sleep for hours straight" and makes you drowsy, I would think that you might be experiencing an interaction with another drug, or bupropion may just not work with you (drugs do have different effects on different people -- see pharmacogenomics). Anyway, it almost sounds more like you're seeking medical advice than responding to the article, so if you're still having drowsiness issues, I would suggest that you consult your physician." Perhaps, Fvasconcellos can provide the relevant studies which show that "In clinical studies, there was no difference in the incidence of drowsiness between bupropion and placebo.", please? --1ws1 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of studies regarding bupropion and Parkinson's Disease, most of which are exploring its use to treat depression related to PD, not actual PD itself. This study however, found that it was mildly efficacious in treating PD, due to its dopaminergic agonist (actually, dopamine reuptake inhibitor) properties, but there were significant side effects in treating PD with bupropion. Here is a listing of other scientific publications relating to bupropion and PD, most of which are studies on treating depression related to PD instead of the PD itself. Dr. Cash 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Derek. Regarding drowsiness, the prescribing information summarizes this in the Adverse effects section. It's linked to from the article, or you can just go here. Again, this issue is best discussed with your physician. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Good job Derek in adding the PD section. Fvasconcellos from your link it says that Somnolence was reported in 2% people taking 300mg/day, 3% taking 400mg/day & placebo 2%. So what can be inferred from that? --1ws1 02:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. The difference is by chance.Paul gene 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's basically it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Also are there any scientific studies done to explain Why Increasing the dose of Bupropion Has an Opposite Effect in regards with smoking cessation? --1ws1 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for this at google scholar and pubmed. So far, I haven't found any scientific evidence that supports this assertion. Dr. Cash 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Am I allowed to delete comments made before 20th August because all issues have been addressed right? Looking forward to seeing this article on the main page, so more scientific studies are done on solving treatment resistant depression. I have tried all the anti-depressants prescribed by my psychiatrist, nothing worked, 6 months per anti-depressant. My only alternative choice is Electric Shock Therapy, which I am scared of. I had rather suicide than let them put electricity in my bran. Do scientists read Wikipedia? --9urges 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Renewable energy in Scotland

[edit]

This article has passed GA, been peer reviewed, given an A rating by WikiProjects Scotland and Energy reviewers, and is a stable and comprehensive review of the subject, which I believe meets the FA criteria. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Some images have thumbnail sizes set - which they shouldn't have.
    • Is Image:Scotland Harris 1.jpg really the best image to summarise the entire article? - i.e. at the lead. Is it even a good image at all for this article? I'm guessing the idea is to convey the raw potential of wave energy - this image does not even show particularly powerful waves.
  • The image is not the most dramatic or top quality I agree. It does however convey four main ideas - wind, wave, tide and Scotland. It may not be a dramatic scene but it is fairly typical of the territory that has the greatest potential. It also hints at the "battle that pitches environmentalists against conservationists" referred to later on. Do we really want industrial production in this pristine wilderness? I have looked again at Commons and I am familiar with almost all of the 200 or so articles about Scotland's islands and I am not aware of a better one of its type.
A kind person has provided a new image which may incorporate many of these ideas whilst also being of better quality. It is now the 'lead' image. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is really really dark. You can tell it was taken during the day I think due to the gleam on the turbines. I'm no photo expert, but I used the "auto level" enhancement in Adobe photoshop - and the difference is dramatic. Though I'm not trying to be difficult, maybe leave it and if anyone else has a problem with it..? Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly improved - hopefully fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is both a better quality image and not well placed, but not that it is a better image for the lead. It would imply that the article is mostly about onshore wind, which is a high profile issue but only a small aspect of the subject matter. However if you are not convinced I will swop them.
    • Image:Wind turbine at Nigg.jpg - I suppose the thinking is to show turbines are both manufactured and used in Scotland? It's just my opinion, but I think an image of an actual Scottish wind turbine in operation would be better. Also turbine is a small percentage of the image.
  • Sadly few turbines are manufactured in Britain or Scotland. It is there simply because it is a rare free image of the world's largest wind turbine under construction. I am afraid I lack a boat large enough to motor out and take a snap of its actual operation. Again, if you don't like it it could easily be exchanged for Image:EU_Windmill.jpg above or something similar. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking into this.
    • Image:Wfm_m8_motorway.jpg - What is with this image and the caption "The M8 motorway in Glasgow. Vehicles powered from renewable sources not shown."?? i.e. they are all conventionally powered cars? And that's been established how? There's about 68 vehicles in the image, not all of them can be seen. Conjecture to say none of them are powered by renewable sources.
  • I feared my attempt at some light relief might not pass muster with everyone. I am presuming they are all conventially powered, and whilst you are right it is 'conjecture' to say so, the odds are massively stacked in this direction. I have removed the image.
    • I don't see what "One writer described the Hebrides as "the Isles on the Edge of the Sea where men are welcome - if they are hard in body and in spirit tenacious."[84]" adds to the article. Describe the area. Fluffy language not encyclopedic.
  • I am only learning the trade - FA criterion 1a says " "Well written" means that the prose is engaging," and I have tried to provide colourful language from time to time. The word are those of the foremost writer on the subject of the western seaboard of Scotland. I think it makes the point rather better than anything I might be able to offer, but I'll remove it if you like. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tattered flag implies a battle. The fact that it is a Saltire alone indicates that the struggle is perhaps a civil war - an idea that may be unfamiliar to Scots who have all-too-often perceived the political process as being one in which the big-picture decisions are taken elsewhere. Perhaps I am being over-lyrical again. I could get a picture of a line of pylons or some smaller windmills? Suggestions are very welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recent events" is a list, should be converted to prose? "New data appears on a regular basis. Milestones in 2007:" is not flowing, engaging prose.
  • Latter attended to.
  • The former is trickier. The information appears as and when - my intention was to remove it at the year end and place it in the main body as required. I will reword it as prose now by grouping issues together. Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuclear power mentioned but not linked.
    • "Ethanol cannot be commercially produced as a fuel in Scotland, for the time being at least.[42]" It is not explained in either the article OR the reference as far as I can see.
  • Absolutely right. Westray and Orkney College have some figures on this, but for some reason it is not quoted in the reference provided. I will get one asap. The reason is of course that the yields of sugar are too low. Fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking could do with a tidy up - e.g. 1st, 2nd & 3rd instances of "carbon dioxide" not linked, not until 4th instance. Overlinked too - just link 1st instance and no more. Mark83 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well referenced, good use of free images, and overall very impressively done. My only suggestions would be to perhaps keep the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" table and notes at the every end of the article (as it seems a fitting end and transitions into the references, etc). This would mean moving the "Recent Events" section before the table.

The Recent Events section could also have its many one sentence paragraphs merged into larger paragraphs.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review of this article back in April and made a few edits (<10) to it then. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose: It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but I don't think it is yet worthy of FA status. There are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland? -- Johnfos 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnfos. I'm afraid I can't agree. First of all, as the intro to the section says even if they are not 'renewables' (and some people argue that they are, even if you and I don't), the more quickly they are rolled out the less investment is available, and the less political will there is, to support genuine renewables. The nuclear energy section is simply a sentence. Carbon offsetting is a big issue. Even Global Compact companies are on this bandwagon. Countries such as Norway are likely to include sequestration as part of their ambitious CO2 reduction targets, and the section is essentially there to point out some of the problems this may cause. Hydrogen, we may agree, is likely to be crucial to any serious long-term renewables strategy. I am more than willing to improve this section but to remove or significantly reduce it would not make sense to me. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, the article was not conceived as a list of power stations, but as an essay on the prospects for the various technologies. The former exists elsewhere, and although it is not a great article, I was remiss in not including it. I have now added it to the 'See also' section. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacDui. You are quite right in that the article is "an essay on the prospects for the various technologies". It is much more an essay than an encyclopedia article. And it focuses on future prospects much more than what is actually happening in the present. Perhaps the article should be called "Prospects for renewable energy in Scotland".

In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable.[1][2] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.

I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense to you? -- Johnfos 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well first of all, you are absolutely right about the short section on Hydro. It remains the second largest producer. Its contemporary visibility is very low as the growth potential is extremely limited but that is no excuse. More now added. It seems surprising there is not an article on the topic, but so it goes.
Arguably the sequestration sub-section does go on a bit and I have removed part of it that simply provides more data. I don’t know the Icelandic scene at all well, although they and Governor Schwarzenegger seem to be leading the field in hydrogen promotion. I imagine their article does not mention sequestration because the have no oil fields and therefore no-one is seriously talking about the road to renewables being paved via this method. (Likewise Australia?) Let me be quite clear, I am not either attempting to argue that it is renewable, or that it is desirable. I am however making the point (apparently not very well) that the issue already is, and is likely to continue to be a major factor in the ongoing and very high profile debate that is happening in Scotland. I am more than happy to continue to dialogue about its tenor, size, focus etc. but in an environment where there is intense competition for political and commercial support for technologies which address climate change, and which in the public’s mind tend to be lumped together, I can’t imagine an article that failed to mention the subject at all making any sense.
With nuclear, all I have done is make the point that it is not a renewable fuel, although some try to argue that it is. I don’t think that is ‘off-topic’.
With clean coal, again this is a huge issue that surely needs mentioning. Possibly because to the best of my knowledge there is no article about the Scottish response to climate change generally it goes on a bit, (a la sequestration) and again I have cut it back.
Perhaps this dialogue is question of our starting points - you may be looking at it from the point of view of someone who is deeply concerned about renewable energy and don't want the issue muddied by extraneous information. That's fair enough, but I am also trying to look at it from the point of view of someone interested in Scotland, who wants to know what the renewable scene is all about, not just in its purest sense, but in its specific political and commercial context.
Finally, in a more general response to the above I have renamed the section headers to make the ‘challenges and opportunities’ issue that these and other technologies offer to renewables more explicit. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. regards, Johnfos 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both images now removed. The former is easy to replace if needed. There is no useful replacement for the Pelamis image available on Commons that I can see and candidly I have no idea how to get one. I have a photo of one at sea taken from Orkney, but it is all but indistinguishable from the waves. I'll try and get hold of a picture of a manufacturers offices or something along those lines. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. They don't say where any of those images came from. --Carnildo 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—prose needs attention throughout. Just look at the opening few sentences—messy.
  • Tony - I am somewhat in awe of your writing skills, but taking a deep breath, here goes.
    • "In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW for wind and 7.5 GW tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential (10% of the EU capacity)." Let me get this right: are these averages? No one would run a hydro plant full bore throughout the day: it's ideal as peak production. Wind and tidal are highly variable. I'd like to see this expressed as an average, or better, as GW hours per ?year or whatever is standard.
  • No. As it says, they are estimates of 'installed capacity'. As I noted on the talk page when the article was created "I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh (i.e. of actual production) might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome." Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential of 36.5 GW of, not for, even though repeated.

The back-ellipsis of "power" (wind power) is awkward.

  • I am sure you are right, but I don't know where this problem is.

The EU figure is expressed within commas and then within parentheses: confusing. Remove "the" before "EU". Remove "existing". Remove "even" and the preceding comma.

"Natural resource base" is equated with "renewable energy"—no.

Add "fossil-" before "fuel" to make it clear?

The subsequent sentence refers to "the resource": which one is that?

Try to find others to help with the copy-editing. Tony 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made such a request and I will of course remove any further glitches I spot.

And PS, while I'm on this topic, can you remove the thousands of "ons" from "Retrieved on [date]". Some of them are already free of this idle word here. Seems to be a scourge on WP. Tony 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I may have spoken to soon. I normally use the standard <ref>Citation</ref> tags, but the 'on' would seem to be a feature of the {{citeweb}} template - hence its growing prominence. Is there a way to amend the templates preferences that you know of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the assumption that there isn't I have added 'on' to the few remaining example of the former. I agree it is unnecessary word but I don't think I can be blamed if editors chose to spend their time changing the former to the latter. It does not seem to breach any policy or guideline that I am aware of and at least the usage is now consistent. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to raise the matter of this silly "on" word at the template. That's good if the thousands of examples can be fixed at a stroke.
  • I’ll watch for developments (and assist if need be). Grumbled at them as it seems a bit sleepy.

"Renewable fuel"? Guess you're referring to ethanol?

  • More likely biodiesel in Scotland.

Unsure I like this distinction between seasonal fuels and fuels that form over different time spans. I'm trying to grapple with this implied maximum output in the "estimated potential", versus the "installed capacity". It assumes all wind and tidal turbines going full bore ... in that respect, it's not a realistic measure, since you can run a coal-fired station at full bore 24/7, but the output of the others needs to be equated with this as an estimated average, surely. I'm only a lay-person, but it seems like common sense. Tony 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happily, the calculations do not make this assumption, unhappily they make numerous others that are hard to assess. Thus with say a nuclear facility with an installed capacity of 1 MW, you can assume that its potential energy production is going to be close to 1 MW x 24 hours per day X 365 days per year. Lets say its ‘capacity factor’ (i.e. likely run time at full bore) is 95%. This gives c. 8.3 GWh per annum.
If you have a 1 MW windmill instead you get 1 x 24 x 365 x a capacity of factor of say 20% on the east coast (where there isn’t much wind) and 45% or more on the west coast, (where there is). Perhaps on average you will get 30% and c. 2.6 GWh per annum.
The ‘Potential Energy’ column is a series of estimates based on these average capacity factors for each technology. Unfortunately the providers of the data rarely make their assumptions explicit, and the numbers do vary. If they were reliable and from an agreed common source it might make much more sense to use the potential energy figures in the main text, but they are neither so the ‘installed capacity’ figures tend to get used - although this results in regular mental arithmetic exercises if you are attempting to compare the technologies. It is evidently not obvious from the article how this works and I will see what can be done to make it less arcane.
Now attempted in a note following the summary table. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try using {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} tags to put in more detailed notes that have wikilinked superscripts (so the material is accessible within the text to interested persons). For examples, see Demosthenes (FA) or List of Pennsylvania state parks (FL). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion - I have added such a beast for the above 'installed capacity' note so that it links in with the lead para. I'll check over it and see if I can spot other possible uses. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having worked in some aspects of the renewables industry, I recognise that it covers all of the areas. The article is accurate, informative, very well written and referenced. --Bill Reid | Talk 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Gregory of Nazianzus

[edit]

Self-nomination. This article, currently GA-status, has been improved and expanded this year. It draws from several respected academic sources and is reasonably complete in its treatment of Gregory. I'm willing make what changes are needed to get consensus for FA-status. Thanks. Majoreditor 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanding on first comment) An enjoyable read; I found it generally accessable, which is an achievement in itself for a 4th century historical figure. However:
  • I found the lead much heavier going than the rest of the article: "the patristic age","establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials". I'm afraid that even after reading the rest of the article, I'm not sure what either of those means. In addition, I would note that half the main article is biography; if the lead is summarising the main article, then biographical details ought to get at least a few sentences, if not a paragraph, of the lead.
  • There's a tendency towards long sentences with minimal punctuation here and there - "The two friends then entered a period of close fraternal cooperation as they participated in a great rhetorical contest of the Caesarean church precipitated by the arrival of accomplished Arian theologians and rhetors." - which I think could be looked at to further improve the readability of the (already good) prose.
  • "From his deathbed, Basil reminded them of Gregory's capabilities and likely recommended his friend to champion the trinitarian cause in Constantinople." comes in the section after Basil's death is first reported, which made me do a double-take.
  • "Gregory used this occasion to deliver a final address (Or. 42) and then departed." I think Or 42 needs explaining, expanding, or wikilinking, as I can't tell what it is (apart from some term for his final address - Or for Oratory?)
  • I think some expansion in the Influence section on his modern relevance could be useful - the final sentance gives some, but if you're not knowledgable about Christianity, I'm not sure how much that tells you.
  • Is there any information on his being made a saint?
  • Further Reading is enormous. Personally I'd prefer a much smaller list of the best extension reading.
  • I'm not very well up on copyright, but I'm wondering if the notice on the main image is correct? Obviously the photo is someone's work and they can release it, but shouldn't the image photographed have a rationale as well? If the fresco is as old as it looks, then I imagine providing one is easy.
Feel free to disagree with any of the above; a number of them are fairly subjective. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could use a little wikilinking. E.g. in the lead: "Gregory is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the patristic age. As a classically trained speaker and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church, establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials." That's quite a bunch of terms that could be wikified. Chensiyuan 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comments Most of the article is written extremely well, and also helps to give an extensive description of Gregory to someone who would have no prior knowledge of the man; eg myself, an Egyptian Muslim. A couple of tweaks I'd like to suggest though, once they're modified I'll gladly change my vote to strong support.
  • 1- The sentence about Emperor Valens dying is short and arupt in comparison to the rest of the article, Maybe fusing it with the nest sentence would keep the flow smooth, such as "Following the death of Emperor Valens in 387, the succession of Theodosius I. . .etc" perhaps?
  • 2- "Throughout his life Gregory faced stark choices. Should he pursue studies as a rhetor or philosopher? Would a monastic life be more appropriate than public ministry? Was it better to blaze his own path or follow the course mapped for him by his father and Basil? Gregory's writings illuminate the conflicts which both tormented and motivated him. Biographers suggest that it was this dialectic which defined him, forged his character and inspired his search for meaning and truth."

This paragraph is a bit promotional and/or philosophical, not to mention unneccessary. If this is a direct quote from Ruether then it should be stated as such in the text, although even that may not deem it beneficially informative in any way. If it is original text I recommend it be removed.

  • 3- I sort of agree with Winklethorpe about the Further Reading list being excessively large, although it's not that big a deal to me.
  • 4- I definitely agree about a part describing the details of his ascension to sainthood, as in when it happened and which pope oversaw the proceedings. Not only is it important for informational reasons (and I'm personally very interested to know these details), it also solves the suggestion by Winklethorpe about expanding the Influence section and giving it the final touch, as I think that's the only section that could use some polishing.
  • Other than these, a very good job indeed. Swimforestswim 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Tim Duncan

[edit]

A very solid GA about the four-time NBA basketball champion and triple NBA Finals Most Valuable Player, copyedited and cleaned up multiple times. I feel it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria, or at least will do after polish by experienced editors. Duncan is also already in this thirties, so stability will be not a big issue. I was also waiting for the peer review, but unfortunately there is quite a backlog at the moment, so no feedback. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; together with Onomatopoeia and several editors from the NBA Wikiproject we have edited this article over a long period of time, and we'd be willing to address any concerns raised here by others. Chensiyuan 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: article is complete and objective. Manderiko 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very thorough article on Tim Duncan. If there is one minor thing that could be worked on, it would be to expand the "other interests" section since it's a little stubby. RyguyMN 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the section used to be a little longer but I thought the other information bordered on "trivial", so they were taken out. But I would see if anything of worth can be added, thanks. Chensiyuan 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Very well done and thorough article! Good work to all who worked on it. FamicomJL 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - must've read my mind, didn't even mention the other changes :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's well-written and clear. The sections are perfect. This article would make a great FAC. Basketball fan24111 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have a little issue with this line "Still, the power forward's main drawback in his game remains his inconsistent free throw shooting, with a career average of less than 70%.", I personally wouldn't call shooting 68% from the free throw line inconsistent for a big man, I feel 'average' would be a more acurate description of it since several centers and as in this case strong forwards have terrible accuaracy from the line (a certain center comes to mind here). Besides this the article is very comprehensible and significantly well written. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)  Done Your point about the FT shootnig is taken and implemented. Chensiyuan 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written, extremely cited, and easy to understand (as a non-basketball fan). Also, TonytheTiger, PLEASE stop with your one-man crusade to fill every sports bio with box scores; you've done this with prior sports FACs. Chris Young's article is loaded with box scores, it is possible for an article to be OVERcited. You're the only one who thinks box scores are necessary for FA status, and as many sports bios are FA-quality without box scores, you've been proven wrong. Kindly stop, it just makes for contentious and unnecessary debate. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Of the half dozen FACs I have suggested adding Box scores to, only Martin Broduer (the 1st one) got through without the simple additions I requested. Anyone who thinks the article would not be improved with a box score of a quadruple double just miss is free to say so. Anyone who thinks any other game I am requesting a simple box score for is free to say that the box score would not improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Well written and documents Duncan's life and career very well, just needs polishing as errors are mentioned here.SabarCont 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose could use some work. Here are a few examples of less-than-professional writing:

:*Having lost his mother – who served as a huge inspiration to his life – to breast cancer, he acts as an ambassador against the disease. The parenthetical phrase in this sentence comes at an awkward point. Try reading the sentence out loud.

    •  Done First, thank you for your comments and follow-up even as we respond. I've tried making the sentence less awkward -- how does the new phrasing sound (see last lines of lead). Chensiyuan 13:08, 20 August 2007

(UTC)

  • With a double double career average, he is one of the most consistent players in the NBA, having been selected in all ten years of his professional career for both the All-NBA and All-Defensive teams and for being a perennial Most Valuable Player and Defensive Player of the Year candidate. Read this sentence carefully. We're saying that Duncan has been "selected...for being a perennial Most Valuable Player candidate...". That's messy. Reword and organize things a little bit better.
    • I agree with all your comments below save for this one. I don't see the confusion arising. Chensiyuan 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not that the meaning was unclear; the phrasing is just clunky. However, the problem is somewhat difficult for me to put into words, so I tried to fix it myself. Zagalejo 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
***Later in that section, we have this sentence: As one of the league's best interior defenders, he ranks constantly as one of the top scorers, rebounders and shotblockers in the league. The way this sentence is structured, you'd think Duncan's scoring is directly related to his interior defense. Zagalejo 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his career, the two-time MVP (2002, 2003), four-time NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and three-time NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005) Duncan has collected a number of individual and team honours. This sentence seems silly to me. Aren't the MVP awards and championships "individual and team honours" themselves? If the "Honors" section is a summary of his awards anyway, why frontload the first sentence like that? (And shouldn't "honours" be honors, to be consistent with the section header?)
  • The Spurs captain has also stated that he chose #21 for his jersey to honor his brother-in-law's college number, since he was the main inspiration for him to play basketball... This isn't so much of a prose concern as a request for more info. Who was Duncan's brother-in-law? Why isn't he mentioned in "Early life" if he was Duncan's inspiration to play basketball?
  • Some general advice: watch out for informal phrases ("big men"), and make sure that non-hoops fans can understand all of the basketball terminology. (For example, we introduce the term "low post moves" in the "Wake Forest University" section without clearly explaining what that means.) Zagalejo 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Uh, I see no reason for this to be a requirement. As long as it is a fair review of the article, I see no reason to include this information as long as there is no conflict of interest. Just because you are a member of a Wikiproject, it doesn't mean you have to flag yourself as such. Remember, assume good faith, unless otherwise given reason not to... — BQZip01 — talk 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard procedure. How can we tell if it is a fair review or that there is no conflict of interest. Its good faith to declare that you are a project member. Ceoil 10:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (NBA Wikiprokect member) The content of the article is very solid. However, I think there can be some improvement to the writing. Some of it suggests alot of POV and uses unencyclopedic tones. Examples:
    • 1 - Dominated his opposition with an uncanny array of moves.  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 2 - Played smothering defense.  Done removed.
    • 3 - The Spurs were smarting / were still reeling  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 4 - The Spurs disposed of the Timberwolves  Done word change.
    • 5 - Duncan and his Spurs sought revenge  Done removed/rephrased.
    • 6 - etc...
    • Note:
      • Also, I've never heard Tim Duncan being called Merlin during an NBA game or published in an article. I think that's an example of fancruft, and seems a bit trivial. Overall, it's a solid article, just needs to be combed over to ensure the language and tone remains encyclopedic. Zodiiak 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - I think the article lacks comprehensiveness and in some places is a bit POV
  • In many of the comments about the playing style and skill, pundit analysis is taken as a fact. Please make sure that all of these are noted as general opinion, rather than fact. Secondly, "proven by the fact that his playoff career averages are even higher than his regular-season stats" - I do not think stats in sport can be taken as "proof" of superiority etc.
  • I presume you are taking issue with proof of clutch play. My view is this: in playoffs, the standard of games are by and large higher, since the teams with the best records qualify for the playoffs. Playoffs are also a measure of a player's big match occasion, or in American terms, "clutch" performance. I think it's a fair and reasonable inference that a person who constantly records higher stats during playoffs (while not playing many more minutes per game), has got an extra dimension about his play. One of those dimenstions is clutch play. Chensiyuan 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NBA legend" - POV. There are quite a few instances of things like this from my experience reading basketball articles.
  • There are probably other instances of things which are metaphorical and not actual. Here are a few exmaples.
  • "long string of painful post-season losses" not in the source given and also rather POV. "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA. Now with both an experienced center in Robinson and the number one pick in Duncan, the Spurs featured one of the best frontcourts in the NBA. The Duncan and Robinson duo became known as the "Twin Towers" - every source in this para is raw stats. Where did you get all this qualitative info from. Article is unsourced in places
 Done, got rid of that sentence —Onomatopoeia 12:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness holes
  • If this guy was the first player in the draft, there would have been quite a media circus about him. Why did SAS want him so badly, what was their rationale in picking him. Contract negotiations? What is his contract, when was it renewed and so forth? IF he is an MVP he should have many contract offers from other teams. This needs to be discussed.
  • I would have thought that his performances in college set the context as to why he was coveted during the draft. Regarding contractual details, generally they are not disclosed per team policy although sites like basketball-reference.com offer figures -- but they remain guesses in my opinion. More importantly, as far as I know, in many good sports articles, details on the player's contract are seldom discussed, unless the wages are truly exceptional. Finally, regarding rival bids for his services -- I've tried searching for such details but had no luck. Unless somebody here says there have been meaningful speculation over his future at previous points of his career, this could be chimerical. Chensiyuan 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very statistical type of an article. There is roughly a para for each season, which consists of season's average, and the season's team results in the playoffs and the votes that he got for awards. If Duncan is always in the All Star team and is a multiple MVP, then we expect some brilliant and memorable performances in certain matches that will be spoken of over and over. I see no such matches here. It would be hard to fathom a multiple MVP with no stylish performances or match winning performances in important games and so forth. why are their no critical performances
  • I agree with most of your comments, but I should note that Duncan hasn't really had many "stylish" performances. The average NBA fan probably couldn't describe any specific Duncan games. Duncan is efficient and consistent, but he's not flashy, and he shows very little emotion on the court. His playing style doesn't lend itself to dramatic descriptions. Zagalejo 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: Duncan has been a crucial part of his team's success, but you'd still end up describing his greatest games in terms of statistics. Unlike Michael Jordan, who has a long list of acrobatic moves and game-winning jumpers, Duncan gets most of his points with methodical moves close to the basket. Zagalejo 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True he might not be stylish, but he will still have some games where he was more influential than others. Especially in the finals. Surely there must be instances of important games where he scored 30+ points etc or, when his team was down at the last breakk and he scored 10-15 points in a big burst. Like any game defining performances. Atm, the reader will think that he played aexactly the same way in each match (judging by the article). What about suspensions? Did he ever get any? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captaincy. Should be some discussion of leadership skills surely? You also note in the US national team section that he "led" the team. Do you mean captaincy or just being the main player. If he was captain this need to be explicirt.
  • In general, 36k is not so big for a contemporary player who is regarded as one of the best of his generation. There is plenty of room for general expansion. Surely there is a book about him?

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right in that more information could be added about him. But that can be said of any given article. It's a question of relevance and more importantly, value-addedness isn't it. My view is that as it stands, his basketball career is well-covered. His transactional history is almost non-existent, and as said he's not a "memorable game" kind of player but that's exactly what makes him stand out -- substance over style, success over style. Off the court, he's not the sort of flamboyant star where there's much to talk about, except maybe his philanthropy, which is covered. Chensiyuan 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Neutral This article is poorly written and incomplete. I only got through his college career. I expect my complaints on the early portion are indicative of the entire article. The article should visit WP:PR, and WP:BIOPR before returning to WP:FAC. Come back after completing a WP:PR visit. However, here are the beginnings of my objection.

The 2nd paragraph of the lead is poorly written stylistically.
“His strong performances for the college team attracted the attention of basketball scouts.” Is so big of an understatement and misstatement that it might be misleading. Duncan’s four performance at the college level which culminated in him being Player of the Year attracted attention or something like it would be better.
“He soon earned the nickname "The Big Fundamental", due to his use of basic and seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect.” I am a pretty big sports fan and have never heard of this nickname. I don’t think it is important enough to be in the 2 paragraph summary.
I think on this point I'm very certain most people would disagree with you -- that is his most common nickname. Chensiyuan 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I'll back down on this point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among others usually refers to persons. Here you mean Among other accomplishments or Among his many accomplishments or something like it.
between 1995 to 1997 is ungrammatical.  Done Chensiyuan 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneThe third paragraph of the Wake Forest section is a wreck making progress. Furthermore, it does not tell me how Wake finished in the NCAA tournament, ACC tournament or ACC regular season with Duncan. Basketball is a team sport. Please address this concern.
I think you could more easily summarize Duncan's college career in a wikitable with the following columns: NCAA Record, ACC record, ACC Tournament Finish (seed), NCAA Tournament Round loss (seed, Opposing team), Official Awards. If a wikitable is not desirable please provide the info textually. The way it is layed out in 1994 you can not tell they were the 5 seed and lost in the 2nd round to 4 seed Kansas, for example. I am sure Kansas was lead by a future NBA draftee. For his Junior season provide a link to the Brevin Knight game. This should get you on the right track.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Duncan must hold numerous ACC and Wake Forest records. I don’t see any. Is it possible to find any. This objection is not so strong however, since he placed high among NCAA in many important stats.
 Done —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Duncan only won ACC tournaments and got some Sweet Sixteen bids, Wake is not a traditional ACC power and this is very good for their program. I think talking about the ACC championships should be more impressive. I think you should be able to say his team defeated UNC teams led by X, & Y and Duke teams led by X, & Y for given years for example. It will add some flavor. Currently the Wake Forest section is 5300 words and I am sure it can be filled out in less than 7500 words. Also the Sophomore season paragraph seems slapped together. Please copy edit it and split the paragraph accordingly. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some mention of his rarity for his era as a four year collegian. He could have come out early and gotten big bucks. Many think he is exemplary for polishing of his skills before coming out and attribute his success to this decision. His article is incomplete without mention of this dimension.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, at least why he gave up millions by not entering the NBA early. However, the college section needs some rework. —Onomatopoeia 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, College section is fleshed out now. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Peer review for further instructions. I have also requested an automated peer review which should be forthcoming in the peer review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is one of the few athlete bios that fails to mention his biggest single game performances. All of his big pro games can be cited with box scores and/recaps because he is an internet era star. Some of his big games should be mentioned. I know from working on Chris Young (pitcher) that college games are available back to about 1995 making Duncans Junior and Senior season big game box scores citable. Please mention his biggest games if you can find them. The talk page mentions one big game.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the close Quad double with a box score.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see all important games cited with box scores or recaps and most are. However, 1998 NBA Playoffs game 2 against the Suns needs a box score/recap as does the 2002 NBA Playoffs game 5 against the Lakers. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Onomatopoeia 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I'm not familiar with much US basketball so I can't comment on comprehensiveness but I don't feel the prose is too bad. There are a couple of minor tweaks and the tone is a little glowing in places but I'll highlight what I can see. I thin kyuo're nearly over the line though :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Duncan, current captain of the Spurs, is one of the most successful players of his generation. -I think this sentence is probably unnecessary. Try tacking on "Current captain of the spurs" onto the next sentence somehow and let the achievements speak for themselves maybe. (not a strong criticism though and could be left as is) - alternately - move the bit about 4 championships up to here, which is better than vague sentence "most successful"

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In school, Duncan was a bright pupil, and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer - flip to "Duncan was a bright pupil in school, (one fewer comma/clause) and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer (redundant)
 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:However, Duncan's dreams.. - drop "However"

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:drop 'mortal' in next para - who has a non-mortal fear of sharks?

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally only looking for a way to cope with his pain - drop "only" - redundant
 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Overall, Duncan led Wake Forest to a 97–31 win-loss record, finished his college career as the leading shot blocker in NCAA history, and is one of only ten players with mor.. - drop "overall" and change first comma to "and". Trn 2nd comma into semicolon.

 Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really my area of expertises so I can't really show support (not yet anyway). But here are a few minor things I noticed. Doesn't say which country he is from (I'm assuming it's the USA).

"The power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs ." should be a comma or "is" after "Duncan", should be a comma instead of the first "and" and there is a space before the full stop.

"won the NBA Most Valuable Player Award twice" maybe "won two NBA Most Valuable Player Award" would be better. Particularly since that's how the rest of the sentance is set out. "seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect" POV

"degree before becomign a professional athlete." becoming miss-spelt

Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan? Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) "Duncan continued his strong play." "strong play" doesn't sound right to me.[reply]

"and finally defeated the New York Knicks 4–1 in the Finals" why finally?

"Nonetheless, Duncan rebounded in the next season. With strong regular-season averages of 22.2 points" not sure why there is a full stop after "season".

"Duncan became even better in the 2001-02 season" POV

"saw Duncan being named NBA MVP" "being" is redundant here

  • Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
    • Statistics are an important measure of his performance and are a non-pov way to evaluate performance.SabarCont
      • But as someone who doesn't know much about the sport they mean nothing to me. Phares like "lead the league in..." and "his PPG went up by..." would give a better perspective of how good a season it was. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about. Chensiyuan 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exsact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30" Buc 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan

"was instrumental in Game 7" POV

  • "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
    • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.SabarCont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Spurs ended up losing Game 7 in overtime" you've already mentioned that it went to OT and what was the score?

Not much about the 2006-07 seson considering they won the championship.

"International career" section seems a bit short, has he played for U.S at any other times other than the 2004 Olympics? How did he perform in the individual games?

"Player profile" section maybe a better title would be "Style of play"

NBA statistics don't seem to have a ref.

Not sure about the EA Sports NBA Live Cover Athletes template but that's not really to do with the article.

Ref from nba.com/history could just say nba.com really.

Ref #27 and #33 not dated

Was #43 just T.V Broadcast?

Looks good though, as someone who knows very little about the sport I found it easy to follow. Buc 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Does not meet the brilliant, compelling prose criteria for FA, and is not even that well written. A few examples:
    • The second sentence of the first paragraph (The 6'11", 260-pound[2] power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs .) lacks a verb, needs at least one comma, and has a space before the period.
    • The last sentence in the third paragraph (Having lost his mother to breast cancer at a young age, Duncan and his wife act as ambassadors against the disease.[4]) makes little sense - have you ever heard of an ambassador against something? Aren't they ambassadors for breast cancer awareness, prevention, and research?
      • Yes I have, see my comment above. I can find more examples if you want. Chensiyuan 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the strikthrough as this is not changed and is still awkward - I read the ref and it makes no mention of Duncan's wife joining him in his charity work, not does it use the word ambassador, not does it specifcally say he is against breast cancer (mentions cancer once, also a lot of work with chuldren's charities). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (i) the ref does say his wife is the vice-president of the Tim Duncan Foundation, (ii) as far as I can tell describing him as an ambassador is not wrong given what he's done, (iii) you are right about no specific mention of breast cancer, I'd try to fix that. Chensiyuan 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I Googled "Ambassador against" and found several examples, although almost all seem to be appointed by a government or the United Nations (as were your examples). It was not a phrase with which I was familiar and apologize I did not know of it. The ref cited still does not say he (or his wife) are ambassadors, nor could I find any online sources independent of this article that called him and his wife ambassadors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the whole article, especially anything mentioned in a header or subheader, but his International career (Olympics) is not mentioned in the lead.
    • From the Early life subsection Because of his fear of sharks, he soon lost enthusiasm for his sport, and received a major emotional blow when his mother Ione was diagnosed with breast cancer and died one day before his 14th birthday.[5] This makes it sound as if his fear of sharks had something to do with his mother's breast cancer diagnosis, and it makes it sound as if his mother was diagnosed and died on the same day, right before his birthday. I also find many of the references have problems.
    • His own website (slamduncan.com) is cited eight times (refs 1 and 6) but a subject's own website does not meet WP:RS.
      •  Done WP:RS prefaces by saying the rules are not set in stone and common sense should be applied. Re: ref 1, it is used simply to show where he was born. It is acceptable. Re ref 6, they are used to back up claims of his own story, not meant to push opinions etc. E.g., him making promises to his mother. Chensiyuan 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, many links are broken. For example, in the Wake Forest subsection, the first sentence (At Wake Forest, Duncan overcame early transition problems and established himself as one of the top college players of his generation.) is unsourced (and does not even give the years he was at Wake Forest). The next sentence is based on an adidas press release - since adidas is paying Mr. Duncan a lot of money, they might not be the most unbiased source to quote. The third sentence ref (to usabasketball.com) is broken.
    • Almost all of the references are online - there is a lot of magazine (Sports Illustrated, etc.) and newspaper coverage of the NBA and a quick look at amazon.com shows over a dozen books on him. Get thee to a library ;-)
      • I don't deny that a variety of sources can be helpful, but consider somebody like me who lives in Asia and has no money in the bank account. I think using only onlines sources per se should not be a fault; it's a question of whether the websites are reliable and objective. Let's face it, many things in paper form are transposed on webform. Moreover, I don't really see a WP rule stating the use of only online sources should render an article an instant FAC failure. Chensiyuan 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the issue here is WP:NPOV. There is no representation of almost any of the print sources in the article. Over a dozen books and major magazines are not cited, just because they are not online. Can't any of your collaborators go to a library that has at least some of these books and mags? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if any of them could obtain materials, they would. I speak only for myself. Regarding your point on NPOV, well a variety of sources would be very necessary if this article makes a lot of POV claims, which I think it does not. Most of the content is borne from the statistics. Another chunk is on his family/personal life and causes. If indeed the issue is objectivity, well statistics and facts of a person's life are pretty objective. Perhaps you can give an e.g. of something in this article which would be better if backed by books and mags, thanks. Chensiyuan 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well the books or magazines could be used to fix the blank reference (currently #5), or to replace the broken usabasketball.com refs (the links still do not work, though here you could also use the Wayback Machine), or to replace much of the personal biography data taken from the subject's own website (slamduncan.com) with something less potentially biased. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the usabasketball ref works now... Chensiyuan 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 5 is no longer blank, i think it got deleted accidentally, thanks. Chensiyuan 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it seems like a fairly short article and the sentence structure is often choppy. A good start, but not FA yet. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment: I have withdrawn my oppose (above) as the specific points I raised have been addressed, but I cannot support this FAC with no books and very few print refs cited, especially when we know there are many biographies of Tim Duncan out there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your legitimate comments, I'll try to get SOME print media. The problem is that I live in Germany, and neither in libraries nor newspaper stands there is ANYTHING with Tim Duncan; basketball is deeply unpopular here. Borrowing a book is not an option with me (yes, I went through several big libraries; all they got is Michael Jordan) and if I try to order a book about Tim Duncan NOW online, it will be only available in 2-3 weeks from now AND it is expensive for me. If someone living in the U.S. could help, super, if not, I'll try to dig up something elsewhere. —Onomatopoeia 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have lived in Germany and know the difficulties involved in getting American print resources there. Have you asked on the NBA WikiProject if anyone in the US can help? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, wonders exist! Got a book about TD and am in the midst of adding info. —Onomatopoeia 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]

Introducing a new section to facilitate discussion. And BTW, his "college" section has also been rewritten. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my pionts again since it's a bit of a mess up there.

  • shouldn't be ref in lead. Everything in the lead should be mentioned later.
    • I believe this technically does not breach anything. Many FAs that make the mainpage have refs in the lead. Since a lead summarises the article, by way of logic a ref in the lead is at worst superflously pre-emptory.Chensiyuan 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe something in the "Early life" section about this Dave Odom guy's first impretions of him.
  • "Duncan's style of play was simple but effective, combining an array of low-post moves, mid-range bank shots and tough defense" maybe move this to "Player profile"
  • Very little about his 95 and 96 seasons.
  • "In contrast to Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant or LeBron James" But how do they relate to Duncan?
  • Is some other player's retirement really the best reason to start a new section?
    • Yes, David was one of the best centers of his era and a keystone to the defense the Spurs played, which they place first in their system of play. Replacing a 20/10 future hall of famer with a random guy off free agency or the draft without a lottery pick is pretty huge.
      • Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan?
  • "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA." needs ref.
    • Apart from it not really being a contentious point (the litmus test for ref IMO), the subsequent ref for "Twin Towers" corroborates the point of the Spurs being a threat. Chensiyuan 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although they beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round, they lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." I think "They beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round and then lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." would be better, also what were the scores in these games?
  • "swept the Los Angeles Lakers and the Portland Trail Blazers 4–0" remove "swept"
  • Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
    • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about.
      • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30"
  • "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan
  • "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
    • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.
      • Ok well you need to explain this.
        • That they play the same position does not require explanation since it's established at the start Duncan is also a power forward; as for "rival", well it just means Nowitzki was his opponent in that game, as opposed to a team-mate. Chensiyuan 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important announcement

Hi there, I am happy to say that I just got hold of a copy of Slam Duncan by Kevin Kiernan, a Tim Duncan bio which perfectly meets WP:RS. I'll add info to the TD article as I read through this book. —Onomatopoeia 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Harry S. Truman

[edit]
See previous noms at: previous FAC 1 and previous FAC 2.

Several editors have recently worked hard to improve this article on President Truman, a two-term US President during two wars. Per Dr pda's script the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford. Rlevse 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lead gives a good overview of his time in office as President, but nothing before or after. Shouldn't the lead sum up his whole life? In my opinion, it'd be nice to devote a short paragraph on what he did leading up to the presidency. Also, perhaps you could have a "Selected bibliography" section that's fleshed out with at least a few comprehensive sources, instead of providing just a link to Bibliography of Harry S. Truman (if I recall, I believe those Main Article templates are only supposed to be used when you actually have content in the section as a summary of the so-called Main Article). 69.202.41.119 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put the primary bibiography bits back in. We cut the whole thing and made a separate article when cutting file size. Added to lead too. Thanks for the input.Rlevse 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be, since you think it's a good article, as opposed to liking it because it's about Harry Truman. --RandomOrca2 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wish I could leave some feedback as to how to improve this, but I don't think I personally could improve it. It seems to be about just right the way it is, and other editors clearly agree with me. MrPrada 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea that 58k of prose is now some kind of acceptable standard is rather disconcerting. Attention spans among readers haven't increased two-fold in the last few years just because technical limitations are less restricting, and focus is still supposed to be a criterium worth respecting. Peter Isotalo 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with suggestion Fantastic article with especially nice depth in the pre-presidency life of a man who's article could so easily get dominated by his presidential life. My only major question here is could the lead be shortened? Especially noticeable in the middle paragraph the lead goes into so many specifics about so much it becomes really a full subsection in itself. Also, tiny thing, but shouldn't the 1952 election simply be a subsection of his Presidency, following in the style of Gerald Ford and 1976, since it was an election he took part in (for at least a short time) as the sitting president? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. Cut the lead some, pls advise if there are more specific suggestions; and created the subsection.Rlevse 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose The death numbers ("around 110,000 people were killed in the two bombings") for the Atomic bombings are presented as undisputed fact. They also don't specify whether these were deaths that occurred by the end of 1945 (normally how they are counted), or some other measure. For Hiroshima, the number estimated is 140,000 (+/- 10,000) by the end of 1945. [77] [78], [79] For Nagasaki, the number is 70,000-74,000, by the end of 1945. [80] [81], [82] So, the combined total given in the article appears to be off by ~100,000. More difficult is estimating the number who died since 1945, due to A-bomb related illnesses, with widely varying figures among many sources. I would leave those figures out of this article and let them be discussed in the main article on the Atomic bombings. --Aude (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FIXED. removed raw numbers.Rlevse 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Dungeons & Dragons

[edit]

previous FAC

Back for more abuse. :-) In addition to some massaging of the text, the following revisions have been made to address the actionable objections raised during the previous FAC attempt:

  • Literary citations have been used in preference to user pages for referencing. (Because of its generalized nature, the suggested Fine book was not found particularly useful in this regard; although it has been cited once.)
  • The two images that were deemed objectionable have been replaced.
  • Some short paragraphs were merged.
  • Mention is made of D&D's Hall of Fame status in the Games magazine. Otherwise, independent critical acclaim has proven hard to come by, alas. (But suggestions would be appreciated.)

Please take a look and see what you think. I'll try to address any specific constructive criticism. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported it last time, and I continue to do so. It has improved even more. I find no obvious variance with WP:WIAFA Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede these are difficult to incorporate without impacting on the overall flow of the article adversely. Being a gamer intermittently since '78 I find it comprehensive; the prose is good enough not to be noticed and crisp anmd clear throughout. congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to have scrubbed up well as it were, can't find nothin' wrong with it, well done --Brendan44 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

Comment The Notes section is like footnotes, the are directly linked to relevant sections of the text. However, many of the citations are re-used over and over again. Instead of repeating the citatation (which is just wasteful of space and creates redundant entries likely to diverge) or having a single footnote (which means you can't give specific page numbers for specific citations), the footnotes contain Harvard references like "(Johnson et al. 2004:23)" and you go down to the references to get the full entry. It's a bit unusual, but I find it a good compromise and it's acceptable according to the "Citing sources" style guidelines — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article looks good, looks like there's been some hard work on it. I think it's ready. But everything can be improved, and made better. Thanks, Meldshal42 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Repeating since my pionts seemed to have ignored

Comment
  • I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

  • No mention of of it's reference in Futurama in References in popular culture section.
    Buc 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response:
      • I'm unclear exactly certain what you're asking for in regards to the "See Also" section. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See also" section is just a set of links. Do you want a separate summary page of this summary-style article? The current "See also" section appears to be useful as is.
      • It's really difficult to include every bit of trivia in a high-level article of this nature, and still keep the page focused. Otherwise the section could conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. I think the statement that, "Numerous games, films and cultural references based on D&D or D&D-like fantasies, characters, or adventures have been ubiquitous since the end of the 1970s" covers it appropriately.
    • Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The intro should make it clear that D&D is principally played as a tabletop game. The concept of role-playing games is pretty hazy to a lot of people.--Nydas(Talk) 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a sentence to the first paragraph of the first section to cover this. The lead is a getting a little on the large size, so I didn't want to add further bloat. (But I'm not sure how to trim it without losing useful summary information.) Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You also might consider changing the phrase "a fantasy role-playing game (RPG)" in the first sentence to "a fantasy tabletop role-playing game (RPG)". I think that would address Nydas' concern without significantly lengthening the introduction. Dugwiki 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately that definition would exclude other viable options used for play (such as play-by-post). But it's probably close enough for now. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
          • If it makes you feel better, RJ, think of it like chess. Chess would be called a "board game" even though technically you can play it online or by mail. Similarly, even though you can play D&D on formats other than a physical tabletop, and there are D&D inspired computer games, the core game from which it's all derived is a tabletop game. Dugwiki 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article seems to meet all the checklist points for featured article status. I disagree with the suggestion above that the Futurama reference specifically needs to be added to the article. Not every individual mention of D&D on television or film needs to be included. You only need to have enough in the article to reasonably verify the claim that D&D has appeared in "numerous" films and television shows, and I think the article accomplishes that goal. In making a pass just now I only had a couple of extremely minor quibbles, and I made only one very minor change. So the article would appear to be reasonably stable, comprehensive and accurate. Good stuff. :) Dugwiki 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I pointed an even more D&D knowledgeable friend of mine at this article and he said:

I was reading the D&D article and had a few possible corrections to offer. I'm not sure how to do that on wikipedia itself, so I am offering them to you directly to do what you will with them.

1) Under Game mechanics, when it describes methods for generating PC ability scores, it describes rolling dice. A new, and, I gather, fairly common mechanic in 3.0 and 3.5 edition, is called point buy. I haven't been in a group that uses it, but I have heard of groups that use it, and gather it is fairly common in D&D tournaments. This method involves using a certain number of points to buy characteristics. Typically PCs get 8s for free in the 6 stats, then pay 1 point for each point of a stat above 8 till 14 (costing 6), 2 points beyond that for a 15 and another for a 16 (costing 10), and 3 points more for a 17 and another 3 for an 18 (costing 16). I think typically people start with 25 points, but it can vary according to what the DM wants.

2) In the same section, hit points aren't really determined by race. Just by class, level, and constitution. There are feats and spells and magic items which can give more hit points, but race doesn't factor into it except insofar as some races get bonuses or penalties on constitution and there are a few classes that only certain races can play which may have higher or lower hit points. Oh, monster race characters (very rare) and various monster NPCs, do often have their hit die type determined by race, but an elven 5th level fighter with a 14 con gets the same rolls and bonuses for hit points as a dwarven 5th level fighter with a 14 con.

3) In the influence section it mentions "...The role-playing movement initiated by D&D would lead to release of the science fiction games Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978)... ". Runequest is more of a medieval then a science fiction setting. Characters uses spells, swords, bows, and armor, not psionics, rayguns, and spaceships.

Ok. Hope that helps. It seems like a very thorough article on the whole, as most of the stuff on Wikipedia seems to me.

So there may be a few things to fix. Good luck. --GRuban 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race has minimal impact on HPs: Agreed, "race" deleted from list. RuneQuest is not SciFi: Agreed. Clairified. Should mention point buy attributes: this isn't the default assumption for the game, so it's probably getting too detailed, doubly so since there are multiple different point buy systems. Thanks for the suggestions. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

[edit]

Thanks to useful comments from visitors to the talk page, and helpful comments from an early good article nomination I am ready to submit the Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article for featured article candidacy. I have selectively added images with concise and relevant captions, and broken down the page into further subsections, as per the comments of one visitor to the talk page; I have responded to the comments of the GA reviewer, and I have continued to add to the article to ensure comprehensive coverage, a sensible article structure, and satisfactory prose. I will be glad to receive any further stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. If this article is not up to par right now, I should hope it to be by the end of this nomination! Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Overall it looks like a very in-depth article that is well referenced and has good coverage of the various topics related to it. I do have some suggestions though.
  • 1.The lead paragraphs does not have any citations. Most of the info is sourced in other places in the article, but it won't hurt to source it in the lead too.
Did that. Geuiwogbil 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.You may want to have a short introductory paragraph for the "Business" section. Something that will briefly outline and introduce the subsections. I think doing so will provide the reader with better understanding of how the subsections relate together. In my opinion, it seemed to jump a bit in the first couple subsections.
Originally, I hadn't broken the article down by "business" and "design", keeping with a rough chronological rather than the current topical overview. The switch to a topical overview might have mangled the connection between the paragraphs, since the connection between them all is really quite loose. I've just decided that "Publisher relations" would fit better with the "Design" portion of the article, rather than with the "Business" portion. Now I think the "Business" section flows in a good rough chronological stream, without the odd jump to employee relations early on. Does it look better now? Geuiwogbil 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.The phrase "remaining silent on what games the games were for." in the rumors section sounds a bit off, you might want reword it. Other than that, the editors have done a very good job on the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've removed that comment; the implications it gives should be apparent merely from the downplayed importance of the ES ref. Geuiwogbil 13:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Guyinblack25, I'll be right on them. Geuiwogbil 12:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not bad, but needs copy-editing before it can be considered for promotion. Find someone new. Don't just correct these samples:

  • Read MOS on ellipses. Spaces required both sides.
  • "2 years"—read MOS on spelling out numbers.
  • "As of the announcement,"—yuck: "At the time of"?
  • "Was finishing up with"—not sufficiently formal for this register.
  • Why is "2002" linked? Some secret in that article?
  • "team that would "[push] the bleeding-edge ..."—avoid the square bracket by starting the quote after "push"?
  • "online retailers had already begun bundling"—Remove "already".
  • "amidst"? It's not the bible. Try "amid".
  • "worrying flurry"—Fowler would call this a jingle.
  • "and delays for various other company products"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "Most of the blame was given to"—give blame? Tony 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I assume to have satisfied you, but I believe I've addressed the samples. I'll try to find another copyeditor to address any further issues. Geuiwogbil 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a general series of fixes for the ellipses. (I had no idea that part of the MOS even existed until today.)
  • For the "2" rather than "two" issue, I believe that your instance was the only instance of that rule disobeyed.
  • Did that; couldn't extrapolate any general rule from the statement.
  • I really don't have any sense of "formal ... register", so any further comments there would certainly help.
  • I've delinked all the partial dates.
  • I've fixed your instance and two other instances of bracketed text within quotation-marks. There's another, but it's nestled snugly in the middle of a quoted segment, and that quoted segment is actually a quoted segment within the cited source; fishing it out seems quite impossible.
  • Apologies for the archaism. I can't find any more of that.
  • Ha! Apologies for the jingle. I think that's the only [alliterative phrase/redundancy of sound] in the piece. Do alert me to others.
  • Removed the redundancy there. I'm not good at spotting that sort of thing, so I'm unsure if any remain.
  • Fixed that; I am unsure if there are any further problems.
Listed at WP:LOCE. I'm still willing to address any more particular comments if you have them. Geuiwogbil 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The good Sdornan has kindly offered to do a copy-edit of the article. He's about half-way through now. Geuiwogbil 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, please fix:
User:Krator (t c) 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you mean on the first point. Should I adjust the image size? Put in an "upright" tag? Or is the image itself terrible? I've added in a px specification, against the general recommendations of the MOS, for the exceptional purpose, here, of enhancing "the readability or layout of an article". Is your concern jaggies? Because I think the px specification fixes that.
  • I've added a "See Also" for Development history of The Elder Scrolls series and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (for contrastive purposes). A link to Oblivion seems redundant, as the template at the bottom of the article already fulfills that role. Or is the template too far down?
  • I don't think you can oppose FACs based on the content of other articles, but I'll have a go at this one. Just shorter? I don't know what you mean when you bluntly say "bad". I've taken the leading paragraphs from this article and used them there. Is that adequate? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, all my concerns have been addressed. About the template at the bottom, a move to the see also section would be good I think. User:Krator (t c) 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did the move. Thanks for your commentary and support! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Hispanic Americans in World War II

[edit]

"Self-nom"-There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writting such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope deserves FA status. Thank you. Tony the Marine 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to rename this article. When I first saw it on my watch list, I assumed it was about the contribution of Hispanics in the United States to WWII, and this has to be clear in the article's title, because Hispanics fought for many other countries in WWII, not just as part of the US military forces. KP Botany 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved page as recommended and I almost made a mess of it (smile). Tony the Marine 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support will most likely be support after a couple of things are fixed (sorry Tony, but I know that you would rather I was critical :) )
    • the Lead is very long, would id be possibly to trim some of the info into other sections? Possibly by a paragraph or so?
    • 65th regiment, is there a particular reason why this is the section title while other units are discussed?
    • PFC Guy Gabaldon, how did he capture so many soldiers?
      • He could speak Japanese, and convinced them they were outnumbered, surrounded, and fighting was hopeless, so they surrendered. The article needs to say that. It's still an achievement, but human. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He captured more enemy soldiers then Sergeant Alvin York, who was awarded the Medal of Honor, during World War I, for having captured 132 enemy German soldiers" it almost sounds like the article is having a whine about that :D
    • List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients could be incorporated into the prose of that section of this article perhaps?
    • Postscript End of the War, this is an unusual section title, not sure if I quite follow....
    • There are a number of one sentence paragraphs that could be incorporated

There may be a couple of copy edit issues as well but I can have a trawl through and fix any that I find. If you could answer or address some of my points above, the article would definitely get my support for FA. SGGH speak! 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1. I know that the lead paragraph may be a little long, However I have seen to many FAC complaints as to the fact that intro paragraphs are not long enough and I believe that this one goes in accord with the length of the article

2. In regard to PFC Guy PFC Guy Gabaldon, since there is an article in Wikipedia which details his accomplishments and I have linked said article, I don't want to take up too much by expanding what is already available. 3. There is no whine, only a comparison, because there have been many movements to have PFC Guy Gabaldon's Navy Cross upgraded to MoH without any success. The intention is to have the reader will wonder why and seek further knowledge about the issues involved. 4-6, these are minor issues which can be taken care of. Tony the Marine 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey impressive, it covers basically every possible aspect I could think of and reading it leaves clear how hispanic people heavily helped in maintaining this nation's freedom. Yeah this is definitely worth of my Support. -凶 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to support after my points were answered. Great stuff :) SGGH speak! 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't find anything on the internet on the topic and there few books and scholarly journals that chronicle the accomplishments and brave contributions of the 65th Infantry. Tony (the article's author) is one of the foremost experts on the military accomplishments of Hispanic-Americans in the United States Armed Forces that I know. It would be a great tragedy for a site such as Wikipedia to not cover this important topic many out there know so little about. --XLR8TION 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work needed. I worked on the article for a few hours tonight; it's not close to ready for promotion. I fixed several MOS errors (WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH and WP:MSH), hanging references not attached to quotes, and then started working from the bottom on copyediting and completing references. I found several significant copyediting errors that changed the intended meaning. Most of the sources don't yet have full biblio information, with publishers not yet identified, so reliability of sources can't be identified (nonetheless, I flagged non-reliable sources and personal webpages just in the sections I worked on, for example, a personal website referencing hard data about World War II). Much work remains to be done; I did as much as I can tonight and I'll be glad to help, but this article is not ready for FA status. See the sample edits in the diff above for an idea of the work still needed. I'm sorry to swim against the tide of the Puerto Rican editors, but we can get this fixed, and it should be fixed. Once the sourcing, copyediting and MOS issues are cleaned up, the WP:LEAD will need attention; it goes into too much detail, for example, the definition of hispanic isn't really appropriate to the lead. There are several sections containing information that strays off topic and is covered in links (things like definitions of discrimination or segregation, covered in other wiki articles, and sound esssayish). Numerous uncited statements. Less than half the way through cleaning up refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a, and I'm concerned about what Sandy says in relation to referencing. The first two paragraphs provide ample evidence that a thorough copy-edit by fresh eyes is required. Significantly below par. Random examples:
    • Ungainly repetition: "the United States" appears again and again and again through the lead. Change some to "the nation" and "the country". "every military conflict in which the United States has been involved from the American Revolution to the present day." Why not "every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution". Then "any" again and again in one sentence. That's easy to fix.
    • "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Hispanics, who were subject to widespread discrimination both at home and the military, joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, either as volunteers or as a result of the draft in defense of the United States"—The clause on discrimination doesn't sit smoothly in this long sentence. Introduce it in another sentence. Needs recasting; remove the text after "draft"; adds nothing in the context.
    • Hands up who doesn't know what a nurse is; or the English language; or combat, battlefields, munitions. Really! We DO speak English, and these are dictionary terms. Please audit the whole article for overlinking, so that your high-value links aren't diluted by useless ones.
  • "this is a rough estimate and the exact number of Hispanics who served will never be known"—Remove "who served". There's a lot of redundancy, given the wider context. Please audit the whole article in this respect. Tony 12:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you need to sort out what the 200th and 515th National Guard units were. They're referred to as battalions, then Coastal Artillery regiments. Please find and insert the correct titles. Hey, rereading, noticed you used '...for her service to our country...' in reference to a nurse. Avoid this: the Net ain't American. Cheers Buckshot06 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I believe that concerns have been taken care of. User:Buckshot06, you were right about the Regiment and Battalion observation, however, I can not seem to find the "for her service to our country" which you stated. Please if you do be my guest and fix it, if not let me know exactly where it appears. Tony the Marine 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose/Neutral Having looked over the article I feel that there is too much emphasis on "trees" and not enough on the "forest"; this should be a broad overview of Hispanics in WWII, yet a sizable chunk of it seems devoted to individual hispanics and the sacrafices that they made in service to the United States. Also, some primary categorical reoginzation is in order: if I were you, I would consider merging the Aviators, Servicewomen, Senior Officers, and Submarine Commanders sections into the European and Pacific theatre sections, and merging Discrimintation into postscript. I would also suggest creating an "Honoring Hispanics who Served" section and merging Hero Street, USA and the Medal of Honor Section into this new section. Lastly, I would highly recommend dismantling the "see also" section and placing the content into the parent article to cut down on space. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article states, the Department of Defense did not document the contributions of Hispanics and therefore due to the lack of the same it is a diffcult task to make an emphasis on the "forest". The "trees" that are mentioned are notable men and women who for unknown reasons seem to have fallen into the cracks of history and are rarely mentioned in history books. Your recommendations will be taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a real bright move on the DoD's part now, was it? I mean its not like us white folks did all the work in the wars -- for crying out loud man slaves fought for our nation during the civil war, and all people seem to remember are the contributions made by white folks. As a history major I can say in honesty that it concerns me immensly that what I learn in an institute of higher education may be nothing more than the history white poeple want me learn. Even more disturbing is the fact the articles I have promoted to FA status may be negleting a few good men simply becuase they were minorties. Since you have agreed to look into my recommendations I will exchange my weak oppose for a neutral, when and if the other concerns are addressed I will re-evaluate my stance. Until then, I will leave you alone to handle the problem as you see fit. Good luck, Tony. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely some of your suggestions will be worked on. I find your perspective (Comments on history) refreshing. Omissions made in history books have no justification and I believe that future historians such as yourself will look into correcting these faults. Tony the Marine 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged several of the sections per Tom's suggestions, and trimmed the See also to reflect articles already linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks better than it did. I still have some reservations about the sizable amount of bio material present in the article; however, I can not in good faith oppose because the DoD did a shoddy job of keeping records on the matter. Tony's done the best with what he had to work with, and the article does satisfy all needed FA criteria. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Ethnic nationalistic puff piece. Gives disproportionate weight to what was, in terms of numbers and impact, a small minority. Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view. A perfect example of historical revisionism, but with enough holes for the reader to see through. Michael talk 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry that you feel that way, however this not about Ethnic nationalistic nor about rewriting history. Until recently the contributions made by African Americans and Native Americans were also ignored by our historians also. This is about about contributions of a group which should never have been omitted in the first place. Tony the Marine 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution of minorities in any conflict of any country is often overlooked. These types of articles bring about information and narratives of people and events which are considered very useful for ethnic and minority studies. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on the basis that they're minorities and therefore, by some twist of logic, by default irrelevant. It's the fact that you're giving disproportionate weight to the figures you talk about. It's a list of figures who, by some measure, have performed well in the fighting; suitable for a article in a magazine called diversity weekly, but not in an encylopedia. Could we get away with the same article style for White Americans or African Americans? How do you think those articles would look if they were like yours?
No, it is a puff piece. Filled with unencylopedic garbage ("Thank the good Lord for making me a Latino.") and made to make people feel pride in their origins, rather than a neutral and complete history of Hispanics in WW. There's also a whole section dedicated to lecturing people on the evils of racism. But, your bandwagon has spoken, and this piece of trash will soon be an FA—sheep! Michael talk 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, its a shame that the "Land of the free" is the only nation that is still influenced by racist interests (dividing its own population based on heritage), I guess in Australia there isn't racial discrimination (yeah right...) but what can one expect of an user that has been blocked for uncivility after all ignorance is the worst sin there is. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- excellent article that highlights the incredible and undeniable contributions of Hispanics to a war that changed the world. I'm truly sad that people still feel the way Michael does. --Boricuaeddie 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support- most of the many Hispanics who volunteered or were drafted and served during WWII upon reaching the age of 21 were not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, either because they were not American citizens yet, resided in the territory of Puerto Rico or were subject to the same barriers (poll taxes, etc) that African Americans were subject to, yet they were proud to serve. I recently attended a funeral service at the National Cemtery in Hato Tejas, Puerto Rico and was able to walk around newly-placed headstones and was impressed at the large number of WWII vets who have recently been buried there. That's the best evidence of the large participation of Hispanics in that war that this excellent article documents. Finally, the timing for the decision that we must reach on this article is excellent---within weeks of the premiere of the Ken Burns PBS documentary that totally ignores Hispanic participation in WWII and at the time that the 'Borinqueneers' documentary is inching its way into the schedules of some PBS stations with large Puerto Rican populations.Pr4ever 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support this article is breathtaking in its scope, research and prose. Tony, you have truly outdone yourself. Beautiful work and a credit to what Wikipedians can accomplish. Bravo! --David Shankbone 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It looks really good, Tony. I realize we are having to rely almost entirely on testimonials and biographies, which makes it difficult to give a generalized picture. It is quite an accomplishment to be able to piece together such a cogent narrative from such a fragmented literature. Almost all the Mexican American civil rights leaders I have studied have some experience with the war. It might do to expand on the role of WWII in propelling the Hispanic American civil rights movement. And there was also the religious contribution. Fray Angélico Chávez was a chaplain in the pacific, for example.--Rockero 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I note that the supporters below my oppose are Hispanics who jumped on the bandwagon to support their comrade. Numbers, eh? Michael talk 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miguel/Michael: I thought you were Hispanic, too! Or is it only a minority of Anglos who oppose this nomination?Pr4ever 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, User:Michael, please stop insulting someone else's work with comments such as "puff piece", "garbage" and "trash". You are being disrespectful and not acting in a civil manner. You have already cast your vote and expressed your opinion. Go on with your life, please. Tony the Marine 05:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is going to be promoted due to a bunch of Hispanics jumping on the bandwagon to support this article. It isn't being examined critically. Numbers don't mean it's good. Answer my query above. Michael talk 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sumoeagle179 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the condition that the table with how many Hispanics won medals for their service somehow be shifted to the left or the right. The stark white space on both sides is very distracting and draws away from what otherwise is a good article. Oh, and Michael, I'm 100% WASP as hell, and I think it's a wonderful article. Have I been watching too many Chico and the Man reruns? What's my excuse? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! At first I thought that it would overlape too much into the other section, but it doesn't look too bad at all. Tony the Marine 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've re-read the article, taking into considerations the arguments made by Michael, however I still stand by my argument that this type of article is a welcome narrative useful for minority and Hispanic studies. Although it sometimes dedicates time to describe the actions of individuals, the article incorporates so much info that its still comprehensive. The article also provides statistics and information on regiments and battalions. Plenty of reliable sources and the article's comprehensiveness make me lean towards support, despite Michael's arguments. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, It should be noted that Michael, feels that "regardless of their ethnicity and political orientation, all Americans are indeed fools." see: [84]. His ill feelings are towards Americans in general and not towards one group in particular. Tony the Marine 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I like the article, but don't think its FA material. --evrik (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The second setence in the lead: Hispanics, who constitute the largest minority group in the United States, might be misleading as it leads the reader to think that they were the largest minority during World War II. Please specify the time period fot this fact. Thank you. CG 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I've been on vacation so I missed the entire previous discussion over this article. Reading the article with a fresh eye, I must say it definitely qualifies as one of the best Wikipedia articles. Also, despite Michael's view, this is not a "ethnic nationalistic puff piece." While this was mentioned before, Ken Burns upcoming documentary makes no mention of Hispanic contributions to WWII and this fact has been incredibly controversial. The fact that such a well-regarded filmmaker like Burns would be taken to task for such an omission shows that this subject is incredibly valid and needed at Wikipedia. Otherwise, this is a well written and well researched article deserving of FA status.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Firstly, it uses a lot of sources which in my opinion are biased.
  • "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II. Latino Advocates for Education, Inc." - I do not think an ethnic awareness/pride group should be used, especially as we are talking about something 60 years ago and there should be no shortage of opportunities for historians to write about it
  • Just walking through the first 25 footnotes, I find a high amount of sources which for me, definitely not acceptable
  • 3 - Appears to be from an ethnic messageboard/website: "The myth of immigrants draining our health care system and raising costs doesn't have a basis in reality. So, now that we know immigrants use less health care - is that a good thing or a bad thing for public health and community well being?" gives me the impression that this source is definitely not academically oriented or reliable.
  • 6 - Rosie the Riveter: About.com - mirror of Wikipedia
  • 7 - "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II" - Latino advocate website again
  • 9 - Hispanic online - appears to be a ethnic pride site - "A new generation carries on a proud military tradition"
  • 10 - mervino.com - appears to be a home-made website
  • 11 -American Veteran's Committee for Puerto Rico Self-Determination - appears to be Hispanic veterans lobby group
  • 14 - www.valerosos.com/ - appears to be an unpublichsed essay hosted on the website of a descendant of a veteran

So, out of the first 14 refs, I feel that 7 are already biased or unreliable, mostly consisting of ethnic sites which tend to be too rosy, while others are veterans groups and probably are also pro-soldier and romanticised. Glancing down the lists there appears to be a lot of self-made websites by veterans and so forth. This, in my opinion is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I feel that the article is written in a emotional tone which deviates from the objectiveness required for an encyclopedia. I think the discrimination section sticks out for me. Generally, I do tend to avoid using first-person quotes, ie, long quotes of a person talking about themselves. The vast majority of autobiographical accounts of all things, IMHO, tend to err on the side of being self-serving - the memoirs of politicians and sports coaches etc vitriolically blaming everyone else for the problems and so forth.....While in this case, one would generally agree that Hispanics and other minority groups got the rough end of the stick, the prolific use of first-person recollections swing the POV balance towards the first person. First person recollections of all types also tend to put the reader into their shoes and their POV and tend to emotionalise things in an excessive manner, which IMHO makes the article flowery in that section. In general, the highly anecdotal style in which this article is written, will gear it towards pulling heart strings rather than objective coverage. One example is how it says "leaving behind a family" in one of the examples. This is true of a very substantial if not a majority of servicemen, that they go into battle with an anxious family at home. Such padding, IMO, is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, someone could decide to be not so romanticised and add accounts of boozing or womanising. If we are to discuss notablity, we should focus on teh general statistics and so forth, and then mention things proportional to WP:N, which means generals, admirals, air force commanders, colonels, majors and so forth in decreasing priority. As it stands, the article is dominated by anecdotes of some people who received citations for bravery and so forth but were Lieutenants. Looking at the table you have provided tells me that thousands of people received Bronze Stars, but the case of one or two are prominently highlighted when neither the rank of lieutenant nor a bronze star are particularly rare but in fact rather common. This skews the article towards romanticism and one would suspect that all Hispanics either received bravery awards, were high ranking officers or were extremely decorated - over and above the average person. Conversely one might ask what the statistics on bad soldiers were, eg dishonorable discharges, court martials and desertions. I feel that this article is mostly a collection of "success stories" and is not a fair account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, your comments are more then welcomed. In regard to the sources, the reliablility of the same were verified by User:SandyGeorgia which is a very capable person. You must remember that the Department of Defense did not keep stats on Hispanics during that era and therefore we must depend on the documentation gathered by such people as Maggie-Rivas for the University of Texas. In regard to the decorations table, it clearly states: "the figures are based on listings of military service personnel that have been complied from military records, historical documentation, or personal accounts." True the table lists 2 thousand Silver Star Medals and 1 thousand Bronze Star Medals, but this is not to romanticise and is a small number when it is estimated that possibly over 500,000 Hispanics served. My intentions are not to romanticise the Hispanic experience. I have provided some the horrors which these men suffered with examples of the Bataan Death March and the suffering of the common family with the example of the Sandoval family. History books themselves are baised and are written in accordance to the beliefs of the eras in which they are written. I have written about the accomplishments of some successful Hispanics, which mind you were Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Captains and just regular foot soldiers because these accounts are not mentioned in history books. Discrimination played a big role in the lives of these men and was a big issue then as it is now. I had to relie on the interviews conducted by Prof. Maggie-Rivas team, of those who suffered it in the flesh and quote them. Maybe that is why the contributions made by Hispanics were omitted then and continue to be omitted now. As I stated before, I have written this article within Wikipedia policy without having to enter into original research. I want to thank you once again for you opinion and I want you to know that I don't mind your oppose, because you handled yourself in a civil manner. Tony the Marine 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has improved markedly since I first read over it; I didn't comment then due to some lively discussion/distraction taking place, but I don't think some major concerns have been addressed. Blnguyen brought up the issue of sources, and some are still suspect.
It's understandable that there may not be readily available data/sources on hispanicsin ww2, but I don't think enough effort has been made to find academic sources. There are hardly any references that are books or journal articles.
Although the large chunks of monologue have been removed, I'm still concerned about the mini-biographies. What criteria was used to choose who to profile? They may be highest ranking, but were they the most notable or have the most impact? Where are the citations proclaiming the importance of the chosen few above the others?
The section on discrimination as others have mentioned, is somewhat tenuous. If you want an extended discussion of racism and discussion during ww2, where's any mention of the Zoot-suit riots? [85].

Recurring dreams 11:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment,Thank you for your concerns. At times it seems as if these are the same questions asked over and over again, but asking never hurts.

1. The concern about the reliability of the sources were already once handled by User: SandyGeorgia as stated almost at the beginning of this FAC. Those that are mentioned as suspect are sources which are cited by Hispanic historians, in which case makes them reliable. I would love to cite more books or journals and I would if they were to be found, however since this is a subject which did not receive the same attention as others and I am not allowed to indulge in original research, it will be up to future historians to make sure that these contributions will be documented and posted on journals so that future generations may benefit from their findings.

2. I have made it a point to note the contributions of every notable Hispanic officer that I could find. These are not mini-bios, the mini-bios can be found in the links provided which will lead the reader to the subjects page. The two Generals mentioned did make important contributions to the outcome of the war. In regard to the other four soldiers mentioned with some degree of length, their feats such as capturing over 1,000 enemy soldiers, the most decorated soldier, becoming the last “Ace in Day” and becoming the first recipient of the Medal of Honor on American soil, truly deserve to be described. All who made notable contributions as members of the Armed Forces of the United States during the war are mentioned regardless of the impact which these contributions have made.

3. Although the Zoot-Suit riots occurred in Los Angles in 1943, between American sailors and Mexican and Filipino Americans, it had nothing to do with the contributions of Hispanic Americans in World War II. Discrimination was rampant throughout the United States, however the subject of Discrimination within the article is about the situation within the military and the fact that those served their country continued to face discrimination as civilians. The testimony of four soldiers from different backgrounds and races were used and this was intentional so that the reader could understand that there were many soldiers who had to deal with two enemies, the one aboard and the one at home.

I am sorry if this article does not meet what some may consider encyclopedic material, but I did the best that I could with what little I had. Tony the Marine 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - Perhaps this article, with some work, could be cleaned up. My objections, in addition to those listed by Blnguyen (bananabucket), are the following (these are examples):

  • Many references do not prove the point for which they are a footnote, e.g. The paragraph ending with "The new migrants gained knowledge and working skills that would serve them well." is linked with a footnote to http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p105521_index.html. Quotation from that site:

"My results illustrate that while scholars attribute Puerto Rican emigration to overpopulation and rising unemployment, news articles consistently addressed issues related to employment, while rarely mentioning the impact of overpopulation. In addition, my findings show that articles in the early years of the Great Migration portray migration positively or debate the issue. In the later years, there are signfiicantly more articles that portray migration negatively as well as articles that treated migration neutrally."

That does not support the material it purports to in the paragraph.

  • For any US Census information, there is no reason not to use the US Census site itself which has plenty of analyses, not the Encyclopedia Britannica or other less direct sources.

I urge you to take seriously other reviewers comments. Mattisse 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Mattisse Thank you, not for the oppose mind you, but for pointing out these things for me. I will look into them. Sometimes we are too blind to see the obvious. Tony the Marine 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed some references, plus trimmed some fat off the article. www.womensmemorial.org/Education/HisHistory.html are the only people who have documented the contributions of not only female Hispanics, but the contributions of women in general and I believe them to be reliable. Tony the Marine 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom and XLR8TION. Murcielago 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are still using an about.com link: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/which is not a permissible link. Further, I tried several links on that page and they were either a "page no longer here" type message, as for example the NPR link, or went to pages that did not mention Hispanic women. Could you give a direct link to a Rosie the Riveter article that mentions Hispanic women? (I humbly suggest that this is not that important to your article anyway. Rose the Riveter was really geared at white women, as in those days there was no consciousness—as you are aware—of minority participation in World War II. The issue of the all black units in that war did not reach public consciousness until much later, so it is hard to believe that Rosie the Riveter was ahead of it's time. In fact, one of your major points is that there was no awareness. Rosie the Riveter material on Hispanic women would be an argument that you are wrong.)
    • Also, could you provide a reference for this statement: "Hispanics who resided in the mainland of the United States and who were fluent in English were assigned to regular military units; otherwise they were assigned to units made up of mostly Hispanics. Those who were of fair skin color were assigned to units made up of Caucasians and those who were of dark skin color were sent to the segregated all-black military units." (I am not saying this is not true, but again, I don't think it it necessary to your main point. Also, it is somewhat ambiguous. What happened to Hispanics who resided on the mainland of the United States and were fluent in English but had dark skin? You are suggesting that they were assigned to regular military units. Is this the case?)
    • Perhaps I could suggest to you that you think about what you want this article to be about. Do you want it to be about discrimination against Hispanics during World World II? Or do you want it to be about the Hispanic contribution to World War II? If is is the latter, then you could find some reliable sources that state, yes discrimination existed. Then you could find a good source or two saying Hispanic contribution is therefor unknown and unreported. Then perhaps you would have a justification for saying, "Although the numbers of Hispanic soldiers is unknown, we have some first-person accounts of individual Hispanic soldiers that suggest that the contributions of Hispanic soldiers was valiant and give some examples. Then you could list the medal winners etc. I do not know if that would pass FA but it would be more focused on the Hispanic participation in World War II, if that is your goal. Mattisse 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Mattisse, your suggestions are more then welcomed and I will take you up on them. The main focus will be on Hispanic contributions, while the discrimination should only be a sub-subject. I will get eliminate http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/ (I don't know why but, I thought I had)Tony the Marine 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a lot more trimming. I'm breaking my head, which one is the NPR link? Tony the Marine 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This about.com link, http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/Rosie_the_Riveter_Women_in_the_Factories_of_World_War_II.htm, which is not permissible anyway, has the NPR link on its list of links. Mattisse 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Mattisse, I'm sure that I have already eliminated that link. I went over the links and I haven't been able to pin-point it. If you can, please let me know if you see it and where it is at. The article looks much better with all of the trimming, don't you agree? Tony the Marine 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, My apologies to User's Blnguyen and Recurring dreams, you were right to be concerned about the references. Mia culpa - I have responded to the suggestions. Tony the Marine 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You need to be very careful about footnotes. The footnote to the War Museum does not say anything about coverage in history books, as far as I can tell, so it should not be included with the footnote. You don't need the history book sentence in there anyway, in my opinion. Mattisse 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this:

Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations, from Bataan to Okinawa. Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution.[3] According to the National World War II Museum, between 250,000 and 500,000 Hispanic Americans served in the Armed Forces during WWII. The exact number is unknown as at the time Hispanics were counted as whites. The only racial groups to have separate statistics kept were African-Americans and Asian-Americans.[4]

You have a lot of extra stuff that isn't needed and that is not referenced. I think it detracts from your main points. Mattisse 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Hispanic Americans joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps as volunteers or through the draft. They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war and participated on the home front.[5]

Hundreds of women joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAACs) and Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES), serving as nurses and in administrative positions. Many worked in the manufacturing plants that produced munitions and material, while the men who usually performed this work were away at war.[6]

It repeats a little the first sentence but maybe you can get away with it. Then eliminate the part of the third paragraph you have already covered. Instead, you can give a summary of what the article is going to be about, the facts you do know plus some justification for the personal stories. Mattisse 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will do, Mattisse I truly appreciate your suggestions because they are excellent and within what is expected in Wikipedia. They haven't compromised the message of the article and that is why I am making the changes recommended. I want others to know that I am not making them to sway a change in the oppose votes ( I must admit that support votes are nicer (smile) , I have too often seen FAC's people do not change their votes even after the suggestions have been taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting, lots of work has been done, issues addressed quickly, politely, and diligently, thank you. I'm also going to take the liberty to add a few tweaks of my own, if you don't like them, feel free to change or revert; I hope they're improvements, but my support doesn't depend on them being kept. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose, I'm afraid, Needs editing by Japanese patriot. :-) It's clearly a labor of love, but a bit too gung-ho, a bit too clearly written by an American patriot. I'd love to support, since there is a lot of good content, but I can hear patriotic music playing as I read much of this article. Some examples:[reply]
    • "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor" - in the lead? Surely the way the war started didn't make that much of a difference to Hispanic participation in WW2, considering they participated in every war before or since. Note I don't know if it would really hurt to keep because it is part of the intro.
      • It has nothing to do with Hispanic American participation. Yes, it was an important episode for World War 2, but so was the Battle of the Bulge, and Tobruk, and Stalingrad, and D-Day, and the invasion of Poland, and the fall of Berlin, and the bombing of Hiroshima. None of those belong in the lead of this particular article, which should be a summary of the main points of the article. This isn't one of them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Good point, Done[reply]
    • In fact, I'd move "Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution." out of the lead as well, this article is really about WW2, and this sentence is out of place in that paragraph. It's important, just not lead-important. Note, I would love to keep this. Since most Americans are unaware of the Hispanic contributions in WW II, they are even less aware that Hispanics have made contributions from the founding of the nation. In way this is may way of saying "Hey, guess what? Hispanics have always taken arms for the U.S., not just WW II, the only thing is that you didn't know about because their contributions have always been overlooked". I don't know if I make any sense.
      • I still think it doesn't fit the paragraph, but I can see how it might be important enough for the lead somewhere. If you can figure out a better place to move it, I'd prefer that, but I won't oppose over just this. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Decided to eliminate, doesn't fit in[reply]
        • Heh. I do think it belongs somewhere, it is an important bit of data about the participation of Hispanic Americans in US wars in general, clearly worth a sentence. I put it in another section, again not ideal, but I couldn't find a perfect place for it, so better to have it somewhere than nowhere. If you want, you can even move it back to the lead. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gabaldon, ... displayed extreme courage and initiative ... single-handedly capturing enemy civilian and military personnel. Working alone ... daringly entered ... frequently in the face of hostile fire ... succeeded ... not only ... vital ... well over ." - that reads like it could be from his award citation, meant to inspire. We're only meant to give facts. Done
More on this section:
      • Private First Class (PFC) Guy Gabaldon... PFC Guy Gabaldon (1926–2006) ... he was a Private First Class (PFC) - redundant.Fixed
      • Wikilink Hell to Eternity Done
      • I read a bit more on Gabaldon; it seems like he mostly persuaded the Japanese to surrender by saying they'd be killed otherwise.[86] This article makes it sound like he violently captured over 1000 soldiers by personal combat, one at a time, and the only reason he didn't get a medal of honor like York was bigotry. While bigotry might still have been part of it, if convincing 1000+ people to surrender was a cause for a medal of honor, every commander who wins a big battle and doesn't massacre his captives would have one. By leaving out the word "persuaded" or "convinced", we're misleading by implication. replace word
    • "gave their lives for their country" - died. Done
    • "The outcome of the battle was so stunning" - ahem. I don't think the Japanese would have used that word. Done
    • "In December 1942, a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to North Africa in the heat of battle." - In December 1943, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to fight in North Africa. Fixed
      • Not really, still mentions Pearl Harbor, which has nothing more to do with Quesada than it does with Patton. Now, Fixed
    • "the greatest invasion in history" - Fixed
      • No, now it just says "considered by some". My point isn't debating whether it is or not, my point is that the article is overly patriotic and gung-ho, and needs to be more objective. It can't help being somewhat gung-ho, since it's about the achievements of soldiers, there is no way to get around "Hero Street", but the least it can do is not inject it unnecessarily. Just give the facts, and wikilink for those who want to know more: provided air cover for the landings on Normandy Beach. Word eliminated
    • "Edubigis and Angelina Sandoval immigrated to the U.S. with a dream of having a better life." - Fixed
    • "their son's request to serve the country." - Eliminated
    • The failure to include any Hispanics in the film has been recognized and criticized by ordinary citizens, Hispanic leaders, and Congressional leaders alike. - important, but shorten and rephrase What do you think will be a better rephrase? Done
    • the starving and outnumbered troops surrendered to the Japanese. The men of the 200th and 515th Battalions laid down their arms after being given a direct order. - combine, unless it was only the 200th and 515th who got an order, and the others merely surrendered Fixed
      • being given a direct ordera - "being given a direct order" or "direct orders" Fixed
There are also other issues
    • has an ancestor from a Spanish-speaking Latin America. - dump "a Spanish-speaking", Brazilians are Hispanic too Note, In accordance to U.S. Census, Brazilians, are not considered "Hispanics" since their language is Portuguese (Similar to the people of Surinam). They are, howver considered as "Latinos" or "Latins" since the do come from "Latin-America". You go figure.
      The Census says anyone is Hispanic who says they are Hispanic. Their suggested definition, however, includes all of South America, without excluding Brazil. 1993 2000 Also, don't forget the context. We're talking the racial prejudice of 1941. Are you honestly going to claim that 1941 people with anti-Hispanic prejudice would make exceptions for Brazilians? It's at least debatable, but this article isn't the place for the debate. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Rephrased[reply]
    • "One of the members of the 149th WAAC Post Headquarters Company was Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak, who served in Algiers within General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s theatre headquarters. Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak joined" - join the one-sentence paragraph with the next, and don't repeat her rank or first name. Fixed
    • "rendered overseas duties" - served, or if you like, were stationed Fixed
    • "Other Hispanic Servicewomen like Conterras" - don't capitalize Servicewomen, and misspelled name Fixed
    • "among them were Maria Rodriguez-Denton and Sergeant Mary Castro." - contains no information, considering the next two paragraphs say that. Fixed
    • Same for "Two other notable Hispanic submarine commanders were..." - if you don't such a sentence for the first 3, don't do it for the last 2 Fixed
    • "Sergeant Mary Castro was the first Hispanic woman from San Antonio, Texas, to join the WAAC." - that's her distinction? At that rate, we should have a hundred paragraphs like that: the first Hispanic woman from Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New York to join the WAVES, WAAC, WAAF... Unless she's more notable than that, I'd get rid of the whole mention, unfortunately. Also makes it easier to get rid of the "among them" phrasing, above. :-) Castro eliminated
    • "Hispanic female nurses wanted to volunteer for service, however they were not accepted into the Army or Navy Nurse Corps" - Why not? Good question, my assumption would be that the Dept of Defense, didn't think at the time that bilingual nurses would be needed.
    • In 1944, the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) decided to accept Puerto Rican nurses.- only? Not other Hispanics? Why? Note, the only verfiable source mentions only the PR nurses. There aren't any statements about other Hispanic nurses. Could be that stats were not kept on those who were not from Puerto Rico, similar to what happened to the Hispanics that served in regular Army units.
      • Would be nice to find out, but I couldn't find it myself. No big deal.
    • represented a moral blow - morale? Note, can't find this one, can you do me the honoe of fixing it?
      • Done.
    • Did Quesada actually write "FM 100-20, "Command and Employment of Air Power,"? Part of it? Note the source states (and so does the article) that he and the allied commnders forged FM 100-20, but there is no mention about who were the others, except that Quesdad was the principal force behind the concept.
      • Good enough.
    • "f the 22 families on Second Street," - f? Fixed
    • thos ewho - those who Note, I can't find this one, would you do me the honor of fixing it?
      • Done.
    • Rios Rodriguez ... In an interview, PFC Raul Rios Rodriguez from Puerto Rico - full name first, short name later Fixed
    • He recalls the racial remarks made by a Captain while he was wounded. “That was the first time I was called a smart-ass Mexican,” said Rodriguez, speaking of an incident that occurred in the Philippines. - who was wounded, Rodriguez, or the Captain? What was smart-ass about being wounded? Move "in the Phillipines" to the first sentence, dump "speaking of an incident". Fixed
    • President Truman's military aide, Gen. Harry H. Vaughan joined - comma after Vaughan, or move "Truman's aide," after Vaughan Fixed
    • same place, Senator Johnson is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, just Johnson after the first 2.Fixed
    • one of the most notable was Desi Arnaz. Cuban bandleader, Desi Arnaz, - combine the sentences, wikilink the first, not the second mention. Done
    • because a of prior knee injury - of a prior Fixed
    • I'd move Homefront section up after all the other "Types of service" sections, before the "After the war" sections - Honoring and Discrimination Good idea, done
    • 515th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalions from New Mexico ... and the 158th Regimental Combat Team from Arizona. - wikilink both states or neither Fixed
    • These Hispanic and non-Hispanic soldiers endured the 12-day, 85-mile Bataan Death March from Bataan to the Japanese prison camps and remained in captivity for 34 months.[14] They were marched in scorching heat through the Philippine jungle. - move the 34 month captivity after the march sentence.Fixed'
    • The European Theater was subdivided into three areas: the Eastern Front, the Western Front and the Mediterranean Theater. - true, but if you never mention the 3 areas again in the article, why do we care? Note, I thought that some people reading may like to know exactly what was the Europen Theater, if you feel that it should be rephrased let me know again.
    • some active combat units, such as the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico, were made up mostly of Hispanics. One of these units was the 141st Regiment of the 36th Texas Infantry - how about "some active combat units, such as the 65th ... and the 141st ..." ? Done, sounds better.
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, would you reconsider your vote after your concerns are addressed? Just courious. Tony the Marine 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, that's the whole idea. Let me look. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) You got most, a few left, and some new stuff:[reply]
    • Lead: Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations... They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war - redundant. Fixed
    • Lead: According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, published in 2005 by Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least 9,170 Hispanic Americans died in the conflict. - Too much detail on the book for the lead. I'd shorten to either "According to Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least...", or "According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, at least ...", but reserve the publishing details for later in the article. I admit it also worries me that such an important point is made with reference to an advocacy group, and one for education, rather than military or history, and that the book seems to focus on Mexican Americans, rather than Hispanic Americans, but it's certainly better to have something rather than nothing. Done
      • I see others object to this source as well. Here is a better one, from Senator Robert Menendez: (Microsoft word) http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/MemorialDayLLLEng.doc "Half a million Latinos served in the Armed Forces during WWII, and more than 9,000 Latinos gave their lives in defense of our country." Here is another better one, the National WW2 Museum: www.nationalww2museum.org/education/education_numbers.html "How many Hispanic Americans served in the U.S. military during WWII? Between 250,000 and 500,000." Don't drop the book altogether, it does get press LA Times official archive, but it's good to have backup. Added Menedez words, Could you check the link for me?
    • The Sandoval’s were; first of the Sandoval’s to die ; Other families like the Sandoval’s had - remove apostrophes, these are plural not possessive Fixed
    • One family, the Nevarez family, from Los Angeles, California, had a total of eight siblings serving in the Armed Forces. - was this the record? If not, I'd remove "One family", otherwise we're implying there were no others. Done
    • Reference "5 ^ a b c" has no text.Fixed'
    • The Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II reference has a "retrieved" date but no URL link. If it isn't a URL, it doesn't need a "retrieved" date. Does it have an ISBN? Fixed
    • Reference "16 ^ [1] Ralph Rodriguez" needs a title, and don't put SARA KUNZ all in caps. Fixed
    • "Sacrifice of the Sandoval families: " - I think these 5 words can go. It seems like yet another way to squeeze in another section, there is plenty of organization in this article. The fact the rest of the Hero Street section is about the Sandovals speaks for itself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Fixed

Two things - (A) what is the status of the article with regard to unreliable sources? (B) Tony posted on my talk page about Michael's comments above. I gave him some specific advice for how to handle it, but I don't see this incorporated into the article. Raul654 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi Raul, good to see you. A. Taken care of, B. User:AnonEMouse, who is an experienced FAC editor and a neutral party (not Hispanic), vetted the entire article, checking references, material emphasized, and everything else. Answers in your talk page. Tony the Marine 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -much improved since first nominated.Rlevse 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For such a controversial topic, I'm not satisfied that the general level of referencing (WP:RS) represents the "best work of Wikipedia". Sorry, but unless some references (as noted by Blnguyen) are changed to minimize this problem, I'm opposing this article getting FAC status. Also, thw quotes sourced using [67], [69] and [70] are pointless, as it isn't intergral to the context (or started by "He stated," etc.), and it's merely citing what you've reworded in the paragraph above. The overuse of quotes in that section look a little amateur, to be honest. Daniel 05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all of the referencing concerns of User:Blnguyen have been taken care of as witnessed by users: Mattisse, AnonEMouse and SandyGeorgia all of which are experienced FAC editors and neutral. I hope that you understand that official documentation of the experiences of these men were not kept and therefore, we must depend on the documented interviews to provide information on the discrimination which went on and was known, but was never spoken about in public. Tony the Marine 05:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Victoria Cross for New Zealand

[edit]

(Self-nomination) Although this article is short, in my opinion it is worthy of FA standard. It sailed through GA which is its current status. It is comprehensive in it's coverage of the highest medal for gallantry that can be awarded to New Zealand personnel. Thanks in advance for any comments. Woodym555 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems very unnecessary to have links to the other three Victoria Cross articles both in Similar decorations section, the See also section and in the Victoria Cross template. --Peter Andersen 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, point taken, removed them from the "see also" section. I think they serve a purpose in the other sections though. Woodym555 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only one problem the prose of the section "Awarding the Medal" isnt coherent there two distinct discusions taking place and over lapping each other. The result is that the final sentence As with the original Victoria Cross any recommendations will pass through the military hierachy to the Minister for Defence.[20] reads as if its tacked on. There appears to be some formal process as to how the final decision to award is reached, that needs to given some depth. Bill (Willy) Apiata current status should be equal unimpeded explanation as well. Gnangarra 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice well written and well reffed page. It seems to tell me all I need to know about Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Giano 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "The Victoria Cross for New Zealand was established in 1999 and, as of July 2007, has been awarded only once." - er ... !!! So this is an article about an award that was only awarded once? I was wondering why the lead for this article seemed to be a copy of Victoria Cross, and why there is a long list of unrelated awards (Medal of Honor for example; not a cross, nothing to do with Victoria, nothing to do with New Zealand ...) . There just isn't a lot to say here that isn't said better elsewhere. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment since the Victoria Cross has always been awarded to New Zealand service personnel, the difference is that since 1999 the confirmation of the award has been removed from the UK system to a wholely NZ system. This change doesnt dimmish or revalue past/present/future recipients, its still the highest award for valour in New Zealand. What it does do is alter the process that itself warrant an article, but given that the new process has already conferred the award to someone its even more appropriate to distinguish that process from the Victoria Cross article where the inclusion of this person is no longer appropriate. Gnangarra 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understood that. It sounds like you're saying that the article is about every time the Victoria Cross, in any incarnation, has ever been awarded to New Zealanders. If so, then it's misleadingly titled, and still largely a copy of the Victoria Cross article, and still doesn't justify a list of unrelated awards for other countries... In short, still oppose. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally at Victoria Cross (New Zealand) but this is not its official name and as such i think it would breach the WP:NAME guidelines. The Victoria Cross for New Zealand is a separate award to the Victoria Cross, awarded by a separate Government. The list of New Zealander Victoria Cross recipients and other Victoria Cross related lists cover the New Zealand recipients perfectly adequately. The Similar awards section is added to provide a link to the other Highest awards of gallantry that a country can bestow. After a comment on the peer review of the VC for Australia article i have decided to create a template that would replace this section. I am not entirely clear of your objections, do you think the article should include all New Zealander recipients of the VC? The fact that the VC for New Zealand has been awarded only once does not disqualify it from having an article on Wikipedia. Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not nominating the article for deletion, I just don't think it's original enough for featured article status. It's basically about the history of the Victoria Cross in general, not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. FAs should not be mostly material that best belongs in other articles, that's just not our best work. For those who want chapter and verse, it fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4, "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". It does not stay focused on the main topic, as over half the article is not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)I don't think i can address these comments, and the comments made in the discussion on AnonEMouse's talk page. To put in information about all New Zealanders would be going against the title of the page. It is about the VC for NZ and its history. Its history is deeply intertwined with that of the Victoria Cross. The history of the Victoria Cross is pertinent and important in understanding the history of this separate award.
As to removing the appearances section, i think that would be completely wrong. Just because the appearance is the same as the VC, it does not mean that the appearances section of this page should be replaced with a wikilink. In terms of criterion 4, the article is focused on the main topic: the VC for NZ. For the origins of the history section, the VC and VCNZ share the same for the most part. All the information on the history of the Victoria Cross is not included in this article, only the information that is pertinent to the VCNZ is retained in this article.
I have discussed this at the WP:ODM talk page and User:Xdamr, one of the main contributors in this field, agrees that the VC for NZ should stay focused on the VC for NZ and not on all New Zealanders who ever won the Victoria Cross. Simply put i cannot fix your oppose vote, it is in effect a conscientious objection. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Please fix spelled out conversion (inches)—MOS. Faulty prose throughout. Random examples—semicolong in lead is wrong; more commas would make for easier reading; "the medal can reach over £200,000 at auction"—sounds like my arm reaching over to get something. "Several countries"—unencyclopedic vagueness. Needs serious work. Withdraw and reconsider, please. Tony 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that there is faulty prose throughout. Whilst the medal statement in the intro could be misread, i don't think it will be. Even so i have changed the sentence to reflect your concerns. It now reads as "medal has been sold for over £200,000 at auction." In terms of 'needs serious work' could you please be more specific? Thanks Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the "References" section be "Further reading"? Are any of these cited in the article? Check hyphens in "Notes"; at least one is wrong. Imperial and metrics main units? Inconsistent. Tony 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • References and further reading have now been separated. There was only one hyphen that i could see in the notes and that should have been a dash: changed it. (am i blind, i couldn't see any hyphens, sorry if i am missing something) It is now a metric article as per MOS and NZ convention. Thanks for your constructive comments. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have to concur with AnonEMouse. You (Woodym555) rightly emphasize that this is a different award than the original VC. But then why is about half of the lead section about the original VC? I can understand that a couple of sentences are necessery to give the historical background, but certainly not half of the lead. The same goes for the main part of the article. Why all of this information about the materials the original award was made out of? I think only the metal used now is relevant.--Carabinieri 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the same metal used now that is used for the Victoria Cross. That is why the history is included, because it has shares its history with the Victoria Cross. I will try to amend the lead soon. Woodym555 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to say that i have amended the lead to completely focus on the VC for NZ. I have not changed the metal because the history is completely pertinent and relevant. Any other concerns? Woodym555 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lead looks good now. What I was referring to with my remarks concerning the origing of the metal used in the VC, is that there are several sentences referring to metals that were never used for the VC for NZ. Only the third sentence in the second paragraph of the "Victoria Cross" section seems to be about metal actually used in the NZ medals. --Carabinieri 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • After rereading the article i see your concerns. I have removed the information about the metal during WWI and WWII, beacuse, as you rightly stated it does not pertain to the VC for NZ. Any other areas of concern? Thanks Woodym555 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No that's all. The article is a bit short, but it does seem to cover the topic about as extensively as possible, considering the fact that the cross has only been awarded once. So I support.--Carabinieri 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

1981 Irish hunger strike

[edit]

Self nomination. Article is a good article and gone through peer review. The only peer review recommendation was sortable tables which I don't really think are appropriate due to the contents of the tables, but that's easy enough to fix if others disagree. I have improved the formatting of the tables so they are the same width though. One Night In Hackney303 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this; the article is well-written and adequately referenced. I'd like to see a more sophisticated approach in the analyses in some places, but that's just me. I think it meets the standard. --John 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the sittueeateoin ;) Ceoil 11:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. The murals are overused in NI related articles anyway, so I've hunted down some free images of memorials instead. One Night In Hackney303 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --Carnildo 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support <-- Feels like a loaded statement somehow, but this is an excellent, pacy, overview. Ceoil 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Hornet35 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm curious about the reason given for Bobby Sands' conviction: "possession of a revolver which had been fired at the police". As far as I can tell, this accurately describes his situation, but does it represents the introduction of a POV here? (I know this is a touchy subject for some, so let me say I have no position on this; I'm just asking.) Wouldn't his offense be simply "Possession of a firearm", as you give it for some others in the table? I assume that the fact the revolver had been fired at the police was relevant in the trial, but what was the actual conviction for? The additional few words imply that he was not shown to have fired it himself; true, as far as I can say, but why mention this extenuating circumstance for Sands and not for the others? Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point, I've changed that. The conviction was quite strange, there were four people convicted on the same charge, as they were all in the same car where the revolver was found. While the ballistic evidence of the gun having been used in prior offences may have been a mitigating factor with regards to the sentence, it wasn't part of the charge. One Night In Hackney303 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A well handled piece of coverage of a very controversial issue. I do have two comments though, firstly given that this occured in the context of the Troubles, they should probably be linked somewhere in the lead and secondly phyrric should not be capitalised in the consequences section.--Jackyd101 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written article about an important event, and a remarkably NPOV treatment of a controversial subject. The recent changes to the images have improved it IMO. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would consider expanding the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I think more detail on the second hunger strike is desirable, for instance the important fact that "the prisoners joined one at a time and at staggered intervals" and the consequences of that in terms of public opinion, political fallout etc. The "Consequences" and "Commemoration" sections, including the rise of Sinn Féin, might be made into a short third paragraph. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the lead does everything it needs to. It's difficult to explain the strategy involved in the second hunger strike concisely without confusing the reader. The public opinion is adequately demonstrated with the Sands funeral attendance, and the political fallout was the rise of Sinn Féin. One Night In Hackney303 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no mention of the cultural legacy of the hunger strike - the most notable ommission being Some Mother's Son, a Helen Mirren film directly inspired by the hunger strike.--Macca7174talk 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Oxidative phosphorylation‎

[edit]

Self nomination. Article is currently a GA and is 65 kb in size. Tim Vickers 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the GA reviewer of this article but being non tech and having done it a month plus ago, I have regained my newbie POV. Para 3 of the lead needs modification.
  • - :The energy released as electrons flow through this ...electron transport chain is used to transport protons across the inner mitochondrial membrane. This generates a pH gradient and a electrical potential across this membrane. The energy is released as protons flow back across ...the membrane and down this gradient, through a large enzyme called ATP synthase.
Shouldnt release of energy be involved in only one of the flows? You have energy released first as electrons flow across then as protons flow across. Please clarify. AshLin 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to try to make clearer that energy is transferred from one form to another as part of this process. Tim Vickers 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tim, In this sentance,
For example, the oxidation of the 10 NADH and 2 succinate molecules created during the complete oxidation of one molecule of glucose to carbon dioxide and water, produces about 26 ATP molecules.[4] In contrast glycolysis only produces 2 molecules of ATP. This ATP yield is the theoretical maximum value, in practice some protons leak across the membrane, lowering the yield of ATP.[5]
the ATP yield appears to point to that of glycolysis rather than P. Oxid. because of its juxtaposition. Could it be rewritten so that the glycolysis yield is mentioned first and high ATP yield of P. Oxid. is later, so that the statement This ATP yield is the theoretical... yield of ATP. now cannot be confused to mean something else. AshLin 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, rearranged. Tim Vickers 16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Previous reviewer: please don't segment the page (see instructions). This is an excellent article at first look. Can you fix a few MOS things: some hyphens for page ranges remain in the bib. Minus signs (see MOS), not hyphens, in the table. Lead: "in eukaryotes" needs a matching comma. "An redox"? Tony 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens fixed, "An redox" zapped, comma added, and a new type of dash added to the table. Tim Vickers 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I never look at who the nominator is: no wonder it's excellent! Tony 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An excellent article, generally as clear as an article on something so technical stands much chance of being, well referenced, up to date and well illustrated.
    • My main problem is with the history section, which seems rather terse, oddly placed at the end, and unlinked to the main text; for example, how does chemiosmotic theory link with the main text?
Argh, terrible omission. Added definition of chemiosmosis and link in first section and lead. Hopefully, that gives more context. It goes best at the end though, since it discusses the discovery of things that are defined and explained above.
    • The alternative reductases and oxidases section felt a little brief. Are these alternative reactions substitutive or additive? What proportion of oxidative phosphorylation do they handle, where used?
Expression levels are variable, as noted at end of section on what advantages they may confer. No single simple answer I'm afraid.
    • A glossary might help newbies to understand the terminology, especially the numerous different names for the complexes. Care should be taken to choose one main naming convention and stick with it, eg in complex III figure caption, a different name is used from the text.
Caption fixed, I get rather lost in all the alternative names myself. I'm worried that hyperlinks and a glossary would be redundant. As I've gone along I've created articles on anything needing defining, so if there are any terms remaining unlinked that need articles, I'll do these as well.
    • The article uses US spelling, and should therefore standardise on 'heme'. I've done a lot of this, but complex II figure needs changing.
Fixed. Damn colonials.
    • In section on complex II, I couldn't make sense of 'As this reaction releases less energy than the reduction of oxidation of NADH' -- seems to be either a typo or a bad phrasing.
Typo, fixed.
    • In section on complex III, could mention that ubisemiquinone (Q.-) is a free radical.
Added.
    • Organisation of complexes section -- 'Initially, the respiratory chain complexes were thought to diffuse freely and independently in the mitochondrial membrane' is little unclear. When does initially refer to? Can you provide a reference?
Reworded and ref added.
    • In the Prokaryotic section, it read a little oddly when the introduction stated that the section would concentrate on E. coli, but later introduced Nitrobacter. I'd suggest separating these into sub-sections. Can the repetitive sentences that book-end the table be amalgamated? The sentence that starts 'This flexibility is possible' reads as a little clumsy; could you just say 'use the same ubiquinone pool'?
Reworded as you suggest and added ref.
    • The headers in the table on E. coli need some definitions, eg redox pair, midpoint potential. Can you give some idea of how common usage of these different redox pairs are?
These terms are all linked, defining "Midpoint potential" in particular would need an entire section of its own, which I added to the article I linked to, rather than this one. I've added an explanation of what "midpoint potential" indicates in practice to the last sentence above the table.
    • ATP synthase section -- the aside on vacuolar H+ATPases was a little confusing; perhaps it could be moved? 'Rotation might be caused by changes in the ionization of amino acids in this ring' (paragraph 4) 'in this ring' needs clarifying. I'd suggest not referencing colours of the diagram in the text as the text should stand alone if the figure is removed or changed.
On the other hand, if the figures change, the text can be changed as well, I think the colours are particularly important to help readers follow the animation.
    • I wondered whether colour coding for oxidised and reduced in various of the figures might be helpful?
    • The minus in e- is rather small in the figures.
Either minus enlarged in complex I and IV, or figure enlarged in complex III.
    • Figure captions use dash to introduce text, which is rather confusing given the abundance of hyphens in the compound names. Perhaps change to a colon or full stop?
Switched to colons.
    • Can 1st diagram on ATP synthase be modified to show the path of the protons?

Espresso Addict 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is FAC quality. I do have some comments and points were I (who never took Biochemistry) was confused.
    • Lead: I found the lead to be a little weak. I would like to see it introduce chemiosmosis (which is never mentioned in article text outside of the History section despite being used in subtitles and hatnotes). I would also like to see it clarify that "eletron transport chain" does not always mean the specific version used by mitochondria. I was confused by that point into thinking that the "Energy transfer by chemiosmosis" section was only talking of eukaryotes. Also the last two-sentance paragraph is very awkward.
Lead reworded to define chemiosmosis and electron transport chains.
    • Energy transfer by chemiosmosis: As I said above the term chemiosmosis is never mentioned in this section, which is confusing. I think it does give a nice overview, but when first reading it I couldn't understand that is was to be an overview and not the first step. I think it could be titled better.
Retitled "Overview of energy transfer by chemiosmosis".
    • Eukaryotic electron transport chains: This whole section is so good at times I forgot the article was meant to be about more than this. I understand the reasons, but it would be nice if the introductory paragraphs contained a disclaimer about why so much focus is given here.
Done, in second paragraph of this section's lead.
    • Electron transfer flavoprotein-Q oxidoreductase: This appears to me to be an "an alternative entry point to the electron transport chain." If I am correct, is there a reason it is not labeled as such like Complex II is. If I am wrong where does it fit in with the rest of the chain?
This is a quirk of the nomenclature for historical reasons that I'm not very clear about, I've reworded the first sentence of this and complex II to try to clarify their respective roles.
    • Prokaryotic electron transport chains: Can we have some illustrations here. Every illustration seems to involve a mitochondria. Also a short explanation of what midpoint potential would be useful, the link is not (unless of course you already understand it and expect the link to give you the detailed math).
Now defined in last sentence of text above table.
    • Reactive oxygen species: Molecular oxygen is . . . a strong oxidizing agent This sentence opens the section and seems a bit . . . circular. Can this be actually explained. "Oxidizing agent" to me means something that can not be shipped together with flammables. Also you mention the mitochondrial answer to this problem, what is the prokaryote answer?
Reworded to say "cells" rather than "mitochondria" as this is a universal problem in aerobic life.
    • Big picture: Maybe these thoughts have no place in this particular article, but I can't help wondering. This is obviously a key process, it seems to be the "raison d'être" of mitochondria. So I wonder is it? The sometimes-advantage of prokaryotes having a more flexible process is mentioned, but their also must be a disadvantage to that system. What advantage do mitochondria offer that explain their continued existence? I think it must have to do with this whole process. Does the evolution of this process and it varied forms deserve coverage in this article?--BirgitteSB 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "raison d'être" of mitochondria, as you put it, is increased surface area. That benefits oxidative phosphorylation, but it also benefits other metabolic functions that gain from having more membrane to work with. More membrane space allows more copies of the same enzymes, which allows those processes to occur in more places at once. At least, that's what high school biology taught me that I haven't since forgotten. —Verrai 05:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some small cleanups here and there I'm fixing as I find them, but nothing show(i.e.,FA)-stopping. (forgot to mention: very nice, comprehensive article covering the material well for multiple target audiences). DMacks 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typography question: in the enzymes and substrates table, do enzyme names contain the formatting of the underlying chemical terms? That is, should the "D" in "D-amino acid dehydrogenase" be small-caps, given that it represents the D optical isomer configuration? Likewise, should the "N" in "Trimethylamine N-oxide reductase" be italicized per IUPAC rules for locants? DMacks 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, enzyme names should follow chemical nomenclature, fixed the ones you mentioned. Tim Vickers 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Orion (mythology)

[edit]

Self nomination. I took this article in hand, after several complaints on the talk page that previous versions were pushing one interpretation of Greek mythology; but the result seems to be largely stable. I have avoided sythesizing a narrative out of the several different tellings of this myth in antiquity. It would be WP:SYNTH to assert that all the somewhat inconsistent authors are incomplete versions of some ur-story. I have also tried to avoid giving any undue weight to any of the modern interpretations of Greek mythology.

This has been to Peer Review, and the chief comment was "What influence has this myth had, aside from being a source for mythographers?" The answer seems to be: Not much. I have included such references to Orion, the myth as opposed to the constellation, in modern culture as I can find. Project Orion is not one; Ted Taylor took the name out of the sky at random.

I believe this complies with WP:MOS on such points of detail as the placement of footnotes. Please feel free to correct any oversights in such matters yourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed - I'm a bit busy but just on a quick look there are some preliminary housekeeping issues - refs need ISBNs and some other info such as publisher an location where available - putting in cite format would be really helpful. I'd also make that a subsection of footnotes above. Also, many paragraphs are short and the prose a bit choppy. I'll be back in a day or two but there's plenty to get started on. These things need addressing before a closer look. If not done in 2-3 days I'll be happy to chip in. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The lead should summarise the article - as is it meanders a bit and could do with reorganizing
Doubtless I am too familiar with it; it seems to me to fit the article well. Could you do a draft of what you have in mind? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent, well-referenced article. This should certainly be the template for other entries on figures from classical mythology. The complete referencing of the multipe and conflicting ancient accounts is certainly a great improvement on the usual attempt by encyclopedia to streamline these stories. To completely round off the article a brief section on the appearance of Orion in classical art would be perfect -- his appearance or lack thereof. The LIMC should have some information on this topic (a site/book linked to on the [Greek mythology] page. --Theranos 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent suggestion, which I have now followed; unfortunately LIMC does not return anything; neither does Perseus Project, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that there is any better encyclopedic article on Orion; thus I have no other choice but to support this well-researched and well-worked article, despite my reservations. And my reservations - proposals for improvement at the same time - are mainly concentrated on the following issues:
  • Prose: sometimes I get the impression it gets choppy and a bit seamless. Especially the last paragraphs in "Variants", the whole "Relationships", and the first half of "Modern Interpretations" are IMO a bit problematic: too short sentences not well inter-connected. See also paragraphs like this one: "An inscription cataloged by epigraphist Louis Robert shows that the veneration of Orion at Tanagra extended well into Roman times.[6] Hyria (Orion's purported birthplace) lay in the territory of Tanagra.[7] Orion could be a considered "national hero" to the region, and he may have been the divine champion of the Boeotians to which an Athenian epigram attributed their defeat at the Battle of Coronea. [8]" The sentence "Hyria (Orion's purported birthplace) lay in the territory of Tanagra." is in the middle of nowhere. In general I agree with the "dry" comment of Anomie in the peer-review, and I think you should make the flow of the prose a bit "smoother".
  • "There are, as often, numerous variants in other authors; most of these are incidental mentions in poems and scholiasts. Vergil, for instance, shows[30] Orion, as a giant, not walking on the Aegean, but wading through it." In cases like this one I feel that the citation would be better placed at the end of the sentence.
  • Something I may not have got correctly. We have two versions of his death: 1) Artemis hit and killed him. 2) Earth created the Scorpion; and then what? I may imagine what happened but ... And it is Scorpio or Scorpion?
  • Since Orion (constellation) is linked within the text (in the lead), do you really need the "See also" section?
  • I did not go in detail through the "Notes" and "References", and, therefore, I cannot comment on any possible inconsistencies with MoS.--Yannismarou 14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article needs a copyedit by a third-party. These are some examples of prose problems:
  • "It also has different death story" - missing "a"?
  • "Several sources tell different stories of how Artemis killed Orion, either with her arrows, or by producing the Scorpion." I think "several" should be replaced by "other"
  • "Ancient poets differed greatly on who it was that Aesculapius brought back from the dead; for which Zeus killed him with a lightning bolt." - the semi-colon should be a comma. Who did Zeus kill: Aesculapius or the person brought back from the dead?
  • "In the Odyssey, Ulysses sees him hunting in the Underworld, a great slayer of animals, with a bronze club; but he is also mentioned as a constellation, as the lover of the Goddess Dawn - slain by Artemis; and as the most handsome of the earthborn." - was the Underworld a great slayer of animals? The semi-colon before "but" should be a comma. The comma after "constellation" should be a semi-colon. The hyphen should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
    • This is the same delusion as below that equal main clauses, in the presence of semicolons, can be separated by commas. There should be a comma after Artemis; anyone who wishes to play with hyphens is free to do so. and i've changed the punctuating nyphen. 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hyginus also connects him with several constellations"– the "also" is redundant
  • "until Zeus intervened and raised the whole lot to the stars" - "the whole lot" isn't encyclopedic
  • "the story that he chases the Pleiades themselves goes back to the Works and Days." - "that" should be replaced by "in which". Who is "he"? "Goes back to" isn't encyclopedic. "Themselves" is redundant.
  • "sources vary in what they include; but the major incidents" - the semi-colon should be a comma
    • This is a compound sentence; the second half includes not only commas, but semicolons; dividing with a comma would be a hierarchy error. Compare Fowler's Modern English Usage "Stops", §Semi-colons. But it may be that the sentence should be divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PDF sources need to be labelled.
  • Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens. Epbr123 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these are valuable; and the article does need a copyedit. I disagree on others; in general, schoolmarm English is a bug, not a feature. On still others, Epbr123 would cut information in his copy edit; in particular, there are multiple sources which say that Artemis killed Orion, more numerous than those which say, like Hesiod, that Gaea did. "Other sources tell different stories of how Artemis killed Orion" would lose this implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As often above, Epbr123 has found points where the prose genuinely needs consideration. It would be more helpful if he had identified the problems correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just letting you know that you should never strike through other users' comments. Thanks. Epbr123 11:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Feel free to unstrike; this was only a way of marking which comments are now moot, since they deal with particular pieces of the text which have been changed. Other comments are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Support. 1a and MOS. Here are a few of the many issues. Please don't just fix these. Someone new should run through the whole text (it's worth it—the article has merit, but fails thus far).
    • "fairly obscure"—Like "quite" and "very", "fairly" is unencyclopedically vague.
    • "the margins of ancient poets"—what, around their waists?
    • Why the blue background for Note 2? I hope that "dubious" really is authoritatively justified in this source.
    • Notes: "572-7" and many other instances—Read MOS on number ranges (en dash and double closing digit. required). Same for References.
    • "most of the stories of him are only recorded in incidental allusions"—No, position "only" as far to the right as possible: this is ambiguous.
    • "Corinna sang of Orion conquering and naming all the land of the dawn.[29]"—Is this a whole paragraph? There are other similarly stubby paras.
    • MOS breach concerning quotation italics.
  • MOS breach concerning ranges (en dash).
  • Support -- Excellent and enlightening. Nothing that would improve the article is immediately obvious to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has 82 footnotes, in small font. Anyone who can see the difference between a hyphen and an ndash, at that scale, and feels the labor of changing them the most effective contribution they can make to WP, or to this article, should feel free to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I've asked several places for a copyeditor. If they agree with Epbr123 in wanting a comma splice, or Tony1 in his desire to call a source 40% obscure, and to separate "only" from the word it modifies, so be it; English is established by consensus. For my part, I am relieved that it is such details we are discussing, instead of Yannismarou's substantive qualms, which I hope I have answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please check the Footnotes for appropriateness, completeness and format. Example: "Another mythographer, Liberalis, tells of Menippe and Metioche, daughters of Orion, who sacrificed themselves for their country's good and were transformed into comets." The footnote to this sentence leads to a wikilink of an article on Antoninus Liberalis plus a page number. I do not see a work by Antoninus Liberalis under References. Thank you. Mattisse 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the quite standard method of citing poems and classical texts, by book and chapter, paragraph, or line; one example of it is cited in WP:ATTFAQ. I have added the (redundant) information that the title of Liberalis' work is the Metamorphoses and that 25 is a section number; Liberalis' work is the only thing he wrote, and is a single book. When, as usual, the division is standard across editions, it is both customary and preferable to citing the page of a specific edition, which is useless to anyone who does not have access to that edition.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATTFAQ is not a current standard and the page is being retained for historical reasons only. Please read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS. Mattisse 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched the implosion of WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ at close hand. Large parts of them were controversial and widely deprecated; large parts of them were never disputed. This is one of the latter; it should be salvaged. If WP:CITE doesn't say anything about using the methods of citing usual in a given field of scholarship, it really ought to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm supporting in terms of readability and this being an informative article. I learnt a fair amount reading it, and nothing really jumped out except one thing: is it possibly to have something on the name? I'll explain in more detail below. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Etymology. Is Orion the English translation of the Greek name? Would it be possible to have (a) the original Greek name given somewhere (in the Greek alphabet); and (b) the point at which the name Orion entered the English language - was it it, for example, a recent translation from a Greek or Latin text, or does the name enter the English language much earlier? I realise this is an article about the mythical person, not the etymology of the name, but I wondered if a paragraph or two on this would be possible? I brief look at this etymology suggests that a brief discourse on this could touch on Orion in other cultures as well, though that may veer too far towards the constellation material. Essentially, what I am asking is how much does Orion, the Greek myth, influence the words and myth of Orion that spread to other cultures? I see there has been discussion on the talk page of the Greek etymology (did this get dropped?), and some of the possible precursor concepts (was this also dropped?), but not much on the transmission of the name and myth after Greek times. The etymology I linked to above says: "1398, from Gk. Oarion, of unknown origin, though some speculate on Akkadian Uru-anna "the Light of Heaven." Another Gk. name for it was Kandaon, a title of Ares, god of war, and it is represented in most cultures as a giant (e.g. O.Ir. Caomai "the Armed King," O.N. Orwandil, O.S. Ebuðrung)." (Orwandil = Orvandil, the other links mostly don't work; Gk. is Ancient Greek, O.Ir is Old Irish, O.N is Old Norse, O.S. is Old Saxon). Most of this, may, of course, be to do with the constellation, not the Greek mythical figure, and the 'Modern' section does touch on this. It might be helpful to ferret out approximately when the English began to refer to the constellation as Orion, and what they called it before that, and how this relates to the Greek myth. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Orion is the transliteration of the Greek. I'm not sure when the Anglo-Saxons began to use the Greek constellations; presumably before Solomon and Saturn. For Candaon, see that article; what sources I can find on that obscure name regard the identification with the hero Orion as doubtful; the constellation is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, is it possible to say in the article that the name Orion is a transliteration from the original Greek, and to give the Greek it is transliterated from? And to say when it was first transliterated (in modern times, and earlier times, back to A-S times)? Just some sort of idea when people would have first been using the English word 'Orion' and whether they would have meant the constellation or the hero or both. The transliteration bit should be easy - the rest might be harder, so don't worry if there are no definite answers in the sources. Carcharoth 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: the article now has the original Greek as well, that's wonderful. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates. Could the historical context be made clearer by scattering a few "2nd century BC" and similar references through the text? eg. Hesiod ~ 700BC, Homer 7-8 century BC. There are vague phrases like "as late as the Roman Empire" (relies on the reader knowing the dates of the Roman Empire - better to give a date range). Natalis Comes - say that this is now 16th century. Phrases like "There was a movement a century ago" will date - in 20 years times, people will be unclear what you are referring to. Give the dates of the movement, as well as saying "a century ago". Also, many of cultural references are missing dates, eg. in the last sentence. And the last sentence is a bit of a poor ending. I think the ending of an article is as important as the start. Bring the narrative to a close in some way. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dates are a useful idea. I'll see what I can do; one problem is that the dates of most of the sources are doubtful; for example, the Astronomy may not even be by Hesiod, and Hesiod's date (and identity) are disputed.
      • I will see if I can think of a way to end the whole article with a bang; I am accustomed to newspaper style, which encourages articles to trail off with the least important elements. The modern cultural uses are last because they depend on the explanation of the myth in the rest of the article, and I don't see any slambang finish there; but I've put Eliot last, as the best available. Suggestions are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best I can see is the passage
        The other, which Diodorus ascribes to Hesiod, relates that there was once a broad sea between Sicily and the mainland. Orion built the whole Peloris, the Punta del Faro, and the temple to Poseidon at the tip, after which he settled in Euboea. He was then "numbered among the stars of heaven and thus won for himself immortal remembrance".
      But this is the logical end to the myth, not the article - it used to be the end of that section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does this bit "The margin of the Empress Eudocia's copy", link Eudocia (presumably a woman) with the man Euphorion of Chalcis? Needs more explanation. Carcharoth 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The footnote was misplaced in the copy-edit. In general, I have tried to keep obscure names (Euphorion, Apollodorus, Liberalis) in footnotes, and restrict the text to writers the general reader may have heard of before, like Homer, Ovid and Lucian. The link appears to be some effort at disambiguation; unfortunately, my source simply said Eudocia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "One modern critic suggests this is the original version." - the footnote says "Fontenrose" - some readers will know to then look at the Bibliography, and see you mean the book by Fontenrose published in 1981. Others will find this too obscure and not understand what you've said here. Can you not set things up so people can click Fontenrose in the reference, and be taken to the bibliography? Carcharoth 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Now, in the twentieth century..." - we are now in the 21st century. Pre-ceding sentence needs changing as well (the "a century ago" bit). Carcharoth 10:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Philip Glass has also written a shorter work on Orion, as have Tōru Takemitsu,[78] Kaija Saariaho,[79] and John Casken.[80] David Bedford's late-twentieth-century works are about the constellation rather than the mythical figure as he is an amateur astronomer.[81]" - the date details here are shoved down to footnotes, and the other details (Japanese, Finnish, English) are only available if people click on the links. It feels like you've shortened a trivia list here. I'd suggest either including them properly, or leaving out. Carcharoth 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. I didn't have the time to read the whole article yet, but I will do so within the next couple of days. It looks good so far. Except:
    • "He is described as a great hunter in the ancient Greek epic, the Odyssey, when Odysseus meets him in the underworld." Are "great hunter" the words used by Homer? In that case, quotation marks would be appropriate.
    • "In the Odyssey, Ulysses sees him hunting in the underworld, a great slayer of animals with a bronze club, and he is also mentioned as a constellation as the lover of the Goddess Dawn—slain by Artemis—and as the most handsome of the earthborn." Though I don't feel very strongly about this and definately wouldn't insist on it, it might be better to either use Ulysses or Odysseus, to make the article easier to follow for people who don't know much about the Odyssey.
    • "In several cases, although the work that has come down to us bears the name of a famous scholar, such as Apollodorus of Athens, Eratosthenes, or Gaius Julius Hyginus, what survives is often an ancient forgery or an abridgment of the original compilation by a later writer of dubious competence." Again, I don't feel very strongly about this either, but I think using first person pronouns just sounds really unprofessional.
      • Standard English idiom, especially in this field; but we can use "surviving", I suppose. I have changed; "surviving" is shorter, but I think less vivid. If anyone else misses the idiom, do change back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had quite a few English teachers discourage any use of first person pronouns in formal writing, so I guess I'm kind of allergic to it. Anyway, according to WP:MOS: "it is sometimes appropriate to use we or one when referring to an experience that anyone, any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences". So using "us" is without question within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, I personally really dislike it though.--Carabinieri 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When they offered him a favor, he asked for the birth of sons. The gods took the bull's hide and ejaculated, or urinated, into it[11] and buried it in the earth, then told him to dig it up ten lunations later." Evem if it's not exactly the same thing, I think months will do in place of "lunations".
    • "A second full telling (even shorter than the summary of Hesiod) is in a Roman-era collection of myths based largely on the mythologist and poet Pherecydes of Leros." Neither webster.com, nor askoxford.com list "telling" as a noun. Are you sure this is correct usage?--Carabinieri 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now finished reading the article. I think it's close to FA, but there are still a few issues. Especially the third in this list bothers me and keeps me from supporting:
    • "One modern critic suggests this is the original version." I think the critic deserves to be called by his name. Though this isn't a case of WP:AWW, because the source of the statement is given in the footnote, I think it would be better to make this more obvious or explicit. Why not "Joseph Fontenrose, classical scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, suggests ..."?
      • Because it would be verbose. Fontenrose is fully credited with his interpretation below; this is a side issue. Given the necessary emphasis on the three gods below, it seems useful to have the disagreement here in the text; anyone who cares which scholar has a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Peck, p.200; giving Hyginus's etymology for Urion, but describing it as "fantastic". Oeneus from Kerenyi Gods, citing Servius's note to Aeneid 10.763; which actually reads Oenopion; but this may be corruption." Peck isn't in the list of references. Is this supposed to be Pack?
    • "Other ancient scholia say, as does Hesiod, that Orion was the son of Poseidon and his mother was a daughter of Minos; but they call the daughter Brylle or Hyeles." Now that is a bit weasly. There are more cases of this: "Latin sources", "Other mythographers", "One source", "Later mythographers, etc. Wouldn't it be easier to just name these sources/mythographers?
      • I doubt it would be easier. There are three classes of ancient sources here:
        1. The general reader may be expected to have heard of Hesiod, Ovid, Lucian, and so forth; or at least to recognize that they are someone literate people have heard of. These are named in the text.
        2. Names like Apollodorus, Hyginus, Servius, and Euphorion are likely to be more intimidating than useful. It is useful to identify Servius as Latin; it may be useful to identify him as third century AD, or the annotator of Vergil; but his name will help only a small minority, and they won't need the other identifications. These names are in the notes, as far as practicable, which further include (for Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, and Hyginus) the consensus assertion that the work that has come down to us bearing the name X is almost certainly not by X. Explaining this in the text would be digressive.
        3. Several of the sources are anonymous scholia, only citable with such forms as "scholiast to Nicander's Theriaca, l. 15." These are not in the text; sometimes, they are not in the notes, because no Wikipedian has consulted them. These cannot be named; in some cases, the scholiast does not cite any source. There are footnotes citing Frazer's notes to Apollodorus, and Kerenyi; these are where I found them.
      This is in part a reaction to the form I found, which repeatedly wrote of Pseudo-Eratosthenes. I found this confusing and unnecessary, and I'm a classicist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt repeating the words "source" and "mythographer" over and over is particularly useful. Who's going to be intimidated by Latin and Greek names? Even if most people won't know who these people are, they'll figure they are sources or mythographers and in some cases would even be helped by links to the articles about the sources/mythographers. What I'm saying is there's no harm in naming the people.--Carabinieri 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll do a read-through, and see if there is avoidable repetition. All I can say about intimidation is that I was. These are the most obscure authors imaginable; having their names thrown at me as though I might be expected to know them was daunting. Furthermore, I had at least heard of some of them; and there were fewer of them then than now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Orion is used by Horace, who tells of his death at the hands of Diana/Artemis" WP:MOS discourages the use of slashes, "as it suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how".
  • Support --Vonones 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Triptych, May–June 1973

[edit]

Self nom. 1973 triptych by the Irish artist Francis Bacon, and the second in his series of three "Black Triptychs". Thanks to Outriggr for help with the prose. Ceoil 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support - Overall good job, but I'm still not thrilled at the way the frist couple paragraphs under Biographical context read. Otherwise, good.--Esprit15d 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Oppose: Overall, the article is good -- very thorugh and well researched. But I feel the composition could use some improvement. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:[reply]
1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "when he painted" - during this time painting (when isn't totally right)
  • "from the event," - rm the comma
Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was reading the biographical context section, I found the first ten sentences or so a bit disjointed and jarring - not in content but order. One minute we were reading a Dyer bio, then suddenly about Bacon's attraction to him. I would start off the whole section with this "Bacon's prior affairs had all been with older men, and though those men were similarly tumultuous, Bacon had been the one who was dominated. Bacon's first lover Peter Lacy would often tear up the young artist's paintings, and in drunken rages, beat up him up, and leave him on the street half conscious."[9] In contrast, Bacon was attracted to Dyer's vulnerability and trusting nature. Then, start a new paragraph after "...between theft, borstal, and jail." Group information describing Dyer's general demeanor and appearance together, followed by the sentence beginning "Dyer was typical of Bacon's taste..." (this sentence should be preceded by the sentence beginning "Dyer was a borderline alcoholic...") The rearrangement most probably will necessitate some rephrasing for clarity. This sentence: "However, over time those traits overwhelmed their affair, and by 1970, Bacon was just providing Dyer with enough money to stay more or less permanently drunk." should probably be moved to later on, to follow the chronological progression of the section.
Outriggr has looked after this. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence "Many critics have cited Dyer's portraits as favourites, including Michel Leiris and Lawrence Gowling." would be better placed in a Critical response section (or something similarly named)
There is not enough published material available to create a "critical reception" section. Very often Bacon's paintings went straight into private collections, and though I was unable to find out for sure, I think thats what hapened here. Paintings are not like albums; they are not "released", and generally Bacon's paintings did not ssurface until they were featured in retrospectives. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to draw Bacon's attention" - should be followed by a comma
Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had planted cannabis" - rm "had"
Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence "In an effort to draw Bacon's attention he had planted cannabis in Bacon's flat before phoning the police, and had attempted suicide on a number of earlier occasions." breaks up the narrative: (a) What call to the police? (B) Mention the suicide attempts before this (since it occurs before the evening being discussed) probably in the previous paragraph, near the end.
  • "along with the deaths of his friends Belcher, Rawsthorn, Watson, Deakin, and his nanny Winifred" - who are these people? They are like a laundry list of unknowns. There deaths might be mentioned earlier OR collectively ("several friends lost over the course of his life") OR add some context for whom these persons are. You might think of a better way to incorporate it.
All notables, except for the nanny, though she was a strong character in herself. I'm very taken by these people, they seem like the kind of persons it would be fun to go for a pint with, expect stubbs. For now outriggr has clarified. Ceoil 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bacon rendered this awareness by pronouncing a wristwatch" - I think pronounce is probably the wrong word; it doens't make much sense here.
Bacon used an interesting technique here, but I haven't explained it properly. Will have a think, deleting until I have a better sentence. Ceoil 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "panel is bounded" - is bound
See comment below. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1b. Comprehensive? I would think there should be a Critical response section. Critique is scattered throughout, sometimes well, sometimes jarringly.
See above. Ceoil 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1c. Factually accurate?
  • This sentence "Bacon's treatment of his lover in these canvasses emphasises his subject's physicality while remaining uncharacteristically tender". needs a reference, unless it is already substatiated by reference 11.
Need to check that. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source covers it. Ceoil 13:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings Yes
2c. Table of contents? Yes
2d. Sufficient inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: I question the use of Female Nude Standing in a Doorway 1972 in this article. Its connection to this article is tenuous.
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, notes the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Esprit, for such a considered review; I'll take on board you points and report back when resolved. Ceoil 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor note on "is bounded": this seems correct, as the usage is not the past tense of "bind", but "bound (v)--form the boundary of; be contiguous to". See entry four at m-w.com. –Outriggr § 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note of interest, I posted two replies to Esprit, but they are not appearing on my screen. one, two. Very odd. Ceoil 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) They were corrupted by a html template which has since been removed. Ceoil 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I'd like to see more work on the writing. Here are a few morsels to get you going.
  • MOS breach in the title: unspaced en dash clearly required, since "1973" applies to both months. Check that the creators got it wrong, I guess.
I've moved the page as suggested. We were unsure of the correct format at the time. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "setting a record for a Bacon canvas"—OK, it's an attempt at elegance, but the metaphor is a little laboured. Do canvases sell for so much? "Work". And later, it's spelt with a double s.
Reworded as "work"; double s is the correct plural form for Brit Eng? Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate "burglarizing": come on, guys.
Agree, reworded. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our readers shouldn't have to hit the "borstal" link to learn what it means. Gloss on the spot, in a brief phrase.
Rephrased as "juvenile detention center", left it unlinked. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely BrEng is the go here? Why "spiraled"?
Spiraled was maybe a little over dramatic; reworded with the slightly less excitable "descended"; he did go downhill fairly rapidly. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "spiraled" is US spelling—that was my point. Tony 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I missed that; but I'm sticking with 'descended'. As regards US spelling, this is with a large pinch of salt [88] Anyway, I take your pont and will look over the text for similar lapses. Ceoil 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Oklahoma

[edit]

Self Nomination Oklahoma's Centennial is coming up, and the article has undergone extensive renovation. The article is concise, well cited, and comprehensive. Okiefromokla•talk 02:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Close, but not there yet... Some issues to consider:
  • The lead does not really need to be explicitly referenced. I wouldn't necessarily consider removing any refs, but since the lead is a summary, every fact in the lead should be referenced later in the article.
  • The economy section seems incomplete. No mention is given to agriculture, yet the lead specifically calls it a "major food producer". Indeed the entire section reads a tad hagiographic. Have there been NO issues, no negative sectors of the Oklahoma economy at ALL?
  • The cities and towns section does not explain the defintion of these in an Oklahoma context. Definitions of "cities" and of "towns" varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An explanatory paragraph may help.
  • The Brances of Gov't section makes NO mention of the executive, and there are two paragraphs smashed into one. There should be 3 paragraphs here: One for Executive one for Legislative and one for Judicial. Since the one paragraph that is there deals with two unrelated topics (legislative and judicial) it should at LEAST be split.
The article still needs some spit polish. This should be a start. I am sure others will find some issues. It is a pretty darned good start at an FA, but still not quite there yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that the agriculture section I added is a little small, but I managed to pick the highlights of some very boring stats and reports. Let me know if you have any suggestions for more content if needed. I added a negative fact to economy (OK is one of the worst states for using of non-renewable energy) but not sure what else to add. I looked at Minnesota (the only state featured article) for some ideas, but its just a rundown of the economic strengths and statistics of that state and not much help. Lastly, I usually argue against removing refs from the lead (my personal feelings), but since every ref in the lead is already in the body, it wouldn't be difficult to remove them if that's what is decided here or if you feel strongly about it. Thanks for the suggestions and thanks in advance for continued input. Okiefromokla•talk 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I reworked the lead a bit and changed the ref layout to be less cluttered. Okiefromokla•talk 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caught one more thing "total of twelve years service in both the House and Senate"... Is that 12 cumulative years, or 12 years per house? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cumulative. I changed the wording to make it more clear and added a ref since it wasn't in the current one. Okiefromokla•talk 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Improved; provisional neutral. 1a. Gets off to a cracking pace, and I was looking forward to adding my support. But then I struck trouble as early as the lead:
    • "A hotbed for college athletics"—Some readers will have visions of locker rooms and showers. Reword.
Done
    • See MOS on linking: why are many dictionary words linked? We do speak English. For example, in the lead, "mountain ranges", "forests", "Christianity", "territory", none of them piped to a focused article. Please audit the whole article for these and delink so that high-value links are not diluted.
Will do. Though remember Wikipedia is worldwide. Would you support wikilinking the word Taoism or even Islam? Christianity is not a worldwide religion, and certainly has a point to the article, as it descirbes the overwhelming religious makeup of the state. "Territory" is linked to Territories of the United States, since this is what Indian Territory was, and that's the subject of the sentence. I will go through and comb the lesser-needed wikilinks.
    • What is this doing in the lead? Even without the extraneous stuff, it has problems.
"With a prevalence of German and Native American ancestry, more than 25 languages are spoken in the state, the most in the nation.[12]Hmm...that's funny Manahattan has about 190 and Roges Park in Chicago ( only 1.9 sq miles) has about 120 languages."
That was vandalism added early this morning, its deleted now. About your comment that the lead has problems: You should know that I have a hard time writing great leads. If the lead is really so bad, please give productive suggestions for improving it if needed, rather than opposing the article because of it.
    • "It" (I guess that means Oklahoma) once served as a ... territory for Native Americans. Um, I think it's strange to cast an administrative/political unit of the conquering Europeans as a territory that had any meaning whatsoever to the original owners.
I don't care to argue the socio-political meaning of Indian Territory but during most of the 19th century it was an organized territory designated to Native Ameircans by the federal government, which recieved dozens of relocated tribes. Please read through the history section. I did, however, reword it to make it clear what the terrotory was.
    • "roughly even political makeup"—it's sort of explained in the rest of the sentence, but this is a vague, unsatisfactory expression. And how can political "makeup" (rather informal word for this context) be defined by the number of registered voters for parties: that is only one narrow definition.
I changed the wording to make it more clear.

And at random: "Forests cover approximately 24% of the state"—Remove "approximately"; the lack of decimal point flags that it's approximate. Temperature chart: Ugly Upper-Case Letters And Rather Large Font Size. Plus indicate F/C somewhere. % then percent. Metric equivalents throughout (I noticed acres). Caption for oil machine is missing a word and a hyphen. "Arts and theater"—category problem in that title. Just "Arts". "Fine art museums"—hyphen, I think. "Carries a circulation"? Has. En dashes and hyphens mixed in list of religions.

The section is Art and theater because it talks about art and theater. This is a common section title in FA places, I have never seen anyone object to it. Also, you are incorrect, it is number, then % sign.

Another issue is that all 158 references are to websites, although there are plenty of books in "Further reading". Bit unbalanced.

It is not a requirement for featured articles to be sourced from books. In fact, many editors believe websites should be the only citations since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and its easy to have the source at your fingertips rather than to have to find a book to check if the statement is accurately cited.

Please engage new collaborators to help sift through the prose of the entire article. What I've mentioned here is just a small sample. This is worth saving and can be brought up to standard if you act now. Tony 11:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting; I have been waiting a while for someone to comment. As you can see, I went through and commented on each of your points, and some of them I do not agree with (I hopefully fixed the issues you pointed out that I didn't comment on). Also, please give more examples of what needs to be "sift"ed out of the prose. I read through it, and it appears fine to me. Okiefromokla•talk 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. You need to locate collaborators; fresh eyes are a great advantage at this stage. There are many copy-editors on WP lurking on the edit-history pages of similar articles. Ask them nicely. You've used both "%" and "percent": that was my point—consistency within an article is required. While I was flicking through to confirm that, I found a hyphen used wrongly as a minus sign; have you decided whether your C degree signs will be spaced or unspaced? Read MOS on units of measurement and math. symbols. Tony 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have to say I am very relieved you didn't mean that the "%" sign goes before the percent number... I was a little worried lol. All the %s have been changed to "percent" except for in the religion section, because to paraphrase WP:MOS: "percent" should be used in the body of the text except in complicated lists. I have taken care of other dash/hyphen, metric, temperature degree spacing, and other MOS problems, at least the ones I caught. I will continue to double check for errors periodically, as you might want to as well before supporting the article. About the prose needing a copy-edit, I have asked some editors for help, but I am also frustrated that this wouldn't be something I can't fix on my own. We can wait, of course, for some other editors to comb through the article but I would extremely appreciate any example you could give me so I could also attempt to work on it myself. Any particular sections in need? Any particular specific issues? Also, are you fine with what I have done in response to your previous list of requests? I'd like to cross out all that have been satisfied. Thanks again. Okiefromokla•talk 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left and right side images squeezing text to one word a line. Need to fiddle with them to avoid this. Also at the top of the History section.
I don't know what you mean. With my resolution and pic size preference there are no problems like this anywhere in the article. Usually, the number of words per-line is different for different resolutions or pic prefs, so there really isn't a way for the article to look uniform for every possible setting on each induvidual computer. Someone is bound to get a version that doesn't look as flowing as it does on most resolutions. If I can fix it, I will, but since there isn't any problem on my end I can't see what to do.
  • Temperature table: text now obscured.
Not sure what you mean by this, but I increased the font size for good measure.
  • 56 and 17 inches; um ... in normal speak, what's that?
I added the metric conversion, if that't what you meant.

*"Man-made"—well, many readers would prefer a gender-neutral term, but it's not mandatory. "Articificial"?

I'm not sure "artificial" is the right word. They're not "artificial" lakes, they're real lakes that were created by dams, so to say they are "artificial" is a little misleading, I think. I'll try to think of a better way to put it in the article maybe.*"United States history"—"American" better?
done.
  • "the state had the fastest growing gross domestic product in the nation from 2005 to 2006, with a 10.8 percent rate of growth over the previous year, totaling $134 billion in 2006." "Fastest-growing" avoids possible ambiguity. Remove "over the previous year. We're told this in the lead, too, but nowhere do you provide the GDP per capita, which many readers would like as a measure of wealth.
Removed "over previous year" and inserted GDP per-capita.

*"Economy" section has lots of trivial links, such as "energy" and "government" (??)—they're not even piped to "Energy in Oklahoma". These should all go, so that important ones stand out. This issue hasn't been addressed throughout. I can see about a hundred. All spattered blue, which is harder to read and spoils the nice look of your article.

I went through and eliminated more wikilinks, let me know if its enough. Okiefromokla•talk 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't had time to read this word for word, but it looks good. The lead compiles with WP:LEAD, and I am satisfied with the citations.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I never did respond after all of the changes were made. This article is much improved, and I am glad to lend my support to it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support After briefly looking over this article, I feel that it is worthy of FA status. I'm very impressed with the number of citations. The article is extremely thorough. I wonder if the article may, in fact, go into a bit too much depth in a few sections; perhaps some of that material would be better suited for subarticles? Still, I am fully behind granting this article FA status. Great work! --MatthewUND(talk) 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • Should probably add that there are no major league teams to the start of the sports section
    • Aren't OU/OSU sports the biggest sports draw in the state? Maybe they should be made more prominent in the section.
    • Clarify that PRI is broadcast in the state, not based there (based in in my state :)
    • Need to mention Native American government in some way.
  • Other than that it's excellent! It's a lot of work getting a start article to FA isn't it? I worked on Minnesota for months. -Ravedave 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. I should thank you because I used Minnesota as a rough guideline for content when I and other editors almost completely rewrote this article. I do have a few reservations about a couple of your suggestions though:
  • I don't really see reason to clutter the sports section with repetitive information, since it is already clearly stated that: "The NBA's New Orleans Hornets became the first major sports franchise based in Oklahoma when ... " Besides, most states don't have major sports teams, so I don't know if its such an important fact to clearly spell out that Oklahoma doesn't. It should be clear when only minor league professional teams are mentioned in the section.
  • I added "minor league" in front of professional, that clears it up for me. Here in MN if you say "professional sports" people think major league, hence my confusion.
  • While OU and OSU are certainly large sports attractions, since its a short section and there is limited space, I chose to order the three paragraphs in the most logical order I could: regular professional sports, irregular professional sports (the hornets, golf tournaments, etc), and college sports. I would have to probably re-write and re-structure the section to put college sports more at the top, and I certainly will do so but I wanted to explain the reasoning behind why it's this way before I did. What do you think?
  • I personally would rank them by attendance/popularity, but this way is fine. It was my impression OKans were rabid OU fans.
Haha, well half of us would applaud you for that and half of us would probably stone you for that. I went to OSU for a semester myself... Okiefromokla•talk 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other two bullets I completed.
Thanks! Okiefromokla•talk 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, I left additional comments above but the article is definitely FA quality. Congrats! -Ravedave 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I absolutely think that this should be a FA. I translate it to Norwegian, and think it's very good. Jannizz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

[edit]

Self nomination. I believe this article meets the Featured Article Criteria. It is of a suitable length; in-line citations have been used clearly; images are relevant, have no copyright restrictions, and contain suitably detailed captions. References have been ordered by surname and web links have been correctly formatted. It passed the Good Article review, and the reviewer suggested it be nominated for Featured Article status once the issues he detailed had been fixed. These have now been resolved. The content is relevant and does not go into too much detail.PeterSymonds 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer.) This article is well-researched, beautifully written and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. The article clearly articulates its main points and engages the reader. Well done. Awadewit | talk 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This appears to be very comprehensive. My only complaint would be that the wording describing her fall from favor and reinstatement could be just a bit clearer. I was confused at first before I read it carefully. Her fall from favor in 1811 was final with Anne, but after Anne died in 1814, Sarah returned to favor. The important thing to mention is that the death lead to the reinstatement, and this would solve this problem in the LEAD and other places. Just a couple of words would do the trick.--Filll 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out PeterSymonds 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Sorry to take so long to vote on this but I started to read it thoroughly and then finding out many things I did not know going off to check them and then getting caught in diverting tangents. This page is great - truly the sort of page I enjoy reading. I particularly love the lead image, this article does not even have a horrible info box - truly amazing. I wish I had written it. I look forward to seeing on the main page very soon. Giano 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your support and very kind comments! PeterSymonds 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is a very good article and in my opinion within touching distance of FA quality. The fact that you have used excellent sources is a great strength. I have a list of points and queries, but none is major: if they are addressed, I am sure I'll be able to support.

Noting that this is the nominators's first major article, I urge him not to be daunted by my nitpicks. (I've been put through the most colossal sets of requirements at FAs myself and managed to come through, making the articles better in the process.) Beyond my comments below, the article also needs a thorough copy edit, in my opinion. This is probably best done by someone other than the author; so I'll have a bash myself. (Please feel free to change back any of my edits you don't like, of course.) Meanwhile, thanks for this valuable article; I enjoyed reading it very much.

If you could note (no need for green ticks) when any points are addressed, I'll look at each one again.

  • After Sarah's dismissal in 1711 and revival of favour in 1714, she devoted her time to building projects such as Blenheim Palace, and campaigning on behalf of the Whigs. Did she do this only after 1714, or between 1711 and 1714 as well? (I know the answer, but I don't think it's clear from the wording.)
Addressed. Could you possibly take a look at this change? It doesn't seem to flow well but it could just be me. Thank you in advance for your help. PeterSymonds 13:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, I think.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the two connected. For me, this needs to be more precise. Did they fall in love, become attracted to each other, want to marry?
Addressed.
  • It is likely that John hoped to have Sarah as a mistress to replace the recently departed Duchess of Cleveland. I'm not sure what "departed" means here.
Addressed. She went to France because she fell out of favour with Charles II; I think it would be too much to put this detail in, so I've simply put "who had recently departed for France." If you think it should be different please feel free to change it and/or let me know PeterSymonds 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, now I see.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention the revolution of 1688, which was surely one of the most momentous events in Sarah's life. I don't feel that the event is adequately explained in the body of the text, either, where we are told that James had Sarah and Anne arrested but not really why. I think it should be mentioned that Sarah's husband deserted the king for William of Orange.
Addressed. Quite right, the Revolution should have been mentioned in the lead. I've also added the reason why Anne and Sarah were imprisoned at Whitehall PeterSymonds 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has helped a lot.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • placed under house arrest at the Cockpit in the Palace of Whitehall. I fear I don't know what the Cockpit is.
Addressed. Changed to Anne's residence. The Cockpit was the old Tudor cock-fighting pit. It was converted into a residence and given to Anne by Charles II after her marriage to George of Denmark. I'll put a note by "Anne's residence" explaining this. PeterSymonds 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned something there. I wonder if it should be red-linked, for someone to write an article about in the future?qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader has to work out that Sarah was a Protestant. But that's a significant piece of information, for this period. I'd suggest that the religious context be introduced earlier. Sarah's Protestantism helps explain her support for Anne, for William and Mary over James, for the Whigs, and her choice of marriage partner.
Added a bit about her being a Protestant in the marriage section. It is placed in but I'm not sure how well it fits. Perhaps you could take a look and see if you could improve it. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there: that's the main thing. It seems fine.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Sarah implied that she had acted for the safety of Princess Anne, it is more likely that she was protecting herself and her husband. Acted/protecting in what way? We have only been told that she was arrested and then escaped.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Anne dismiss Sarah (I can guess, but what reasons did she give?).
Addressed. In the end, Anne refused to give a reason (in fact, the only thing she really said to Sarah at their final meeting was, "anything you have to say, you may put it in writing." It was really just years of trying the Queen's patience with all the things detailed earlier in the article, so I've put this in. PeterSymonds 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading a fair bit of the article, I was starting to feel the lack of a description of Sarah's personality. This finally comes in "Death and legacy", which is rather late. And might we have an insight into Sarah's relationship with her husband?
I still feel she's not fully coloured in, though there are some better touches now. The introductions to your sources might be good places to look for some general material about her character.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more under "clash of personalities" section. I think this basically sums up Sarah's character; it didn't change much in her long life. Best thanks, PeterSymonds 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flattering, subtle and retiring, Abigail was everything that Sarah was not. At this point, I don't feel the reader has been told what Sara was.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way you have created an antithesis.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have a look at these myself, but em dashes need to be unspaced, quotations marked with double quote marks, and numbers broken with a comma every three spaces (they are required in the numbers in the next example, for example).
Addressed (I think). Might be best for you to go over and see if I've missed anything. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubled a few quote marks. I think we've both missed some of the number commas, but the job's pretty much done. It might be worth your checking out the Manual of Style before your next major article, and the citation formatting guidelines, not that there's much to worry about at the microlevel here.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article hasn't made its mind up whether to capitalise words like queen, duke etc. I won't copyedit those because approaches vary (but should be consistent within each article). My preference would be to not capitalise when the titles aren't attached to a name. So: "the queen", but "Queen Anne".
Addressed–followed your advice PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs another glance, for words like "duchess". It's a nightmare, I know. Usage guides don't agree on one system, so we almost have to go by personal preferences and stick with them, unless we're following existing conventions in an article.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne countered by offering the Marlboroughs a pension of £5000 a year, as well as £2000 extra from the Privy Purse, and they accepted the Dukedom. Was this £2,000 also per year? And where did the pension money come from, if not from the Privy Purse? Parliament? (The sentence impliest a significant distinction.)
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite now being the most powerful woman in England other than the Queen, she was infrequently at court after 1705, preferring to oversee the progress of her new estate, Woodstock Manor (the site of the later Blenheim Palace)... What does "oversee the progress" mean here? The Blenheim Palace article says that it was begun in 1705, which is quite soon after the date mentioned.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During their youth, Anne chose two names for them at random: Mrs Freeman (Sarah) and Mrs Morley (Anne). This sentence does not seem connected to those around it, since it is placed during their adulthood. Presumably the point is that they continued the practice during adulthood.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. But the three sentences in that paragraph still don't really hang together, in my opinion.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarah allied herself more strongly with the electorally-stronger Whigs. I think this needs a little more. What does "electorally stronger" refer to? Neither the "more strongly" nor the "stronger" follow from anything noted as less strong, as far as I can see.
Addressed. I've removed "electorally stronger" as it isn't really necessary. I just put it in for adjective purposes, but I can now see that it doesn't work. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aware that Abigail was gaining more influence with Anne, Sarah disobeyed her, and instead physically forced her to St James's Palace. Who did she force, Abigail or Anne? Also "physically forced" is such a juicy teaser that I'm sure the reader would enjoy some detail here.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1704, Anne confided to Lord Godolphin that she did not think that she and Sarah could ever be true friends again. This is placed so that it seems to result from a sequence of governmental issues, including the Charles Spencer appointment; but 1704 is early in the reign, before some of these events took place. Might that point therefore go better at the beginning of the paragraph?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Sarah vehemently pressed for the appointment of Sunderland, from 1702 to 1706, until he was finally appointed in 1706. The point was made to emphasise how Sarah's political lectures made Anne feel uneasy. However, let me know what you would change it to, or feel free to change if you have something in mind. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only passes because you don't date the rest of the paragraph. If you did, you'd have to make Anne's statement fit a particular event of that year rather than, as it seems to me, events that happened later as well.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the mourning period for Anne's husband, Sarah was the only one who refused to wear suitable mourning clothes. which perhaps implied that she did not believe that Anne's sadness over his death was genuine. I sense that an important detail or two is missing here, because to me that interpretation does not follow in itself.
Addressed. Changed to "gave the impression"; this is what was thought at the time, as it fell in line with numerous (anti-Whig propaganda) pamphlets about Anne's supposed love affair with Abigail. PeterSymonds 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't make a big deal of it. But I would have expected such propaganda pamphlets to be mentioned or quoted in this context. "Gave the impression" still makes it seem as if the article validates that view. Which strikes me as offbeat (if I went to a funeral, I would not assume that someone not wearing mourning clothes was making a statement about whether someone else's grief was genuine or not). I've always thought that Anne cared for her husband. Certainly they had been through a lot together, what with all those miscarriages and the death of their son.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but he could not change Sarah's mind. We have been told that Anne and Sarah had quarrelled, but not that Sarah had done anything to change her mind about. What had she said or decided?
Addressed. Replaced with "indiscretion"
  • Anne was threatened with an official parliamentary demand for her dismissal. Perhaps a detail is missing, because I couldn't tell from the article why parliament demanded Abigail Masham's dismissal. On what grounds?
Addressed. There were no grounds for dismissal, as such. The idea was used as a threat; a parliamentary demand would have been difficult to ignore. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the passion she showed for Abigail, and the stubborn refusal to dismiss her, angered Sarah to the point that she implied that a lesbian affair was taking place between the two women. Was there anything in this? I note that the word "passion" is used here. Do we read that word at face value or is it loaded?
This refers to the passion to keep Abigail in her service. I think it works and doesn't need to change; but if you disagree please feel free to comment/change. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's just that the other day I missed the subtextual meaning of the word "passion" in another article, where lesbianism was being suggested.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marlboroughs also lost state funding for Blenheim Palace, and building ceased. We hear about the building later, so when did it start again?
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen Anne's death allowed the Marlboroughs to return safely, and they landed back in England on the same afternoon. I think this needs to be made clearer. Since they were already about to land when she died, surely it was safe for them to return anyway (unless they hopped on a hovercraft when they heard the news! :)
Addressed. I've removed the section about returning safely, and left it as "that afternoon." It is not known for sure exactly why they returned. It's possible that they knew that Anne was seriously ill (it was a long illness); or Anne could have called them back herself (supported by her questions whether they'd landed back in England). It's best to leave it out because it's difficult to prove. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader probably needs a line to explain why George I was chosen as king.
Addressed–added bracketed info about his ancestry. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to James, because James was his great grandfather.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly heartbroken when her favourite daughter Anne Spencer died in 1716, she had her favourite cup, a lock of her hair, and adopted the Sunderlands' youngest child, Lady Diana, who would later become her favourite granddaughter. This wasn't entirely clear to me.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her wealth was so considerable that rumours circulated that Sarah’s granddaughter, Lady Diana Spencer, would marry Frederick, Prince of Wales, with a massive dowry from the dowager duchess of £100 000. I found this sentence vague. It does not make explicit the link between the two (was there any more to this rumour than the fact that she was wealthy?).
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Death and legacy" section seems to say little about the death and legacy. It might be better to add the death to the "Later years" section and change this final section's title to "Assessment", which would then match the contents.
Addressed. PeterSymonds 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth looking for a little more to add here.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to have ISBNs for the books (many people, including me, search for the books with the ISBNs, which bring up the precise edition). This is not an FAC requirement, though.
  • On my screen, the wide picture of Blenheim screws up the list below it.

Anyway, that's my lot: a thoroughly absorbing article. I will keep an eye on any responses and comment accordingly.

qp10qp 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been addressed suitably, I believe. Let me know if you disagree. Many thanks, PeterSymonds 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very happy with the way the nominator has addressed my comments so speedily and professionally.qp10qp 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it. This recent expansion is a huge improvement. I fear I can add nothing to the previous reviewer's comments, all of which have been fixed already. My compliments to all involved. Coemgenus 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Song Dynasty

[edit]

previous FAC

The Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD) era of China; this article was raised to GA status a while back, and although it failed its FAC review, after many improvements to the article I am renominating it for FA status. The main issue with the last review was copyright issues for a few of the article's images, which have since been solved with those images replaced with stable GNU licensed and public domain images from Commons. It is well sourced, stable (no edit-warring), has no startling POV statements, and is now well-written with many recent copyedits. There are a total of six related sub-articles created for this main article, including History, Culture, Society, Economy, Technology, and Architecture, all of which are summarized within the main article. Due to so many branch articles with separate info aiding the main Song Dynasty article, this article is not excessively long, only 46 KB.--PericlesofAthens 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS concerns, addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS fixes needed, there is incorrect use dashes on date ranges throughout, solo years are overlinked (see WP:MOSNUM), and text is scrunched between images and an infobox. Templates are placed incorrectly at the bottom of sections (see WP:LAYOUT). Please remove the scrollref box that obscures references; it was AfD'd for a reason (it doesn't print, and doesn't mirror). Please remove the self references to GA and FA from See also, and articles included in the text shouldn't also be linked in See also (see WP:LAYOUT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You're quick! Lol. Nice to see you around again, Sandy, it's been a while. Sure thing, I'll fix all this stuff, didn't know there were problems with any of the things you've listed, but I will fix them now.--PericlesofAthens 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, I am happy to say that I believe I've now fixed all of the MOS issues you have raised.--PericlesofAthens 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are solo years linked? Also, see WP:MOS#Quotations, the author of a quote of a sentence or more must be attributed in the text, not the footnote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, which solo years do you see linked? By solo years do you mean people's birth and death dates? I am confused.--PericlesofAthens 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples—does the reader benefit from the year links?
  • During the Northern Song (Chinese: 北宋, 960–1127), the Song capital was in the northern city of Kaifeng and the dynasty controlled most of inner China. The Southern Song (Chinese: 南宋, 1127–1279) refers to the period after the Song lost control of northern China to the Jin Dynasty.
  • The Mongols, led by Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227 AD) initially invaded the Jin Dynasty ...
  • Under the continuing leadership of Ögedei Khan (1229–1241 AD), both the Jin Dynasty and Western Xia Dynasty ...
  • All of the solo years in the Song Dynasty infobox are linked.
Also, why is AD mentioned throughout? Isn't it OK just to mention it once? There is still text between the History of China infobox on the right and images on the left.
Also, refer to WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, common terms known to most English speakers need not be linked, and detract from the high value links, example:
Since you brought it up, I attributed the one quote in the article to the historians Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais in the text.--PericlesofAthens 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have requested, I have delinked all years that have no relevant additional information associated with this article. I have also deleted AD throughout the article except for its first mentioning in the dates of the first lead paragraph. In the sentence you have shown above I have also delinked puppeteers, acrobats, prostitutes, restaurants, and banquets, but kept the others with disambiguation to other articles with relevant info on China, such as Chinese folklore for storytellers and Music of China of singers and musicians. I hope all of this is sufficient in addressing those claims mentioned.--PericlesofAthens 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing though, about the "scrunching" of text with the infobox, is there some sort of wikipedia standard that says I should not "scrunch" with pics and an infobox, or is this a personal preference of yours? In any case I have remedied the situation by moving the infobox up a bit and one of the pics down to the last paragraph of the Northern Song sub-section.--PericlesofAthens 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOS#Images; text is still scrunched between images and infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not move that picture back to the top where it was scrunching the text, that was an edit by another wiki editor. I have moved it back down so that the text is not scrunched, and provided my rationale in the edit.--PericlesofAthens 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the infobox years still being linked, I tried delinking them all, but the links won't go away! Your guess is probably as good as mine in understanding why the infobox is fussy like that.--PericlesofAthens 02:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone fixed the infobox years and delinked them. Good looking out, people.--PericlesofAthens 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addressing another one of your claims, Sandy, I have made many general improvements to the article in rewording some sentences and delinking many words that are not high value or informative links for this article. I hope you find the new improvements sufficient.--PericlesofAthens 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the article is extremely good and beautifully laid out. I would suggest that under "Society, culture, economy, and technology you vary more the beginning of subsections and not start so many in a row with "The Song Dynasty..." --Mattisse 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Matisse? I think I'll see what I can do with that, I'm glad you brought that up, otherwise I would not have even noticed the repetition.--PericlesofAthens 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the society sub-section with info on law and order, justice and early forensic science in the Song period.--PericlesofAthens 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Миборовский, I have addressed your concern by adding a big-ole whopping paragraph in the Society section on the Song military, and adding a new picture to aid the new text. I hope Mikey likes it. Lol. :) --Pericles of AthensTalk 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me but I don't see the military as part of 'society', but rather I think it should have its own section on the main Song Dynasty page. It's certainly important enough to warrant its own section and subpage. You already have a lot of information scattered around various sections of the article, but I just think it would be better together. -- Миборовский 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason why it is under the "Society" section is because all of the information about the military is found in the Society of the Song Dynasty article, which is summarized here in the "Society" section for the main Song Dynasty article. I am just following wiki standards of having a main article that is summarized in a section of another article. In summarizing the military info in this article section, it allows the reader to know which main article to look at if they want to know more about a given topic, such as looking in Society of the Song Dynasty for more information on the Song military. For what I am supporting, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Wikipedia:Summary style. Plus, the information on the military represents only one paragraph in this article here (albeit a large one), which hardly warrants an entire section (let alone the fact that all the military information is already placed in a listed sub-article). The architecture section at least has two large paragraphs.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind! Wiki member Mattisse and I have fixed the problem by creating new sub-headings and a new over-heading. The military now has its own sub-section under society, not culture, which makes no sense.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fair enough. -- Миборовский 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - nice. I'm postiing a couple of text-massage opportunities....I think the suggestions below are insufficient to be deal-breakers, but I think they are worth looking at and thinking about). The text is more polished than Augustus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think about a semicolon between .. 960–1279 AD. It succeeded... these 2 sentences as the first is rather short. I just love semicolons and they cheer me up. I think this is a great place for one.
Between the 10th and 11th centuries, the population of China doubled in size. - swap clauses to eliminate comma
Although weakened, the Song economy was not in ruins as the Southern Song contained 60 percent of China's population and a majority of the most productive agricultural land - change "Southern Song" to "the South" to reduce repetition (or is this introducing ambiguity?)
The Southern Song Dynasty built considerable naval strength.. - try "The Southern Song Dynasty considerably bolstered naval strength" (?)
Awesome! I'm glad you like the article; as for Augustus, it looks much better after the recent edits.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

[edit]

Henryk Górecki's 3rd; maybe not his strongest work, but it's his second strongest, and it was the highest selling piece of contemporary classical music during the 100 years of the last century. Co-nom with Chubbles, and many thanks to Outriggr. Ceoil 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I believe the lead is supposed to be a succinct summary of the article in general. Instead you have a large chuck devoted to record sales which is not even addressed in the article. I recommend that you summarize your article in the lead, as it looks very interesting. Mattisse 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is now less specific and reception more specific. Chubbles 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said on WP:CM, the "Instrumentation and score" is quite cluttered and dense. Information such as length, titles of movement and the list of instruments should be clear and instantly readable. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had resisted this at first as I thought it would lead to short stubby sub-sections. But your right, it is quite dense. Will see what I can do. Thanks for the advice, here and on WP:CM. Ceoil 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the section is formated in a similar manner to Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) as you suggested. Ceoil 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the name is now consistent throughout the page. Ceoil 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article is interesting, particularly when Górecki speaks for himself about the texts he used and in the detailed descriptions of each movement. Congratulations to the editors for bringing a musical subject to this standard. I would like to support, but I feel that the article could still be considerably improved.

  • My main impression is that so far some opportunities are being missed. We are told little about Górecki himself or the context of his work. For example, we are told that the work was transitional, but there is no substantial description of the types of work that went before or afterwards. If this is his third symphony, we should at least be told something about his others. And we need more about this "Polish post-war Renaissance", which I didn't know about (the linked article doesn't use the word Renaissance, I note, and the term is not self-explanatory: is it standard?). Also, we need a little more about the effect of Communism on Górecki. If his early music was dissonant, did that cause problems for him with the authorities?
 Done added a general section about Górecki and the Polish scene of the 1950's-60's. May need some rearranging, though. Chubbles 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That's a very concise account of the context and the way it developed. By the way, no need for horrid green ticks. I promise to check everything carefully.qp10qp 12:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No larger context for the symphony's success is given, apart from a suggestion that it was a CD phenomenon. It is not touched upon, for example, that the record's success was part of a vogue for pared-down, repetitive, trance-like "spiritual" modern-classical music that also led to high sales for other Soviet-bloc composers such as Arvo Pärt and Giya Kancheli. In Britain, John Tavener also started selling well with a similar sound. I would therefore have liked to read more about this phenomenon: what were its origins? The repetitive, simple music of composers like Steve Reich and Philip Glass, though different, had already broken the hold of serialism on classical music, but they didn't restore the "spiritual" element of the old classics, so perhaps there was a gap in the market. Or perhaps the public were yearning for contemporary classical music that was not inherently difficult. I was disappointed the article didn't look into these angles: it's as if the symphony just came out of the blue and was a freak success; but it was part of a moment in time. In Britain, for example, Classic FM was launched in 1992 and broadcast the first classical charts in Britain, which were massively influential on sales and brought classical music to a huge new audience who never dreamed of going to a concert.
Certainly this has been addressed as far as the musical style is concerned. A shame that the reasons behind the commercial phenomenon have not been entered into.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In places, I felt that the article used technical terms without explaining them. I've smoothed out a few; but it's policy to explain techical terms in situ, rather than depending on the links. (I admit that doing this elegantly is one of the trickiest challenges in writing a Wikipedia article.) Words like "serial" should be explained; also "minimalism", "Aeolian mode", "modal fifth". I've looked into "neo-modal", which I didn't know, and I don't believe that ugly expression means much that couldn't be explained in everyday language. A sentence or two to explain what modes are in general is needed somewhere, I think. Otherwise, references such as the following are impenetrable: The musicologist Adrian Thomas notes that the symphony lacks dissonance outside of modal inflections....
Partially addressed, I think.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The symphony is written for solo soprano, four flutes—two of them doubling on piccolo... I find this a bit odd. It's the players that are doubling, not the flutes, surely. I didn't change it because I'm not sure what is meant. Piccolo players aren't always the same people as flute players: so did the score actually say anything about who was supposed to play the piccolos?
Addressed this myself.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • spaced by one extra measure (every 25 bars). I couldn't grasp this. What is meant? And what is the difference between a measure and a bar here?
Hm. It means that a statement of the 24-bar melody is made, then it repeats, and the second entry comes in on the second bar of the repeat - thus a new entry every 25 bars. Bar = measure. I tried to reword this to be a bit more clearer, though it's still clunky. Hard to explain in words, but very important to the overall structure...Should we add a graphic or something? Chubbles 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine now, because you are not using "bar" and "measure" in the same sentence, and you now give a clear description that even I can understand.qp10qp 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strings dominate the musical textures and the dynamics reach fortissimo in only a few measures. I changed this to "places", because I didn't feel "measures" helped the general readers. Is fortissimo indicated on the score? If so, I think that should be stated and the term translated, rather than use words like "dynamics" and "reached". (I do understand how difficult it is to describe musical effects, though.)
Addressed myself. I do think an encyclopedia needs to explain as it goes along. The following is a good example of how to do it, I feel: The work consists of three elegiac movements, each marked Lento to indicate their slow tempi. This gives the reader an idea of what lento and elegaiac might mean.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it would be better to head the three movements in this form: First movement: Lento—Sostenuto tranquillo ma cantabile. Or perhaps put the tempi in a subheading. I am not sure about the decision to indicate times for each movement. Each performance would be of a different length, according to the conductor.
Happy with the solution here.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • incarcerated. This link confused me, because it goes to The Holocaust. So are we supposed to deduce that this girl was Jewish and that she perished in the holocaust? But she wrote this message on the wall: "Oh Mamma do not cry—Immaculate Queen of Heaven support me always". Later the article says: The second movement is written for soprano, clarinets, horns, piano, and strings, and contains a libretto formed from the prayer to the Virgin Mary inscribed by Blazusiakówna on the cell wall in Zakopane. So she must be Christian, praying to "mamma" Mary. But Górecki is quoted as saying: "...she only thinks about her mother: because it is her mother who will experience true despair". On that basis, the "Immaculate Queen of Heaven" is the girl's mother, not the Virgin Mary. Some order needs to be imposed on all these conflicting possibilities, I feel.
This has not been addressed and is now the only serious fault in the article, in my opinion. It would not pass in a historical article.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and delinked incarcerated. Is there a term in general use that refers to the non-Jewish incarcerated by the Nazis? Chubbles 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some critics have seen the symphony as a memorial to victims of the Nazis in Poland and during the Holocaust, particularly in light of Górecki's choice of texts. Why do critics think it is a memorial to victims of the holocaust? And do they mean just the Polish holocaust? The critics' views could perhaps be quoted here to make this clear, because it is not obvious to me from the description of the texts that they refer to the holocaust specifically.
The fact that one of them was taken from a Gestapo prison wall was a major factor in peoples' interpreting it in that way, coupled with the overwhelmingly sorrowful mood of the piece. If there's a way we should reword that to make that more clear, I'm all for it. Chubbles 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be careful. Because there's a feeling in Poland that emphasis on the holocaust, however essential, may obscure the fact that a vast number of non-Jews died or were imprisoned in Poland too. And Gorecki may share that view, which might be why he resists the holocaust interpretation. He may be lamenting the war dead, Jew and non-Jew alike. I don't think the fact that this was inscribed on a Gestapo cell necessarily connects this to the holocaust. The Gestapo were responsible for largescale arrests and interrogations of the civilian population as part of the Nazi administration of Poland, a major undertaking. However, this could all be fixed by a direct quote or two from critics. Shall I ask a Polish editor to comment?qp10qp 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that couldn't hurt. I'm a little out of my league here... Chubbles 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The movement opens with a folk drone A–E and a melodic fragment E–G#–F#, which are alternated with sudden plunges to a low Bb–Db dyad. This becomes technical and in so doing also loses its will to punctuate. And if "b" means "♭", shouldn't the right symbol be used (but I'm not sure if the editors are notating differently for modes, or something, so ignore that if I am wrong—it's still confusing, though).
Good to see the correct symbols used. I've punctuated this myself.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Cquotes look unprofessional and blockquotes look elegant, but this is a matter of taste, I suppose.
Much better, I think.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The melody is established in the opening verse, while the second and third are formed in duple metre.... Another unexplained technical term here. And I sense that "formed" isn't quite the right word (written, composed?). The reversal of subject position in these two clauses is also awkward.
  • as the soprano begins to phrase. Does this just mean "begins to sing", or has she been singing wordlessly?
Fine.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • subtle changes in dynamism and mode make it a deceptively complex and involving piece. Why "deceptively"? I'm not quite sure what is meant here.
Changed this. Please check that I understood what was intended.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your rephrasing better conveys the intended meaning. Ceoil 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, a microdetail: it would be good if all the sources had publisher locations, for consistency.

That's me done. Many thanks to the editors for all their efforts.

qp10qp 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to work with here. Yes, I would like to go into the wider issue of how minimilasm crossed over in the early nineties, and yes the symphony is of course heavily linked with the so called Holy Minimalists; at least in popular and commercial terms; both Górecki and Pärt are famously reclusive, while Tavener is famously not, and I doubt any was influenced by one of the others.
I dislike the phrase as much as the next person, but there was a tipping point, and it could as easily have been Tavener´s ´´Innocent´´, or Pärt´s ´´Ikos´´; though I would struggle to make any link with either Reich or Glass; the appeal is just too different, and both Glass and Reich are cooly modern, while this is a pointed return to more elemental modes, and perhaps its popularity was a general reaction against that movement. A comparison could be made between Sarah Lucas and Odd Nerdrum, though in visual art popular taste went in the opposite direction. But I take your point, it´s worth discussing. I left this wider aspect out wondering if was off topic, and wheather it was more suited to the main Holy Minimalist page; but I would be happy to expand on the topic.
The transitional aspect of the work I can easily clarify; the "Polish post-war Renaissance" too; I might need Chubbles help on some of the more technical points you have raised. Will let you know when we are done. Ceoil 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, one thing I've been thinking over is, many of Qp10qp's concerns would be addressed if we had an article on holy minimalism. (Do we perhaps already have one under a different name?) We could then use that article as a point of reference for a larger context on the Part/Tavener/Kancheli end of things. It will be very difficult for me to work on that after this week, since I am graduating and moving to another part of the country. Chubbles 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am now happy that this article is of featured standard, despite my remaining reservation about the holocaust aspect, which I hope the editors will look into. Congratulations to them for their work on the piece.qp10qp 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think overall it strikes just the right balance between not being too technical but not dumbing down for a general audience. The only thing that confused me was the line "British industrial music group Test Dept used Symphony No. 3 as a backdrop for video collages during concerts, reinterpreting the symphony as a vehicle for promoting the band's sympathy with the Polish Solidarity movement[24] (which Górecki also opposed; his 1981 piece Miserere was composed, in part, as a response to government opposition of Solidarity trade unions).[25]" Did Górecki support or oppose Solidarność? Probably just one little word that needs to be changed. Other than that, I wholeheartedly support this article being a featured article. Anton Mravcek 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Chubbles 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Oh, this is one of the very best music articles I've ever read on WP. It's well-written and contains the right balance of musical and stylistic analysis, historical/cultural/political context, and other associated information. Congratulations to the contributors! Just a few silly points: MOS says to space ellipsis dots; I think we're not supposed to link within direct quotations (I delinked it for you); avoid the "of" in the colloquial "outside of". The title at the start of "critical reception" is in roman, not italics; is that intentional? Tony 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"well-written": Iots of help: Outriggr and Qp10qp. Ceoil 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act

[edit]

Self-nomination. Article concerns the biggest US political controversy of 1956, now largely forgotten but shedding an interesting light on contemporary politics and attitudes towards the provision of public health services. It was researched and largely written by myself earlier this year. It's accompanied by a number of relevant (and properly licensed!) images. The article has been stable for some months, has been highlighted on the Main Page's "Did You Know" box and has recently attained "good article" status. It is of an appropriate length, clearly written for a general audience and is extensively sourced. I believe it meets the featured article criteria. ChrisO 00:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Pham Ngoc Thao

[edit]

Communist spy who was a colonel in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and deliberately mismanaged things. It is not particularly long, around 13k main text, but information on Thao is rather scarce. (this is all that is in User:Blnguyen/Viet_library). This is because in Vietnam, there never has been freedom of the press and the level of transparency that there is in a western country and it seems that historians were much more interested in the president Ngo Dinh Diem and his interaction with the US and so forth. The article has passed GA recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above 19k on main text now with a bit more squeezed out and background for the lay person. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Pretty good start, but some prose issue could probably be addressed. For one, it looks like there needs to be some paragraph reorganization. Many sections have all info crammed into a single paragraph; in many cases this could and should be split into multiple paragraphs, often with little rewriting. For example, consider the section titled Early Vietminh years. There is more than one "idea" here... We have:
  • Sentence 1&2 = birth and family history
  • Sentence 3&4 = Youth and teenage years
  • Sentence 5-end = During revolts against French Rule
In general, a paragraph should contain a single idea or set of closely interrelated ideas. Paragraphs are not broken up on length alone, but on ideas they express. Besides this issue, there are places where the prose needs some clean-up for clarity and style. One example sentance is "He then quit the communists in an overt sense by first taking a job as a schoolteacher in Saigon and later working in a bank." This sentance is hard to parse, and is just one example where having someone go over the article with a copyeditors comb could help. Consider the League as a place to find copyeditors... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above 19k on main text now with a bit more squeezed out and background for the lay person. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Richard Hawes

[edit]

Article passed GA review with no suggestions for improvement on July 11, 2007. The reviewer recommended an FA nomination. The article underwent a peer review by WikiProject Biography that garnered little feedback and closed on August 13, 2007. I hope to eventually include this article as a supporting article for a featured topic on the Confederate government of Kentucky. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I believe this article to be well done, as comprehensive as possible on the subject, and well referenced. The article is the epitome of meeting the featured article criteria. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am never one to critize a well-referenced article, but this one seems to go nuts on the footnotes in places. Almost EVERY SENTANCE has a footnote. In places where 3-4 references are used in a single paragraph, is it possible that some of these facts exist in multiple references, and the redundant ones could be condensed and/or eliminated? For example, consider:
    • "Hawes began his political career in 1828 when he was elected as a Whig to represent Clark County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives.[3] As a member of the state militia, Hawes saw limited service in the Black Hawk War in 1832, and returned to his position in the Kentucky House in 1834.[7][3] He was an unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Representative in 1834, but was elected to represent Henry Clay's "Ashland District" three years later, serving from March 4, 1837 to March 3, 1841.[1][3] He then moved to Paris, Kentucky in 1843 and continued the practice of law.[8]" All sentances BUT the last one are referenced to note 3; couldn't we just put notes 1, 3, 7, and 8 at the END of the paragraph? In general, it makes for a more pleasant, and nothing in this paragraph is controversial. Every paragraph is like this. In MOST cases, except where a specific sentance is likely to be challenged, or where a direct quote is offered, its OK to reference at the end of the paragraph; it will condense the number of references and improve readability.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a good question, and one I'm not sure I can answer in terms of Wikipedia policy. I know for sure that if every sentence in the paragraph comes from a single source, you can cite the source at the end of the paragraph. I've never seen multiple sources done, as you suggest above. The GA reviewer that passed Happy Chandler made the following comment: "Presumably you'll be taking this article to FAC in the near future. If so, then building up your citations to the 'almost every sentence' point certainly won't hurt anything." I've kinda let that be my guiding principle. FWIW, I agree that your solution improves readability, but I think it's just as likely that if I condense the references, I'll have someone complaining that I don't have this-or-that cited properly. If other reviewers agree with you, or if you can reference other FAs that have used this style of citation, I'd be happy to condense the references. If we get some closure on this issue one way or another, could you support the nomination? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen articles done multiple ways in regards to citations. I personally believe that the way the references in this article are cited should be the standard. If a reader wants to check the veracity of one point, they should be able to check the reference for that particular statement. If the reader has to check multiple sources to figure out which one is the source for a particular statement, it becomes difficult to check an article for accuracy. I have personally ran into this problem when reading statements made in articles that I just didn't believe to be true. According to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources, there is nothing wrong with inline citations. Check the example on the page. If multiple sources are referenced for one particular statement, that's not a bad thing, it allows readers to check multiple sources if there is a statement the reader finds particularly questionable. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current climate on WP, this style of citation is probably the safest bet. People who do not like it have to just look at the culture here and realize that eventually every article will have to do this, otherwise every sentence or paragraph is subject to summary deletion by assorted POV-pushers and general trouble makers.--Filll 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the tone of that statement. I will fill this page, if you would like, of diffs where I personally request a better job be done of referencing an article. I don't have to prove myself or my motives to you or anyone else. The fact remains that there is a happy balance to be made between readibility and verfiability. I have never, not once ever, in any situation ever even once seen someone request a level of referencing that this particular article displays. Not one editor has ever said that every sentance in an article should have a footnote after it. To do as you imply is simply being obnoxious about making a WP:POINT. So I don't appreciate that you put me into a category with "POV-pushers and general trouble makers". Should an article with NO inline cites be featured? No. But neither should an article that overuses footnotes simply to make a WP:POINT. It is possible to unambiguously use footnotes and still use them in a better way than this article does. I personally think this article is one of the best I have ever read. It is well written, and verifiable, and comprehensive. However, I still have reservations because I feel that the referencing can be better organized... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize in advance for getting snippy up there. I still feel that requireing references and inline cites is not inconsistant with also requireing them to be organized well and not littered willy-nilly everywhere in the text. Please read Wikipedia:When to cite especially the section titled Text-source relationship. Citing after every sentance should only be required where material is "Particularly contentious". I see nothing here that is "particularly contentious" and so I really don't see the need to overcite. Oh and I know, so please read Wikipedia:Per with regard to my refering to the above document. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with citing every sentence. In fact, if article is tightly written, it is the perfect way to cite. I would urge you Acdixon to discount these comments; I don't see how they will help your article. Having said that, this is nothing more than my personal opinion. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we've hit on a hot topic here. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:VPP if anyone else is interested. I'd like to monitor that discussion until it dies down a bit before I attempt to make significant changes regarding this issue. That OK with you Jayron32? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a consensus might get reached shortly on the village pump, so I'm hoping that we can soon move on with the FA nom. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A tightly worded, well-done, well referenced article.--Filll 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I still think it is overcited; however given the option between an overcited article and an undercited one, I suppose this is preferable. The best case would be a correctly cited one, however this is really a small issue to continue to hold up over. You now have my full support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jayron32. This is an issue I will try to continue to clarify in my own mind so that I can do a better job of citing things in the future. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not really knowledgeable to comment on its accuracy or factual balance, but from where I stand it's well referenced, reads nicely and is comprehensive. Would normally expect something on a modern figure like this to be a good deal longer, but I suppose its current size is more likely to be read. Good work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

The Slave Community

[edit]

This is an article I started about an influential history book on slavey in the United States. It covers the background, argument, criticism, and impact of the book. No major issues were brought up during the peer review and it has been copy-edited by a competent copy-editor (Deckiller). Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism, advice, or support. Dmoon1 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Ronald Reagan

[edit]
previous FAC

I know I've said this before, but Ronald Reagan is finally ready to be a featured article. It meets the FA criteria, complies with the manual of style, is neutral, stable, and claims are verifiable. Citations are provided throughout. The recently "remodeled" 'Reaganomics and the economy' section is much more engaging and neutral, plus shorter. This article does a great job presenting the life of America's 40th President, and it is ready. Best, Happyme22 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:LENGTH is concerned with readable prose, not overall length, and suggests "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." The Ronald Reagan article is currently about 9,000 words and 55K of readable prose. While this is at the upper end, it complies with the recommended length guidelines.--Paul 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the US president articles will be understandably at the upper end of length recommendations.Sumoeagle179 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know how hard I've tried to lower the kb count on this article. I'll keep trying, but I don't know if it's going to get much lower. Also, Gerald Ford, a featured article and a U.S. President, is 110 kb long. Happyme22 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least six FAs that I know of that have between 60 and 85KB of prose, surpassing WP:SIZE guidelines. No double standards here; at least Reagan is within guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that articles about US Presidents are likely to be longer than the average Wikipedia article. For the record, my computer loaded the page in about 12 seconds including images. The article will be seen at its best with a modern browser and broadband connection. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You so much! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have watched Happyme22's work on this article, including five FACs, since March 2007; I believe it now deserves featured status. I've edited today to remove over-linking, complete refs, do some minor ce and WP:DASH, WP:HYPHEN and WP:MOSNUM fixes, correct some extreme oversized images per WP:MOS#Images, replace some non-reliable sources (e.g.; About.com) and add some missing citations (noting that some incorrect, uncited data was apparently drawn from other Wiki articles). I added three cite tags, which I expect will be attended to before this FAC closes; if citations can't be provided, those three statements could be removed. Disclaimer: I figure as a top editor of the article, but almost all of my contributions have been ongoing ref and MOS cleanups during the FACs; I've contributed no text, and only a few minor copyedits. When I work on refs, I work by section, and it chunks up a high edit count. On his first appearance at FAC, I doubted that Happyme22 could complete this job, but s/he has persevered and done a fine job over many months. I am particularly impressed by the tight focus and effective use of summary style, and adamantly disagree that length is an issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You so much Sandy. You have helped this article to be great, and we're so close! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your help with the Reaganomics section! Happyme22 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This article still reads in a lot of places like its either POV or its exaggerating his status in American history. -- CJ Marsicano 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me, but that's too vague to be an even barely constructive comment. You would help the editors working on the article by giving a few examples. Also you may like to provide an assessment of where he does fit in American history and how the article deviates from that. Thanks. Mark83 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's not a legitimate reason to oppose the article without an example. Happyme22 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No examples? Reagan's status in American history is established by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hapyme22, you thanked someone below for simply writing, "Support." I agree it would be helpful to have specific examples of POV (which is what I am trying to do below), but sometimes what people give is a general impression of the article. Thank you Cjmarsicano for contributing to this discussion. Wikipediatoperfection 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thanked someone for supporting the article that I nominated. Happyme22 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Does it look better now? Would you consider supporting? Happyme22 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to read through the full article, but I'll strike my opposition.-Wafulz 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The economics section still has remnants of the problematic sentence I criticized last time around and some of the same problems are still there. Quote: Critics of Reagan's economic polices dubbed them "Trickle-down economics,"[65] due to the large budget deficits spawned,[66] and the U.S. trade deficit expansion.[66] Unquote. The causal relationship is still wrong. Critics did indeed use the term "trickle-down economics" but not because of the deficits but because of how the theory was supposed to work. Tax cuts that directly benefitted mostly the well off were supposed to have beneficial effects that "trickled down" to those less well off. Critics did criticize the deficits but the nickname didn't come about because of them. Additionally the section is now too short in relation with the rest of the article. It should be lengthened again while some of the later sections could be shortened. The Death/Legacy/Popular opinion/Honors sections take up disproportionate space with sentences like: "The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority voted to rename Interstate 88, which was formerly called the East-West Tollway, in his memory, before being awarded three posthumous honors in 2005." Including information like this (and I'm not even sure I understand the sentence, presumably the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority did not get three posthumous honors) is much less important than covering Reagan's economic policies, theories and governance. I'd recommend reinstating the Regan quote, for example. Haukur 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific issues I complained about have been largely addressed. I still wouldn't say the economics section is good or well written but there aren't any real howlers now. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the sound of one editor building consensus? If I knew of a great sentence to use instead I would make a change. On the other hand I also think FAC reviewers that stay out of actual editing can, perhaps, give a more neutral perspective. Haukur 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all sure what I want the sentence to say. I do want coverage of "trickle-down" and I do want coverage of the deficits and I don't want errors but beyond that I haven't got any ideas. Why don't you give it a try since you seem to know what I want it to say? ;) Haukur 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article reads much better than it used to. My main concern is the general lack of scholarly sources, on a topic that academics have devoted a huge amount of time studying. Though a number of respectable scholarly and semi-popular sources are listed in the References, for most it is not clear to what extent (if at all) they were used in writing the article, as they do not appear in any footnotes. The biographies by popular writers (Canon and Reeves, in particular), meanwhile, appear frequently in the footnotes. I'm not intimately familiar with Reagan historiography, so I can only give a few pointers on further scholarly sources. In particular, the book The Reagan Presidency, (an edited volume from University of Kansas Press) is an important one in terms of historical assessment of his presidency. I also expect that Diggins' book is a fairly rigorous source, as he is an eminent historian. Whether or not these source issues warrant withholding FA status... that depends on how much the definition of reliable sources varies with spectrum of sources available for a particular topic. My own view is that an FA should use not just reliable sources, but the best sources available; this article doesn't do that.--ragesoss 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been staring at the article, and in particular its section about "Reaganomics" and the economy, for some time now. It needs help from people who understand economics, that much is absolutely certain. I only have an MA in Econ., and that was from too many decades ago for me to feel really confident about myself, but some of the mistakes in the section were fairly obvious. Some result from oversimplification which has been extended to the point where the facts are just wrong; some from trying to connect thoughts into summary sentences in a manner which creates flawed connections... I'll try to fix them. I still haven't fixed the connection drawn between Reagan and Black Monday market crash; the stark wording makes that conclusion seem far more cut-and-dried than is tenable. In general, I agree with everything Haukur has to say about this article, though I have hope that it can be fixed quickly. I mgiht suggest getting help from WikiProjects related to economics — but on the other hand, that could be harmful, as it might draw out the POV-heads with their never-ending arguments... I dunno. I don't know anyone reliable in those projects because I have had no contact with them... --Ling.Nut 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. I think the section looks a lot better and more neutral now also. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I added a setence on Reagan and Poland, and the Pope, in the "Honors" section, because it would be too difficult to add it in the "Cold War" section. Happyme22 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Happyme22
  • Comment: Once again agreeing with Haukur, every US President gets boxes of awards. Can we delete the high schools and other trivia? There is less than one sentence about his focus on rebuilding the military... I think that there are a few instances of this kind of misplaced emphasis in the article... Ling.Nut 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, but not everything in the honors section has to go... Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image issues. Image:Reagan Boraxo.jpg is said to be in the public domain because it is "a work of the United States Federal Government" but it seems unlikely that the Federal Government was advertising a brand of laundry detergent. Additionally, many of the images come from the Reagan Library Archives with a note that the RLA says that all its images are in the public domain. They did, indeed, say that a couple of years back[89] but they have since conspiculously removed the statement which suggests that they've found out that it wasn't true. This may still be good enough for us, I just wanted to make a note of it and say that maybe the image description pages should be updated with a note and an Internet Archive link. Haukur 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me quote from the Reagan Library's image page: "...The over 600 selected images represented here are only a small portion of the over 1.5 million photographs available. Please credit "Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library." Wouldn't they have said that they couldn't be used commercially if they didn't want them on Wiki? Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they're happy for us to use the images. That doesn't mean they are all in the public domain or that the RL holds the rights to those that aren't. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on reference format: Hey, I know Wikipedia is flexible on referencing formats, in order to accommodate the large number of differences between the styles used within different academic fields... but... this one has full references formatted as both footnotes and within a reference section. I thought that if you used both sections, the footnotes were strictly for two things: author/page no. (eg. Smith 1999, p. 26), and additional comments e.g. "Historians disagree on whether or not Reagan wore a wig, with the consensus being that he simply dyed his hair." But full refs are in both sections; some (perhaps many; haven't looked closely) refs are in the footnote-style section that are not included in the following section. Is that permissible? Sandy? Ling.Nut 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always disagreed with the nonsense about repeating all sources in both notes and refs; there's already a size issue here. Imagine what will happen to the load time if every note is also repeated in refs, just to comply with a nonsensical rule that sometimes says we should do that. I hate the articles that do that, even more so when I'm forced to use a dialup. Why everything should be listed twice escapes my peabrain, I guess. The way the refs are presented here, IMO, is the most logical considering article size and load time. If the rules say otherwise, IAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One editor's nonsense is another editor's golden logic. :-) But if you're OK with it, then I'm OK-ish with it.
I've made some additions to the econ section so the errors aren't so — please do forgive me if I am being too blunt! — painfully obvious. Really, the dedicated editors of this article should have made friends with some econ people a long time ago! The additions I've made don't really seem to flow perfectly, please forgive me... but... I may add one or two more little things, but then may have to beg off due to real life responsibilities. I apologize deeply. I will definitely keep tabs on what's going on here and will put in a clear thumbs up or down in time (striking my comments above if they are repaired). I won't leave you hanging. Ling.Nut 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS (don't overlook my comments immediately above) One problem with the econ section is that it makes no attempt to tease apart the relative degree of praise/blame that Reagan should get for economic events as opposed to the praise/blame due to Congress. I dunno, I suppose one brief mention, done in an appropriate place, could be enough, given that most of the full-blown details should be in the Reaganomics article -- Ling.Nut 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MUCH improved already. It looks to me like past edits had sacrificed accuracy for brevity, because of claims the article was too long. If this article is too long (now at 48KB prose), then something MUST be done about the FA Ketuanan Melayu (at 82KB, almost twice the size of this one). What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It also appears that simplistic arguments had crept into the text to satisfy a certain POV; your rewrite is much more thorough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have gone thorugh what was added and tried to simplify some of the words and make the section sound more netural; I have probably been labeled as POV right-wing nut more than anyone on Wiki, but if this article even has just a few (maybe two or three) POV statements, it's not going to pass. Great job Sandy and Lig.Nut on all your work in the Reaganomics section. I think the reason why Congress was largley overlooked was that this article is about Ronald Reagan, not the Congress. Although Congress might deserve a mention or two, I know that I was trying to focus it more on Ronald Reagan. Try adding things about Congress into the Reaganomics article. Nonetheless, thanks so much to both of you for your help. Best, Happyme22 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happyme22 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (don't want to oppose) Though this article is extensive in coverage in a compact (sort of) way, I feel there isn't a need to make a separate section for the popularity poll. It could rather be integrated in the article in a single sentence. Having a opinion poll as a separate section, doesn't go well with the overall standards set by the article. Trimming it will also trim the article on the whole. Good article BTW. Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks for your comment. Are you talking about the sub-section in the "Legacy" section entitled "Popular opinion?" We are saying that Ronald Reagan is regarded to be on of the most popular presidents and we have to give examples to back that up, for it's been attacked numerous times. Maybe I'm missing your point, but is that what you mean? Happyme22 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There is still lots of debate over POV/NPOV of this article. I added a peer review page so we could get some feedback on this and was informed on my user page that an article is not supposed to be both up for featured article status and under peer review (I have no idea). This needs more editing and a through peer review of POV/NPOV more than it needs a star. Wikipediatoperfection 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't bring up actionable points, your oppose itself is likely to be perceived as POV-based. Would you please list POV details that are a source of concern to you, here on this page, so they can be addressed if necessary? Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, articles listed at FAC are to be removed from PR (I've removed it). The article is not undergoing POV debate; it is undergoing the routine improvements that happen during FAC. If you have POV issues, pls list them so they can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as Requested:
  • There is a disagreement on the talk page as to whether he should be called a controversial president. I would say that there is no question that he was a controversial president. Both the contents of the article and objective outside sources reflect that. It should be stated within the intro, but not in the first sentence of the article, that he was a controversial figure.
  • Look at Jimmy Carter, a controversial president; does it say on his page: "James Earl Carter, Jr. the controversial 39th president?" No, because all presidents are controversial. If the president's a Democrat, Dems will like him and Repubs won't, making him a controversial figure, and visa-versa. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this discussion is best confined to the talk page where it has been on going. This same argument has been used on the talk page and it has been unconvincing to those who think the word should be included in the introduction. The talk page has several arguments for adding the word that have gone substantively unanswered. I will add more to the talk page on this issue and we can continue the discussion there. Wikipediatoperfection 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaganonmics section: As has been pointed out in the talk page this section divides into one section of raw data, considered the facts, and another section, the criticism. This section is unbalanced and poorly written.
  • This structural issue seems to be resolved. I was going off memory when I wrote this. This section is still POV Pro-Reaganomics. There is no explanation of why critics called it trickle down economics. Real wages have stagnated since Reagan (I'll get you the source for that in the next couple of days, I remember reading it somewhere in a peer-reviewed sociology journal article). This article has done a good job outlining the pro-Reaganomics position/statistics but it lacks a well reasoned critique of Reaganomics. When we are talking about Reagan being called controversial, this is what we are talking about. This was massively controversial and still is. Wikipediatoperfection 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The War on Drugs section: This could use a good edit. It seems haphazardly thrown together. I think we could all look at the war on drugs article as a reference point. In terms of POV/NPOV I do not think either point of view is well represented in this section, but the counterargument particularly leaves something to be desired. The assessment of the "War on Drugs" and Reagan's drug policies seems to lack the advantage of time. What do I mean by this? Most people today agree that that the "War on Drugs" has not worked. That is not to say that there is a consensus that the US should stop, but there is a consensus that past efforts have largely failed. I think this is at least part of the counterargument that is missing from this section. This section should mention the ballooning prison population as a result of the war on drugs.
  • Please don't reference other Wiki articles, as they are rarely reliable, and this article must stay tightly focused on its subject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that most people think the War On Drugs has not worked in the past because I have never met someone, liberal or conservative, who thinks it is going well. A quick google search popped up a 1995 poll which has only 11% of Americans giving the War on Drugs an A or a B in terms of drug-related crime. Only 2% gave As. The best results were for Drugs and the Workplace where 1/3 of Americans gave an A or a B. Here is the source: http://ndsn.org/april95/poll.html I can work on finding a more recent poll from a better known source for you, but I think the results are going to be roughly the same. Wikipediatoperfection 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed after I wrote this that you said "And that's in todays world, not the world on the 80's." I think this is myopic in outlook. The over the top, but apt analogy is quoting someone who died of a drug overdose on what an awesome high you get. This is about Reagan's policy in the 80s (the awesome high), but it is also about the lack of positive results both in the 80s and later on from the policies (the overdose resulting in death). There is a fairly strong consensus in the wide world that these policies had little or not effect on drug use/drug problems. This is shown by the poll above. This side of the story should be in this section, minus my over the top analogy and with proper reliable sources of course. Wikipediatoperfection 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Air traffic controllers' strike: This summary of the main article leaves the reader wondering why on earth this is important enough to make a President's page. This is because it lacks the context of the strike's importance. For the right it is seen as marking a balance between business and organized labor. For the left it is seen as crippling organized labor and workers' ability to fight for decent wages. Whichever side you're on this section does not due justice to what both sides consider a major turning point in the history of organized labor in the United States. As it is, someone who knew nothing about the topic would think it merited deletion from Reagan's article.
  • Again, this is not about making it longer or looking at the issue in depth per see, it is about placing the issue within its proper context so that the reader understands why the section is there. I think we can do this and keep this section down to size. As it currently stands I do not see how a reader who knows nothing about the event could possibly understand why this is important enough to make a President's page. If I did not know better, I would ask, what is the significance of this? Why is this important? As it stands currently the section does not justify its existence. It does belong in the article, but it needs some work to show why. Wikipediatoperfection 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iran-Contra Affair: This section solely quotes Reagan's denial of any personal involvement and has nothing substantive on the Tower Commission's report. Even if we talk Reagan at face value (which many of us don't, but I digress), the Tower Commission's report was highly critical of Reagan. From the Iran-Contra affair main page:

It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions.

This information is certainly worth adding to this section to balance it out. I would also suggest adding that Reagan's testimony before the commission had inconsistencies and he had troubles recalling certain things. Here is how the main Iran-Contra affair puts it:

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. It was also said that during the time in question he was almost constantly using heavy pain medications. [7]

We should never take text from another Wiki article (a non-reliable source) and if you think the text there is accurate, then this article does the right thing by linking to it. For this article to remain tightly focused and within size guidelines, it need not repeat detail covered in another article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at bottom of section, this info is needed to balance the article. Wikipediatoperfection 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly what I am talking about. You made a good faith effort to try and balance the article. However, you did not add a sentence "recommended" by me. You added your own sentence in the place recommended by me. Your sentence distorts its BBC source. I believe this is the sentence you added (if I am wrong, I apologize, but it is still a useful point of discussion):

The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions.[8]

  • Now here is the critical passage from the BBC article:

Mr Reagan gave the impression of knowing little of what was going on. The Tower Commission report on the scandal absolved him from deliberately lying to the American people but criticised him for being out of touch. Later the final Congressional report laid the blame squarely on the president. It declared: "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have." The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government.

  • Your sentence is an extremely selective and deceptive cherry pick of this BBC article. I assume you edited in good faith, but you are quite simply incapable of unbiased coverage of Reagan's darker/more criminal moments. Just as I am incapable of writing unbiased coverage of what his supporters consider to be his successes. Your sentence absolutely distorts the BBC source. They did not find he did not lie to the American people, they found he did not deliberately lie. We already quote Reagan's denial of any wrongdoing, you do not need to further cover his ass, especially with things which were highly critical of it. The congressional report laid the blame squarely with Reagan. And as the BBC puts it, "The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government." This is what is missing from this article. It also goes back to the issue of controversial. Gingrich may have tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job while he himself was having an affair, but most of the public do not see Clinton as a crook. Certainly not in the way he ran the White House. There is a large portion of the American electorate who do not simply dislike Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush, they think they were/are crooks. Wikipediatoperfection 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I did try and pick the most-carefull wording, and I didn't include the Congressional report because I didn't want the section to be too long (although it was added). You're talking about not having POV, but here you are expressing it. It's a very biased and POV statement to say that most of the country doesn't think that Clinton's a crook, but thinks that Nixon, Reagan and Bush are. I could argue the exact opposite by saying Clinton was impeached and Nixon, Reagan and Bush weren't (although Nixon came very close). Happyme22 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Reagan's darker/more criminal moments ...hmmm, hello pot, this is the kettle speaking. By the way, it might be helpful if ya'll would move the big discussions of specific text to the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be helpful if I reviewed this section and see what you thought:
====Iran-Contra Affair====
In 1986, the Reagan Administration was found to have illegally sold arms to Iran to fund the anti-communist (the bottom of the article says many critics think they were just plain murderers, starting out with this takes a position that they were not) [9] Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra Affair was the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.[10] President Reagan professed ignorance of the plot's existence and quickly called for an Independent Counsel to investigate. Norman H. Gardner Jr., a congressional specialist for the CIA, said (He did not just say this. I assume he testified to this. The current phrasing makes it sound like he spilled the beans to a gossip columnist) that Reagan signed a finding, which was drafted by the CIA two months after the missile shipment, intended to help free U.S. hostages in the Mideast.[11] (So what on earth is the significance of this? If I am learning about the subject from the article do I really know? I believe the signifigance is that this is seen as evidence that Reagan was in on it, This, however, is not clear from the article) The International Court of Justice (whose jurisdiction to decide the case was disputed[12]) ruled that the U.S. had violated international law in Nicaragua[13] due to its treaty obligations and the customary obligations of international law not to intervene in the affairs of other states.
John Tower, Edmund Muskie and Brent Scowcroft made up the non-partisan, three-man "Tower Commission," appointed by Reagan, to review the scandal. (Were they appointed to review the scandal, "Yep, this sure is one hell of a scandal," or were they appointed to investigate it?) The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. (I have already said what's wrong with this sentence above, but looking at it again I would like to add that there is also something wrong with the sentence structure. The "therefore he did not lie to the American people" splits the sentence making it awkward.)[14] Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger was indicted for perjury and later received a presidential pardon from George H. W. Bush. In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president.[15]
According to The Washington Post (Is this standard Wikipedia practice to name of the paper in the article???), some Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, saying he was an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he "saved Central America" and helped "nurture democratic governments and free-market systems across the region." (There has to be a better way to say all this. I am going to look for some polling on Reagan and central America. I think most people in central American would fall on the anti-Reagan side, but I will find something to back that up. As this is currently written it does not properly articulate this particular critique of Reagan and is more of a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is line.) [16] Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan leader of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his "dirty war against Nicaragua."[16]
We can discuss the various criticisms in here, but even if you think only half of them are accurate, this section has serious problems with POV which are reflective of the article. The best way I can describe it is the criticism of Reagan is given a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is treatment. Wikipediatoperfection 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easily fixed to fairly include the BBC coverage in a more complete way. As an aside, I think that your comments regarding your opinion of how the American people view President Reagan or Clinton are irrelevant to whether this article should be featured. JCO312 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cold War & Star Wars: This section also seems to lack the benefit of time in relation to Star Wars. The way the article puts it is Reagan said Star Wars would work, critics said it wouldn't. This may have been the disagreement at the time (I think is was pretty clear it would not work at the time, but I doubt we can get a consensus for that), however, we now have the perspective of time that the DoD still can't get something similar to Star Wars to remotely work 30 years later (my definition of working is precisely the same as everyone else's, it has to be able to differentiate between decoys and real nukes and shoot down 100% of incoming ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads, and they still are not anywhere close to shooting down a single ICBM).
  • What I understand is that, if this article explored in detail every topic as suggested, it would be 3 times too long. Right now, it makes excellent use of summary style, and the interested reader can go to the other articles for additional detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point, which in retrospect was not very clear, is that many people think it was not simply a difference of some say it would work, some say it wouldn't. His critics do not think he was simply wrong about this, they think he sort of knew it would not work, but did not care, ignored the science, and pushed for it anyway. My point was that with the perspective of time it is fairly clear that Reagan was full of it when he said Star Wars was technically feasible. Wikipediatoperfection 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: This section reads like a fan page. It lacks a serious analysis of his legacy from the left or the right. This part of the section should be seen as a starting point for a serious look at his legacy:

Reagan's supporters believe that much of America's success today can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, including a more efficient and more prosperous economy,[17] a peaceful end to the Cold War, and a world safer from the threat of nuclear war.[18] Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt.[19]

  • If Ronald Reagan were my hero I would put this quote on my wall:
The noted presidential biographer Richard Reeves summarized in President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination that Reagan understood
This seems to me to be a sufficient list of problems that need to be tackled before it can be a featured article. I obviously expect there to be disagreement on a lot of what I have criticized (particularly the stuff about Star Wars), but I think a lot of my criticism is that from both the right and the left this article lacks substance on certain issues. I think this is particularly true of the legacy section and the article's general lack of explanation of Reagan's importance in shaping the conservative movement. For better or for worse, Reagan's presidency was a coming out party for the conservative movement. This is missing from the legacy section and largely missing from the article. Wikipediatoperfection 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my comments to the above "questionable issues." Happyme22 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit worried that you're quoting from other Wikipedia articles, expecting this article to incorporate information from an unreliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wiki articles are a good starting point, a quick way to show you what I am saying. These other Wikipedia articles could be better referenced and we can find good sources for what they are saying. However, once this content is better sourced, it will essentially say the same thing as the Wikipedia articles Wikipediatoperfection 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which means there's no reason to repeat the text here, since this article is already at the size guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Sandy. It seems pointless to repeat what's said in other articles in this article. Happyme22 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have to say that I am not surprised at all, you two have agreed on everything up and down this page. I think you are both missing what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the article should be longer per se, I am saying that the above information is what I think needs to be incorporated to make the article NPOV. Without info from the Tower report and/or hearings the section on the Iran-Contra affair is unbalanced. What you are saying to me (at least as I perceive it) is the equivalent of me saying to you, "Oh, you think the article in anti-Reagan? You think Reagan had no knowledge that Iran-Contra was going on? Well, why would we we repeat text here. That is in other articles anyway. The important information, that he could not recall certain things during the hearing and that the Tower report was extremely critical of Reagan is all there. The article is already to size, why would we add your text to it?" This may be over the top, but I think it will make my point. There is a time and place for sending things to smaller sub articles (see this peer review I did Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mountain_Meadows_massacre#Wikipediatoperfection_review) and that is when uncontroversial nonessential background information is cluttering the page. This hardly qualifies.
  • I am going to try to respond to all of your questions above as quickly as possible. Out of curiosity, I know Happyme22 is the main conservative contributor/ main contributor overall to this article, but is there a main liberal/progressive contributor to this article? The reason I ask is because I think that, correct me if I am wrong, this article has primarily been written by diligent Reagan fans who have in general made great strides to make the article NPOV, but do not have a regular main liberal or progressive contributor to balance the article out. Anyway, this is my impression, correct me if I'm wrong.
  • You are unlikely to change my mind this go around. If this fails to become a feature article this time around (which obviously I think it should) I would be willing to work with both of you (and any other main contributors), make significant contributions, iron out the sections where we have differences, reach a consensus, and recommend the page together to be a featured article. Wikipediatoperfection 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is well-written and well-laid out. The issue of POV is a difficult one with any political figure in living memory, but the editors of this article have done a very good job of keeping things as neutral as possible. Coemgenus 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Happyme22 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well I removed the header and kept I think 2 out of the 4 setences that were in the section. I wanted to keep the most recent polls as well. Does the section look better? Happyme22 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide bullet points/outline for reference... what exactly are you requesting? Ling.Nut 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he read the classical liberal economists, such as Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek. [90] He accepted their prescriptions as his own. His economic philosophy was laissez-faire. And if you listen to his inaugural speech it was very anti-government control over the economy, anti-welfare state, and pro-self-reliance. If we are to know the man, we need to know more about what he was thinking. There was a method to his madness. There has to be references out there explaining his philosophy and what writers influenced him. What was the message in the speeches he wrote? Without this, I think the article is too superficial. Operation Spooner 04:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for your comment. Happyme22 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a "Religious beliefs and philosophy section." There should be a discussion of his political and economic philosophy there. Operation Spooner 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose the article over a single matter than why don't you fix it yourself, because you seem to know what you're talking about per one of Wiki's policies: Be Bold. Happyme22 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added something about it. I changed my mind about it being in the philosophy section. It is only a sentence and is essential. Other than opposition to political communism, his economic philosophy of self-reliance, low taxation, opposition to the welfare state, is what he was all about. He spoke about it all the time. It deserves a sentence in the introduction. Operation Spooner 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have worked that out. Would you consider supporting now? Happyme22 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happyme22 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Support - The last time I voted on this FAC (previous nomination) I objected because of prose. I'm not comfortable stating that any article has "brilliant" prose, but to pick two other terms in the criteria I certainly think it is engaging and of a professional standard. As for my conditional support, there are a few things that bugged me:
  • Regarding " Reagan tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's far right. Reagan won the pledges of some 600 delegates, but Richard Nixon quickly steamrolled to the nomination" -- the steamroll comment left me thinking how? So I went to Richard Nixon, not covered there either. So finally I made it to United States presidential election, 1968#Republican Party nomination which explains. Of course a paragraph of the same size would be crazy here - maybe just say "Nixon arrived at the convention with 98% of the votes needed for the nomination. ...oh and possibly link one of the words using the piped, maybe convention?
 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Led by William J. Casey, the 1980 presidential campaign was" made me read it twice. Would it not be better to say "Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, managed by William J. Casey, was..."
 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The diaries were recently published" is a no-no. Recently soon becomes out of date. More accurate to say "The Diaries were published in May 2007" anyway.
 Done Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his first inaugural address, which Reagan himself wrote,[50] he addressed the economic malaise he inherited, arguing: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." The Reagan Presidency began in an historic manner: on 20 January 1981 just 30 minutes into his inaugural address, 52 American hostages, held by Iran for 444 days were set free.[51]" is disjointed. Would it not be better to say "In his first inaugural address on 20 January 1981,..... rather than mentioning the date later.
 Done Happyme22 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, however, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. " is both too significant to remain unreferenced and also weasel words without a reference i.e. "reportedly"
 Done - I worded this a little more neutrally, but I don't know if I can find a source for that, so I just said the mission was aborted. Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this instance is "Caspar" a later instance says "Casper" - I believe the former is the correct one and the latter should be corrected.
 Done Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president" - would be better to say "9th in the top ten worst..." - Gives it a better context and I personally was interested to see and had to go to the reference.
 Done Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also see NPOV issues with this article, particularly in the legacy section. I opposed commented on (but would have opposed later) the last nomination of this article, and none of the concerns I raised were addressed. (See the last nomination for what I said then.) Instead of a balanced assessment of the impact of the Reagan presidency, we have quotes from what people said at his funeral. People say nice things at everyone's funeral! Get a historian and not a eulogist to tell me what Reagan's legacy is. Calliopejen1 08:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now it's more balanced, but it's still insubstantial. I would hope after reading an article about Ronald Reagan, the reader would have a good idea of who (among reliable sources who normally assess this, i.e. serious historians) thought he was a good president, who thought he was a bad president, and why. All we have now is a couple people gushing, and a couple people saying the gushing is unwarranted. Calliopejen1 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a misplaced modifier in the lead: "After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term, experiencing a period of economic growth,[1] and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was...". Surely it was the U.S., not Reagan, that experienced the period of economic growth. =) Perhaps substitute "overseeing" for "experiencing"? Although I guess some might argue that's not NPOV. 69.202.45.153 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The legacy section in particular is highly biased in Reagan's favour and the clique of self-confessed Reaganites will not allow any mention of how his policies directly lead the deaths of some 300,000 in Central America.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are also the one who thinks Ronald Reagan is a murderer and wanted that to be written in the article. We already took your "advice" and wrote that many Central Americans don't think highly of him at all. And you still have not provided a citation to show that Reagan's policies "led to the death of 300,000 Central Americans." Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even a busted clock is correct twice a day, Hap. All of the user's Big Bag of Crazy aside, he makes a valid point that he is largely reviled by a large number of people even now, almost 30 years later. That balance is missing from the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what he wrote on my talk page:
"The Contras were not anti-communist because the Nicaraguan government was not communist. See the Wiki page on the FSLN. I am not committing vandalism I am correcting an error which I will continue to do. If you have some God-like power to block me then I hope you feel really good about yourself for supressing the truth.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject I note that you call yourself a Christian. Well, you may care to know that some 300,000 died in Central America as a direct result of your hero Reagan's policies; 60,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and the rest in Guatemala. The Contra terrorists gouged out eyes, chopped of genitalia, stabbed pregnant women in the belly. These were all routine. Those charming freedom-lovers who Reagan called the 'moral equivalent of the French Resistance'. And for what? What possible treat did these tiny countries thousands of miles away from the USA pose?. I will tell you: a threat to the profits of United Fruit (Dole) and Del Monte. The land-reform policies of the FSLN were a threat to the profit margins of these two US-based fruit multinationals. Block me if it makes to feel better to deny these truths but I must tell you that I am Christian too and one day we will both have to stand before God. Don't say you weren't warned.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
NPOV? I even consider that a personal attack! And a citation still has not been provided! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - This article reads like a Republican Party advertisement. The Lead is so over the top with peacocking and over-blown claims that reflect little of its actual purpose of reflecting the article via summary. The sections are bloated, and on one case (Religious views) utterly unnecessary. there seems to be strong opposition to change within the article, and a significant re-write is long, long overdue. However, the pics are nice. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we have already talked about the lead on the talk page - when I get around to it in the next few days (I probably can't do it today) I'm going to work with you on the lead and we'll come up with something. And I will get rid of the religious views section and incporate the text throughout. Best, Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The honors section seems needlessly long and listy and would probably be better summarized and moved to a subpage. I'm not sure what work has been done to incorporate the criticism that Wikipediatoperfection mentioned was lacking, but I think that is definitely more important than this if we're prioritizing for space. Calliopejen1 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there's been a lot that was done. We removed much of the less-important things named after Reagan (i.e. highways, roads, schools, etc.) and made room for a more neutral Reaganomics section. The Iran Contra affair I must admit is a lot more neutral, with substantial criticisms of Reagan and his admin. The War on drugs was almost completly redone... Wikipediatoperfection has had an impact on this article, bottom line. Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - On two grounds: 1. Does not comply with requirements for FAC, specifically stability and neutrality. This is a fan page strongly protected by partisans who gang up on anyone who points out factual errors, POV concerns, and innappropriate sources, and calls them "anti-Reagan" (and Happy and Sandy et al: please don't waste our time trying that on me; take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I am scrupulous about NPOV, facts and reliable sources, and not letting politics enter my edits). It is not neutral, and it is not stable. 2. The second objection is far more serious: this is the (5th? 6th?) time we are being asked to consider this article for FAC within a very short period of time. Besides taking up a lot of valuable time (and proving my point about it being a fanboy lovefest for Reagan), each time the article is submitted (by the same editor, who is the protector and "owner" of this article) before the concerns, problems and errors have been completely resolved...there appears to be a great anxiety on the part of the "owner" that this article achieve FAC status, as soon as possible and at all costs. That alone should raise enough eyebrows regarding its acceptance as FAC. Info999 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. Please do us all a favor and re-read WP:NPA. Then live it.
Comment Perhaps you would like to point out exactly how you think I've violated this policy? The policy guards against attacks against a person, instead of arguments against reasoning, sourcing, logic, etc. I have attacked no one personally. Relevant (and ironic) factoid, Ling: the policy expressly states that accusing someone without justification of failing to adhere to the policy is in itself a violation of the policy! Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As for the articles multiple noms.. in fact.. if it fails this time, then I plan to hit it very very hard in the first or second week of next month (real-life permitting, which may actually be a concern)... yes I like Reagan but am a (nascent) scholar first, last and always, so I'll be keen on NPOV. Then I plan to re-nom it almost immediately. So feel free to include me in the broad brush strokes of your ad hominem comments if you like, even though I hadn't touched this article before this particle FAC nom. -- Ling.Nut 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you accuse me of something "bad" without being able to point to any specifics. Pointing out that an article is a fan lovefest is not a personal attack, even on those who are participating in the lovefest! Not only is the neutrality of this article regularly questioned by well-meaning and politically-neutral editors (that alone fails the FAC test), but it should concern many of us that there is a great urgency to have it accepted as an FA - while continually failing to adhere to the rules governing FAs, and continually failing to be accepted. Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I've nominated this 5 of 6 times and it has failed all times...so what? The MOS doesn't say how many times an article can/should be nominated therefore your second objection is irrelevant. This time we actually have 12 supports and it just might stand a chance of passing. And if it doesn't, like Ling.Nut said, there's a pretty good chance it will pass soon afterward. I know this is suprising to you Info but I'm going to complement you - yes me, the mean old conservative. Thank you, Info999, for adding more facts to the iran Contra affair section and making it more balanced! Happyme22 03:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrasing then: Comment on content, not on the contributor. (Quoting from NPA). But I had forgotten the cardinal rule that responding to ad hominem is always and everywhere conterproductive, because people who resort to it never admit they are making ad hominem attacks, never admit any viewpoint beside their own, etc etc etc. So will strike all above.. as per WP:USELESS. -- Ling.Nut 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It's remarkable how this FAC has brought out the POV pushers (most of whom have yet to provide reliable sources for the content they want inserted) and unsubstantiated claims about editors protecting the article. I don't have this article watchlisted, did not support it on the previous SIX FACs, and have largely confined my edits to ref and MOS cleanup (intensive work that results in a high edit content, making me look like a significant contributor, but you'll find I have a high edit count on any article I do ref and MOS cleanup on—I'm also one of the highest contributors to Barack Obama because I cleaned up refs). The POV of the persons opposing the nomination is abundantly apparent ("Reagan's dark/criminal side?") and no actionable POV has been identified and backed by reliable sources. If POV pushers can sidetrack this nom, then they should take an equally close look at the featured article Barack Obama or the standards set on Wiki for featured bios by articles like Austin Nichols. A double standard is at play here, and POV pushers appear to be attempting to destabilize the article so they can claim its unstable. Ah, such is the Wiki ! Will they succeed? Only Raul knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Borateen image is still listed as a work of the US Federal Government, which makes no sense. Just because it's found on a .gov website doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Haukur 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I take note of the many opposes, but suggest that every president is controversial, and is both beloved and be-hated :-). There simply isn't room enough in one article to explore the many nooks and crannies of the arguments on both sides, but this article does a good job of at least bringing them to the table. I strongly suggest that all remaining concerns be addressed in subarticles, such as Reaganomics Cheers! -- Ling.Nut 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ling.Nut for your help! Best, Happyme22 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe I read once that, by definition, the president of the united states is always simultaneously the most-loved and most-despised person in politics. I read the article with only consideration of the POV-concerns. I come away with the impression that he did some things quite well, some things quite poorly, and historians and pundits disagree about a lot of it. The article takes an excellent and appropriate just the facts, m'am approach. Bravo! --JayHenry 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Best, Happyme22 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refuse to participate - usually I'll just quietly abstain from FAC discussions, but in this case I think some uninvolved commentary might prove useful. While most articles that reach FA status have some good shepherds who steward articles through the FAC process, I think that we've moved past that and are bordering on ownership issues. When each and every comment or concern is vehemently dissected and answered, and each support vote is thanked by the same one or two editors it has a chilling effect on dissent and discussion. Couple that with said shepherds characterizing opposition as "invalid" (or commenting that only one oppose vote is "valid") and we have a process that is hopelessly tainted. I would vote strong oppose for many of the reasons listed above, but I don't care to have my motives challenged or have a list of POV concerns nit-picked by those who are pushing so hard to have a gold star at the top of this article. I have no doubt that this FAC will probably pass, however my abstinance should serve as a record of concern regarding the validity and vigorousness of pre-FA discussion. /Blaxthos 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Troy McClure

[edit]

Okay, here goes nothing. This article is probably The Simpsons Wikiproject’s best character article, and has been a GA for a while. As the character is retired now, it isn't the longest article in the world, but it is (in my view) as comprehensive as possible. So, if it isn't FA quality now, it almost certainly never will be. So there we go, if there are any concerns I or Scorpion0422 will do our best to deal with them. And (as I uselessly only decided to nominate this now..) I am going on holiday next week, so Scorp will actually be dealing with any points, for the majority of the candidacy. Gran2 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I actually read this article yesterday and wondered why it wasn't an FA. It's well-written, comprehensive, and (at least in the second half of the article) contains a fair number of references that aren't first-party. In addition, I'd say that this is a better article than the other Simpsons-related FAs. -- Kicking222 22:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are probably copyright issues, but how about more pictures? Troy presenting an infomercial would be good.--Nydas(Talk) 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, I could add a good enough fair use rationale, but due to the pages length, I think four images would be to much. Although, I could get one pretty easily. Gran2 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any pictures showing Troy's full body, including the slightly naff clothes he usually wears. I think it would help understanding of the character to include one.--Nydas(Talk) 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the rationale for use would be to show what he looks like, and the infobox image already does that fine. There is this image: [91] although I prefer the current one, that could be a good alternative. Gran2 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer the current one? The full body one is more informative.--Nydas(Talk) 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just think its a lot clearer, and I prefer it, that's all. If you think its better, I'll change it. Gran2 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Majungasaurus

[edit]

Another dinosaur article from WP:DINO. You've probably never heard of Majungasaurus, but it has recently become the subject of a detailed monograph after the discovery of very complete remains in Madagascar. While the papers in that monograph are my primary source, I have cited many other publications that deal with it directly or indirectly, and this article is a comprehensive summary of what has been published on this very interesting beast. It is currently the eighth longest dinosaur-related article and the fourth-longest article on a specific genus. This is a self-nomination as I am the main contributor, although many other editors have put work into it, and I would especially like to recognize the always fantastic artwork of User:ArthurWeasley. Thank you! Sheep81 07:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask for one to be made, sure! Sheep81 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a scale diagram has been added. Thanks for the suggestion. Sheep81 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - quite comprehensive, as above (though it does need that one cite for the formal synonymization of -saurus and -tholus. Minor thing, I'm sure it's one of the several papers already in the references). I made a size comparison chart, currently pending image review. It would also be nice to have at least stub articles for some of the redlinked scientists in the article. Dinoguy2 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No redlinks in the article anymore. ArthurWeasley 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is well written, well cited and certainly comprehensive. Don't see any reason to oppose. Great work, Sheep ! ArthurWeasley 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose→Changed to support - At the start of "Paleobiology" - "The abundance of Majungasaurus remains and their excellent preservation have given scientists an extremely detailed knowledge of its anatomy and allowed educated discussion of other aspects of its biology that are not always able to be analyzed in less completely known theropods." -- What aspects? What scientists? And a source? This should be easy to find and I will change my stance once this has been fixed. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 08:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The aspects listed as subheadings of that section? The scientists who wrote all the publications cited in the text? Do you really want to add a bunch of redundant words for no real reason? If so, go ahead and add them... Sheep81 08:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, that whole sentence is a bunch of redundant words so I just deleted the whole bit. Sheep81 09:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By what aspects, I meant that in the subheadings they didn't say "this is a feature depicted in this dinosaur not analysed in other dinosaurs" etc, so it could have been any of the subheadings. In any case, you've deleted it, so that solves things. Changing to Support above.↑ Great article. Cheers. Spawn Man 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha. Fair point. Well, thanks for your support, Spawn! Sheep81 10:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sheep (and others) have done a wonderful job on this (relatively speaking) obscure dinosaur. I was pretty sure not much more could be written after the re-write on August 3rd, but a lot has been added since then, too. Sheep has added the citation for the formal -saurus/-tholus synonymy (older sources indicated they were not synonymous). A lot has happened since I created this article (originally a redirect to Majungatholis; Majungatholis is not a very appropriate name for a non-pachycephalosaur! Thank goodness for ICZN senior synonymy rules!). I'm pretty sure Sheep has written a very comprehensive article. There appear to be no WP:MOS issues, and good sources have been provided. My only worry is that in the middle of the article, the inline citations become somewhat sparce (Feeding behavior, Respiratory system, and Brain and inner ear system each have large blocks of text without inline cites). If it's just that the entire paragraph is supported by a single reference, that's one thing, but there are two large sections supported by a single reference each. Are these really the only references for this information? If so, we may want to reword this to state something like "the only complete study on the respiratory system has concluded..." to indicate that only one paper has been published in that area, leaving us some wiggle room when a later study is published. Still, this issue isn't enough to prevent me from supporting this fine article for FA. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work Firs. As far as the one-ref paragraphs, yes other things have been published on dinosaur pneumaticity, brain structure, etc. etc. but not on Majungasaurus. We have only really started to know about this beast in the last 10 years or so. I could cite more general articles but I'm wary of veering into original research or original synthesis. Sheep81 10:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work? I did no work on this FAC, silly! :) Hey, if those are the nly refs available, that's all you can do. No objections from me. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - That's one ugly dinosaur! anyways this article is well written and comprehensible, it contains a somewhat small ammount of references but they manage to cover the text nicely, the image that dysplays the Majungasaurus crenatissimus compared in size to a human could be moved because its pushing the text down (at least in my resolution) but regardless of that this seems like FA material. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! Where would you like me to move the picture so that it looks better? Sheep81 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to the left and a little down might take care of the problem, it appears like the image is currently stuck at the bottom of the infobox and is pushing the text down, so I assume moving it away from the infobox will do the trick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, and thanks to Mgiganteus1 for moving the picture for me! Sheep81 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Mary: A Fiction

[edit]

This article is about a novel by Mary Wollstonecraft. It has been peer-reviewed (see here and here). Awadewit will address any prose or content concerns and AnonEMouse will address any MOS issues (we should all thank her/him for her/his generosity). Awadewit | talk 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A fine article, and the painting in the infobox is very haunting. My thoughts are that you might delink "novel", "1788", "charity", and "the continent", and loose the infobox; but these are only my preferences. I wonder if "would be" in the second para is the right phrasing, and "the first of its kind" needs to be qualified; in English literature or in literature as appropriate. "Wollstonecraft later repudiated this work, writing that it was laughable" - Wollstonecraft later repudiated the novel, and wrote that she now thought it laughable. "Mary's mother, is obsessed" - drop the comma. "is strongly partial to Mary's brother" - partial is not the right word, its slightly dated. " who educates herself through books" - educated...with books? (not decided on that). "Wollstonecraft's subtitle—A Fiction—" is the em dash necessary. "but they also believe that the novel is important because it attempts to depict a liberated...." however, they attribute the novel's importance to it's depiction".
None of these points are substantive, suggestions only. Ceoil 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delinked the 2 which were my fault. Please look again at the "Mary's mother" sentence, it's actually "Eliza, Mary's mother, is obsessed", we can't drop the second comma. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. Ceoil 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that linking "novel" is fine. If the article were about an epic poem, we would link to epic. If someone clicked on "novel" they would learn a lot about the history of the novel. Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ceoil 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A matter of preference. I prefer to keep blue links to a minimum, and I rarely find links to single years to be useful. Ceoil 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its unclearly pharased to me, at least. Wollstonecraft's first heroine was a rational autodidact. Ceoil 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, are you suggesting Wollstonecraft's first heroine was a rational autodidact as a possible phrasing, or are you saying that that is the information you take away from the sentence? If that is what you get from the sentence, I really need to change it, since that is not my meaning at all. I have now changed it to: Inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's comment that geniuses are self-taught,[2] Wollstonecraft embarked on a novel undertaking: representing a rational, self-taught heroine. - What do you think? Awadewit | talk 00:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that was how I read it. Its clear now. Ceoil 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wollstonecraft later repudiated the novel, and wrote that she now thought it laughable - It's a bit more wordy. Can you explain why you think the current version is a problem? Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "partial" replaced with "prefers Mary's brother over Mary" (Just so you know, this is not an old meaning of the partial, just a less used one. See Webster's: "markedly fond of someone or something -- used with to <partial to pizza>") Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "educates herself through books and the natural world" - would "using books and the natural world" sound better to you? Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ceoil 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • subtitle—A Fiction—: I believe the m-dashes are necessary. That whole section is about genre, so I really wanted to draw attention to that phrase. Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most scholars agree with Wollstonecraft's assessment of her writing, however, they also believe that the novel is important because it attempts to depict a liberated and reasoning female genius. - new version with "however" Awadewit | talk 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did qualify my suggestions after registering a support. Its a fine article about a subject I had not met before. This period in eng lit is fascinating to me, nice work. Ceoil 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am genuinely curious as to why you find certain phrasings difficult to follow, though. Those are honest questions - if the writing can be improved, I do want to do so. Also, I did want to explain my rationale for certain choices. Awadewit | talk 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't from the point of view of "difficult to follow", my points were motivated by, as I see it, archaic language (usually people that are "partial" to each other end up "courting", which is what my grandmother did with my grandfather); and a few ce fixes here and there that were were needed, all now dealth with. I like the article; it's charming, and I really like the heading painting; nothing difficult to follow here. Ceoil 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks. I'm glad you like the painting. People usually use the one you see at the top of Mary Wollstonecraft, but since I'm working on like my fifth Wollstonecraft article (I'm trying to assemble a Wollstonecraft featured topic) I was getting a little tired of seeing it. :) Awadewit | talk 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are doing something right, as I just visited amazon, and typed Wollstonecraft into the search engine. Ceoil 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me very happy. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality, invaluable, and impressive work. You are gradually educating me about Wollstonecraft and eighteenth-century women writers! Many thanks for all your excellent articles on Wikipedia, which have influenced me to raise my standards (gone are the days when I would dream of leaving out publisher locations, for example).

A few comments: please feel free to ignore.
  • My main observation would be that (and I am not always fast on the uptake, I admit) at some moments I found myself casting my eyes back up the article to get my bearings or check whether I had missed something. For example, the lesbian aspect came somewhat out of the blue, I felt, because till then I was sensing that the interpretation of the book would most likely centre on whether it was too sentimental. Rechecking the lead, sure enough, I found the clues that had gone over my head: "passionate friendships", "redefinition of gender relations and her reimagination of female sexuality". But then, I am talking as someone who read several Genet novels before it dawned on me about the women in them (doh), so perhaps I am not very savvy.
  • There they meet Henry made me think "er, who?", and I went back to check that Mary's husband was called "Charles". Stupid of me, I know, but I thought I'd better tell you that I assumed he must have already been introduced. An appositive phrase at that point would help, perhaps.
  • Nothing prepared me for: "After Ann's death, Mary replaces her with Henry; as Johnson writes, "this tale of forbidden and unnarratable passionate friendship becomes a tale of forbidden but narratable adulterous love". Like Ann, Henry is a feminine counterpart to Mary's masculine persona. Mary's relationship with Henry is one of both lover and father".
The article had never previously implied that Henry was in any way feminine, so now I had to suddenly juggle gender roles to get my bearings. The article also leaves it late, I think, to tell the reader that Mary was masculine in any way; but when it did, I failed to twig the lesbian implication, even then. The reference to Fanny Blood is not as helpful as it could be in that respect, I feel. Earlier, the reader was told that Mary's relationship with Ann might be a version of Wollstonecraft's with Blood, and that Wollstonecraft had felt betrayed by Blood; but since the nature of their relationship and the betrayalt was not described, this could not illuminate the relationship complexities in the novel which are entered into lower down.
  • I am hoping that the new phrases about gender in "Genre and gender" help alleviate this problem. I have also added details regarding the Fanny/Mary relationship in the "Biographical influences" section. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mention these things just to give you an insight into the mental processes of an obviously not very acute reader, perhaps listening to the sports reports at the same time (an entirely theoretic reader, of course!).
  • I suggest that the lead could introduce more information about who Wollstonecraft was and at what stage she was in her life and career when she wrote this book. Only when we get to "Themes" are we given any help with that sort of context.

Most of the article is written beautifully, but there were a few spots where I felt the language became slightly too difficult for an encyclopedia article:

  • Although there is strictly nothing wrong with the second paragraph of the lead, I feel it probably has too many difficult terms and concepts in it, one or two of which could perhaps be clarified along the way. For example, you rely on a link for "autodidact", perhaps assuming the reader will connect it to the "self-taught" point made before. But I think any difficult language or term has to be explained in situ.
  • I didn't feel that the following ambitious sentence worked: She detests fashionable life rather than yearns after it; is affected by real social injustice rather than one to whom charity is a passing fad; is older and intellectual rather than young and pretty; asserts her right to sexual desire rather than sublimating it; resists marriage rather than seeks it out; and does not live "happily ever after".
I'm not against elaborate constructions—far from it; I'm a paid-up member of the semicolon club myself—but I don't believe a construction like that should risk switching between active and passive clauses; and "is affected by real social injustice rather than one to whom charity is a passing fad" is quite a chunk to stick on a syntactical kebab stick all at once.
  • In the following, I was miscued into muddling up mother and daughter (once again, could just be me): She neglects her daughter, who educates herself through books and the natural world. Ignored by her family, Mary devotes much of her time to charity. When her brother suddenly dies and Mary becomes an heiress, her mother finally takes an interest in her; she is taught "accomplishments", such as dancing, that will attract suitors. The last sentence seems to start without cueing its subject properly.
  • Hotwells: I had to click the link to find out if this was a house or a place.
  • To escape a family who does not share her values, Mary befriends a local girl, Ann, who furthers her education.
I wasn't sure from that at first whether Ann furthered her own education or Mary's. Mary's probably; but what happens next does not indicate how, and in fact it shows Mary taking the lead.
  • Gothic Novel: This depends too much on the link, in my opinion. In the context, it is not clear to me how the fact that it is Gothic affects what is being said. It is also not clear to me, from its definition, what is Gothic about "Gothic feminism": as a specialised term, it probably needs more explanation. Also, the point about being morally superior and being a victim is exceptionally complex for an encyclopedia. It intrigues me—but I am not sure I fully understand it.
  • I have explained gothic novel a bit more now as well as its connection to "Gothic feminism". I have added a sentence that (hopefully) clarifies the major idea of the paragraph. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the key differences between Wollstonecraft's two novels and her philosophical treatises, as feminist critic Cora Kaplan has argued, is that "women's feelings and desires, as well as the importance of expressing them, are valorized" in her fiction while in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, emotion "is seen as reactionary and regressive, almost counter-revolutionary".
Here I had to read twice to get what was being said. That might surprise you, but I think the reason is probably that Brits spell "valor" as "valour", added to the fact that we don't have "valouris[z]ed" (to my knowledge). This could be got round by paraphrasing the first part of Kaplan's quote to make the meaning more immediately clear (once again, please take for granted the proviso on all of this that it may just be me being slow). I would suggest that the whole of the "Love, friendship and sensibilty" paragraph is rather dense.
  • Now reads: "One of the key differences between Wollstonecraft's two novels and her philosophical treatises, as feminist critic Cora Kaplan has argued, is that her fiction celebrates female emotion and argues for its value while her treatises present emotion as "reactionary and regressive, almost counter-revolutionary"." Awadewit | talk 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the Johnson quote is dense, but it is worded so well, and since it is her theory, I wanted to use her words at some point. Also, some parts of the article are going to be dense, I think, and not all readers will grasp every concept (I think of myself reading introduction to general relativity, for example). Some will grasp more than others. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • identify-defining: I assume this is a typo, but one never knows, so I left it alone.
  • free indirect discourse: I think this might be explained a little more clearly. For once, this is something I already know about. This passage might not leave the reader with a clear enough idea of what is involved in that narrative style.

Anyway, very well done. And I'm so glad you haven't given up on FAC.qp10qp 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your kind words and helpful suggestions; I always know that I can rely on you for thoughtful comments. AnonEMouse deserves the credit for me submitting this article. His/her willingness to take on the stylistic issues is to be commended. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased with the edits. All those little connectors make a difference, I think. The explanatory phrase for "free indirect discourse" is both perfect and perfectly unobtrusive.qp10qp 15:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole phrase goes like this: critics have speculated that since Wollstonecraft felt betrayed by Fanny when she quit teaching at the school Wollstonecraft was running with her sisters to marry - Wollstonecraft and her sisters were running the school, which Fanny quit to marry. Awadewit | talk 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I get it now. Thanks. Mattisse 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might you think about supporting the article, now that I have tried to address your concerns about the headings? Awadewit | talk 17:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—1a. When the subject is a writer, we need to be particularly careful that we don't degrade her memory through subprofessional writing.

  • "made the monumental step of becoming a professional writer"—No, "took". "Monumental" is too attitudinal an epithet, especially at the opening.
  • "fired" as governess—it's too American and 20th century.
  • "She also rewrites the traditional"—"Also" is redundant. Sift through and weed out all of the redundant alsos.
  • Hmm. I looked at all of the "also's" again. None of them are redundant. They are usually used either as a transition word that ties together two thematically-linked sentences or they are used to mean "similarly" when it is appropriate that the reader should make the connection between two items that are alike. Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "none of them is redundant". Well, show me why the absence of "also" here and elsewhere affects the meaning.
Here are all of the "also's" in the article. Not all affect the meaning in the literal sense that I think you are referring to, but good writing also takes into account emphasis, which is what I have done here.
  • This heroine allows her to critique eighteenth-century sentimentalism and to reveal its damaging effects on women. Through its redefinition of gender relations and reimagination of female sexuality, Mary also rewrites the traditional romance plot. - "Also" allows readers to connect these two sentences together - they would not necessarily have a reason for doing otherwise.
Every sentence but the first is an also—that's the default: "I'm adding to what I've just told you". I'm not convinced of the need for that instance of "also", but will let it slide. Your example, however, brings up a more important issue: the referent for the first "its" is clear (18th-century sentimentalism), but is it the referent for the second "its"? If not, what is?
How about simplifying: "Mary rewrites the traditional romance plot by redefinition of gender relations and reimagination of female sexuality." ? (I'm a simplistic mouse :-) ... prose is Awadewit's field, or I'd just do it.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Did that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ann becomes consumptive and Mary travels with her to Lisbon in hopes of nursing her back to health. There they are introduced to Henry, who is also trying to regain his health. - This connects the characters of Henry and Ann together, a point which I expand upon at great length in the "Themes" section. It helps to prepare the careful reader for that section.
But not the careless reader? Make it "in the hope of", not the casually incorrect plural without its deictic, "the". "Also" is fine here; I didn't say that all instances were unnecessary; I just asked you to check through them.
Perhaps this is a matter of British versus American idiom. "in hopes of" is, in fact, a recognised idiom (Sources: The Free Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary). RedRabbit 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few months before starting the work, Wollstonecraft wrote to her sister Everina: "I am now reading Rousseau's Emile, and love his paradoxes … however he rambles into that chimerical world in which I have too often wandered … He was a strange inconsistent unhappy clever creature—yet he possessed an uncommon portion of sensibility and penetration" (emphasis Wollstonecraft's). She also notes that in Emile, Rousseau "chuses [sic] a common capacity to educate—and gives as a reason, that a genius will educate itself" (emphasis Wollstonecraft's). - emphasizing connection.
Smoother and stronger here without "also".
Removed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renowned Wollstonecraft scholar Claudia Johnson argues that Mary is "a bold and dangerous novel", because it presents a new kind of heroine, a "woman who has thinking powers" (in Wollstonecraft's words) who is also capable of having intimate relationships with both men and women. - it is extremely significant that this heroine can both be rational and have intimate relationships.
I agree.
How about moving the "also" to after the "of" to stress the repeated "has", and thus to signify the double-quality. RedRabbit 19:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such heroines", Wollstonecraft scholar Gary Kelly writes, "represent woman constructed for man: the heroic feminine victim of the courtly rake and gallant, the virtuous feminine companion of the ideal professionalized gentleman, and the intellectually and erotically subservient companion of the ideal bourgeois man."[11] Using numerous allusions and references, Wollstonecraft also attacks two sentimental novels in particular, the popular History of Eliza Warwick (1778) and The Platonic Marriage (1787). - emphasizing connection.
Connection of what? As I said, the default is that each sentence flows logically from its antecedent.
Also removed. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Diane Long Hoeveler has demonstrated, Mary is not only a sentimental novel, but, with its emphasis on death, hyperbolic emotion and persecution, also a gothic novel - a required "not only...but also" construction.
"Also" is redundant here.
Unfortunately, I agree with Awadewit here. Yes, it is mostly unnecessary in terms of meaning, but to my ear the sentence just sounds wrong without it. It's almost an idiom. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid two animals agree on this. "Mary is not only a sentimental novel, but... a gothic novel" is much weaker. Satisfying one's ear is more important than expunging redundancies.RedRabbit 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Mary's "strong, original opinions" and her resistance to "conventional wisdom" that mark her as a genius. Making her heroine a genius also allowed Wollstonecraft to criticize marriage: geniuses were "enchained" rather than aided by marriage. - MW was able to do more than one thing.
"Also" creates confusion: Something allowed W to do something, and making her a heroine ALSO allowed W to do something else. This is not the meaning. Get rid of it.
Done. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was supposed to be the meaning of the sentence - making her a genius allowed Wollstonecraft to present a "masculine heroine" as well as one that challenged conventional marriage. How best to phrase this? Awadewit | talk 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding "as well" after "marriage", unless you want to split an infinitive ("to also criticise")? I'm happy with either. RedRabbit 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an "as well" to the sentence. Awadewit | talk 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most scholars agree with Wollstonecraft's assessment of her writing, however, they also believe that the novel is important because it attempts to depict a liberated and reasoning female genius. - they believe in addition; emphasis and accuracy.
The statement works perfectly well without "also"; "however" is the critical connector, and thus "also" is redundant.
Done. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the also in the section heading See also, clearly unnecessary ... just kidding. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet" is unusual at the start of a sentence. Use another word.
  • It is not "unusual" to use "yet" at the beginning of a sentence. I know that some writing textbooks recommend that students never use words like "yet" and "but" at the beginning of a sentence, but that is because they are trying to avoid poor usage of the word. That "rule" is actually quite silly and broken by good writers all of the time. As far as I can tell, all of my "yet's" emphasize a juxtaposition between two sentences or two ideas, as I intended them to do. Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only advise you on how to adjust the tone to suit the register best. Blow textbooks.
Actually, Awadewit is correct on this point. It is neither unusual nor undesirable to have "yet" at the beginning of a sentence. Sorry to interrupt. RedRabbit 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need "governess" to be linked twice? And why is her surname linked in the body of the text repeatedly. These dilute the high-value links. Audit the whole text for this.
No, readers have (1) an opportunity to hit the link first off, and (2) can type the word into the search box at ANY TIME THEY CHOOSE. Please don't litter the article with blue in the fear that your readers might prevaricate about hitting a link. Otherwise, can I suggest that you link every single word, every single time. Must give them a continous chance ... who cares how obtrusive it is.
  • Also, I was under the impression that editors were supposed to repeat links in new sections. I have simply followed convention on that front in all of the FAs I have submitted. As WP:MOS-L states: "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, MOS-central—read the first sentence. The era of spattering trivial and repeated links throughout WP text is over. Those who realise how much they degrade the look and readability of the text have been exerting significant pressure over the past year or two, with good reason.
  • Here is more: Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page. - That is what I have tried to follow. I hardly think that this article is littered with links (there are about 60 links in the prose part of the article - that amounts to 0.01% of the words (60/3100 - hardly the 10% the MOS lists as "over-linked"). As has been noted by many a copy editor who has worked on articles I have written, I am a conservative linker. I have tried to adapt to Wikipedia's system, but I have not been totally successful. Where do you think that the text becomes unreadable due to overlinking? Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "MOS-central" refers to. The first text of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks is "Main articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)" which is clear. The first sentence is "Make only links relevant to the context." In each linking of governess, it is an important word in the context (one of the rare acceptable professions for women at the time; and a frequent role in the sentimental romance novels Wollstonecraft critiques here). If you believe that MOS-L contradicts MOS-central, whatever that is, let me draw your attention to "...when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another..." from the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just samples. Tony 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that all articles, whether they are on writers or not, should be written well (I would not argue that they can all be written professionally - we are not all professional writers). I would (also) argue that most of the "samples" you provided of my "subprofessional" writing are more matters of personal taste than poor writing. Nevertheless, I will copy edit the article twice more - once today and once tomorrow.Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't do it yourself (as I wouldn't, if I were the main writer). Locate collaborators from the edit history pages of similar FAs. This will be a valuable investment in future teamwork, and will enable fresh eyes to pick up what a familiar editor cannot. If you can't produce professional writing, either yourself or in collaboration, don't nominate articles for FA promotion. The internet is competitive. As for your accusation that I'm pushing personal preferences, that's one of the three low-down, desperate ways in which nominators try to deflect criticism of their prose. It won't do. I'm taking a particular interest now in this nomination. Tony 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already solicited help from another editor - I am not an idiot. Also, what similar FAs would you suggest? Looking at the recent FAs in literature, I noticed that I myself am the main contributor. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can produce "professional" writing, even scholarly writing. I'm sorry that my efforts here are not up to your exacting standards. I do not spend as much time poring over wikipedia articles as I do my dissertation. However, that does not mean that my writing is poor, unreadable or sloppy. I would never want to be associated with anything that is written poorly. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not trying to "deflect" criticism of my prose (note, that I considered each of your objections carefully, responding in detail and changing where I thought appropriate). I am simply pointing out what is obvious - that you are letting your own personal preferences regarding writing sway your judgments of other people's prose. Simply because you would have worded something differently doesn't make the wording I chose wrong. Although there are better and worse ways of wording things, some of the changes you are suggesting have nothing to do with quality and everything to do with personal stylistic differences. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm taking a particular interest now in this nomination. - Is that supposed to be a threat or something? I would have thought that commenting on the article in the first place meant you were taking an interest. However, if you want to attempt to force this nomination to fail over petty stylistic differences, be my guest, but I will simply no longer respond to these ridiculous accusations. I know that my writing can be improved and I have never claimed that it is "brilliant", but I do think that the articles I write are well-written (certainly, better than most on wikipedia). I know others agree. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, do you have any constructive comments regarding the content of the page? You haven't mentioned any concerns regarding the ideas in the article, either here or in any of the FACs that I have been in with you. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content? Haven't got that far. May not. Instead of blustering on here defensively, why not spend the time improving the writing. I don't mean to be personally critical; my own text is subject to a good deal of criticism too, you know. Tony 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I usually don't bother to copy edit an article very thoroughly unless I am sure that it is well-researched, comprehensive and well-organized. I don't see the point in poring over the "also's" if whole sections will have to be reorganized, deleted or expanded. Moreover, I'm genuinely confused now - you advised me not to copy edit the article, after I said I was going to give it two more thorough goings-over. Now, you are telling me to spend my time doing just that? Awadewit | talk 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Awadewit's writing is "better than most" on wikipedia, and she is perfectly capable of FA standard. (I am one of the "others"). I'll disappear down my rabbit hole now. RedRabbit 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, thank you for taking a particular interest in this nomination. No doubt with your constructive criticism we can make this article the best that it can be. It's been reviewed rather thoroughly by other editors in Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary: A Fiction/archive1 (q.v.), and of course in this FAC, which is already longer than most, but every extra pair of eyes is always welcome. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonEMouse has very kindly offered to take over the discussion of these issues. Awadewit | talk 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Between the lot of us, I think we have addressed all of Tony's specific objections, and Awadewit's several copyedits may well have addressed others, we can't know. I don't normally use these icons, but there's been so much text here that I think we need to specify we think we're done somehow. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - My problem with the article is that it seems to be pushing a point of view rather than being a neutral assessment, beginning with the word "monumental". Taking a larger, world view that word does not seem warranted. Perhaps I am wrong. Mattisse 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might you point out the sections where you see a POV arising? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of "monumental", I feel that the word is justified since Wollstonecraft's biographers spend several pages discussing her decision to become a writer, since it was such an unusual choice at the time. Janet Todd, for example, in Mary Wollstonecraft: A Revolutionary Life describes her choice as "extraordinary". Awadewit | talk 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "monumental" might seem to be fannish, or endorsing Wollstonecraft's decision. How about "unusual"? "rare"? Maybe stick in a few "highly"s or "very"s?:-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Usual" and "rare" doesn't get across the historical significance of her decision. Because Wollstonecraft became a writer, other women were inspired to become writers, helping spark the feminist movement, which enabled women to get the vote, which .... :) Is there another word that would suggest both the rarity and the significance of her choice? Awadewit | talk 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in her narrow world it was significant, but in the FAC, Song Dynasty, women were running their own businesses, instructing their sons in the art of war and becoming noted poets one thousand years earlier. It is a question of perspective. Mattisse 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New version: Composed while Wollstonecraft was working as a governess in Ireland, the novel was published in 1788 only after her summary dismissal from that position and her monumental decision to embark on a writing career, a precarious and disreputable profession for women during the eighteenth century. Awadewit | talk 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about "momentous"? This more modest word can still indicate the personal significance of the decision to Wollstonecraft, quite a step for a woman in Britain at that time. For me, the word is also a little more idiomatic. Just a suggestion.qp10qp 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "momentous". Awadewit | talk 01:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not think that the sentence hold for all women worldwide in the 18th century. Pushing that point of view is what I object to in the whole article. Another example is using the phase "tragic story" in the first sentence. In what sense are you using the word "tragic"? Mattisse 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Mattisse added "in Britain". I removed "of her class" and changed "during...Britain" to "in...Britain". –Outriggr § 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent article about a fascinating novel and heroine! :) Here are some general suggestions from a lay-person for your consideration
  • I missed having a richer description of the eponymous heroine in the lead, and perhaps her contrast with the other characters of the novel. The topic sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead might be a good place for that, as in "The heroine of the novel, Mary, is energetic, unconventional, opinionated, rational and self-taught, although she is surrounded by and even loves characters who lack such qualities. Such a female genius had never been seen in English literature and, through her, Wollstonecraft was able to critique the sentimentalism popular in the 18th century, particularly its damaging effects on women."
  • The article would benefit from having an introductory section for lay-people, clarifying the historical context of the novel, describing the kinds of novels/heroines that came before and after. For example, people might not know or appreciate that this novel was written before, say, Mansfield Park andSense and Sensibility, or be familiar with the tradition(s) of novels leading up to it. Some information on Wollstonecraft's reading audience might be good, too.
  • That reads nicely! :) That raises another suggestion, though. The word "genius" is very important for the novel and for this article, but I'm afraid that it will be misunderstood. In particular, I'm worried that modern people will take "genius" to mean "supernaturally smart" and ask why Mary isn't working on calculus or astronomy or some other form of rocket science. ;) It might be good to clarify Wollstonecraft's 18th century sense of "genius", perhaps connecting it with its etymological roots in "free spirit"? Although that has inappropriate modern baggage as well. :( Hmmm.... Willow 12:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that I outlined MW's conception of "genius" in the "Genius and autobiographical self" section. Do I need to be more explicit there? Also, I am working on adding material to the genius (literature) page that I link to. At some point, I do get to rely on links, I think. :) Awadewit | talk 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you do! :) It's just that you should consider placing the definition earlier and expanding it slightly, since the concept seems so pivotal to your message. If I'm understanding you correctly, perhaps the most important "take-home" message for the reader is, "This novel is notable because Wollstonecraft created a new type of character in English literature, a female — but not stereotypically feminine — genius." If that's a fair assessment of the idea's importance, then you should indulge yourself with another paragraph to describe the concept of genius in that era; perhaps there's a nice quote from Wollstonecraft herself, or an epigram from a Romantic poet, that you could illustrate it with? It also might be good to explicitly ward off the usual interpretation of genius, e.g., "This sense of 'genius' differs from our modern usage, according to which genius usually means 'preternaturally smart'." Perhaps you could place it at the end of the Plot Summary of just after, with an explanatory sentence in the lead? Willow 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this comment about genius. Perhaps the problem with the article is that in the article words are used in a way that may apply to sentimental literature in the 18th century but have quite different meaning today. I am wondering why the article links "sentimentalism" to "sensibility" in the intro (twice) rather than "Sentimental novel" or "Sentimentalism (literature)" which (although poorly written) does bring out the central characteristic of sentimentalism, that is, an overindulgence in emotion. My training defined sentimentalism as the predominance of sentiment over reason with the goal of evoking emotions in the reader. To me, linking "sentimentalism" to "sensibility" is misleading. This distinction is at the root of my comment below regarding the word "tragic" and what I perceive as an absence of neutrality in the article. It seems to me that the Wollstonecraft has succeeded in evoking emotion in the editor of this article, thus leading (I'm guessing) to misleading wording. Mattisse 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked once to sensibility and the other time to sentimentalism (literature); I have now made those different links explicit. The definitions of "sensibility" and "sentimentalism" are highly contested, even in eighteenth-century criticism. This is because people during the eighteenth century didn't agree on the definition. I had used "sentimentalism" because its modern definition of excessive emotion is closer to sensibility (a word whose meaning has totally changed), and I think that substitution is where you are getting hung up. I was actually being less precise in terms of literary history in an effort to be more accessible. "Sentimentalism" in the eighteenth century, according to one scholar who has written an "introduction" to the topic, is connected with a philosophical justification for sympathy (think of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments) while "sensibility" is more attached to the novels and poems of the last quarter of the eighteenth century which value personal experience and feeling as much as reason (not necessarily over reason). Sensibility was attacked during the 1790s, partially because women were using it to justify their participation in politics (they claimed that they had keener feelings and could thus be moral arbiters), and it became associated with excessive feeling at that time. However, another theory claims that "sensibility" as an aesthetic and an ideology did not drop away during the 1790s but morphed into Romanticism....Anyhow, as you can see, once you start to explain "sensibility" and "sentimentalism", it goes on for quite a while. I could add several paragraphs on sensibility to the article (like I did to A Vindication of the Rights of Woman), but I wonder if it is too far afield for the article. If you think these concepts need to be explained further, let me know. To some extent, this is another question of how much I can rely on links. "Sensibility" is loosely defined in the article as "feeling" right now, but its precise definitions are left out so that the focus is not too broad. (Sensibility is on my list of pages to rewrite. It is appallingly bad. I have read the necessary books, but I haven't had time to sit down and write it yet. Perhaps I will move it up on the queue.) Awadewit | talk 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) Yes, that may be the core of the problem if I am understanding what you are saying above. My thinking is that a word should be used in a way that consistent with today's understanding of the word rather than using it's 17th century or 18th century meanings. The way words are used in the article now is confusing. How is the lay person to know? If the article has no perspective outside the 18th century, no wide and comprehensive point of view, then it is looking at the subject narrowly and is not neutral it seems to me. --Mattisse 15:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "sentimental" because its modern meaning approximates eighteenth-century definitions of "sensibility", but there is no real modern equivalent. Let me know if you would prefer the more historically accurate but potentially confusing "sensibility" or the less historically accurate but, I think, clearer term for the lay reader. Awadewit | talk 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say, I didn't find Awadewit's usage of the words "sentimental", "sensibility" or "tragic" confusing. Admittedly, I've read a bit of English literature, but it seems likely that the readers of this article will understand her meaning at least as well as I did. I must also say, I didn't find the article POV at all, since its author's opinion is nowhere evident; and judging from the paucity of historical materials, the article seems comprehensive. What other sources mentioning this novel do you think would be useful to illuminate it, Mattisse? Willow 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now and then I had a little difficulty following the thread of the argument. It would be nice to have a few more direct quotes from the novel to illustrate the article's points more clearly; I really liked the quote on mourning Ann's death, which I thought did wonders for conveying the spirit and style of the novel. Also maybe explain the bits about Wollstonecraft's "advertisement"; is that the same as an Author's Preface? Willow 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sensed that I was out of my depth because I didn't always see the connections between the various sections and subsections. It might be better to re-organize the article to give a stronger sense of flow for the lay-person, and to put the simpler, more straightforward material earlier in the article and the more challenging, thought-provoking material later. For example, you might consider putting the "Reception and legacy" section ahead of the discussion of the themes sections.
  • I think that it is important for readers to know what the book is about before they read about its reception. It is particularly instructive, for example, that the relationship between Ann and Mary did not cause a critical stir (as it might today). Awadewit | talk 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess my impression is that the latter half of the article is centered on the scholarly interpretations of the novel, rather than on the novel itself. I found the thematic sections more difficult to plumb or assess, being a little distant from my everyday experience, so it might be nice to begin that section with a paragraph that outlines the whole section for the reader, so that they feel as though they are being led by the hand through it, i.e., that gives that section more "flow". I also feel that lay-readers will be more curious about the novel and its impact on its author and its era, so I would suggest putting those topics before the scholarly insights into its thematic; perhaps you could work in the prerequisites for understanding the Reception into the Plot Summary and Influences sections? It's just a suggestion, Willow 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you separate "the scholarly interpretations of the novel" from "the novel itself". The novel means (in wikipedia terms, anyway) whatever the experts say it means. I think what you mean is that there is less discussion about the form of the novel (stylistic quirks of the language, symbolism, etc.) and more about the political issues raised by the novel. There is an easy explanation for that, but it requires a bit of history. Mary only began to be studied in the 1970s, with the rise of feminist literary criticism, because prior to that time the novel was considered an inconsequential work (as were all of Wollstonecraft's works along with the works of most other women writers). The kind of criticism you are looking for, I think, is "New Criticism" and involves lots of what is called "close reading" of small portions of the text (it is ideal for poetry, in a way). New Criticism had its heday from the 1930s to the 1960s and while many of its tools are still employed, they have been overlayed by new historicism, feminist criticism and Marxist criticism (among many other things). No one wrote on Mary during that "New Critical" moment and the scholars that have become interested in the novel since the rise of all of these other perspectives have largely been feminists, queer theorists and Marxists. The article does address some of the classical questions of form, such as genre, but I can do no more than what the scholars themselves do. Awadewit | talk 00:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give me too much credit for knowing several schools of criticisms; something else for my reading list! ;) I think that you've answered my question, but just to clarify, I was suggesting that reading the article might be made easier and more fun for lay-people if it could be arranged so that simpler and more direct observations came earlier, and that you guided the reader through the article more strongly, preparing them for what was to follow. The second suggestion was to add more direct quotes and more historical detail to bring the novel, its heroine, its author and her society to life, to abet the reader's imagination of them and that era. Such details might include who published the novel and why, how expensive it was and how much profit it turned, the nature of the binding, how often the novel was printed, where/how it was advertised and purchased, contemporary reviews, mentions in personal letters from people of that era or a little after (especially from fellow writers), sermons and pamphlets lambasting the novel as the archetype of evil modern ways, similar/antithetical novels before and after, characters or plot devices inspired in other novels, etc. However, I gather from what you say that such details might be impossible to add, from a lack of historical records or research on them. Willow 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our friend Joseph Johnson published the novel. As you are aware, his earlier business records have not survived, so that information is unavailable. As far as I know, the questions you are asking have no answers. The book was simply not important enough at the time to garner much publicity - MW was unknown at the time and the novel did not make a big splash. Awadewit | talk 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of "Reception", what you see is what you get. This is not an area that scholars have focused on, believing, I think, that it is less important than the political messages of the novel. I'm not sure that putting such thin material in the middle of the article is a good idea. It is difficult to demonstrate the direct impacts of this novel on MW or her society; in the case of other books, however, it could be argued that the reception is more important than the content itself (The Age of Reason springs to mind immediately.) Awadewit | talk 00:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a few places, I would be use more cautious, more verifiable words. I cringe to hear myself say that, since I love vivid, assertive writing; but we also want to write only about what has been shown or averred in print. A word... ;) Willow 11:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back over it, I'm not sure what I was refering to exactly, sorry. :( My memory is that there were perhaps 3-4 unsupported statements about Wollstonecraft's internal sentiments (conveying the idea "she felt X as she did Y") or slightly overstrong assertions, however true. An example of the latter might be "reveals its damaging effects on women"; the word "reveals" is rather strong, suggesting that sentimentalism is categorically and objectively damaging to women and that MW was the first person to diagnose this damage. Perhaps that's what you meant and arguably it's true if "sentimentalism" is understood correctly, but others might object on both accounts. For example, Plato proposes that women leaders be educated just as men leaders in the The Republic, and eschews impractical, dreamy stuff for both. Therefore, it might be safer to say, "criticizes its damaging effects on women". Again, just a suggestion, Willow 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little mystified how I got that impression, too. It was before my coffee yesterday, so perhaps my brain had a little short-circuit? I'll look some more, but for now, let's consider this a non-issue. Willow 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is formal literary criticism, then my view is that the word "tragic" should be used in it's formal sense as would required in a class in English Literature at a university. If it is a feminism piece, or some other form than literary criticism, then I guess the word can be loosely as you use it. However, I still think it is an overstatement, expecially considering the times when women often did not live through child birth. To characterized the novel as "littered with bodies" (as you say someone else did) also seems like an overstatement, if that is your justification for the use of "tragic". Consider the times and also other eighteenth-century novels where characters regularly die. Using "tragic" in the first sentence in the lead does not seem neutral to me. Mattisse 12:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment - Tragic as in Shakespeare's tragedies? Perhaps some historical context would help. From The Oxford History of Britain (ISBN 0-19-285202) p. 536

The standard of living of some members of the labouring population began to increase quite fast. Between 1860 and 1914 real wages doubled. The years of particularly rapid growth were the boom years of 1868–74, and the period 1880–96; during the latter period real wages went up by almost 45 percent. By the 1880s, for the first time in the century, a significant number began to enjoy leisure time. Some money (though not much) was coming to be available for more than the essentials of food, housing, and clothing.

Is the above totally irrelevant to Wollstonecraft's (and Mary's) situation and therefore the extreme language in the article is justified? It seems to me the subject of this article is being regarded through a very narrow prism that disregards the historical context. The focus is on women of a particular class in Britain at that time with no recognition that the subject was of a privileged class. I would guess that most women did not have the option of making the "momentous" or "monumental" decision to write novels but rather their momentous decision might be to become a prostitute. Novels presume a leisure class that can buy and read them. It is the narrowness of the perspective of this article that bothers me. To me, the article seems to be written from a personal perspective and no greater context is provided for the reader. These articles (I thought) were supposed to be written for the general reader who may not even be English, never mind an English Literature major. Mattisse 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nineteenth-century living conditions in Britain are tangential to a discussion of an eighteenth-century novel, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give examples of what you think needs to be explained further in the article. Your example above regarding class is incorrect; not every woman may have had the ability to become a writer, but when Wollstonecraft did so, it was out of desperation. She had already tried being a governess, a companion and a teacher - she was broke. Being a writer in eighteenth-century Britain was not anything to write home about. Also, novels were not just for the "leisured class" - they were one of the first pieces of mass culture. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give examples of where the article becomes "personal" or "narrow" because I believe that I have presented the scholarly consensus regarding this book. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Mary was written in 1788, not in 1860 or 1880. Yes, I think the above quote is not relevant. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake. I tried to do a quick English history review and got it wrong. I don't feel like boning up on my English history enough to penetrate this article, so I will leave it up to the English who already know it. Mattisse 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would still like to see some historical context to the article to mitigate what I see as extravagant claims. However, until I am willing to ferret that out I can see that will not happen. Perhaps you could explain the following two sentences in the context of calling this a "tragic story". Aside from the tragic story part, this quote makes no sense to me, especially since later on it is stated that in Mary Wollstonecraft employs a rhetorical device that highlights the autobiographical elements in the story and emphasizes the reality of "the fiction".

As Diane Long Hoeveler has demonstrated, Mary is not only a sentimental novel, but, with its emphasis on death, hyperbolic emotion and persecution, also a gothic novel; Hoeveler identifies in the text what she calls "Gothic feminism", an ideology that values the persecuted heroine above all: it "is not about being equal to men" but rather "about being morally superior to men. It is about being a victim."[19] In other words, Hoeveler argues that the position of victim grants women moral authority.

Furthermore, I still have trouble seeing the following as a tragic story in that day and age.

At the end of the novel, Charles returns from Europe and he and Mary establish something of a life together, but Mary is unhealthy and can barely stand to be in the same room with her husband; the last few lines of the novel imply that she will die young.

Mattisse 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

  • Question - So you are saying that all of the major scholarly interpretations of the text agree that the word "tragic" is an accurate description of the work and that is why you can use the word in the lead in the first sentence of the article? Mattisse 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the major scholarly interpretations that attempt to describe the book to an audience who has never read it before use vocabulary like "tragic" or "tragic" itself. The Todd biography is a good example - its audience is scholars and lay people alike. Awadewit | talk 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (I have edited the article, whatever that means.) Awadewit, could the caption of the Fuseli be given some relevance to the article? I don't see any related references in-text. Also, nice show of patience on this FAC. –Outriggr § 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copy edit! I have used the Fuseli image as a way to buttress the description of Fanny and Wollstonecraft's relationship - it is supposed to suggest a sense of romance to the reader. There is no direct connection to the novel itself (a nice reference, however, for those in Wollstonecraft know, is that Fuseli was another one of Wollstonecraft's "romantic friends"). If you have an idea for what to say about the image, just add it in. Awadewit | talk 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. (I didn't mean copy edit, but just literally that I touched the article before FAC.) In that case a caption would only cheapen the effect! –Outriggr § 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any time, perhaps you could give the article an even more thorough copy edit? Tony1 has raised some concerns about the prose. I would be very appreciative... :) Awadewit | talk 00:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Comment - And that is considered NPOV - "supposed to suggest a sense of romance to the reader"? No direct connection to the novel itself. I guess that is called impression management. That in a nutshell is my whole objection to this article. But I know there are enough "in" fans to give it a pass despite all. So I will shut up. Mattisse 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is NPOV - it is supposed to be illustrating this quotation: "More importantly, the friendship between Mary and Ann closely resembles the relationship between Wollstonecraft and her intimate companion Fanny Blood, who meant "all the world" to her and, as Wollstonecraft's husband William Godwin later put it, "for whom she contracted a friendship so fervent, as for years to have constituted the ruling passion of her mind"." - The image has a direct connection to Wollstonecraft's biography, which is important context for this novel. I really would appreciate it if you would detail what exactly you see as POV in this article. Either list the discrepencies between the scholarship and this article or, if you are not familiar with the scholarship, list what you suspect is POV. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Approval of this article for FA will open the way for other impression managed pieces. Perhaps that is good. Editors who are impassioned about their subject matter will have more leeway. Mattisse 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - a little gem. I also found the inclusion of the Romeo and Juliet painting without any context in the article itself a little puzzling. I think it needs tying into the article, but I can't think of an easy way to do it without it reading awkwardly. There are also some possible redlinks to The History of Eliza Warwick, The Platonic Marriage, The Young Gentleman and Lady's Instructor and Fanny Blood. I haven't added them in case they are really too minor to ever have their own articles but please link them if they aren't. Yomanganitalk 12:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Fantastic Universe

[edit]

Passed GA. I've added some additional background information, and gone through to try to get it to FA standard; I think it's ready to be looked at. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason why there's no {{Infobox Magazine}}? 17Drew 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of that infobox; I think it can get a bit big and clunky. Is it a requirement? I don't mind adding it; it's just an aesthetic choice on my part. Mike Christie (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the infobox; I used the image that was already there. I have all the issues so I can add another scan if more are needed. Re comprehensiveness: yes, I think it's fairly comprehensive. Is there anything specific you had in mind? It wasn't one of the most prominent magazines of its day; there were at least half-a-dozen better known sf magazines at the time. It won no awards and didn't carry much ground-breaking fiction. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reception? --Kaypoh 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception, I take it? It would be interesting to get a sense of current opinions of the magazine amongst sf readership, but I don't think there will be any contemporary sources for this that could be cited. At that time it wasn't usual for review columns in magazines to review other magazines, and I would think that Fantastic Universe received no critical attention outside the field of sf. There are probably passing comments in fanzines, but in addition to being impossible for another editor to verify, any quotes from fanzines are the opinions of the editor, and I don't think would be reliable sources for overall critical reception. The best sources for the relative critical importance of sf magazines tend to be survey works written by researchers, and memoirs (etc.) of writers who were closely involved. Ashley, Tuck and Nicholls express opinions, and I haven't included all of them, but they're represented -- e.g. the comments about the quality reducing later in the magazine's life. As for memoirs, I've looked through what I have and found nothing of interest except the del Rey quote, which is included. It wasn't one of the major mags, so memoirs tend to ignore it in favour of Astounding, F&SF, Galaxy, and If. Mike Christie (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with two observations. (1) I don't know so I'm asking: should every instance of Fantastic Universe be italicized? Only the first two instances currently are. (2) The parts about quality of fiction across different editors is a little concerning. This kind of thing seems subjective, however, it is stated in the article as fact supported by footnotes: "under Santesson's tenure the quality declined", "maintained the standard of the fiction", "quality of the fiction generally fell during his period". I'd feel more comfortable if this was presented as an opinion supported by footnotes like "In bookx, SFHistorianx wrote that under editorx tenure the quality declined", "Criticx found that editorx maintained the standard of the fiction" and so on. --maclean 06:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should all be italicized, so I've gone ahead and made that change. With regard to the quality, I take your point about the tone of this. I am away from my refs until tomorrow evening, but I think the opinion is pretty much universal to all the commentators. I'll take a look and then try a rephrase based on what I find, and will post here when done. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a ref to the lead and below that gives specific quotes from three sources that state opinions about the magazine's quality. Let me know if this doesn't address the issue. Mike Christie (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the rationale; let me know if I need to add more. Thanks for fixing the resolution. Mike Christie (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article is close to FA, but not quite there yet for the following reasons:
    • "Fantastic Universe was a U.S. science fiction magazine published in the 1950s" Technically, it was also published in the 1960s for three months. I can't think of any way to express this that wouldn't sound odd.
    • "digest format", "American News Corporation", "Great American Publications" should probably all be linked
    • "Along with the increase in science fiction in book form came a flood of new magazines: from a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to twenty in 1950, and a further twenty-two had commenced publication by 1954." I'm assuming these figures all refer to just the US. Although it's stated in the first sentence of the paragraph, I would make it clearer in this sentence that the numbers do not include non-American magazines.
    • "he first issue included stories by Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury, and the magazine kept a fairly high quality through Merwin's departure after a year, and a brief period of caretaker editorship by Beatrice Jones. Margulies took over the editor's post with the May 1954 issue and maintained the standard of the fiction." and "The quality of the fiction generally fell during his period at the helm,[1] though this was not entirely his fault—there were a great many other magazines competing for stories by the top writers." I agree with Maclean that these PoV's needs to be attributed to someone.--Carabinieri 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to say that it began publishing in the 1950s; the actual dates follow immediately so I think this works. I've made those links -- the latter two are redlinks, but I agree they would be good to have articles for, especially American News Corporation. I added "U.S." to make it "a flood of new U.S. magazines", so I hope that addresses that. I've also attributed the comments on quality specifically to Tuck. Does that address your concerns? Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Carabinieri 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Gunnhild Mother of Kings

[edit]

Self-nom as creator, but others have worked on and improved the article considerably. Article recently promoted to GA. I think it is well-sourced and up to FA standards. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The references must be more precise and used more carefully. At one point a direct quote gave Fagrskinna § 8 as its reference but the text did not match the text of the only Fagrskinna translation given in the references.[92] If there are other instances of this they must be fixed. Using references like "Harald Fairhair's Saga §§ 45–46" is also not precise enough. We can't rely on chapter numbers in the sagas being standardized between editions. For example the first edition of this saga which I checked doesn't even have 46 chapters.[93] It has to be made clear that Harald Fairhair's Saga is a part of Heimskringla and the text should refer to the page number of a particular translation/edition of Heimskringla (though I don't mind giving a chapter number too). Haukur 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC) See below for more serious problems. Haukur 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticisms are well taken, though my format of citation is similar to that used in many reference works (see, for example, any of the books of William Ian Miller.) I was not aware that there were significant differences in the numbering of chapters between editions. Would you be willing to help me change the citations? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particular about the citation format per se, as long as it clearly identifies where the information can be found. I.e. I'd accept chapter numbers as long as the edition is identified. Numbering of chapters is often variable. The manuscripts only sporadically indicate chapter divisions and individual manuscripts of the same saga can easily disagree on them. Modern editors then add their own ideas. Haukur 00:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I miss the old days when articles could be featured without a single inline reference, and I am sure that Briangotts will address Haukur's concerns.--Berig 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, quite interesting, and I too am sure Briangotts will address Haukur's concerns to the extent that they need to be addressed. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the article, but I recuse myself since I did work on it. I would say that 17 redline broken wikilinks is a bit high, even for obscure Norsemen and Norsewomen. I think it used to be a requirement to have no broken links before making it to FA, but I've been gaslighted by rules-changers lately, so I will leave this to others' discretion. Cheers. -- Yamara 15:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the obscure people should probably just be delinked. I think the note about the unreliability of Egils saga is a bit odd. Egils saga is one of the earliest and most historical Sagas of Icelanders, more or less on a level with the (un)reliability of the kings' sagas. This is especially odd since information from the romantic Laxdœla saga and Njáls saga are cited as facts. Haukur 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That note has been removed. With regard to redlinks, the presence or absence of redlinks should have no bearing on an article's FA status. Consensus has overwhelmingly acknowledged that redlinks are useful because they promote the creation of new articles. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing some of those obscure people may not qualify for an article to begin with because the sources are so meager that there's almost nothing to say. The other point is that the featured article is more useful to the reader if it is well supported by its surrounding articles. Someone reading about Gunnhildr might well want to broaden his understanding by reading articles about her children - most of which are currently redlinked. Haukur 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite happy that none of the references used in the article are actually works about Gunnhildr. Academic articles have been devoted to the study of her and I would expect to see the article make use of them. Here are a couple of suggestions:

  • Sayers, William (1995). Power, magic and sex : queen Gunnhildr and the Icelanders.
  • Heinrichs, Anne (2000). Gunnhild Özurardóttir und Egil Skalla-Grímsson im Kampf um Leben und Tod. Haukur 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nn:Ragnhild Magerøy's 1966 historical novel on Gunnhild, Dronning uten rike ("Queen without a Country"), should be mentioned. Haukur 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes Gunnhild's death like this: "According to the Jomsvikinga Saga, Gunnhild returned to Denmark around 977 but was killed at the orders of King Harald." The footnote reads: "Ashley 443; Jomsvikinga Saga §§ 4-8. Poul Anderson regarded this account as entirely unreliable. Anderson 594-595." This is entirely unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.

  1. The saga description of Gunnhild's death is picturesque and interesting. It should be included in any biography of her.
  2. The details of this account led archaeologists to think that they had discovered Gunnhild's body in 1835. This should be mentioned. The article doesn't even mention the Haraldskær Woman which still lies in state in a place of high honor in a Danish church because she was believed to be Queen Gunnhild.
  3. Citing a fiction writer on the accuracy of this account is not the way to go. Scholars do (now) think that this account is entirely unreliable but Poul Anderson shouldn't be cited on that.
  4. The Jómsvíkinga saga is not the only source to give this account and shouldn't be cited as if it is. The story is also found in the early Norwegian works Ágrip and Historia de Antiquitate Regum Norwagiensium. Haukur 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that Anderson is well-regarded as a researcher in the field of Norse history and mythology but I would happily change this to a different source if I could find one. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Also, if you could add the cites to AGrip and Historia, I would appreciate it.
  • I will add the saga account when I get to my Jomsviking saga text, hopefully later today. I'm adding Harakdskaer Woman but would appreciate some help with citation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm not yet satisfied with the prose (1a), but I'll hold off opposing until I see how it improves. The lead is totally inadequate in scope and length (2a). Can it position this person in the larger picture of Norse mythology? "What little is known about her comes largely from these primarily Icelandic sources, and the Icelanders were generally hostile to her and her husband, making some of the more negative episodes suspect." The linking agent, "and" is wrong here; the ideas don't flow smoothly enough for that. First caption: run the lines on and don't use colour, just the words. Read MOS about captions. Quite a lot of redlinks. Delink them or start those articles. A few redlinks might be OK. Paragraphing a little disjointed in places. Tony 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17th century", "13th century", "tenth century", "twentieth century" - more consistency needed here
  • "— he turned the horse-head to face the mainland — " - em dashes should be unspaced, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes
  • Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens
  • "Orange - the domain of the jarls of Møre" - needs an en dash rather than a hyphen. Epbr123 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. A good portion of the footnotes cite the various sagas she played a role in. As the article admits, these are generally unreliable making a detailed biography of her life difficult. Therefore they surely qualify as "questionable sources" per WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Note also on the same page: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, [...] historical documents, [...] and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Evaluating sources like these sagas is a historian's or archeologist's job. It requires comparing them with other sources, examining the credibility of each source, perhaps even an expert knowledge of the historical epoch. Wikipedia editors are generally presumed to not have these qualifications. Don't get me wrong, as far as I know you may have a Ph.D. in Nordic history or be a high school dropout, but neither would qualify you to add information to Wikipedia without citing reliable secondary sources. Right now the article does cite a number of (from what I can tell) good secondary sources, but too many statements rely on the sagas. Let me give you some examples:
    • "Gunnhild and Erik had the following children: Gamle, the oldest; then Guthorm, Harald, Ragnfrod, Ragnhild, Erling, Gudrod, and Sigurd Sleva." The footnote after this sentence cites Harald Fairhair's Saga. How do we know that archaeologists or historians haven't found evidence to the contrary?
    • The same thing goes for the "Conflict with Egil Skallagrimsson" section. It just cites Egil's Saga. Is it reliable?--Carabinieri 12:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Plymouth Colony

[edit]

previous FAC

This article failed its previous FAC in April, 2007. Since then it has undergone a peer review: [94] and extensive changes have been made based on the failed FAC and the peer review. Also, two different copyeditors from WP:LOCE have gone over and fully copyedited the article. All prior objections raised in the earlier FAC seem to have been addressed, so I am resubmitting this for another consideration. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Very well-written and informative. The article gives a great overview of the colony, and it has clearly improved since its previous FAC. I found some very minor grammatical issues, and corrected each. Each image used in the the article is public domain, and clearly marked with appropriate tags. The article is extremely well-rounded in all areas, with references throughout. There are several reliable sources, and the article does not rely mostly on one source (one reason the past FAC failed). The article is good length. A few more images in the article would not hurt, but it is definitely not in dire need of them. One issue I had was a link to the current settlement of Plymouth, Massachusetts in the article's introduction, as for much of the early part of the article, the history of the modern town is one-in-the-same with the history of the colony. However, this issue has been readily addressed with a prominent sentence at the beginning of the article. I went ahead and proofread the entire article, and fixed the minor errors I found (which were very few). Overall, this is a job well-done, and the article is definitely worthy of FA status. Raime 03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 19 July 07, the "Christian Communism" section was added to the Plymouth Colony article. The section is in need of serious work, the most notable additions required being referencing and sourcing. The entire section was copied verbatim from the "Plymouth Colony" section of the Christian Communism article. In addition, the section is based entiurely on two very lengthy quotations from Of Plymouth Plantation, and I personally believe that the article would flow better if these quotations were cut down and summarized. I have made some changes, but this section still needs a lot of work, and these improvements should be made before Plymouth Colony achieves FA status. Perhaps this issue warrants only some mentioning in the "religion" section in the article rather than its own separate sub-heading. Raime 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) The situation has been completely fixed, as the passage in question was removed. Raime 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newly added section lacked any reference, and quite honestly, looked like original research so I removed it without prejudice. I will admit, I have not read EVERY book about Plymouth Colony; though I have never seen it refered to as a "Christian communist" society. It is entirely possible that a reputable historian has published that thesis. However, lacking any reference, I thought it prudent to remove the whole section. I see no problem with returning the information with relevent reference; however barring that it should be removed. As I have done. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think you made the right move, and have thus removed my comment. The lengthy passages in the article from Of Plymouth Plantation did not flow well, and the fact that it was copied verbatim from another article and lacked any references or sources clearly showed that it was quite possibly an example of original research. Raime 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Partial review of the article raised the following concerns for me:
    1. Under Origins, the last sentence of the third paragraph reads, "Upon arriving in America, the Pilgrims would then work to repay their debts." I think an improvement would be "Upon ariving in America, the Pilgrims began working to repay their debts." I feel it's more consistent wording. *: Done
    2. I'm going to have to double check, but I thought mention of dates and years should almost always have a comma before and after. For example, "They met in Augusta, in 1947, before he left for the war." rather than "They met in Augusta in 1947 before he left for the war." The latter being how this article reads. I corrected a few but, as I noticed more, I've decided I might should do some research. Nope. After only, according to Comma (punctuation).
    I don't have time to finish the article tonight. But I'll resume my review tomorrow. LaraLove 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There needs to be a consistency in the writing out of, or the use of numerals for, numbers over ten. Under the section of "Childhood, adolescence, and education", for example. LaraLove 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done: I have changed the writing-out forms of number over ten into numerical form in the section you mentioned as well as in other locations throughout the article. However, some sentences read "in their twenties" or "in their thirties", and I left it in written-out form becuase "20s" seems too informal. This does not really break consistency, as "twenties" is not a definite number. Raime 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think the Historical populations table could be improved. It may look different for me (I use Firefox) than it does for others (who use IE or another browser), but it doesn't look good at all to me.
    The Military history sections reads like a recap to previously mentioned information. It seems as though it would be more appropriate for the Standish article. Lara♥Love 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- You need to remove red links. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, though not sure it was necessary. Raime 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Could you cite the part of WP:WIAFA where it says there should be NO red links in any articles? Or maybe you could find the passage in WP:MOS or WP:MOSLINKS where it says that as well? The article contains maybe 3-4 redlinks. I can create stubs for those articles, if you wish, but it seems pointless to do so considering the article complies with all Linking guidelines as it is... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an aside, another editor has removed every redlink. So there are now NONE. But I still want to know why 3-4 redlinks in an article of this size somehow makes the article substandard? Don't redlinks encourage the creation of needed articles? One redlink, for example, was to Adam Willaerts, who was a notable Dutch artist. That he doesn't have an article begs for someone to create it... I mean, it seems kind of arbitrary to require the removal of a few redlinks from an article that otherwise was feature quality... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jayron, I didn't realize that you were thinking about creating articles for some of the red links, so I went ahead and deleted the links, and I apologise. For what its worth, the red links I removed were Sowams, Wessagussett, Sakonnet, Richard Greenham, John Demos, Adam Willaerts, and The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, if you are going to go back and write articles. But I agree, I don't think that so few red links really a hindrance to achieving FA status. I didn't think removal was necessary, I was just going along with what Wikidudeman said. Raime 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removing them is fine. I had no problem leaving them as redlinks. A few I would have probably started articles about (wessagussett, sowams) but others I lacked the expertise and resources to create a reasonable article; that is the purpose of redlinks, to invite people to create the article... However, if people are being randomly petty, its best to just go with the flow and let them have their way. It was a small issue, I don't care that much, and if that is all that is causing Wikidudeman to hold up his support, I am fine to make that random fix, as otherwise this article meets the FA criteria... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it is stated somewhere, possibly one of the links that Jayron posted (I would go look, but I'm going to be real about it... I'm too tired and don't feel like it), that redlinks are appropriate as long as it is relevant to the topic and notable as it's own article. Redlinks make editors aware that it is an article that needs to be created, in a way encouraging its creation. When relevant to the topic, chances are that someone reading that article will have some knowledge of the redlink topic and be inclined to create the article. For the purpose of FA, I wouldn't think it would be a problem to have a few (small few) redlinks. It may, however, hinder the chances of making the main page, but that's something Raul would have to comment on. LaraLove 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support polished up nicely since last time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plimouth—I presume it's the intended spelling.
  • MOS: en dashes required for page ranges in the Notes; read it on circa. Title page caption is not a complete sentence, so no dot.
  • "Organization of the goverment"—as a title, better as "Governmental organization"? Tony 02:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replies to Tony: In places where a direct quote or paraphrase of an historical source is used, I used the historically used spelling. Prior to the 18th century, there was no standardized English orthography. Thus many historical sources use various spellings: Plimoth, Plymoth, Plimouth, etc. In places where a modern context is used, I used the modern "Plymouth" spelling. If you see a specific error, please point it out specifically. I will fix the section header to the less verbose one as well. And I will ask Brightorange to run the script to fix the endashes. Thanks for pointing that out... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to say was "Yes". It was reasonable to check whether it was a typo. Tony 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it MIGHT be a typo or a misspelling. Unless you tell me where the particular spelling occurs, I can't check it. I may have missed something. Plimouth MAY be appropriate in one place in the article, but not in others. I was trying to let you know that, and if you could point out the SPECIFIC instance that troubles you, I can double check. I didn't say "yes", becayse the answer wasn't "yes"... it was a qualified "maybe" and it depended on where you saw the issue... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be possible to incorporate the Demographics section with the other sections? Much of the information is already repeated elsewhere in the article. Karanacs 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the section has already been condensed from two prior sections; one titled "People" and one titled "Demographics". I am not sure I can see where it is really repetitive. A few sentances refer back to earlier ideas for context, but really, it isn;t repetitive. For example, the "English" section explains the differences between the groups of English settlers, an analysis that isn't done anywhere else in the article; the section on Black Slaves has no other mention anywhere, and neither does the section on infant mortality and birthrate. Do you have any specific recommendations about what and how to merge, if one is done? The information in that section doesn't really belong elsewhere, IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the information you have is very useful, and I would hate to have it removed. However, the Origins and Mayflower Voyage section already go into detail on the Pilgrims and the Strangers, and it should be fairly easy to incorporate the additional information about them into those sections. Likewise, the Marriage and Family section already has some information about infant and maternal mortality, and the paragraph you have in the Family size section would fit there very well. If you know when the Particulars came, the description and naming of them should appear there. I think the only information in the Native American section that is not covered already in the article is the first sentence, and that could be incorporated into earlier sections. The only section that I question is Black slaves, and it might be able to go into the Growth of Plymouth section. I'll support the article regardless of which path you decide to take, but I think incorporating this section into the rest of the article makes more sense, since so much of it is very related to other topics that are covered earlier. Karanacs 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I am still going to respectfully disagree with you, and here are my reasons. The Origins and Mayflower Voyage section are part of the history narrative, which has a certain flow to it; it tells a story. The Demographics section is more of a description of the various people in the story; look at it this way: The history section is the "novel", while the Demographics section is the "character analysis"; both are important, but to drop in bits of the demographics section into the history narrative interrupts the narrative flow; while it may contain some overlap, it presents the information in a different way and in a different context. Look at any article about a political entity (country, state, city, etc.); there are separate sections dealing with history, government, culture, demographics, etc. etc. Lets say I invent a nation, "Jayronistan". The section on the history of Jayronistan may mention the arrival of an immigrant group, say the "Karanacs" as an historical event in the life of as nation; the demographics section may talk about what proportion of the population is made up of that "Karanacs"; the culture section may mention that "Karanacs" in terms of their contribution to the arts. You don't group every mention of the "Karanacs" into a single section; you mention them where important per the context. Likewise, I feel this article does that in its organization as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well argued, Jayron. Overall, you did an excellent job with this. Karanacs 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MOS violation with seasonal references: the spring of 1620, The celebration in autumn, 1621. There are other seasonal references that need to be checked as well because they appear to be stylistically ambiguous. Need careful review of all seasonal references to ensure that they are indeed discussing the time of the year and are not being used as substitutes for dates, per MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all references to seasons with the exception of these sentances. Could you please tell me if these sentances use seasons appropriately, or perhaps come up with a suggestion on how to replace the season in them so as to be unambiguos? Thanks:
      • "With winter approaching and provisions running dangerously low, the passengers decided to return north and abandon their original landing plans.[11]" In this case, do you have a better way to refer to the cold and snowy months that occur in the northern hemisphere during the months of December, January, and February?
      • "The first structure, a "common house" of wattle and daub, took two weeks to complete in the harsh New England winter." Again, I am not sure how to remove the problem from this sentance. Could you help suggest how to remove the word winter from it?
      • "Thus, only seven residences (of a planned nineteen) and four common houses were constructed during the first winter.[22]" Again, help please?
      • "Nearly half of the original 102 passengers died during the first winter.[31] " Same problem as above. Any suggestions?
      • "Standish also organized the able-bodied men into military orders in February of the first winter. During the second winter, he helped design and organize the construction of a large palisade wall surrounding the settlement. " Argh. Unfortunately, the phrase "second winter" is the best I can use, since all references don't list exact dates, only using the phrase "winter".
      • "each of who lost their spouses during the harsh winter of 1620–1621, " again here, should I say something like "harsh snowy months of December, January, and February of 1620-1621"

Every other use of the words "Spring" "summer" or "autumn" has been removed from the article. Could you please tell me how to fix these sentances to remove the word "winter" from them?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In these cases, the season is clearly having an impact on the protagonists of the article, and therefore it is not necessary to change them. The MOS does not allow seasons to be used as a substitute for dates. However, the seasons themselves and their effects are not date references and are therefore not contraindicated by the MOS. You may want to make sure that you haven't overdone the removal of seasons. In some cases augmentation may be more appropriate. For example, changing The celebration in autumn, 1621 to autumn celebration in November 1621. The festival celebrates the harvest in autumn, so it is appropriate to mention autumn here, and mentioning the month tells the readers when the festival took place.
    • With winter approaching and provisions running dangerously low ... Here, the winter is important to the context. The date is given earlier in the same paragraph. No change needed.
    • The first structure ... took two weeks to complete in the harsh New England winter. As above, no change needed.
    • [O]nly seven residences ... and four common houses were constructed during the first winter. As above, no change needed.
    • "Nearly half of the original 102 passengers died during the first winter. As above, winter is a cause of death, not a date, so no change needed.
    • Standish also organized the able-bodied men into military orders in February of the first winter. This may need to be revised. Does the winter play a crucial role here? Would the article lose important information if this was substituted? If the phrase "of the first winter" was substituted with the year "1621", would the lack of mention of winter here be problematic? What effects did the winter have on the ability of Standish to organise the men into a militia?
    • During the second winter, he helped design and organize the construction of a large palisade wall surrounding the settlement. What role did the winter play here? Undoubtedly it must have had one. Did the ground freeze, making it difficult to dig? Perhaps this would benefit from some form of augmentation (mentioning the years would be helpful here).
    • each of who lost their spouses during the harsh winter of 1620–1621 The winter impacted on the protagonists. However, I would change "each of who" to "each of whom" here.
    It may also be helpful to review these other changes, with my suggestions for your consideration:
    • The celebration in autumn, 1621 -> The autumn celebration in (November?) 1621 (This was a celebration of the autumn harvest, so a seasonal reference is useful here. Specify a month if it is known, otherwise I suggest "late 1621" as an alternative. Such usage may appear redundant for a northern-hemisphere reader but is helpful for a southern hemisphere audience.)
    • Throughout the summer, as promised by Massasoit -> Throughout the middle of (specify year), as promised by Massasoit, or one can let the edit stand as is.
    Seasons can be difficult, but the guidelines I use is simple - if the seasonal reference is acting like a date, reword it, eg: the spring of 1620 -> early 1620.
    Keep up the good work. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the two instances you specifically quoted as violations have been removed and fixed. We cannot say that the celebration you cite happened in November. One source says that it MIGHT have been in October, but even that is a WAG, and the source admits that, so I thought Autumn was as close as I can get. I am pretty sure that no where in the article as it stands now is there a season "standing in" as a date... everywhere a season is mentioned, it is in the context of the weather of said season (harsh winter, etc.) and not as a date. Could you please review the article and tell me if you now support it? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

History of Texas A&M University

[edit]
  • support- 3
  • oppose- 0
  • our solefirst reviewer put a whole lot of obstacles that we overcame. Please review us!

Oldag07 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. This article is of top priority for Wikiproject Texas A&M and is already rated GA. I believe it meets the criteria for an FA in full. Thanks for your consideration. Karanacs 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I made a few minor WP:MOS corrections; everything looks good structurally and the referencing seems sound. There's one change I'd suggest. Dethloff is not "Further reading"; it's a Reference. It can be listed once, and then individual citations of Dethloff can be shortened to (for example):
    • Dethloff (1975), p. 18.
  • by just putting the text above in ref tags. This makes the article easier to edit. Making this change is fairly easy: let me know if you'd like for me to do it. Glad to see the Project referencing has improved over past noms! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see problems with the first few paragraphs (I'll add more when I have time to do a full review).
"For much of its first century, enrollment at Texas A&M was restricted to young men who were willing to participate in the Corps of Cadets and receive military training."
I see nothing in the sources that states they had to be young men. In addition, some females did attend classes, but were ineligible to received a degree until later in the school's history.
Very good point. Both issues addressed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"During World War II, over 20,000 current and former students of Texas A&M served in the military, contributing more officers than both of the military academies combined.[1]
I've mentioned this before on the Texas A&M page. There is a difference between the number of Aggies who served in WWII and the number produced for the military by A&M during WWII. The difference is analogous to the number of Aggies in the NFL from 1990-1999 and the number of Aggies who went to the NFL from 1990-1999 (just an example to illustrate my point).
Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after World War II, Texas A&M officially became a university system separate from the University of Texas system."
Discussion moved below
"In the 1960s, under the leadership of Major General James Earl Rudder, the school became racially integrated and coeducational, and membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary."
I would link Major General. Additionally, the sentence seems to run-on a little. Perhaps rephrasing it a little?
Added wikilink and parsed the sentence into two sentences. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lede either needs to cite sources for all of its claims or none of them. Personally, I prefer the latter (since all claims in the lede should be referenced and expanded upon later in the text). Basically, I see no need for any references in the lede, but if you choose to have them, make sure everything is referenced.
You are right; references removed from lead. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1870s...
The first sentence doesn't jive with what is stated in the Morrill Act page (I don't think Congress can sign something into law unless they override a veto).
Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 October 1876, only 40 students were present, though the size of the school grew to a height of 106 students during the school year.
Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the legislature had originally envisioned that Texas A.M.C. would be part of the University of Texas system, the Austin college was established with a separate Board of Regents, leaving Texas A.M.C. to continue to be governed by its Board of Directors." Overuse of Texas A.M.C. In addition, explicitly state where the acronym "Texas A.M.C." comes from in its first usage, such as "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, also known as Texas A.M.C., was established by the state legislature..."
Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should wikilink a little more throughout: "Corps of Cadets", "bonfire", "yell practice", etc.
Added wikilinks to bonfire, yell practice and athletic teams. There was already a wikilink to Corps of Cadets earlier in the section Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the decade, public sentiment of A&M improved substantially." Contradicts the next paragraph (which, by its very nature should probably be in the previous section IAW its title). Hmm, Maybe it would be better to nix the years in the titles since that restricts the information that can be presented and history rarely occurs only by decades.
Fixed. Removed that sentence, which didn't make sense where it was, and moved the first paragraph of Ross section to be last paragraph here. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ross
"Ross, the immediate past governor of Texas, had been a well-respected Confederate soldier and enjoyed a good reputation among state residents." He was more than a soldier; he was a Brigadier General. I recommend removing the passive voice "has been" and replace with "was".
Just thought I should mention that I don't think "had been" is passive unless followed by a past participle. Plus, the passive shouldn't necessarily be avoided.--Estrellador* 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, eff me. You're right. See, this is what happens when you rush things... :-) That said, "had been" seems to imply he became something else later and I think "was" would be more appropriate here. — BQZip01 — talk
I added in his title, but I disagree about the verb change. Ross wasn't a Brig. Gen. in the CSA when he went to A&M -- that army had been disbanded. He did not take a position in the regular US army after the conclusion of the Civil War either. When he went to A&M he was a civilian, thus "had been." Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. Fine by me if you want to keep it. I'm not a stickler on that.
Unfortunately, I have stuff to do and I'll get back to this in the near future (Aggie Word!). BTW, excellent job overall! — BQZip01 — talk 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm back (— BQZip01 — talk). Since I have a little more time on my hands, I'm going to go through each section slowly and save periodically. This will likely be a multiday review, so bear with me.
Overall Problems
  • Date inconsistency You say the history of A&M starts in 1871, but then refer to the Morrill Act of 1862. Which is it? Maybe rephrase to "has its roots in the Morrill Act of 1862..."? I also recommend changing the names of the section headers to something other than dates. Dates seem to cause their own problems. An example, you start the 1900-1958 section with "In 1910..." I mean, what happened for an entire decade? You also refer to dates before and after a given timeframe. Just simplify and get rid of those dates to eliminate the inconsistencies.
Removed dates from most of the headers. Any ideas for the last two sections, or should the date ranges be okay there? As for the Morrill Act, I thought using the phrase "laid the groundwork for" made it clear that it didn't actually establish the university. The second paragraph then explicitly states when the university was founded. "Has its roots in" seems to mean the same thing??? Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see your point with the phrasing. I still think the history of the school begins prior to the actual establishment of the school, just like the history of America begins before it was established. — BQZip01 — talk
I'm following the example of FA article History of Michigan State University, which lists the starting date of the history as the date the legislature signed them into being. Texas A&M did not exist until 1871. Before that, the state and federal legislatures were thinking about a generic college, but not necessarilky A&M. Karanacs 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I renamed the headers. Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An idea!!! Why not label the 1970-90 section as Expansion and the 2000s with Recent changes and the future (or something like that)?
  • Comma usage Inconsistent when used with dates. IAW WP:MoS, use the American version (put commas after "In 1917,...") or the British version (no commas after prepositions ending in dates), but don't mix & match.
I think I've caught all of these now. Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. — BQZip01 — talk
  • Problems with numbers Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200 pounds, use 200 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200&nbsp;pounds. — BQZip01 — talk
All the standard measurements were using the convert template and should thus be okay. I also added {{nowrap}} around numbers of students so that the unit "students" would remain with it. Karanacs 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you seem to have gotten everything. Again, good work. — BQZip01 — talk 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • Redo and be careful about your use of the term "Senior Military College." If I am not mistaken, the term didn't exist at the time of its inception (later established by the National Defense Act of 1920 (I think). Either way, this claim should be backed up in the main text. Near as I can tell, it isn't.
I'm not sure how that one got slipped in without me noticing it, but I've removed it. Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could incorporate it elsewhere in the article? — BQZip01 — talk
  • Probably should have pointed this out sooner, but Rudder was retired US Army at the time he became University President and it should be noted accordingly.
His title doesn't need to be in the lead. I've noted in the body of the article that Rudder was retired from service. Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after World War II, Texas A&M officially became a university system separate from the University of Texas system."
This statement implies that we were once part of the University system of that overglorified junior college in Austin before A&M became its own separate University.
According to the State Constitution, A&M was technically part of the University of Texas system. Oldag07 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was envisioned and originally established to be part of the yet-to-be-established system, but that never materialized and both schools have always been separate. — BQZip01 — talk
we could say,
Shortly after World War II, the State Legistature made Texas A&M's de facto separation from the University of Texas system de jure."
they were separated in reality but not by law. the state officially made the separation law after world war 2)Oldag07 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources state nothing of the kind though. I am REALLY sure that this isn't true, but if I am wrong I would be happy to admit as such if you can prove your assertion. Where is your proof? All you have is "The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station." (emphasis added by — BQZip01 — talk)
The Constitution of 1876 specified that the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas. From the handbook of texas source one.
the school had always been de facto separated from the university of texas, but with my limited understanding of law, the constitution would be correct unless the state would make an amendment to it. thus the school was legally part of the university of texas system until the state decided to change the constitution later on. btw, is this the time to argue semantics? Oldag07 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(moved to left to stop the trend to the right :-) )
I do not view this as merely semantics. I view this as an error in a fact. To reiterate, Texas A&M was never part of the University of Texas, de jure or de facto. It was envisioned to be part of the t.u. system (we're both Aggies here...why not keep it friendly?), but never fell under their jurisdiction in any way.
Furthermore, verbatim from The Constitution of the State of Texas, "The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled, "The University of Texas," for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an Agricultural, and Mechanical department." This is a directive, not an law, per se. In fact, it directs the Legislature to make a University, but does not establish one.
Nothing in your supporting documentation states otherwise. As such, it is your responsibility to bring forth proof of your claim. I am willing to be proven wrong. Please do so or change the claim. — BQZip01 — talk
Here's a direct quote from my source (Handbook of Texas) - "The Constitution of 1876 specified that the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas." The body of the article explains that although A&M was intended to be part of the UT system, when tu opened it had a separate board of regents and A&M kept its own Board of Directors. Although I think the sentence in the lead is accurate, in the interests of avoiding an argument I've reworded it to be "Shortly after World War II, the school became part of the newly created Texas A&M University System." Better? Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas." It never states that it ever became as such only that it was intended to be. In addition, this doesn't jive with the actual words from the Constitution.
As for the rephrasing, It is better, but I think it would be better to state that Texas A&M University is the flagship of the university system and became a University at the same time as the system was established. As it is, it is somewhat ambiguous and it sounds like doesn't state that the school became a University first and that is was the flagship of the University system. The facts are correct, but seem ambiguous. A little more clarity would be useful.
I don't see how one could arguing around the constitution thingy. whatever. it seems like karanacs has the right idea. . . .Oldag07 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It never was part of the UT system. Please show me something somewhere that states a fact current with some time after 1876 that is not a future idea. Here are the facts:
  • 1862 - Morrill Act passed & signed into law
  • 1869 - Idea for A&M codified in Texas Constitution, but envisioned under a yet-to-be-established UT.
  • 1871 - A&M established under state law
  • 1876 - A&M opens doors
  • 1883 - UT opens under separate governance and never has any authority (de facto or de jure over A&M)
  • 1948 - AMC become AMU.
  • 1948 - AMU also established as the lead University of the Texas A&M University system
    • Here's the text from Article 7, Section 13, of the Texas Constitution that explicitly states A&M is part of UT system: [95] "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, established by an Act of the Legislature passed April 17th, 1871, located in the county of Brazos, is hereby made, and constituted a Branch of the University of Texas, for instruction in Agriculture, the Mechanic Arts, and the Natural Sciences connected therewith." Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOW we're talkin' hard facts! Very nice research.
      • You go girl! Oldag07 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • UT did not exist at the time. If we write a law today that declares the Air Force part of the new Space Command, but not provide or establish any portion of the Space Command, how is it part of anything that doesn't exist? How does it fall under something that doesn't have anyone in it?
        • BTW did you notice that "the" was not capitalized in "the University of Texas"?!? LOL
        • This is an issue of legal authority and governance. The Board of Regents was set up for UT without any authority over the Board of Directors at Texas AMC. While it was certainly set up initially to be that way, it never materialized as a legal authority over A&M. There is a conflict in law here...so...
  • REASONABLE COMPROMISE Why now phrase something in there like, "Though A&M was originally established under the Texas Constitution of 1871 as a branch of the yet-to-be-created University of Texas, subsequent acts of the Texas Legislature never gave the University any authority over Texas A&M. This internal legal conflict in Texas was later nullified when Texas A&M was redefined by the Texas Legislature as a University in 1948 and made a clear and separate institution..." How about that? (feel free to rephrase as necessary) — BQZip01 — talk 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • my point with de jure and de facto. though i must admit, i am not sure if i am using those words 100 percent correctly. i sorry i did not contribute much today. i got caught up in a huge texags thread. Oldag07 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little from column A, a little from column B... — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the lead and the body of the article to incorporate some of your phrasing. I did make sure to point out in the early years section, as well, that when tu was created A&M retained its own governing board. Karanacs 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Good change in the right direction (agreement). I still have a problem with "Membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary." It precedes the statement about the changes led to the change in status of the College to a University, but it happened after the name change. On a related question, the point where they started giving out Master's and Doctoral degrees is the point where A&M ceased to be a college and became a de facto University, correct? — BQZip01 — talk
PERFECT!!! — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Early Years
  • "The Corps instead formed a large stable organization." Short and awkward. it formed a stable org...to what end? Maybe add something about the organized social programs at the time?
I just removed that sentence. It isn't really necessary to the paragraph.Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ross Looks good!
Program Expansion
  • "In 1940, Texas A&M awarded its first Ph.D., and more programs at the college began offering doctoral degrees." Awkward "paragraph". Rephrasing and place elsewhere.
There is really nowhere else for this to go. The paragraph before talks about the Great Depression and women and the events of the 30s and the next paragraph talks about WWII. I did rewrite it into two sentences that hopefully flow better.Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. That'll do as is. No worries — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More of a pet peeve than anything, but the references should be in order (i.e. not 9, 1, 10, but 1, 9, 10).
Fixed. Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after World War II, in 1948, the state Legislature officially recognized A&M as a separate university system, distinct from the University of Texas system. A&M's Board of Directors continued to oversee the system." I was hoping this would change with the lede without having to mention it. Short version:
  • 1862 - Morrill Act passed & signed into law
  • 1869 - Idea for A&M codified in Texas Constitution, but envisioned under a yet-to-be-established UT.
  • 1871 - A&M established under state law
  • 1876 - A&M opens doors
  • 1883 - UT opens under separate governance and never has any authority (de facto or de jure over A&M)
  • 1948 - AMC become AMU.
  • 1948 - AMU also established as the lead University of the Texas A&M University system
This can be crossed off now, per discussion above. :) Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and attended classes at the base, which became known as the Annex" maybe add "and later became known as the Riverside campus."
Done. Karanacs
Marked off the list — BQZip01 — talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rudder Era
*Place reference 14 at the end of the sentence (you referenced a date? or something later in the sentence?)
Done (yes, I was just referencing the date). Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice LOL. — BQZip01 — talk
  • "In 1970, he went on to become the first to receive a degree from the College of Veterinary Medicine." I assume a masters degree or a doctorate? Please specify.
Done (it was a DVM). Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1970, he went on to become the first to receive a D.V.M. degree from the College of Veterinary Medicine." I assume he wasn't the first person ever to get a DVM (if so, that is certainly of note). You may want to rephrase.
Okay, fixed. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks good. — BQZip01 — talk 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, combine the above two sentences into the previous paragraph (a 2 sentence paragraph is a bit too small by itself).
  • Rephrase "a woman's dorm" to "an all-female dormitory."
Done Oldag07 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70s-90s
  • You don't need two consecutive references (like reference #21) of the same references in consecutive sentences. Take out the first one.
Apparently, this has been fixed because I don't see any instances of this. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last two sentences of the second paragraph in the 70s-90s section (new refs must've made that one 23 now). I went ahead and fixed it myself so you know what I meant. — BQZip01 — talk 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2006, the remainder of the lawsuits were unresolved." needs a reference
New sentence, because the lawsuits actually got thrown out, and is now referenced. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good rewrite! Note, however that there are still local lawsuits pending. (I think that is splitting hairs and have no objection to the current wording. It shows where everything stands and not where it may or may not lead: back to bonfire being rebuilt. Good balance). — BQZip01 — talk 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2000s
  • "across the world" is awkward. Usually its something like "around the world"
doneOldag07 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see some of your points. however, A&M dedicated almost a paragraph in the history section of the course catalog to phi beta kappa. http://www.tamu.edu/admissions/catalogs/GCatalog2004-5/GenInfo.htm . That is why i feel it probably is a good idea to have it. I guess beginning part of that organization is a bigger deal for individuals than it is for colleges. Oldag07 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, keep it. It isn't that big of a deal and it can easily be changed.
  • Move the AAU sentence to the Current Status section.
Done. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "magnetic resonance imaging." It is commonly known as an MRI.
Done
  • Awkward: "70,000 of which are graduate and professional degrees." Rephrase to "of which 70,000 are graduate and professional degrees."
doneOldag07 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh ("Ugh is frustration on my part for not catching it sooner), I just caught the mismatched verb tenses in the previous sentence. Please fix
????Done? is most people have realized, grammar is not my strong suit.. . . Oldag07 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and fixed it myself (no reflection on anyone's grammatical prowess, just easier to fix than to explain). — BQZip01 — talk
References
  • Reference #20 (Korzenewski) needs a full date
Done. Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be sure all references are italicized correctly (Major publications like newspapers need to be italicized)
Done. Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure when this happened, but many dates in the references are not wikified. I tested it and I think it is a glitch with the citation templates. just put brackets around the dates and it should fix the problem.
I've been trying to figure out why this changed in the citation templates, and it looks like we aren't supposed to wikilink them anymore. From Template:Cite news - accessdate - "Do not wikilink the date." Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdate always wikilinked it for us, I'm referring to the other dates. — BQZip01 — talk
I fixed the one regular date that wasn't wikilinked. It looks like the {{cite web}} and {{cite press release}} templates are still wikilinks the access dates but the others aren't. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's how they decided to do it. I don't know why. I had the same problem on the main A&M page. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that WP:DATE guidelines override a template, I'm just going to fix them and save the discussion for the template's talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I went back and looked at the A&M main page. They have the same problems, but I KNOW we had it right not more than a few months ago. I'm guessing the templates have been effed up by someone. Just keep it as is for now; it will be easy to change in the future. — BQZip01 — talk 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more I just noticed in the lead. Texas A&M became a "University" in 1948, but the lead states that changes (co-ed, non-mandatory Corps, and integration) that happened in the 60s were the reason for the name change. Might want to clear that up. — BQZip01 — talk 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the lead a bit; the official name change didn't take place until 1964, though. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good info, see previous posting for an additional issue to address related to this. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized that paragraph about. It should be more straightforward now. Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Two images need examining:
    • Image:Texas AandM University seal.png needs a fair use rationale - the current one is inadequate. The image is also quite large, and not the same as the one on Texas A&M University. Personally, I'd remove the image from the nominated page altogether, on the basis that it's purely decorative there.
    • Image:Rudder Statue.JPG also needs a better fair use rationale. Assuming the uploader has correctly assessed its copyright status under freedom of panorama rules, it should also be reduced in resolution in accordance with WP:NFCC: unlicensed derivative work is copyrighted work and we shouldn't reproduce it at a higher resolution than is necessary. As with the above, its significance in the context of this particular article should also be assessed.
— mholland (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, gotta say I disagree about the comment that the image is purely decorative. It is the seal of the subject of the article. If we wrote a History of the 82nd Airborne It would be appropriate to put their unit patch on the page, would it not? Why does it need to be the same as the image on the Texas A&M page?
  • As for the picture of the statue of Rudder, why is this not adequate? Its significance is extremely important in the history of Texas A&M. Rudder instituted the changes in the school to bring it from a military college of ~3000-4000 students to a world-class University of 45,000+. In addition, this image is shown at the default resolution of Wikipedia, not above the standard. — BQZip01 — talk 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Rudder himself is of great significance to the article. I'm just questioning whether this particular image of Rudder is absolutely necessary. The statue didn't transform Texas A&M, Rudder himself did: and there's a freely-available public-domain image of the man himself already uploaded to Wikipedia.
The 82nd Airborne insignia is public-domain, by the way. Both the A&M seal and the statue are copyrighted. I don't mean to come across as a kill-joy: I recognise that images are a big hoop-jumping exercise. There are just still a couple of hoops to jump through here. — mholland (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I disagree with you, but I see your point. You didn't come across as a Kill joy in any way. You are just commenting on the subject as am I. If more people were as civil and reasonable, Wikipedia would be a lot easier. — BQZip01 — talk 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the seal with another image of campus. I also disagree with removing the image of Rudder's statue. It was also used in the article Texas A&M University, which recently became a Featured Article. As it uses the default resolution, and it was deemed acceptable for another FA, I believe it should also be acceptable for this companion article. I have added a separate fair use rationale for this article, though. Thanks for your comments! Karanacs 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the rationale (although I would recommend looking at {{Non-free use rationale}} for a set of suggestions for constructing a genuinely watertight fair-use rationale in any circumstance). In terms of image size, per WP:WIAFA (3), "images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content", and per WP:NFCC (3b), "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used ... This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace". The thumbnail resolution isn't what's relevant.
Nevertheless, the resolution issue is soluble without interfering with this FAC, which I am happy to Support: the article appears to meet all of the criteria. — mholland (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (I'm a "significant editor" according to Wikipedia terms...If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.) I just read through it and it definitely reads like a featured article. Fixed minor problems. Great work Karanacs, BQZip, and Oldag!! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done minor stuff. it really is BQZip and Karanacs. . . . my biggest contribution to wikipedia is organizing the project. other then that, I am pretty much support for everyone else. . . .Oldag07 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I have really done is the review and a few minor changes. — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre

[edit]

An interesting little snippet of Roman history, these games celebrated the opening of the imperial amphitheatre (now known as the Colosseum) in 80 AD. There's all the normal gore and bloodshed you'd expect. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks like fine work to me. The Land 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support another excellent piece by Yomangani Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support speaking as one with a certain knowledge of the subject, I see nothing to criticise. Good, detailed, well-referenced work. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Do Hercules and Domitian need linking twice in the same section?
  • "The works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio focus on major events, while Martial provides us with some fragments of information on individual entertainments and the only detailed record of a gladiatorial combat in the arena to survive to the present day." - seems a bit wordy. Could "us with some" be removed?
  • "recently restored By Vespasian" - typo
  • "Abridgement of Roman History - Of Titus" - I think this needs an en dash even though it's a reference
  • "outside of Martial's account" - the of is redundant. Epbr123 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed linking, typo, en dash. Removed "us with" from the wordy sentence. Left the "of", as it's neither here nor there. Yomanganitalk 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy is here and there. "On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died." - dedicated to who? Epbr123 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dio is the only source that mentions the dedication and he doesn't give details. If anybody was providing more than a guess I would have included it. Titus himself, Vespasian, Rome, the people, the gods, a god...take your pick. Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Victor12, replaced by comments below
Comment.
  • It seems to me that this article goes into excessive detail in several parts, to the point of providing info which is not really relevant for this subject. For instance, in the "Animal entertainments" section, second paragraph, it says Though they were first seen in Rome only in 58 BC,[11] and were impressive enough to be detailed in the games of Augustus and Commodus,[13] there is no mention of hippopotami at Titus' games. That's a quite long and convoluted sentence with two inline citations just to mention that no hippos were at the inauguration. The same happens in the sentence about giraffes. --Victor12 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence might be long, but it is hardly convoluted, and the number of inline citations has no bearing: if they were removed, which could be done in seconds, I'm sure fact tags would replace them sooner or later. How is it irrelevant to a discussion of the animals that were present to point out that hippos and giraffes were enough of a novelty that their absence from the record suggests they weren't present? Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is whether all this info is relevant for the current article. For instance, is it really necessary to mention the arrival of the Medici giraffe in 1486? As you said the relevant fact for the article is that hippos and giraffes were enough of a novelty that their absence from the record suggests they weren't present. Does that need to be explained in two really long sentences? What about just putting "Hippos and giraffes were rarely seen in Rome thus their absence from historical records suggest they weren't present at Titus' games" or something like that. Surely you can add one citation to support the rareness of such animals in Ancient Rome. --Victor12 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I was writing a summary of the article that approach would be lovely. Personally, if I'm told that they were rarely seen, I'd like some background on how we know that. This gives links to other articles that might fill in those details while giving some context in the article. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not sure if you need that much background on what seems like a minor issue. If you do need it, then you'll also need some background on other statements. For instance Animal entertainments formed a central part of the games and normally took place in the morning would need some background and facts about the use of animals in Rome; matches between different creatures were common would need some background on those kind of matches in Roman times and how we know they were common; to mention just two cases. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those need topics articles writing on them. I would have linked them if I'd been able to find anything appropriate. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that you added a link but that you provided background on how we know hippos and giraffes were unknown in Rome. To be consistent throughout the article you'll have to provide the same kind of info on all other topics. For instance, how do we know matches between different creatures were common? --Victor12 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was that here I can give a little context with a link to articles that should tell you more (I would prefer to link to an article on the games of Commodus rather than Commodus himself, as I'm sure they will merit an article, but I can only guess what the title would be). For the other areas you point out I'd have to cover the whole topic, as we don't have any articles on the format of Roman entertainments. As much as I'm a fan of redlinks, I don't think an expansion that pointed to a non-existent reference would help. As soon as those articles are written I'll link to them, which will probably involve a sentence that expands on the theme slightly. I can move the hippo and giraffe info into a footnote if you like, but I really don't think it is a problem where it is. Yomanganitalk 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, prose needs to be improved. There are a lot of really long sentences which try to cram too much info. An example of this is To dedicate the massive building and the adjacent, hastily constructed baths which bore his name, and probably in an attempt to mollify both the Roman public and the gods, Titus held lavish games which lasted for more than a hundred daysin the "Reign of Titus" section. It might be a good idea to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for guidance on how to improve the article's prose --Victor12 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have trouble following that sentence? Tony has some good points and can always be relied on for suggestions on how to improve the prose in articles (he's helped me out of some writing cul-de-sacs on occasion) but, in my opinion, slavishly applying his guidelines as rules can lead to stilted, overly dry prose. Yomanganitalk 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for this one, as a general rule, one sentence paragraphs are rarely an example of good prose. In this case it seems to me this paragraph should be merged with the preceding one as it completes one main point: "Titus reign had endured a series of disasters thus, held lavish games on ocassion of the inauguration of the amphitheatre". As for the length of the sentence, the problem is it crams to many ideas:
  • To dedicate the amphitheatre and the baths, Titus held lavish games
  • The baths were hastily built and bore Titus name
  • The games were probably an attempt to mollify both the Roman public and the gods
  • The games lasted for more than a hundred days
As you can see that's four important ideas crammed into a single sentence. Why not divide this fragment into separate sentences? --Victor12 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take crammed into and replace with covered succinctly in and you have my counter-argument. I don't mind changing it. If you can suggest a way of reformulating that paragraph without making it disjointed I'd be happy to accept an alternative, but rearranging bullet points as prose doesn't really work for me. You got all four points from the sentence; I'm sure other readers will be able to do the same. I was going to include the fact that the baths were named after Titus in the preceding section, but it was more awkward there and made a later link to thermae a bit extraneous. I also disagree that it is a continuation of the previous paragraph: the games were held to dedicate the arena and baths, not merely because there had been disasters, and separating these two sections helps with readability too. Yomanganitalk 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question then, why do all these ideas need to be covered succinctly in the same sentence? It doesn't seem to help readability. --Victor12 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it impedes readability, but, as I said, if you can reformulate it in a way that assists with the readability, I'll be quite happy for it to be replaced. I can't think of a way to do it without making it stilted. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to give it a go later. --Victor12 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delay in answering. Now that I have some time, I've started editing the article. I began with the single-sentence paragraph but then decided to edit the whole "Background" section. I've removed most of the info not directly related to the games, for instance, details about the construction of the Colosseum, which are already given on the Colosseum article. The same goes for the towns destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, which is not that relevant and already detailed in the respective article. After this cuts, I decided to split the section into Background (including construction and why Titus decided to held such a big game) and Sources which seems like a separate subject to me. I'll try to go over the rest of the article today, or maybe tomorrow. --Victor12 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs urgent work. As it is, it fails to provide a concise overview of the article as required by WP:LEAD. Currently, it only summarizes the sections on background and sources --Victor12 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We obviously differ on our opinions about what the role of the background section is. As far as I'm concerned it should be to allow the reader to look at the article from an informed viewpoint without having to look at other articles and filter out what is important for their reading of this article. I don't see duplicating small amounts of information between articles as a problem ( if that is proscribed then the whole of the background section should be removed). The sources section is background just as the building of the Colosseum is and just as the reign of Titus is, as it isn't detailing the topic itself. Removing what you removed helps the reader to miss the point about why it is likely Titus was mollifying the public and gods. If we don't know that Vespasian was reclaiming the land for Rome, don't know that it wasn't just a run of the mill eruption of Vesuvius, don't know that the Temple of Jupiter restored by Vespasian was destroyed in the fire etc. then it is more difficult to understand why placating the gods and people might be an element in the lavishness of the games. Your attempt at rewording the single-sentence paragraph removed the dedication as an end itself. I've reworded it again, removing one of the points to an earlier sentence. I do agree the lead needed work though and have bulked it up a little. Yomanganitalk 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree so I'll just sum up my views on this article here.
  • As you said, placating the gods and people of Rome as a motivation for the game is an important idea so maybe it should be mentioned in the lead.
  • Regarding the layout of the article, in my opinion, "Sources" should be a separate section, not under "Background" because why the games were held and how do we know about them are quite different topics.
  • Also in this section, it seems to be there's too much detail on the construction of the Colosseum. Also, do we need to know all the cities destroyed by the Vesuvius? Mentioning Pompeii seems enough to identify which eruption this refers to.
  • It seems to me prose needs to be improved. As it stands now there are several instances of pretty long sentences and a single-sentence paragraph under "Reign of Titus". An example of this is On the last day of the games, Titus wept openly, and, according to Dio, the next day, after officially dedicating the amphitheatre and the baths that had been built next to it, he died in the "Later events" section. It could easily be split in two sentences. Also, is it necessary to remark that "the baths" refers to the ones "that had been built next to it"? It seems clear which baths the paragraph is talking about as it has already been explained in the "Background" section.
  • There is some overlinking in the article. In the "Animal entertainments" section, common words are linked such as elephant, lion and camel. I think this kind of words should be delinked per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.
  • In this section, I think prose goes into excessive detail, for instance, by mentioning the 1486 Medici giraffe. That's IMHO and we need more opinions on this as we are currently on a deadlock over this point.
  • Also in this section, in the sentences when it was supposed to fight, it had calmed down. Obviously intended to face a company of men armed with spears and a host of other animals, it seems to me the word "Obviously" is out of place and should be removed.
Overall, I think the article is a great start towards being a FA but it still needs a thorough copyedit to improve its prose. --Victor12 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your first point and added it to the lead. No comment on your second point. On your third point, the list of cities seems appropriate but I question the use of the Vesuvius image (why is an image of this required?). On your sixth point, it seems ok to me. On your fourth, fifth, and seventh points I've done what I can. I hope this helped. --maclean 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Attack on Sydney Harbour

[edit]

Self nomination. I've been working heavily on this article for the past couple of months, and now believe that it meets the Featured Article Criteria. The article is comprehensive, covering all aspects of the subject without delving into miniature. The article is well cited; every contestable fact (and almost every fact total) is referenced and demonstratably accurate. All of the illustrations are public domain and sourced.

For reference: the peer review and A-class assessment performed by WikiProject Military History, and the Good Article pass awarded by Blnguyen. -- saberwyn 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looks good to me. Well written, well referenced, well illustrated - FA time! Here because of a note at WT:AUS, for the record Giggy Talk | Review 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Comment I've literally just read the lead and the comment about the only attack on Sydney/Newcastle stands out as para 2 and 3 talk of two separate events one on 31 May/1 June and then a second 8 June. Normally I'd read further before commenting about the lead but this reads so contradictory that needs highlighting as my first impression. I asume that they are considered a continuation of the same event but the lead doesnt read that way. addressed Gnangarra Gnangarra 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me go on the record as saying I hate lead sections, as I have never been able to write a good one, and personally consider them the hardest section of an article to get right. I've had a bit of a fiddle with the lead section, attempting to make clear that there was a primary attacks, closely followed by two secondary bombardments as part of a campaign of harrasment. Further advice appreciated. -- saberwyn 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unconditionally. You may wish to look at the references section. I had to look at further reading to work out who the books were by that you cited. In your citations of these books, i find it better if you also cite the authors first name, not just the last name. But, good enough for FA. Twenty Years 11:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This confusion may be due to the way I've been taught to cite and list texts at university. The Bibliography is a list of all texts used in the compilation of the article, while a hypothetical Reading List would include any 'further reading' texts not used in the article. Also, by keeping all but the most reference-essential bibliographic data in the Bibliography section, I believe it reduces edit-window clutter. -- saberwyn 11:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must query this Fire was returned by Fort Scratchley—the only time an Australian land fortification has fired on an enemy vessel during wartime—but the submarine was able to complete her bombardment and escape A battery in Melbourne at the western entrance to Port Phillip bay has been recognised as firing the first shots in both WWI and WWII. Gnangarra 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to confess that I've made some relatively minor contributions to this article, but I believe that it meets all the FA criteria and provides an excellent and authoritative overview of the attacks. --Nick Dowling 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One minor and doesnt affect my support HMIS Bombay -- this red link needs a stub purely because the name drew my attention as I didnt know Indian(?) ships were in Australia(Pacific Coast) at the time. or link to Bathurst class corvette which gives basic physical information. Gnangarra 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quality info.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I've replaced a few en-dashes with hyphens, particularly in 'anti-submarine', but it is well-written, comprehensive and well-referenced.--Grahamec 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the lead is a great summary of the article plus being interesting in its own right. The rest of the article is well organized, especially considering the amount and complexity of the information presented. The article appears adequately but not overly referenced, although I confess I know nothing about the subject matter and cannot evaluate their quality. Mattisse 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Such a tumult of gushing support above makes me wonder whether the previous reviewers read it.
    • MOS says to start with the title somewhere in first para (?), normally bolded. Please read MOS.
    • Why is "1942" linked THREE times in the lead. Since that page may contain relevant info about WW2, maybe once.
    • Perform an attack? No; it's not ballet.
    • "Best-known".
    • "Attack/s" appears rather too much in the lead. Can you use a thesaurus to find synonyms?
    • "twenty-one sailors"—Read MOS on "Spelling out numbers".
      • MOS says "numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words". Changed anyway. -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the only casualty was a responding pilot who was killed when his aircraft's engine failed"—"Responding" is vague. Possessive apostrophe awkward usually for an inanimate object. Anyway, why not just remove "aircraft's"? Or was it his lawn mower's engine?
      • Sentance now reads: "The bombardments caused minimal damage, and the only casualty was a pilot ordered to engage the submarines, who was killed when the engine of his aircraft failed." -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it weren't the lead, I'd be asking for quite a few references. Check that they appear in the body of the article.
    • "inspiring fear"—No.
      • I believe these are the words used by David Jenkins, Battle Surface (1992). p 250. I do not have access to the text at this point in time, so will attempt to verify this as soon as possible. Can you suggest a better altenate? -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "while forcing the Australian military to upgrade defences and institute convoys to protect merchant shipping." "Forcing" isn't the word. "prompting"? Use a thesaurus. "Insitute" is wrong, and needs "to" before it. The last verb group would probably be better early in the sentence.
    • Casting my eyes down, I see intrusive over-referencing; e.g., [5][6] then [6] then [6] in successive sentences. All you need to provide is the means for readers to verify your information. Having flagged a reference once in that section, it becomes a nuisance to have to plough through many instances of the same reference number, close together. Readers will accept a certain amount of "summary" referencing; for example, refs 1–4 at the end of the first para will do for 1,2,3 then 1,4 in successive sentences.

Needs serious copy-editing. Tony 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, concur with Tony. Each time I revisit this article, I find issues. The difference between hyphens and dashes hasn't been straightened out; see WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN. There's a problem on converts not being hyphenated (example, A 500 metre (1650 ft) wide exclusion zone ... ) Needs a thorough going over. There is still the issue of a linked bolded word in the title (see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for fixing those issues you see every time you visit the article. Links have been removed from the boldword. No matter how many times I read DASH and HYPHEN I am still getting confused over which goes where.
You statement regarding conversions confuses me. I think you're saying 1650-ft needs to be hyphened (or did I just use an endash?). HYPHEN says 500-metre should be hyphenated. WP:UNITS doesn't appear to like either being there. Can you clarify? -- saberwyn 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:UNITS addresses compound adjectives, but "500 metre- (1,650 ft-) wide" looks ugly to me, probably best to leave hyphens out.--Grahamec 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Jackie Chan

[edit]

Self-nomination: Jackie Chan is currently a good article. The biography now comprehensively covers his acting career. It also states his motivations to his choice of roles, and information of his stunts. His actions as a celebrities have been covered from different angles. The article is also sufficiently sourced, so I would like to give it a go at the FAC. If there are any problems with the article, please let me know.--Kylohk 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Fixes needed - looks good. Certainly comprehensive and fulfils other criteria though prose is trickiest and there are a couple of things:

    • Chan is one of the best known names in kung fu and action movies worldwide for... - the items after this should be either all nouns or all verbs. As is the last is a verb after several nouns.

I'll keep looking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the next decade, Chan trained rigorously, excelling at martial arts and acrobatics. - probably best to flip the clauses to make one less comma, thus "Chan trained rigorously for the next decade, excelling at martial arts and acrobatics" (?)
Chan moved back to Canberra in 1976, attended Dickson College briefly and.. ungainly, try "Chan moved back to Canberra in 1976, where he briefly attended Dickson College and.."
...and worked on building sites within the Australian Capital Territory. During his time as a construction worker, a fellow worker named Jack took him under his wing.. - 3 mentions of construction work here could be streamlined to: "..and worked as a construction worker on building sites within the Australian Capital Territory. A fellow worker named Jack took him under his wing, .."
Having returned to Hong Kong, Jackie Chan joined... -try "Jackie Chan soon returned to Hong Kong and teamed up with..."
The shooting of the film had its dangers, with one of Chan's teeth accidentally kicked out.. - I like semicolons; they may make it sounds smoother - try "The shooting of the film had its dangers; one of Chan's teeth was accidentally kicked out"
In spite of being largely ignored... - try "Despite being largely ignored"
In the 1990s, Chan regained his Hollywood ambitions, whilst continuing to make films... - try "Chan regained his Hollywood ambitions in the 1990s, while continuing to make films "
Early on, he refused two offers to --> "He refused two early offers to.."
In 1995, he finally succeeded in capturing the North American market ---> "He finally succeeded in capturing the North American market in 1995"
In 1983, Chan officially formed the Jackie Chan Stunt Team --> "Chan officially formed the Jackie Chan Stunt Team in 1983"

OK, the main fault appears to be choppy sentences with little clauses as outlined above. Fix these (maybe there are a couple Ive missed) and yer over the line.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "The two years following the success of Project A were marked by frequent collaboration with Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao, with the three appearing in Wheels on Meals and the original Lucky Stars trilogy between 1983 and 1985." "Chan holds the Guinness World Record for "Most Stunts By A Living Actor", with the award emphasising that "no insurance company will underwrite Chan's productions, in which he performs all his own stunts". Epbr123 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support And are you the one to say that no one unfamiliar with the article has edited it before? That argument makes no sense, think about it, if it meets Fac criteria, it really doesn't matter who edited the article before. As far as rephrasing those sentence you refered to above, perhaps a suggestion would be good? else i see no problems with it, in fact the part from the guinness world record is a direct quote off the book. A direct oppose in very incondusive for the efforts those might have put in to get this article up to standards in the first place, perhaps a suggestion for improvement like user Casliber above would be more constructive? Also direct oppose due to differing view about rephrasing of sentences, or something as irrelevant as the copy edit part, really makes it hard to justify what you are opposing, or to determine what could be made to improve the article. Please go into more details so as to justify what exactly you are opposing to.--DaliusButkus 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well, the former sentence has been changed to simply "Chan then co-starred with Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao in Wheels on Meals and the original Lucky Stars trilogy." The latter changed to Chan holds the Guinness World Record for "Most Stunts By A Living Actor", which emphasises "no insurance company will underwrite Chan's productions, in which he performs all his own stunts". Anything else?--Kylohk 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Those were just examples. I asked for a copy-edit by someone unfamiliar with the article. Epbr123 11:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then could you please elaborate why it needs copyediting?--Kylohk 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I'll give you one more example, "As a well-respected figure of the Hong Kong entertainment industry and a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, he is often a leader in speaking up for conservation, against animal abuse, as well as promoting disaster relief efforts for flooding in mainland China and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami." I'm not going to copy-edit the article for you, I'm afraid. Epbr123 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • All right, I've moved UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador to the sentence with the word "philantropist". The things he has campaigned for have been rewritten in present prefect tense. I'll copy edit the article myself. Although I will ask for others to copyedit it, I can't be reassured of a reasonably fast response time, hence more examples are needed, possibly almost every problem.--Kylohk 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you have any more examples to give? If you would list them all out at once instead of dangling them out the way you did, it would be better for people to work with. A more positive corroboration would suit everyone best, i believe, whether you are in support of this article or not.--DaliusButkus 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anyway, I did another run-through of the article this morning, made some more corrections and removed some redundant sentences. Just another brush up. Hopefully most, if not all, of the prose have been improved.--Kylohk 03:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Still some redundancies, eg., "all of the dangerous stuntwork", "saw Chan star in a number of sequels including". Use "most" instead of "the majority of", and use "before" instead of "prior to". I think this is ungrammatical "All students took on the family name of their sifu, with Chan becoming Yuen Lo.". There's overlinking of common words such as charity and fingers. IMDB is an unreliable source as anyone can edit it. Youtube can't be used as a source due to copyright problems. This could be better "Furthermore, he was featured in an advertisement promoting civic awareness where he gave a short explanation of the March of the Volunteers, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China, before it is played." Epbr123 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The wording of the article has been changed accordingly, the two incompatiable sources have been removed (along with one sentence. I've attempted to change the two problematic sentences mentioned above and removed some redundant links. Let me go through it once more.--Kylohk 11:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I still urge you to find a copy-editor. "and has joined forces with Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca in encouraging people, especially Asians, to join the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in a public service announcement" - this sounds as though the sheriff wanted Asians to appear in a public service announcement. Epbr123 09:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, I've added a message in WikiProject Hong Kong, to ask for others to do some copyediting. And, well, here's a funny thing, I asked one of my parents to read the article with me so as to get another outside opinion on the grammar and so on. Anyway, I am going to take care of that problem right now. (I admit I can have a twisted perception of prose at times.)--Kylohk 10:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article has improved much since the FAC started, and to a point that it is FA quality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much improved—1a. Please find a collaborator from the edit-history pages of similar articles. I've copy-edited the top to indicate the extent of the changes required throughout. Please contact me when lots of work has been done on the writing. Tony 11:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose-1c. Cleanup of sourcing needed to conform with WP:V and WP:RS. As an example, hard data (gross revenues) is cited to a webpost of a film review from a fellow named "Paul". Nice. "The three co-starred together for the first time in 1983 in Project A, which grossed HK$19,323,000 and won the Best Action Choreography Award at the third annual Hong Kong Film Awards".(cite web | first = Paul | title = Project A Review | work = Film review | publisher = Hong Kong Cinema | url = http://www.hkcinema.co.uk/Reviews/projecta.html ) Sorry, this is not good sourcing for any article, much less an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, continued oppose—still a very large number of sources of dubious reliability. These are from the bottom sections of the article only:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes have been made to the sources as follows:
The remaining sources (the ones from Kung Fu Cinema) and the various film reviews seem to be reliable. (At least I think they are)--Kylohk 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose withdrawn; thanks for the speedy adjustments! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Peru

[edit]

Self-nomination. This article achieved GA status on May 25, 2007. After undergoing further improvement I think it fully meets the featured article criteria. It is thoroughly referenced, mostly from books rather than webpages. Writing seems good and neutral. The article is pretty stable and complies with WP:MOS guidelines. Length seems adequate for the topic, issues not covered are linked to throughout the article and in a major topics template in the "See also section". Pics are mostly from Commons. All of this IMHO, lets see what other wikipedians think... --Victor12 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Avoiding siding one way or another yet. The article is quite good, but needs someone to go over it with a fine-toothed comb for copyedit. Some quick problems I spotted, and there are probably more:
    • "In reaction to such developments, common throughout the Americas, and to growing concerns over the vulnerability of its colonies, the Crown enacted a series of edicts collectively known as the Bourbon Reforms" Needs a rewrite for clarity. The nested clauses make this sentance hard to parse.
    • "However, by the 1870s, these resources had been dilapidated, the country was heavily indebted and political infighting was again on the rise" Awkward use of the word "dilapidated". I get what you mean, but this isn't really what the word is used for.
    • Comparison of size to the state of Texas seems too American-centric. And I am an American and spotted this. Would be better left out.
    • "Common dishes include anticuchos, ceviche, humitas, and pachamanca to name just a few." phrases like "to name a few" should be avoided. Its redundant.
As I said above, these may not be the only problems, just what I caught on a quick read through. Give this a thorough copyedit, preferably by someone who hasn't been involved in the article so far (try the league of Copyeditors) and this will be a feature quality article easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the suggested corrections and scanned through the article for similar mistakes. Could you check it again? Do you think it needs major copyediting work or only minor corrections? --Victor12 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Actually, it looks pretty good. I can't see any real objections any more. I am sure some of the more strident editors will find some more problems, but I really cannot see any. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of my (SandyGeorgia) MOS concerns, completely addressed
  • Fixes needed; I just left a series of sample edits to illustrate some fixes needed. {{es icon}} should be added to Spanish language sources. The article is overlinked; have a look at WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINKS. Also, have a look at WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT for how to handle centuries and linking of dates. There is some inconsistency in how Spanish phrases are handled: sometimes the English word is followed by the Spanish word in parentheses, other times the Spanish word is used with the English word in parentheses, and other times only the Spanish word is used. I corrected a few date ranges to show correct usage of endashes, per WP:DASH. In terms of prose, there is some punctuation which is consistent with Spanish-language writing but not correct for English (sample: Economic policy has varied widely over the last decades, the government of Juan Velasco Alvarado introduced radical reforms, which included an agrarian reform, the expropriation of foreign companies, the introduction of a planning system and the creation of a large state-owned sector. ) and some prose that needs tweaking for English-language fluidity (sample: Its main inputs have been provided by Amerindian inhabitants and Spanish colonizers, which mixed after Conquest. Other influences have been made by various ethnic groups from Africa, Asia and Europe.), but overall the prose and content are a very good start towards featured status. The Bibliography is massive; were all of those sources really used in the article? If not, they may need to be pruned per WP:NOT. With some sustained attention to the prose and Manual of Style issues, I believe the article can reach featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added {{es icon}} to all Spanish books in the Bibliography section. Should I put this template in the footnotes also or is that redundant? I'll try to work on the other issues ASAP. As for the sources, they were all used in the article; each one is mentioned in at least one footnote. --Victor12 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you would have that issue; I think you should do whatever works best, just somehow indicate the Spanish language. Putting them in every footnote would seem redundant, but adding it to at least the websources used only once in the footnotes might work. Let me know if you need any help—you've got a very good start, and I'd be glad to review further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, {{es icon}} has been added to all footnotes with external links. The article has been delinked, en dashes added, centuries delinked and de-hyphenated, and Spanish phrases mostly removed (except in the "Geography" section, where they seem useful). As for prose, the examples you mentioned have been corrected. Do they look ok now? Could you point out other prose issues in the article? I'd appreciate that very much. Thanks, --Victor12 07:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fast work ! I'll run through the entire article tomorrow or the next day; are you comfortable with inline queries if I find anything I'm not sure on? Also, I didn't want to drop too much on you at once, but I have some concerns about comprehensiveness. Cameroon recently passed FAC, and seems very comprehensive, so you might want to have a look. Or Canada or any other featured country you might compare to in terms of making sure you've covered everything. You can probably beef up some content in the areas of education, crime, or anything else you see in other country articles. I'll add more tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with inline queries. As for contents, I checked all featured country articles, but tried to stick to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries requirements, which suggest using a limited number of sections for contents and providing links for all other topics. Thus, there are eight sections for contents and links to all other Peru-related topics in the "See also" section. Anyway, that's just imho; can't wait to read yours. Greetings, --Victor12 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: the writing needs a lot of work, and I've been working on copyediting. After the prose is cleaned up, I think the article is concise and interesting, and has the potential to be FA. One request: the history section ends at 2000. What's happened in the last seven years? A sentence or two to bring us to present day would be nice. Calliopejen1 10:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calliopejen1, you're probably a much better copyeditor than I am (but that's not saying much :-), so I don't want to get in your way. Can you ping me when you're done, so I can run through it then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your work Calliopejen1. If you find the time, could you also check the prose in the Culture section? As for recent history, it seems to me that nothing of great importance has happened since 2000. Certainly nothing that is in the same level of all other events mentioned in the article. We've had two presidential elections (the results of the last one are mentioned in the Government section) and a free trade agreement has been signed with the US (mentioned in the Economy section). So not much has happened, you can check a short summary of this years by The Economist here. Maybe its better not to say anything about them in this article to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. What do you think? --Victor12 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a reader who knows basically nothing about Peru, I think it's important to have that one sentence. I was kind of left hanging, wondering where the country is today. I would suggest something along the lines of: "After five years under President Alejandro Toledo, who focused on decreasing corruption and improving Peru's economy, Peru is now led by President Alan Garcia." It's kind of a nothing sentence, but at least it kind of tells the reader, Don't worry, you're not missing anything. Calliopejen1 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. I'm still working a bit on copyediting, but one of my major concerns with the article is that most of the references are from Spanish-language books. As a practical matter, this reduces the verifiability of the article, since most readers of the article probably are not from anywhere these books are available. If they were even Spanish-language websites, that wouldn't be so bad, because at least a non-Spanish-speaking reader can go to Babelfish and do a machine translation. Many of the facts sourced to Spanish books are pretty basic, so I imagine there's no shortage of English-language sources. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has any policies relating to this. Calliopejen1 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia guideline is (per WP:SOURCE): for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality. I think I can replace several of the sources in the History section with English books, probably by tomorrow night. As for other sources, I think some of them will have to remain in Spanish, for instance: laws, the Constitution and official statistics. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. --Victor12 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your understanding is correct, Victor. There has been a lot of discussion of this topic on the talk page of WP:RS and other places; the nutshell is that foreign-language sources can be used, but English-language is preferred (and should be used) when available and of comparable quality. For an example of past FACs in this area, I can refer you to El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda and Same-sex marriage in Spain. On the Spain article, there were articles in English, I found some of them, and asked the editor to use them. For El Hatillo, Enano and I scoured the internet as well as bookstores in both the USA and Venezuela, and there simply is nothing in English, so it was acceptable to source it almost exclusively to Spanish-language sources. In the case of Peru, it may take you some extra work, but there are probably English-language sources for a lot of the information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, don't forget to search within the BBC and in the CIA world factbook for some of the basic facts. The BBC doesn't seem to pop up well on google, and you have to search on their site. I think they have a fact page for each country. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few issues I've spotted: Calliopejen1 07:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cacique is not glossed in English. The cacique article is vague. Would "local ruler" be a good description?
    • "imposed Spanish domination" strikes me as a little bit non-neutral and a little bit vague. Could you write some concrete things they did instead? (Which are likely more damning anyways.)
    • "The new laws alienated various social groups" - vague. Who was alienated and why? I would give an example or eliminate it, since you already have descriptions of the rebellions (which obviously imply unrest).
    • What does pluriform mean? Can you link this to a wiki article?
    • It says "The province of Lima is administered by [NB: my verb addition] by the city mayor," but the Lima province article says it's administered by a city council. What does each do, and which is more important?
    • It lists the rivers with the Amazon as the smallest (last). That can't be right because the Amazon and the Nile are the longest rivers in the world.
    • There are two export lists, one of which is (presumably) historical. It should be clarified which time each is relevant to.
    • There is a sentence about art after the Spanish Conquest and a sentence about art in the colonial period. Are these contemporaneous or two distinct periods?
I've made several changes to address this concerns. As for rivers, they are measured by their length in Peruvian territory, that's why the Amazon comes in last. It seems to me this is implied in The largest rivers of the country.... Do you think we should change this sentence? --Victor12 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed unobvious to me, so I added the explanation to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What do you think about the article? --Victor12 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a copyedit by a fluent speaker of English. I don't know Peruvian history well enough to judge otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calliopejen1 has made several passes on this regard. Could you point some instances of bad prose for further improvement? That would be really helpful. Thanks, --Victor12 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Officialized is not a word.
  • "The Andes, proximity to the Equator, and the cold waters of the Humboldt Current" are not parallel. Any one would do in the context; but all three run into each other.
  • Avoid English passives as far as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll try to work on these. --Victor12 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Officialized is not a word? What does "word" mean? It is known by Answers.com, Dictionary.com, Infoplease Dictionary, Lexical FreeNet, LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus, Merriam-WebsterUnabridged.com, Rhymezone, UltraLingua English Dictionary. Even if not recognized by many other dictionaries, I did not need any to know what it means. — SomeHuman 17 Jul2007 22:04 (UTC)

Update: the article has improved a lot thanks to the suggestions and edits of all reviewers. It seems to me that prose is adequate now. As for the use of sources in Spanish (the other main objection), they have been brought down from 38 out of 55 to 23 out of 59. I think about 7 more can be replaced by English sources, however, here in Peru libraries have closed for the national holiday, so I won't we able to work on them until Tuesday. As for the rest they're mainly official statistics and laws which have no English equivalent of the same quality. That would leave the article with 16 Spanish sources out of 59 which does not seem like a bad proportion. More reviews are needed and welcome. --Victor12 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup. I'm not quite ready to support yet. I'm still frustrated by the overlinking (see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT). Linking of terms over and over distracts the reader from the high-value links. I've delinked a lot, but another set of eyes needs to evaluate. I found one instance of uncited text, and several instances of "recently" or "currently" which need to be defined. Because I speak Spanish, the prose seems fine to me, but extra eyes are needed. Your method of citation is one of the most labor intensive I've ever seen. Because you have websources in both the Notes and the Bibliography, this means every time a websource changes, it has to be changed in two places; most editors link the websources directly in the Notes, and leave them off of the Bibliography. Also, most editors who list full sources in Bibliography then list a much shorter version in Notes, such as Author (year), p. x. I also am not sure why you've italicized article names throughout, which makes the refs somewhat hard to read; typically, only book names are italicized, but not article names. I found a missing publication date (there may be others). This article is very close to FA; I hope Raul will keep it open longer so others will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have delinked some more terms; it seems to me more delinking would be counterproductive. There are some words that have been linked twice in the article as according to WP:MOSLINK duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate. Could you provide some examples of overlinking to work on this?
    • The uncited text has a source now, please feel free to tag all other statements needing references with the {{fact}} template.
    • As for "recent" and "current", most of these words have now been removed except in places where their meaning is clear, for instance Congress is currently composed of...
    • Now as for citations, I'm not sure about removing web pages from the Bibliography. I think the Bibliography should provide a quick overview of sources used without having to browse through the notes and as webpages have been an important source for some parts of the article they deserve to have a place there. Is there any Wikipedia guideline on this?
    • Italics have now been removed from articles names and replaced by "".
    • As for shortening notes, it seems to me having a short title in the notes helps the reader to know what the book is about without having to search thorugh the bibliography. This seems important for me as most readers checking notes would go back and forth from text to notes, which they would not be able to do if they have to check the bibliography also. Admittedly this method means some extra work when editing but it eases reading and checking notes.
    • Finally, all publication dates are mentioned in the Bibliography section when available so I'm not sure which one had a a missing publication date.
    • Thanks for the comments, I also hope more reviewers check the article. --Victor12 03:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly satisfied, but there seem to be few reviewers currently following this FAC. I know Raul has received objections to restarts in the past, but this article has been here for two weeks, the article is substantially rewritten and improved, almost everything above is resolved, and there have been no Opposes; a restart might prompt a fresh look at the article by more reviewers. I don't want to be the only one Supporting since I'm familiar with the text, and I'm not sure the other reviewers are still following :-) Maybe other reviewers will weigh in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope so too. Thanks for your work. BTW, the article already has one support vote, by Jayron32 ;-) Greetings, --Victor12 16:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support These minor fixes needed:
  • "Over the last two centuries" should be "Over the past two centuries"
  • "has varied widely over the last decades" - as above
Not sure why these had to be fixed-- Google sees them as occurring w/ equal frequency. Calliopejen1 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Good writing doesn't depend on what Google says. Epbr123 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • "foreign art currents intermingling with local developments" - typo?
  • "a number of international organizations, such as" – the "a number of" is redundant
  • Some year ranges in the bibliography section need en dashes rather than hyphens. Epbr123 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done now, except for the "foreign art currents intermingling with local developments". It is not a typo, maybe just bad prose. Any suggestions? --Victor12 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just changed the sentence to Since the 1950s, eclecticism has characterised Peruvian art due to a mixture of foreign currents and local developments. Is that better? --Victor12 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's clearer. Epbr123 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that is much clunkier (though the original wasn't fantastic). I'll give it a go. Calliopejen1 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... MOS says Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. I think that refers to images on the same line aligned right and left. There are no such cases in this article. There's some "sandwiched" text at resolutions higher than 800x600, for instance in the "Geography" section but that is because some pics span more than one paragraph. I don't think that's forbidden per the MOS though I could be wrong. What does everybody else thinks? --Victor12 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is displaying fine on my monitor; Epbr, in what section are you getting a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and economy. In the history section, text is also sandwiched between an image and the infobox. I'm using IE with medium text size and 1024*678 resolution. Epbr123 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing those; I'll look on my other computers later. I just made a change to Economy; is it OK now ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I also juggled History; is it fixed now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sandwiching has now gone in those sections, although the economy image now pushes the demographics heading towards the centre. Epbr123 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's now a blank space in the History section at 1024*768. I think some pics will have to go. --Victor12 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed that blank space now. I don't think we'll be able to totally remove the sandwiching: at smallest text size, there are five sections with sandwiching. Epbr123 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done some editing, now there's no sandwiched text at 1024x768 except for one line in the "Government" section. Is that OK? --Victor12 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine now. There's still sandwiching at smallest text size but I think that should be allowable. Epbr123 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (maybe weak support? I can't decide.) I think this article is great and has really been improved over the last couple weeks. The biggest lingering issue I see is that I bet some more of the Spanish-language sources could be replaced (in the climate, music, and cooking sections in particular), but I don't think this should keep it from being FA. Calliopejen1 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional opposeSupport—Well done indeed! 1a. Needs another copy-editor to run through it. Here are random examples. Please don't just fix these. This is otherwise a good nomination.
    • I see "2" yet "twenty-five" yet "28". MOS says the boundary is normally nine/10.
    • "Rivers running through Peru are divided into three basins." This doesn't make sense.
    • "Finally"—I yawn when I see that word.
    • Read MOS on captions: when and when not to use a final period.
    • "a moderate per capita income"—Moderate is meaningless. Provide data instead.
    • "According to official sources, 51.6% of the total population is regarded as poor,"—Remove "regarded as".
    • Why is "China"—that obscure country—linked in a list in which no other country is linked. Only link countries that are likely to be little known to the readers. Tony 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the article has now undergone several copyedits, mostly by Calliopejen1. Hopefully you can check it again to see if your concerns have been addressed. --Victor12 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Kingdom Hearts II

[edit]

This article is another self-nomination. I believe it is FA quality. I've been fixing up this article as well as the KH article, which is now featured status, for a few days now and I think it is ready for FA. Any comments or objections? Good luck Greg Jones II 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These issues will be fixed up ASAP. Greg Jones II 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently every quote from the game uses the cite video game tag. The quote was placed in front of the tag instead of inside it using the quote parameter. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. The gameplay section of this article features game guide content prohibited by WP:NOT and WP:VG/GL. Information like "Both Drive Forms and Summons have a maximum of seven levels; higher levels allow Drive Forms and Summons to last longer." is incredibly specific game guide type info that should be restated more generally or removed altogether. Andre (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We will fix this issue up ASAP before nomination can continue. Greg Jones II 15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above mentioned sentence has been rewritten. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I move to Neutral. Not enough to oppose, but this article doesn't feel like an FA to me. Andre (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is almost time to have our third Kingdom Hearts FA. Is any other issues left so far? Greg Jones II 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And it is time to have our third Kingdom Hearts FA. Greg Jones II 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (may the force be with you...)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Sky Blue Sky

[edit]

previous FAC

Let's try this again. I've done what I can to make this recent release exhaustingly comprehensive and neutral. I addressed the specific concerns brought forward at the last FAC and tried to improve the overall prose of the article. I will promptly address any concerns that editors may have. Teemu08 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish somebody told me that when I did my three FAs... nobody told me that.. LuciferMorgan 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "However, Brandon Kreitler of Dusted Magazine felt that the lyrics seem like an insular Tweedy confessional, while Doug Freeman of The Austin Chronicle described the collaborative songwriting as yielding "fatalistic ambivalence"." – "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.
  • "The album received varied critical reception upon its release, with most outlets giving a positive review" - "with" shouldn't be used as an additive link. Also, the second part of the sentence almost contradicts the first.
  • Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens
  • Some reference titles need en dashes in place of hyphens
  • "peaking at number seven in Norway, number twenty-one in Belgium, number twenty-three in Australia and Ireland, number twenty-six in Sweden, number thirty-two in New Zealand, number thirty-six in Germany, and number thirty-nine in the United Kingdom" - IMO, all the numbers would be better as numerals. Epbr123 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these comments. I will be on a short vacation until Tuesday, so don't think I'm ignoring any further comments until then. Teemu08 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

[edit]

I have improved this article about the third season finale of the television series Lost. Major spoilers follow if you have not seen the episode. Everything is referenced, the article is comprehensive and factually accurate. The plot summary may appear long at first glance, but this is a special two-hour (with commercials) episode of a serialized series with at least five major storylines. There are quite a few fair use images and if this is a problem, I will remove the ones with lesser rationales. Self-nominate. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeNeutral: I still think you should wait until the DVD release, but I otherwise have no issues, so I don't oppose promotion. The plot section is WAY too long and I think it could easily be cut in half, some of your sources are questionable, such as the DarkUFO blog and I think you should have waited until the DVD came out until nominating it. Waiting for the DVD release is usually a requirement for film articles, such as Casino Royale, which was nominated several times before the DVD release and failed each time. -- Scorpion0422 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shortened the plot section and it is now ~1000 words long including the ~250 word background, which is inside the Lost WikiProject guideline of 500 words per normal length episode. I even removed the subheaders and a couple of images. The 67 sources are fine, with the exception of the poll that DarkUFO ran that attracted over 200 000 votes, which may be a problem. As for the DVD, I see no reason to wait for it. There isn't going to be a commentary for this episode, and improvements to featured articles are fine. I ask you (Scorpion) to reconsider your vote. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot is much better now, but I still think citing a blog isn't right. Besides, it was 200 000 votes for every single episode match up (about 50 seperate polls over the course of a couple months), not 200 000 votes in a single poll. As for waiting for the DVD release, like I said, film articles usually have to wait for the DVD because of all of the new info that could become available, so why should it be any different for episodes? Another issue is the images, there are 3 fair use images that don't seem to illustrate anything significant. Usually in episode FAs, images that illustrate the plot are limited (See the FACs for Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia and Cape Feare for more info). -- Scorpion0422 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, I removed the DarkUFO sentence. I think the images are fine. We have never seen Jack act the way he does in the flashforwards, Charlie disabling the code will get the survivors rescued (or bring about the destruction of the island), I don't think the average person knows what a radio tower looks like, and Ben is usually a powerful evil leader and now nobody listens to him. How are they not significant? --thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Good job, sourcing could probably be improved slightly... but the article is quite decent. The plot is not too long at all, Scorpio needs to take into account headers and images (also the infobox pushes text slightly) and that's not forgetting the plot is quite complex. Matthew 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ah, episode pages, my first love! Very good page, although I'd probably have ratings and awards as sub-sections of the Reception. But aside from that, it seems fine. Gran2 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - the "Ratings" and "Reception" sections are extremely USA-biased. There is not one mention of viewing figures or reception in the UK, Australia etc. The image Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG is there merely for illistrational purposes, so should be removed. The article should be re-named to Through the Looking Glass (Lost episode) per WP:MOS. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'll help work on the de-USAing and removing the Ben image. Will (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why does the ratings section need to be all by itself? It's slightly rare compared to how it's normally listed. Also, can the plot be trimmed down some? It seems to me that the article is giving an awful lot of important to the in-universe part of this topic. Like, do we need the background episode? The background information is equivalent to the plot of this episode. I mean, you don't see "Background" for Halloween II, a featured film article? At the current moment, all of the Lost episodes still have their own article, so ther isn't a need to recap all those episodes. We aren't ABC, it shouldn't be our job to "get the reader up to speed". That is what watching the show is for. I get that it's important to fans, but if you are going to explain what led to this episode you might as well explain everything on for the series. It's truly not necessary. If it was, does that mean we need a "Background" for the final episode of the entire series? That would be a pretty long recap.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I should destroy the background section? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to say "destroy" it. I don't think it's necessary, considering it could become very tedious is you want consistency. I think the problem is that it's an episode late in the series, and not something like a pilot that doesn't have backstory, or a Simpsons episode that has no continuity whatsoever anyway. Try reading the plot for the episode, and see if that summarizes the entire episode well enough. The way I see it, if someone is reading the article on the season 3 finale, they probably know the rest of the series anyway, or have atleast read all the preceeding pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might as well incorporate the flashforward information, as you generally shouldn't have (from what I've been told) only one subsection in a section. I'll read over the plot and see if it can be summarized further. I have no issue with allowing a slightly longer plot than is normally allowed, because LOST has 30 million characters each episode, so it tends to cover a lot more ground.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Encompasses all aspects of the episode. Excellent work. -- Wikipedical 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work, is comprehensive. Plot could be referenced a bit more, but Reception nad Production are very well-sourced. Cheers, Jude. 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite having not finished this episode yet (broadcast in 2 parts in my country) and thus skipping some spoilers, great job, the article is detailed and well-sourced. To the third Lost FA! igordebraga ≠ 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per changes made ans=d above comments. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Comments -
    • Is this necessary? – ‘’When the episode first aired on May 23, 2007 in the United States and Canada, it was preceded by a clip-show, "Lost: The Answers."’’ – There doesn’t seem to be a mention of it anywhere else; it just seems tacked on.
    • The mention of the commercials and without the commercials is kind of trivial. It was a two hour episode, that’s really all that needs to be said. If you really think it's necessary to detail such a thing, put a little spot in the infobox (you'll probably have to update the template for that) that says "Episode length - 87 minutes (without commercials)" or something.
    • Probably should say “several awards” instead of being specific. Why the favoritism toward Emmy’s? Because they are American? The reception section mentions other nominations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got rid of clip-show mention, and changed it back to "some countries." It aired in two parts in other countries, but I couldn't get a source other than Lostpedia or some website in some language that I do not speak and do not understand and do not know if it even says it there. As for the Emmy mentions: The Emmys are the most prestigous television awards. For example, it is much better to say that Forest Whittaker won the 2007 Oscar than Johnny Depp won the MTV Movie Award for PotC. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you cannot be vague to bypass WP:V. You should state what you have a source for. If someone finds a source for another country, it can just be added later. I checked the Argentina website that was linked, it's dead to me. I get a Lost picture and an "X" on the left side, but there isn't any text to go along with it. But who gives the Emmys or the Oscars precedent over MTV or BAFTA or The Cinematographer's Society of America (or United Kingdom, there are several locations)? That's why the lead should summarize and not play favorites. What if a reader is younger, and knows MTV Movie Awards better than he/she knows the Academy Awards? They won't see those as more prestiguous. Or, if the reader is from another country. My point is only that it's seemingly biased to not only Emmys but the United States. Since it was the most recent episode, it could get nominated for much more awards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the two part episodes in other countries. There's no source for that information, and it isn't mentioned later in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Is Friendly's death maybe worth noting specifically? Also, the plot section does make it mistakenly sound like Ben shot Locke in this episode. Otherwise, its a great article. Tphi 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's good, but the line "The survivors have still not been rescued" should be taken out (as it could be said on any episode's page), and the critical response section seems a tad overblown. Otherwise, a well-rounded page. -- SilvaStorm
  • Support - thoroughly sourced pivotal episode of Lost, comparable in notability to any book published in the last 50 years.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I have to oppose for now, because as I'm going through the article (sorry that is taking so long, but I have to work full time and go to school, so my attention to things is limited to short bursts) I keep finding things that need addressing. I go through each section and I'm finding peacock terms, somewhat wordy sentences. I'm trying to correct them as I go along, but I haven't gotten into the majority of the body, I was working on the plot and just recently tackling the lead (which can be seen from thedemonhog and my discussion above). It isn't that I don't think this article is great, I do, I just cannot support until we make it the best it can be, as FA status shouldn't be achieved only to have to make many corrections to the article afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose Well-written, well-sourced and provides solid out-of-universe contextualisation. The problem for me is that as someone who has never seen the show, the plot section is totally bewildering and seems overly detailed and complex. I see digging around the series that this is sort of par for the course, but as an FA, it needs to be accessible to people who have little or no prior context. Perhaps the plot description could be shortened and simplified? I am willing to change to support if this is an insuperable issue, but I think this is a bit baffling to readers not familiar with the show. Eusebeus 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plot section is actually not overly detailed. It leaves out some details important to someone who watches the show. It still stands fine the way it is, but my point is that if it should be changed, it should be longer and not shorter. There used to be a "Background" section, which summarized events prior to this episode and can be viewed here. Higher on this page are Bignole's first comments about why the background should be deleted/ merged into the "Plot" section, which is what happened. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I don't see how trimming would make it more understood by the casual reader, and we can't put in lots of backstory just to explain things to someone not familiar with the series. The plot would be huge if we explained everything that happened prior to this on the one page. There is an article for the previous episodes, they can view them there. There are citations for the previous episode information as well. It's confusing because you are jumping into the season 3 finale. Being shorter is going to confuse people even more. That's the problem you run into when you deal with such things. Halloween II doesn't go into extended detail to explain what happened prior to it. Plus, since it's a 2 hour episode, the plot will be a bit longer than a normal episode page. It's below 600 words, which is better than most feature films of the same time length.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yea, I suspected as much. Does that raise an issue about FAs that demand a certain level of background knowledge on the part of the reader to make sense of the content? Or perhaps the plot should be secondary (i.e. treated almost peremptorily) to the out-of-univserse notability garnered by the episode (- awards, critical reaction, etc...?) Eusebeus 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Random episode articles reaching FA status is hard enough. The Simpsons are special because they lack continuity. This show itself is special because it has more character than it knows what to do with. I mean, there isn't a point to explain who the characters are, most have links to an article or a "list of characters" page which explains them there. The only thing I could think of is to, maybe, give a couple sentence premise for what the show is. If I was more familiar with the show, maybe I could write something up that is simplistic for this episode, but at the same time kind of gives you an overview of the whole series up to that point, without adding lots of words, or becoming overly details. Unfortunately, I'm not (I don't watch it), so I won't be of help there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if as someone also unfamiliar with the show you read through it and were not baffled by the plot exposition then I'll revise my vote - my reaction might be anomalous. Eusebeus 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood what was happening, but I had no idea who was who and why they were doing it. But I blame that on just not knowing the series itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that is what I meant to say. It's not confusion in the way it is written, but that rather the details are themselves bewildering if you haven't followed the show. Charlie Pace (Dominic Monaghan) dives down into the Looking Glass, with the hope of disabling the system jamming outgoing transmissions, but he is captured by resident Others Greta and Bonnie, etc... and if you haven't watched the show you are thinking, wtf?? Looking Glass...? transmission? And by this point, something like 15 characters have been named already - I was completely ... well, lost. I guess the real question is how do we promote articles to feature status when, as a precondition of understanding it, you have to have prior knowledge. It may be akin to scientific articles that are really only comprehensible to specialists. Is the front page a good place for articles that have a restricted audience? Eusebeus 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't see the article getting much better. Good job. -DocNox 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed: All fixed. Epbr123 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I personally believe it adheres to the Lost episode guidelines in addition to the all-important featured article criteria. It's well-written, fully referenced, neutral, comprehensive, succinct, factual, stable... The list goes on. It has come a long way, and I know how much effort has gone into its improvement, and I must say it's incredible compared to what it used to be. I can only point out a few (possible) errors:
    • The lead's statement that "...the episode has won awards." is vague. Maybe "a number of awards" or an actual specification of the number of awards, like three (???).  Done
    • The sentence in the Plot section "Jack informs Kate that he loves Kate, after Kate witnesses a kiss between Jack and Juliet." reads very strangely. Is it really necessary to refer to Kate with her name and not "her" and "she" (respectively)? I don't see any interference or potential confusion with other female characters - the closest I see is a reference to Juliet in the previous sentence, but I still don't think there is any potential confusion between the two.  Done
    • Both the lead and Production section use the spelling "flashforward", whilst the final paragraph of the Plot section uses a hyphen ("flash-forward"). I assume the first is correct? •97198 talk 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues from my Oppose -

  • ”Through the Looking Glass" is the 22nd episode of the third season of the ABC television serial drama series Lost, and the 69th episode overall.” – Can this be reworded, or trimmed? It just seems unnecessarily wordy. Mostly in the description as it pertains to ABC. How about: “’’’Through the Looking Glass’’’” is the 22nd episode of the third season – 69th episode overall – of the ABC television series ‘’Lost’’.
  • ”Like the previous two season finales, it was two hours long with commercials—twice the length of a normal episode.” – Maybe something like: “Like the previous two finales, it filled two one-hour time slots, which is twice the length of a normal episode”. – I just don’t care for that “with commercials” thing, because it doesn’t seem relevant. This is my opinion, and not detrimental to the article; I just think it is unnecessary.
    •  Done Changed to "Like the previous two season finales, it was two hours long, which is twice the length of a normal episode." thedemonhog talk • edits
  • ”This is the first Lost episode to feature flashforwards throughout the episode, as opposed to the customary flashbacks.” – Maybe remove the “throughout the episode”. Is it necessary? The details of the flashforwards—“The flashforwards show the life of series protagonist Jack Shephard (played by Matthew Fox) in ruins after he has escaped the island.”—are already in the plot, so this sentence is almost a direct duplication.
  • ”Although it was not named or explored until the previous episode, the Looking Glass, was first alluded to when Sayid found its cable in the first season[12] and later when it was seen by Locke on the blast door map in the second season.[13]” –What does this have to do with production?
  • The prose needs tightening. There are peacock terms, some redundancies with additive terms (like “also”). I found it a bit choppy when reading. It would probably be beneficial to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a to try and find all of them and correct them. I would also find a third party to come and copy edit the article for grammar mistakes.
    • I removed some "also"'s.
  • ”The dramatic score was composed by series musician Michael Giacchino, while popular music was also featured and referenced throughout the episode. While Jack drives to the funeral parlor, he listens to "Scentless Apprentice" by Nirvana. The code that Charlie disables the jamming in the Looking Glass is to the tune of "Good Vibrations" by The Beach Boys.” – “dramatic”? I would probably just say “score” and link to the appropriate page. What references to popular music? Having it play in the background isn’t a reference, it’s just music. If someone explicitly states that they add that as a reference, then that is a different story, but there is no source saying that. All I see if a notation that these two songs were playing in the episode. It doesn’t really have anything to do with production so to speak.
    • Removed "dramatic" and "referenced," but kept in Production.
  • ”While the 10-year old character had left the island 26 days previous to the events of the episode,[18] the now-15-year old actor had not filmed Lost in one year.” – This needs rewording to be more clear. You’re mixing IU and OOU in the same sentence and it isn’t coming out too clear. 26 days before the events of this episode make no sense to someone that doesn’t watch the show. Is that 26 episodes prior as well, or 5 episodes prior? Maybe something like this could better clarify: “While Kelley’s character had left the island in “Episode X”, only 26 days prior to the events of “Through the Looking Glass”, Kelley had not filmed an episode in over a year and was physically more mature since his last appearance.”
    •  Done Changed to "While Kelley’s character had left the island in the second season finale, only 26 days prior to the events of "Through the Looking Glass," Kelley had not filmed an episode in over a year. In his single scene, Walt is visibly taller, has physically aged and has a deeper voice." thedemonhog talk • edits
  • ”Although uncredited, show runners Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse lent their voices for the unseen roles of the flight captain and newscaster, respectively.” – “Although” is unnecessary. Just say: “Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse lent their voices to the unseen roles of the flight captain and newscaster, respectively”.
  • ”This episode concluded the story arc about Charlie's death that began earlier in the season, when Desmond prophesied Charlie's death.[22] Throughout the season, Charlie escaped death.[23] Desmond told Charlie that he had to die this time for his girlfriend Claire Littleton to get rescued from the island.[6] The storyline of Charlie's death was conceived while producing the latter part of the second season after the storyline of Charlie's drug addiction finished.[24] The news of his character's death was broken to Monaghan two episodes in advance.[25] Monaghan felt "relief" for knowing the future of his job on the show.[26] On the night of Monaghan's second last day on set, he was presented with a canoe paddle that had been made by the cast and crew and then took part in a gambling party.[27] Monaghan hopes to return to Lost as a guest star in flashbacks.[28]” –This entire paragraph needs rewording and some copy editing. It’s extremely choppy, seems to be missing words (“Monaghan’s second last day on set”? – is that “second to last day”?...or do you mean that he had two last days?)
  • ”After Lindelof and Cuse wrote the scene, only Matthew Fox (Jack), Evangeline Lilly (Kate), Jack Bender (executive producer/ director) and Jean Higgins (co-executive producer) were given copies of the script.” – Probably not a need to re-educate us on who each is. We can look up to the next paragraphs for who they played, or what their job is.
  • ”The season finales have longer runtimes than the average Lost episode. Without commercials, "Through the Looking Glass" clocks in at 1:27:07.[36] Unlike most episodes, this episode does not feature a "previously on Lost..." recap at the start of the episode; however, it was originally preceeded by a clip-show entitled "Lost: The Answers," when it first aired on May 23, 2007.[37]” – This seems out of place. I’m not seeing a relevance of knowing this information. Ok, why didn’t it receive a “previously on Lost”? It appears that we are just making an observation that doesn’t really have significance. What did the clip-show do for this episode?
    • Said that clip-show served as an extended "previously on Lost." The runtime may not be relevant, but I like that piece of information. thedemonhog talk • edits
  • The production section is confusing. It mentions production starting and ending, then jumps to the guy working on the music, then to the casting of “special guest star”. Music generally happens last in production, so it should probably be mentioned last. You write and cast before you film.
  • ”The first hour was viewed by 12.67, while the second hour was seen by 15.04 million people.” – Should probably specify “million” with 12.67, and you could more easily say “…, and increased to 15.04 million in the second hour.”
    •  Done
  • I have to call into question the entire critical reception section’s neutrality. It reads like an advertisement for the show. You cannot tell me that absolutely no one disliked the show. It’s heavily skewed to the positive light, as if the show has no problems whatsoever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find me a negative review of the episode from someone who is paid to write about TV, please add it. View all changes here. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added this, "The writing for Locke was criticized, one writer saying that 'it seems irrational that he would go and [stab Naomi] in the back without explaining himself.'[58]." --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {EC)You know it doesn't work that way. It seems that the section is just crammed with as much positive review as possible, and they are only snippets discussing how great this episode is. None of those "positive reviews" had any criticism about the episode? I just saw you added a bit about Locke, but is there more in the reviews. Also, do we need so many? That's one of the reasons it looks so "I'm the greatest" is because there are 25 statements about how great this episode is, with comments like "shocking". I felt like I was reading the back of the DVD. The reviews should include the writer's thoughts and not simply just blanket statements of "WOW!". You mention IGN twice in two different places. The same with E!, TV Guide. I get you're using different writers for TV Guide, which is mentioned more than twice, but one should be sufficient. Especially since both liked the episode. I would use the one with the best commentary on the episode. "Matthew Fox's lead role acting was praised, his performance being called "Emmy worthy" by BuddyTV,[54] "excellent" by IGN[63] and TV Guide,[57] "fearless [and] balls-to-the-wall"[64] and "tour-de-force,"[65] by another TV Guide writer, while another TV Guide critic wrote that Fox has "stepped it up again.[49]" --All that in between citation 54 and 49 is a little heavy. That's the kind of stuff I'm referring to when I say it reads like the back of a DVD box, which is meant to promote the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cut it down, although it can still be cut down if necessary. I also added Lindelof and Cuse's opinion, but that might go better in Production. See changes here. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Muh, don't bother. The only people who are going to bother reading through the article are going to be fans of the show, so the ra-ra nature of the critical reaction is not a major issue in my view. I have removed my oppose vote above. I think this is of much too limited interest (to be completely honest) to be a featured article since it requires too much in depth knowledge of the series to even any sense of the content. But that, to be fair, is not the author's fault and is an argument that should be made about FAs generally. As long as narrow FAs about matters of limited accessibility are allowed, this is fine. Eusebeus 23:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC)I'll read over everything again in a bit. I want to give my eyes a rest and go finish my dinner. [To Eusebues], we don't write articles for a particular person but to everyone. neutrality is a policy, and making sure you don't write an article that seems like it's doing nothing more than promoting something is a must. Demon is taking efforts to make that happen, and when I get back I'll try and find some more neutral criticism of the episode to help the section out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are looking for NPOV. If critical reaction was like 50 -1 positive, then the article should reflect that in the sources and quotations it educes in the text. I have no idea, of course, if that is the case. Eusebeus 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need citations for those songs in the production section. You're asking people to accept the fact that the two songs being played are from those two artists. More trust is being as for the one that says "to the tune", as it insinuates that there are no lyrics, just melody.
    • I'm not really sure why I need a source for Nirvana. Some dialogue from the episode clearly states what other song the tune is to: --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CHARLIE: Is that the code?
      • BONNIE: Five, five, four, three, seven, seven...
      • CHARLIE: Start again.
      • BONNIE: Six, one.
      • CHARLIE: Stop, Bonnie. Start from the beginning, start again. Bonnie, Bonnie! Wake up, stop. Bonnie, start again.
      • BONNIE: Good vibrations.
      • CHARLIE: What?
      • BONNIE: Beach boys. Good vibrations. On the keypad, the numbers, they're notes. It was programmed by a musician.
        • Then that's the reference. Put in <ref>Bonnie identifies the numbers to the code a music notes, and says they are to the tune of "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys</ref>
  • There is still heavy use of peacock terms in the reception section. Even though they are cited as part of the review, simply pulling the terms as the only means of talking about the episode violates that MOS. For example, The episode received positive reviews from critics.[43] The Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "action-packed,"[44] Access Atlanta said the finale was "deeply satisfying"[45] and the Associated Press called the episode "gripping," "powerful" and "terrific".[46] --This should be avoided. But, BuddyTV praised the unpredictability, saying that "no other show can even attempt to do what Lost does."--manages to compare it to other shows. There are no buzz words, just a neutral tone. What I would prefer to see is something like, the powerful season-ending episode redeemed the series with the shrewdness and intrigue that made it so addictive in the first place.--which was taken from your Associated Press source. It isn't over the top excitement, there are no peacock terms. It pits this episode against the entire season (there was a bit about the downfall of the season just before hand), and explains that this episode lifted the season out of the trenches basically. It doesn't "tell", it "shows". These are what should be looked for in the sources you have. The San Francisco Chronicle source also compares this episode with the rest of the season (a concurence among reviewers if you will). Here is a good one from that SF Chronicle source that is currently only using "great twist"--Not only was the pace fast, the teases taut, and the answers plenty, the writers took a compelling gamble (though one not too difficult to unravel or further complicate). They told viewers that in the future, all (or maybe all) of the people on the "Lost" island get off. They get their wish. But in Jack, our guide through this series, the writers definitively say, "Be careful what you wish for."-- It could be summarized a bit so that you aren't copying a paragraph of review, but the idea is to show people what made the critics think the episode was great, instead of simply telling them that the critics thought the episode was great.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last sentence of the Critical Response sections reads "On a less positive note, The Sydney Morning Herald wrote that Lost "may have unjumped [the shark] with [the] flashforward."[58]". Is this really a less positive note? My interpretation of "unjumping the shark" would be that the show previously did jump the shark, but has made up for whatever decline in quality (or critical reception) with something better than expected. Is my interpretation wrong? •97198 talk 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - The article is looking much better. But there are a couple things I think could be tweaked. Mainly, the entire last paragraph of the reception section. First, I checked the IGN source and they didn't say "excellent" for Matthew Fox, they said "you've got excellent acting--especially Matthew Fox", so the "excellent" was directed at all the actors, not just Fox. The "balls-to-the-walls" just seems over the top. The only real viable info is the BuddyTV comment about it being "Emmy worthy", which I think can be merged into the main review by BuddyTV. The last line about unjumping the shark comes out of no where, because you are talking about Fox one second and then the entire show at the end. I think there is enough praise already to lose that bit. I would replace the bit from Cuse and Lindelof with the Entertainment Weekly bit, as they talk about the writing specifically. That way, you can follow up with how an IGN writer thought the writing for Locke was out of place for the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedical and Zythe. This is yet another great product of WP:LOST and I look forward to seeing more. Cliff smith 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — some of the links in the episode references are redundant. Every time the episode number is stated, it's a link to the full LOE; and every time the season number is stated, there's a link to the season page. Cliff smith 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's so much crap, this topic. My query is how people who are enthusiastic enough to write an article on it can do so as well as this. Just a few things:
    • Australian readers will take "ABC" to be the name of their national broadcaster. Spell it out on first occurrence.
    • "When the episode first aired on 23 May 2007 in the United States and Canada, it was watched by an average of 14 million American viewers." Why is this an "average"? I suppose it means that people dipped in and out of it. Strange. Tony 08:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Autism

[edit]
previous FAC
FARC former featured article, been on main page

Self-nomination. This former Featured Article was demoted on 2006-12-17 due to many {{fact}} tags, weasel words, undercitation, and lack of conformance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Since then it has been heavily rewritten to fix the above-mentioned problems, with the goal of making it the best encyclopedia-style reference for autism available anywhere. It went through a peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. The article is 72 kB in total size, with 38 kB of readable text. Eubulides 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bisognerebbe inxseriscing + images --A cool night green owl 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I think lead is too long and intro of the "Classification" section could use some citations, it doesn't prevent me from supporting. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; I trimmed the lead a bit (further suggestions welcome) and added cites to Classification's intro. Eubulides 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your response on my talk page. Now I think lead should be acceptable, though four paras are, in my opinion, bit much, though I won't oppose promotion because of this (my ideal would be three). For citations, good job for adding them. Now I was looking again through the article and I think at least one citation would be good for these: intro of the Characteristics section, for Diagnosis intro before last two sentences and maybe intro of Treatment section. And yes, I don't know what this should mean "Removed from the following pages" (though it's year old message) on the image page of Leo Kanner (ignore if it is irrevelant or solved). Otherwise, excellent article. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks, I added citations for all the sections you mentioned except for Diagnosis where the first sentence introduces DSM-IV-TR 299.00, then all but one of the sentences summarize DSM-IV-TR 299.0 without any analysis, and the last of these sentences cites DSM-IV-TR 299.0. That should be enough, right? Hope we don't have to put a "[1]" after each sentence. I'll think about shortening the lead further (got any suggestions?). Eubulides 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These minor fixes needed:
  • These shouldn't be hyphenated: "narrowly-focused interests", "publicly-supported programs" and "widely-cited 2002 pilot study"
  • "might consider several other possibilities, including ADHD." – the "several" is redundant
  • "Several other drugs are prescribed off-label," – the "several" is redundant. Epbr123 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I made the above fixes. Eubulides 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good effort on a very difficult topic. Many articles in this area on Wikipedia are very biased, and to have this "main article" in a well-referenced NPOV state should hopefully penetrate the related content as well. JFW | T@lk 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article provides a comprehensive and detailed introduction to a hugely important topic in medicine. Such a controversial subject demands the highest quality sources, which I'm happy to say this article relies on. The editors have taken care to ensure the wording accurately reflects those sources. NPOV is extremely difficult to achieve here, but I'd say the article reflects the current consensus fairly. I'd love to see the daughter articles improved too! Well done. Note: perhaps a WP graphics designer could be persuaded to turn the AutismBrain image into SVG and consider using it in the article in a way that is readable without clicking on the image. Colin°Talk 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is very extensive and comprehensive and I am impressed that such a controversial and widely debated subject matter is presented so fairly. Really pleasing to see such a core topic at such a high standard :) Image:Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg is very cute too, which I'm sure is an unwritten FA criteria. Kamryn · Talk 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Colin. I was originally brought to this article through the Lily Montgomery article, then I was brought to this article again through the Jonathan Lavery article. And each time I was brought to this article, I have been intrigued by it, and it's everything that Colin has explained above. Very well-written, fantastic article. Great job on it. Flyer22 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heritability contributes about 90% of the risk of a child developing autism, but the genetics of autism are complex and typically it is unclear which genes are responsible - sentence is clunky - lose the "typically" as it is a redundant word. Might flow better replacing "but" with "though" or a semicoln and "however"
Fair enough, how about "in most cases" or "generally" - the "typically" feels clunky...
I changed it to "generally". Eubulides 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..actually could lose the 2nd "of autism" in the sentence above as it is obvious which genetics is referring to.
  • Changing "[[Heritability of autism|genetics of autism]]" to "[[Heritability of autism|genetics]]" would make for a confusing wikilink, as a reader normally would think that "genetics" would wikilink to Genetics. Instead of losing the 2nd "of autism" I replaced the first "autism" with "disorder". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversy of increasing diagnosis needs to be mentioned in lead. An easy 1-2 sentences to pop in.
  • I modified the lead to mention that controversy. The lead's a tad large, though (a reviewer has already commented on this), so I did it in less than 1 or 2 sentences. The paragraph wikilinks "controversy" to Controversies in autism so the casual reader can easily find out more about the controversy. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its impairments result from maturation-related changes... - lose the its - again self-explanatory.
  • Of the other four ASD forms, Asperger syndrome is closest to autism - replace the odd-sounding "forms" with "conditions" or "syndromes" or "diagnoses". Also "closest" here needs qualification - what? why?
  • share several symptoms with autism - replace "symptoms" with "characteristics" or "features" - a symptom is what a patient describes.
  • more-specific (?) - this does not need a hyphen
  • The main difference between autism and Asperger syndrome is that in Asperger's there is no significant delay... - this needs to be rewritten to lose the repetition. How about "Aspergers syndrome is distinguished by the absence of delay...." or something
  • I changed "The main difference between autism and Asperger syndrome is that in Asperger's there is no significant delay…" to "Unlike autism, Asperger's has no significant delay…". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text seems to waver between Asperger and Asperger's - consistency please.
  • Autism covers a wide range, - odd clause which needs a rewrite. "There is a great degree of variation in the condition's severity.." is better. Sounds colloquial and odd as is.
  • The last para of Social development flips into talking about ASD. This does not gel with the article unless integrated properly.
  • "Does not gel" is a bit vague; can you please be more specific? Here's some background to help you think about it. The cited sources sometimes talk about ASD, and sometimes talk about autism. When we found a reliable source that talked about autism, that source was preferred; the article falls back on ASD sources otherwise. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - tricky I know. Let me dwell upon it....
  • Atypical eating occurs in about three fourths of children with ASD, so frequently that it used to be a diagnostic indicator. - needs rewriting - replace the jargonistic "Atypical eating" with "Eating problems" or "Problem eating" or something, "it used to be" sounds colloquial - try "was previously considered"
  • "Problems" wouldn't be right, as atypical eating is not always problematic. I changed "Atypical eating" to "Atypical eating behavior"; hope that suffices. I also changed "it used to be" with "it was formerly". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • its theory of causation is still incomplete. - ummm....How about "cause is unknown" or "little known"?
  • That phrase wikilinks to Etiology, i.e., to the theory of causation. Rewording to "cause is unknown" would mean the wikilink would be inaccurate. Also, the sentence is really more about the theory of causation for autism, not just the causes of autism. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracking down the causes is often hard, - colloquial. need to change to "Identifying...difficult"
  • .., and some researchers argue - change to semicolon or stop and lose the "and"
  • First, for each autistic individual, mutations in more than one gene may be implicated. Second, mutations in different sets of genes may be involved in different autistic individuals. Third, there may be significant interactions among mutations in several genes or between the environment and mutated genes. -I'd lose the ordinal numbers here. They add nothing and make the text look odd.
  • Neither category is satisfactory on its own. Social cognition.. - I'd go with a semicolon here as the sentence is too short otherwise.
  • Somewhere in treatment it is critical to point out that the goal of treatment is management and improvement of symptoms and functioning rather than cure. This is hinted at but not really spelt out anywhere.
  • I inserted a new 1st sentence "The goal of treatment is to manage and improve symptoms and functioning." "Prognosis" starts with "No cure is known" so I hope that depressing information need not be repeated under "Treatment". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few examples of autism and its treatment can be found from long before it was named. - umm...sounds colloquial. Try "Examples of conditions likely to have been about autism and its treatment occur in literature long before it was described" or something like it.
  • Finally - the corresponding History section in schizophrenia and Asperger syndrome is the section right after the lead. Kanner is pretty important and I'd move the section to there as well but put the first para about references predating official description at the end of the section.
  • WP:MEDMOS lists "History" last, and my impression is that "History" appears last in more featured medical articles than where it appears first. Examples of where "History" appears last include Tourette syndrome, Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Multiple sclerosis, and Coeliac disease. Kanner is indeed important and "History" does say that his description of autism remains the classic one. The photograph of Kanner in "History" helps to highlight his importance to guide the reader to this important part of the section. As a general rule, it's better to use chronological order in brief histories in encyclopedias: that's simpler and less confusing to the reader. This may help to explain why the earlier accounts are put first in "History". Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! - point conceded (shuffles feet and looks at the ground)...guess I'd better go and look at what I can do at schizophrenia then....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)
Sorry about the oppose but the article's prose really really needs fixing. It is doable and I'll happily support once fixes done. More coming though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comments have been helpful and I'm looking forward to fixing any remaining problems. Eubulides 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, the placement of the History section has been discussed for years at WP:MEDMOS, with consensus being it usually should be last. However, order of sections is only a suggestion, so I won't object to History being first, even though I don't like it (and I don't agree with it being first at either AS or Schizophrenia). Tourette syndrome follows MEDMOS and has History last, mentioning the most salient facts in the lead. I wouldn't object over order of sections, but I don't like the idea of History first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Weak Support - i.e. I think we're over the line but the prose could still do some tweaking. If you want I can edit with detailed summaries and show you. Incidentally thanks for hte input on schizophrenia..have to pay more attention to MEDMOS...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, any further suggestions for wording improvements would be helpful. I claim no particular expertise at prose style, and anyway I have spent so much time editing the article that I can't see its stylistic faults so easily. Others have improved Autism's style this way recently, e.g., User:TimVickers. Eubulides 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article has been converted by Eubulides from the poorly sourced, speculative, rambling, uncomprehensive, POV article that was FARCd in December 2006 to a comprehensive, NPOV article relying on the highest quality sources. With the sustained attention of many editors who watch the article now, I'm confident the prose, sourcing, and NPOV will be maintained. Disclaimer: I figure in the article stats as one of the top five contributors. My contributions were mostly before Eubulides began to work, and are largely vandal reverts and ref cleanups (working by sections to fix references chunks up a high edit count). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can someone fix the closing page ranges in the references? MOS says they're normally abbreviated to two digits, and never to one or three digits. Tony 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

The Simpsons

[edit]

The page was improved considerably since it was delisted, and has since been improved and copyedited by many different users. A few days the page was nominated by a random user, and I felt it wasn't ready then, but we have since improved it so we figured it was worth a try. Any concerns that people have will be addressed by myself or Gran2. -- Scorpion0422 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should be a better transition between these two sentences, "Its success prompted Fox to reschedule the series to compete with The Cosby Show, a move that hurt the ratings of The Simpsons.[12] Ullman later filed a lawsuit, claiming that her show was the source of the series' success. The suit said she should receive a share of the profits of The Simpsons—a claim rejected by the courts," since initially, it sounds like Ullman's lawsuit had something to do with the scheduling change.  Done
  • "Two male actors" - There are two male actors...  Done
  • "Celebrity guest stars often play" - "Celebrity guest stars have often played"; the latter half of the sentence necessitates the use of present perfect.  Done
  • "As the show's revenue..." - the connector "as" makes it seems like this is a chronological continuance, when this is actually a new event. I would preface that sentence with "On another occasion", "in XXXX" or something equally fitting.  Done
  • "consists of 16 writers" - spell out sixteen  Done
  • "developed the show since season one" - Season One should be capitalized  Done
  • "with 60 episodes" - spell out sixty  Done
  • "the run of animated short" - "the run of the animated short"  Done
  • "season four, Gracie Films" - capitalize Season Four  Done
  • "the show as of December 2006" - is this the most up to date info?  Done
  • "After season 13, production" - spell out and capitalize Season Thirteen  Done
  • "paint during season twelve's episode" - you know the drill  Done
  • "We [The show]" - is there a reason why "The" is capitalized? If not, lowercase it.  Done
  • "writers' evince an appreciation" - remove the apostrophe  Done
  • "makes jokes from across the political" - remove "from"  Done
  • "government and big business as" - capitalize Big Business  Done
  • "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise so that it became the well known exclamation in the TV series." - It is doubtful he would know this in advance. The sentence should read something closer to this, "The director of The Simpsons told Castellaneta to shorten the noise, so that it became and it went on to become the well-known exclamation in the TV series.  Done
  • "of sight gags and does not use" - "of sight gags and did not use" - As is, the first half of the sentence is present tense, and the second half past. It should be all past.  Done
  • " 20th century's" - Century should be capitalized  Done
  • "marks the 20th anniversary" - spell out twentieth  Done
  • "With its 19th year" - spell out nineteenth  Done
  • " of 20 produced" - same deal  Done
  • "until its 29th season" - ditto  Done
  • "a top-10 episodes list" - it should read "a top-ten list of episodes"  Done
  • "a top-15 list" - "a top-fifteen list"  Done
  • "among the worst, so season four looks" - Season Four  Done
  • "Despite this criticism, The Simpsons has managed to maintain a large viewership and attract new fans. However, the first season had an average of 13.4 million viewers in the US, compared to the 17th season, which ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers." - Two problems: (1) The sentences appear to contradict each other. The second sentence should begin with something like "Despite this,..." or "Even still,..." (2) The second sentence is grammatically wrong - the first season had 13.4 million viewers whether you compare it to the seventeenth season or not (the current wording insinuates otherwise). The first sentence should be followed by something like "Despite this fact, there has been a decline in viewership. While the first season enjoyed an average of 13.4 million viewers per episode in the US, the seventeenth season ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers."  Done
  • "it a billion dollar merchandizing" - billion-dollar should be hyphenated  Done
  • Remove this sentence "Music is featured in The Simpsons, with characters breaking into song during the course of the series." it is jarring since it doesn't talk about merchandise, and is actually redundant; if original music is sold, then it must have appeared on the show.  Done
  • "seasons 1–9 have" - "seasons one through nine have"  Done
  • "Seasons 1–7 have also" - Seasons one through seven have also"  Done
  • "one after the first season, and the other still available" - huh? Maybe try: "One that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was produced in XXXX and is still available for purchase"? This is just a fragment as is.
  • "various difficulties (comma) such as lack of a suitable story and an already fully engaged crew of writers (comma) delayed the project"  Done
  • "The Simpsons film released on" - "The Simpsons that was film released on"  Done
  • "It opened at the top of the international box office (comma) taking $96 million from 71 overseas territories (double dash) including $27.8 million in the United Kingdom, making it Fox's second highest opening ever in the country."  Done
Note how these issues have been resolved, and alert me on my talk page.--Esprit15d 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the issues have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article looks much better than it has in the past. I have a few comments, however.
  • Is it necessary to mention Snowball II and Santa's Little Helper in the opening paragraph? They've been the stars of, what, four episodes? Moe, Apu, Krusty, Grandpa, etc, are far more important secondary characters, but they're not mentioned anywhere in the lead.
  • Are all of the references correct? Double-check reference 14, for example. I'm not sure how that relates to anything in the "Origins" section. (There may be a few other problems; I haven't looked at every reference yet.)
  • I'm not comfortable saying that the show has a liberal bias, regardless of what Al Jean has claimed in the past. John Swartzwelder, the show's most prolific writer, is definitely not a liberal, and the show has fequently lampooned liberal leaders and liberal causes. (And I'm not some right-wing nut, in case you were wondering; I just think we should strive for a more complete and accurate description of the show.)
  • The entire paragraph says "Some commentators say the show is political in nature and susceptible to a left-wing bias. Al Jean admitted in an interview that "We [the show] are of liberal bent." The writers evince an appreciation for progressive ideals, but the show makes jokes across the political spectrum". So, it doesn't just say Liberal bias. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I guess it's not as bad as I thought. Would it be OK to change the third sentence to say, "The writers often evince an appreciation for progressive ideals"? Or something along those lines? That would probably assuage my concerns. Zagalejo 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show portrays government and Big Business as taking advantage of the little guy. I think "Big Business" and "little guy" are too informal for an encyclopedia article. (These two terms are also Al Jean's exact words, as quoted in Planet Simpson, but the article does not make this clear.)
  • The sentence was somewhat awkward, so I changed it to "The show portrays government and large corporations as somewhat evil entities that take advantage of the common worker". -- Scorpion0422 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd use "malevolent" to describe Mr. Burns, but we might want an adjective that could also apply to characters like the Big Rich Texan or the Laramie Cigarettes guy. How do you feel about "callous"? Zagalejo 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about capitalist enterprises?
I may have more to say later. A lot of hard work has gone into this article, but there are still a few minor things to hammer out. And I don't think this should be promoted until someone really tough, like Tony, has a look at it. There are a lot of supporters, which is unsuprising, but this isn't a popularity contest. We need to look at the article critically so that it's the best article we can produce. Zagalejo 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is (was) reference 14? Some sort of blog related linkspam, so I've replaced it. Gran2 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm going away for a week starting Sunday, so Gran2 will take over the FAC for the remainder. -- Scorpion0422 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay I've changed ref 71, I thought pg. 131 was fine, but if you disagree, although it could be that the page number is wrong as my copy could be a different edition. Anyway, if not, would this satisfy the point [97]? Gran2 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we should add that ref into the article. In my version of the book, anyway, page 131 only contains an in-universe analysis of Bart. It does mention that Bart rarely gets punished, but it doesn't say anything about real-world conservative criticism of the show.
We may indeed have different versions of the book (I have the 2004 DeCapo version), but I didn't find any problems with the other Turner page numbers (with one exception, which was easy to fix). Zagalejo 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is a 2005 Edbury Press copy, the British print of the book. And if you see no problem with the BBC source, I'll add that ref into the article. Gran2 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've put them both in, as the each cover the different points of the sentences. Gran2 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other comments:
  • The Simpsons is a highly successful long-running animated American sitcom. That's a long string of adjectives. Should there be a comma in there somewhere? Or could we possibly eliminate "highly successful long-running" from the sentence altogether, and just let the facts speak for themselves? We do discuss the show's awards and run-length later in the lead. Zagalejo 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groening sketched an outline version of a dysfunctional family, and named the characters after members of his own family, substituting Bart for his own name. It may not be clear what "outline version" means in this sentence. It's not that clear to me. Zagalejo 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there might be some other problems. I just viewed the "America's First Family" DVD extra, which is used as a source for that part of the lead as well as the first paragraph of "Origins." Groening never explicitly says in the documentary that he was worried about rescinding publication rights to "Life in Hell," nor does he say that he drew a picture for Jim Brooks during the initial pitch. Here's exactly what he says:
Well, the Simpsons really began in the fifteen minutes that I had to prepare for a meeting with Jim Brooks to present him with my ideas. I was originally going to do my "Life in Hell" characters in animated form, and then, at the last moment, I got I scared. I thought, what if this fails miserably? I'll have ruined my characters, I'll go crawling back to my weekly comic strip, so I decided to make up new characters on the spot. Hence, the Simpsons, named after my own family. I wasn't particularly feeling creative in that fifteen minutes, so I quickly named them after my own family. I do have a father named Homer, a mother named Margaret - Marge is close, I thought Marge was a slightly funnier name - and I have two younger sisters, Lisa and Maggie. I thought if I made the main kid Matt, that would be a little too obvious, so I changed him to Bart.
Groening does later explain that he gave quick sketches of the family to the animators, but he never says if he did so for Brooks. Now, it's possible that Groening has told many different stories about the origin of the Simpsons, but the Wikipedia article must accurately reflect what the cited sources say. Zagalejo 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So should I change it (if so what to), or find another source for that point? I mean Turner mentions that he drew them, and was worried about losing his rights to Life in Hell. Would be okay, or it to much of a secondary account? Gran2 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually scratch that. [98] Gran2 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that settles that he drew them. He still doesn't explicitly say in that video that he'd be giving up his rights to the "Life in Hell" characters, but don't worry, I've located another interview where he does. The following comes from an April 22, 1998 broadcast of the National Public Radio show Fresh Air. It's from an interview between Groening and TV critic David Bianculli.
Well, they called me up and they -- and they said they had -- were doing this new comedy-variety show and they wanted to have little animated cartoons as part of the show, and suggested that I animate my Life in Hell characters, which I thought was a great idea. I found out that I would give up ownership of whatever it is that I put up. And so I created The Simpsons in their stead, 'cause I --you know, Life in Hell, with my Rabbitz (ph) and Akbar and Jeff --that's a regular gig and I was doing just fine with that. And I didn't know if this animation thing was going to pan out at all. And I decided not to sacrifice my own characters. So, I made up these other characters who I didn't really care about -- The Simpsons.
I found the transcript of the interview through Factiva, which I accessed through my university's library system. I don't know if it's available for free online, so if you need more info about the source, just let me know. Zagalejo 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah its going slow for me as well. Anyway, if its Fresh Air they usually have it on their website somewhere. I've used a Fresh Air interview in the Troy McClure article, using the cite interview template. So even if we just link to the transcript it should be fine. Gran2 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay the movieweb source is pretty unusable as its just some Youtube like site, and I don't think that the interview was conducted by them and so it can't be used as a source. If it transpire that the did do the interview then it can be used. So until then I've chaned it from "drew" to "created". And I've added the Fresh Air source. Gran2 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. -- Wikipedical 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. I hate to do this, because the article does seem to be well written and informative, but it contains very little on international versions of the series. Perhaps I missed something, but the only mention of international activty relates to the DVD sales and the movie's box-office take. How many languages is the show dubbed into? Where is it broadcast? I know it's dubbed into Japanese, French, Spanish, and perhaps German and Italian, because those are all options in the DVDs for special episodes (e.g., Homer's Enemy and Kamp Krusty), and I recall Groening making a comment about having to choose the Japanese voice actors (perhaps that was in the commentary for In Marge We Trust). Beyond that, have you examined any academic opinion on the franchise? I know some stuff is out there (see the FAC for "Homer's Enemy" or "Homer's Phobia", I forget which at the moment). Also, Is there any sense of how The Simpsons have affected global perceptions of America? I know that Homer has ranked near or at the top of A BBC survey of most popular Americans in Britain recently. This is a huge topic, and the contributors deserve congratulations for producing such a fine article, regardless of my nitpicks. Great job!--Monocrat 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added about the foreign dubbing as that seems the most important thing of what you suggested, I might look at adding some of the other things later on. Gran2 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The image Image:Simpsons cast.png cites a web forum as its source. This should be sorted out ASAP, and removed if no official source can be found. Image:Simpsons comic books.jpg cites its source as a fan-site, the same applies here. The Image:C-SimpFamily.png source is a fan-page too, I believe. I feel the resolutions of the following images should be cut down-Image:Simpsons final poster.png, Image:Simpsons couch gag.jpg and Image:Bart Night Gallery.jpg. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter that a source for an image is a fan site or a forum? Its not like it being used as a reference... its an image, they can come from anywhere. Is there some kind of policy that forbids images using fansites or forms as there sources? Gran2 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm probably being stupid here, but what part of that policy says that images can't have sources that are fan sites or forums? If the image was found there, what's the problem? Gran2 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we are saying that these images were released by the organisation (Fox or whoever) to promote their work. But we are citing a fan forum. I could take any old image, post it on a forum, upload it to Wikipedia and claim that an organisation has released it as a publicity still etc, couldn't I? We need a proper source, maybe from a press release from Fox or something that includes the image. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a few more things. Some sources, such as <ref>Turner, p. 30</ref> are very vague. Is this a book, is this a pamphlet, is this a press release? It should be in the correct citation template and some parts should be wikilinked if possible. Also, it would be nice to mention religion in the sentence "... and lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself." It is one of the main themes of the series and is often imitated, somewhat controvertionally. I also feel that [100] should be included. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its pretty obvious that its a promotional image, and the fact is that any "official" sources don't exist. Unless you want me to quote www.foxflash.com, which doesn;t let you add direct links, but its every Fox image ever made. Also there is nothing wrong with the Turner ref, its how you cite book sources, the full book is in the references section if you cared to look. Gran2 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel these references should be in the {{cite book}} format. It's easy enough to do. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, when a book is cited multiple times in one article, each using different pages, that is the preferred system. The full book is included in the references section. Gran2 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also claim its "pretty obvious" that the image is a promotional shot-unfortunately, that isn't good enough for FA status. I reccomend having a look on that flashfox site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is... Anyway, I've used Fox flash as a source for the images in question. Gran2 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of cite templates is not required, and the citation method is fine. Asking for use of cite templates isn't a valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I'm not really satified with this section, but I'm not sure how to fix all the problems:
Credited with sixty episodes, John Swartzwelder is the most prolific writer on The Simpsons staff.[24] Conan O'Brien also wrote four scripts before becoming the host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. English comedian Ricky Gervais is the only guest star to have guest written an episode,[25] although there have been other guest writers, such as Spike Feresten, a Seinfeld writer famous for "The Soup Nazi" episode.
Here are my concerns:
  • The sentence about Conan O'Brien reads awkwardly within the flow of the paragraph. It's just so abrupt.
  • I think we should clarify that Ricky Gervais actually played a character in the episode he wrote. Otherwise, it's not immediately clear how he differs from the "other guest writers."
  • Was Feresten really a "guest writer," (as in someone specially invited by the show to write an episode,) or was he just a short-time staff member? This isn't clear to me.
  • Perhaps more important than the last two issues, is it really essential to mention Gervais or Feresten at all? In the grand scheme of things, they contributed very little to the success of the show. Zagalejo 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with you, but Gervais writing an episode received quite a lot of media attention. I think the section needs to be rewritten to have a few more introductory sentences sort of thing. I'll get to work on it, firstly by listening to commentary for Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming, to see what they say about Feresten. Gran2 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I've re-written the section, and removed all mention of Feresten and the commentary mentions that although he wrote the original script, it was re-written almost completely afterwards so he doesn't really warrant a mention. Gran2 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose I'm just looking at the Gervais thing through an American perspective. I do have one more comment about the above section. Namely, should we cite a source to prove that Conan O'Brien wrote four scripts? (I know that he did, but that might not be common knowledge to everyone.) Zagalejo 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the episode counts are somewhat screwy to begin with, as most shows are collaborative efforts anyway. I did reword part of the section to more clearly emphasize why Conan is important. Note to Raul654: I'm not quite finished combing through the article, so don't close the discussion just yet. Zagalejo 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Looking through "Voice actors," I have a couple of questions:
  • Do we need to source "Richmond, pp. 178–179" so many times within this section? For example, one footnote will cover the first two sentences of the second paragraph.
  • Do we have sources for these two sentences? I don't believe these come from the Complete Guide: 1)She sometimes refuses to perform Marge's voice in public to maintain Marge's mystique. 2)With the exception of Harry Shearer, every main cast member has won an Emmy for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance. (I'd recommend removing the first of these two altogether, as it's trivial and it disrupts the flow of the paragraph.) Zagalejo 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the third paragraph in that section is unsourced, as well. Zagalejo 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. We're getting there! Zagalejo 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More
  • This part from "animation" is unsourced, and somewhat confusing: Animators used digital ink and paint during Season 12's episode "Tennis the Menace". However, Gracie Films delayed using 'digital ink and paint' for two more seasons. The already completed "Tennis the Menace" was broadcast as made. Do we mean that Gracie Films dealyed the regular use of digital ink and paint until season 14? Also, I don't think we ever actually explain what Gracie Films is. Zagalejo 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll listen to the commentary for the episode, although if it doesn't mention, its not a great loss, I mean, I think Radioactive Man being done with digital ink is more well known. Gran2 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general question: Might the article make more sense to readers if "Characters," "Setting," "Themes," etc (ie, the in-universe stuff) were placed before Production? Zagalejo 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a thought. It would be really nice if someone unfamiliar with The Simpsons could chime in. That way, we would know for sure if the present layout works. Zagalejo 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would be the best thing, because I'm really not sure which one would work best. Gran2 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • From "Setting": Groening has said that Springfield has much in common with Portland, Oregon, the city where he grew up. Though this comment is sourced, and seems true, to an extent, it just seems to contradict everything else in that paragraph. Some better organization and better transitional words might help. Zagalejo 17:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from that section: Commentators have suggested, and then ruled out, nearly every US state and region as the basis for Springfield. This appears to be sourced to Turner, but I'm not sure where in the book he says something like this. Zagalejo 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turner talks about the flexible nature of Springfield, but he doesn't mention any sort of systematic process of elimination to determine where it is (or isn't.) I just don't like the implications of the phrase I quoted above. It sounds like someone had a checklist of every US state and made some sort of comprehensive study to determine that Springfield wasn't in any of them. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Opening sequence": This last segment is often the only one of the three gags to survive the process of shortening the opening for some syndicated episodes and for episodes which needed extra time. Is the sax solo really a gag? Zagalejo 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's usually more subtle than the other two segments. I wouldn't mind removing it altogether, but I'll have to ponder it some more. We could probably retain it if we reorganize some things in that section and rewrite parts of it from scratch. Zagalejo 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Halloween episodes": Although the Treehouse series is meant to be seen on Halloween, in recent years, new installments have premiered after Halloween. This is due to Fox's current contract with Major League Baseball's World Series. This probably needs to be sourced. Zagalejo 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented, thanks. Gran2 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Criticism of declining quality", there is the sentence, "Some critics started calling the show 'tired'". Is there a reason "tired" is in quotes and italicized? Is that some Manual of Style thing? Zagalejo 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that someone on the article's talk page is disputing the claim that the show is dubbed in Swedish. Zagalejo 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "DVDs": In particular, seasons one through ten have been released on DVD in the US (Region 1), with more seasons expected to be released in the future, Europe (Region 2) and Australia/New Zealand/Latin America (Region 4). I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems like someone jumbled parts of it around. Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Video games": Two Simpsons pinball machines have been produced; one that was available briefly after the first season, and another that was is still available for purchase. So, is it still available for purchase? A source might be needed here.Zagalejo 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, those are all the easily fixable problems that I noticed. However, I still have some concerns about more general things, like paragraph flow and organization within sections (Setting, Themes, and Merchandise, in particular, could all use some polishing). The page is almost featured article material, but I'd recommend recruiting some fresh-eyes (preferably, people who aren't hardcore Simpsons fans) to copyedit parts of the article. Zagalejo 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Confederate government of Kentucky

[edit]

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article has been much improved with the recent changes. Nice job! 8th Ohio Volunteers 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My requests for changes were dealt with quickly last time and I supported last time. The flimsy and irrelecant nature of the government in question isn't reflected by the quality of the article. Vote for the article, not ths subject. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Support Overall, this is very well-written, and a very interesting article. I am a bit hesitant to support it at this time because, while reading it, I found one blatant spelling error and and a duplicate word (which I fixed). I am also uncertain as to why the editors are spelling the name of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania without the 'h'? I think a good, final copyedit by a more experienced copyeditor, and this article will be easily pass the FA criteria. Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The spelling of Pittsburg(h) was changed by User:Orlady with the edit summary "changed link to point to preferred spelling of Pittsburgh." I figured this user knows more about it than I do. I have solicited the help of three WikiProjects (Kentucky, Louisville, and Military History) in trying to improve the article in all ways, including copyediting, but so far haven't gotten much response. If you could provide more specific examples of the types of errors you found in need of attention, I will do my best to correct them. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also wondered about the spelling of Pittsburgh, but I did not change it in the article due to the possibility that there was a historical reason for the variant spelling "Pittsburg". All that I changed was the spelling of the internal link (so it would not redirect). --orlady 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops. Sorry to have improperly attributed the spelling to you then, Orlady. Looking back, it seems that the spelling was introduced by User:North Shoreman in one of his suggested edits, and I just copied and pasted it without looking. I have taken your words for it and added the "h". Thanks for the catch. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to support. Looks good now. Dr. Cash 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Vkhutemas

[edit]

This article is about a Russian design school from the 20s. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to it so far. I feel that this article meets the criteria for featured article, and if not, will do so by the end of this FAC. Thanks in advance for your comments. Regards, D. Recorder 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent, erudite and interesting article. I wonder if the lead might expand slightly on "It was dissolved in 1930" - this seems a little abrupt and a little flavour of the 'why' might help. --Joopercoopers 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about- It was dissolved in 1930, after numerous political pressures in the later years. The school's faculty, students, and legacy were dispersed into as many as six other schools.[8]? D. Recorder 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --Joopercoopers 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fine-tuned it.[103] D. Recorder 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job everyone!--Esprit15d 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose: This is a generally well-written article. The research and coverage are good. But it seems that there are primarily some grammar and copy editing (and few MOS things) that need a little work. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:[reply]

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "merger of two schools; the Moscow" - that should be a colon, not a semi-colon
  • "industrial faculties, the art" - that comma should be a semi-colon, period, or colon (either of them would work)
  • "and architecture; the industrial" - It would be better to join this as one sentence since they are the same topic. Replace the semi-colon with "and" or ", while"
  • "school was reorganised which included a" - slightly off grammatically. The word "which" should relate back to a noun antecedent, but there is none here. So you have to say, "school was reorganized -- a reorganization which included..." You could also rephrase the sentence entirely. But, right now it isn't correct.
  • In the subheading "Basic Course", course should be lowercase
  • "An important part of the new teaching method which was developed at Vkhutemas, and was made compulsory for all students, and independently of future specialization, was a preliminary basic course." - This sentence is confusing, mostly because of it's passive voice construction. Rewrite it this way: A preliminary basic course was an important part of the new teaching method that was developed at Vkhutemas, and was made compulsory for all students, regardless of their future specialization.
  • "early 20s" - "early 1920s"
  • maximul - Is that the correct word?
I don't know, I asked another editor for clarification. D. Recorder 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was just misspelled. D. Recorder 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence that begins "In the early 20s this basic...", some of the words in the list start getting capitalization for no reason.
  • "and diverse media" - "working in diverse media"
  • " art, Kazimir Malevich joined " - comma after Malevich
  • "group Unovis of the" - comma after Unovis
  • "art school, which included" - "art school that included"
  • "architecture, examples are" - "architecture (semi-colon) examples include"
  • "painting, to sculptural works, to exhibition" - remove the commas
  • "print, exhibition design," - "print, and exhibition design(period)"
  • "new type, artists capable" - replace the comma with a double dash
  • "and functionality in society" - "and functionality found in society"
  • "of the Communist party, who" - Party should be capitalized. Who should be replaced by "that"
  • "for 'working class' elements" should be followed by a period
  • "A tendency towards working, functional designs with luxuries minimized resulted from this push for design economy." More confusing passive voice. Change to "This push for design economy resulted in a tendency towards working, functional designs with minimized luxuries. "
  • "moving parts, were standardized" - "moving parts, and were standardized"
  • "by Konstantin Melnikov, and its" - remove the comma
  • "utilitarian lines, Stepanova" - replace the comma with a period
  • "this was 'with the" - "this was done 'with the"
  • "and Suprematism, were also" - remove the comma
  • "which was focused more on engineering after acquiring the institute" - "which, after acquiring the institute, was focused more on engineering"
  • "Workshop which lasted" - "Workshop that lasted"
  • "Жолтовского), at the same" - replace the comma with a double dash
  • "organization with three resident" - resident should be plural (residents)
  • "Nikolai Dokuchayev etc.)." - rm the period in the parenthesis
  • "hold to Zholtovsky, at the same time" - "hold to Zholtovsky while at the same time"
  • "modernist art" - capitalize Modernist
  • " leader of rationalist architecture" - Rationalist should be capitalized
  • "the past; then, use it in abstract drafts; finally" - replace the semi-colons with commas
  • "school, the Constructivists" - double dash, not comma
  • "between Zholtovsky's classicism and Ladovsky's rationalism" - Classicism and Rationalism should be capitalized
  • "Golosov in 1923, spoke" - remove the comma
  • "departments, the dialectics" - "departments and the dialectics"
  • "example, 'The true" - say who said this, or it sounds like Wikipedia is saying it (which would be POV)
  • "am an old man.".[40]" - remove one of the periods
  • "Although Lenin was not an enthusiast for avant garde art,[41] projects were made at Vkhutemas, and by faculty and students in his honor and to further his politics." - confusing passive voice. Try "Although Lenin was not an enthusiast for avant garde art,[41] Vkhutemas faculty and students made projects to honor him and further his politics."
  • "for a Lenin Institute," - period, not a comma
  • "book, Constructivism published" - move the comma to after Constructivism
  • " were the first to train" - first where? In Europe? In the world? This claim should also be referenced or removed.
  • "it has been significantly less promoted" - "it was significantly less promoted"
  • "award winning student work" - award-winning should be hyphenated
  • ""Institute" instead of "Studios"" - ""Institute" replaced of "Studios""
  • "this reorganization the basic" - comma after reorganization
  • "Technical Workshops and stated" - "Technical Workshops, which stated"
  • This sentence: "Under this reorganization the 'artistic' content of the basic course was reduced to one term, when at one point it was two years." appears twice in the paragraph.
  • "The modernist movements" - Modernist should be capitalized
1b. Comprehensive? Very good. However, just a couple instances intrigue the reader. For example "Melnikov quit Vkhutemas" - why? This statement is so jolting, and unexplained.
I asked another editor to elaborate.D. Recorder 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated on this and added more context so it wasn't jolting. D. Recorder 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1c. Factually accurate? Yes
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Table of contents? Yes
2d. Sufficient inline citations? Very good here. Remember, however, the citation should always go after punctuation. There is at least two instances where this wasn't done.
3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Yes
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented what you suggested, thank you for such a thorough reading. I asked for clarification from other editors on one item I was unsure of and for more explanation of why Melnikov quit abruptly. D. Recorder 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these two items, hopefully to your satisfaction. D. Recorder 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would request or ask the reason for not seperating your primary references into a seperate section. As it stands the research literature used for this subject is merged with the citations making it hard to identify whether the sources were used for the sake of putting a citation near a couple sentences or if they were responsible for most of the text. With this the reader might know if there are more/better sources for the subject that can be incorporated, whether the sources are reliable according to his/her own research and/or the reader can see which books deal heavily with the subject if he/she wishes to pursue further reading. Thank you. 74.13.101.5 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see this is a broader issue than this particular candidate page can resolve. I don't see your question as specific to this article, as what you are noticing is customary with current featured articles so may be applied to any of them. You can see this by viewing them on the main page, and other candidates on the candidate page. For a general discussion on the virtues of different methods of referencing and how they relate to featured articles, you might get a better response at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. If you want to know specific information about this articles references I can elaborate on them for you, but it is all pretty much there in the references section. If you ask a more direct question about the references in this article I will be glad to answer it. The frequency of citation is a good indication of the primariness of the reference, or the amount this article is indebted to each source. As for inline cites they are used in abundance in recently promoted articles, looking at some of them now with your question in mind, I don't see any that have references separated and classified as primary and secondary. I understand the reasoning for this to be that separating sources rather than linking them in line could create confusion as the text evolves and imply that they apply to the entire text and to what other may writers contribute at any given time. Using inline citations is more exact as to 'who said what'. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, it is collaborative, and if someone else adds information, it might appear to be attributed to any of the references listed in a separate list, when it may or may not be. Using inline cites relates the facts directly to the sources, and can even give page numbers for attribution and further reading. Regards, D. Recorder 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Cautious neutral. It's an interesting and worthy article on an unusual subject. I'd like to see it succeed, but it's not well enough written yet. Seek help from native speakers in this field. Here are random samples of problems.
    • MOS breach: read about single and double quotes.
    • "Constructivism, Rationalism, and Suprematism."—Why the upper-case?
    • "Akin to the Bauhaus' basic course at which all first year students had to attend"—The apostrophe looks very odd. Try "s's" if you need one at all. You don't attend at a course.
    • "In the early 1920s this basic course consisted of the following: ... 8) was by Wladimir Baranoff-Rossine."—Huh?
      • Fixed. I think there's some question mark about exatly what Rossine was teaching in this part of the course - I've replaced it to read "In the early 1920s this basic course consisted of the following: ... 8) tutelage by Wladimir Baranoff-Rossine" --Joopercoopers 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideas awkwardly jammed into this sentence: "Constructivism was developed as an art form in graphics and sculpture, but it had architecture or construction rather as the underlying subject matter, and was present throughout the school." "But" is a problem. So is "rather". The last point doesn't run smoothly.
      • Replaced with two sentences - "Whilst constructivism was ostensibly developed as an art form in graphics and sculpture, it had architecture and construction as its underlying subject matter. This influence pervaded the school." --Joopercoopers 10:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basic course whose? It's not a person.
    • "Class-based"—see hyphens in MOS. Tony 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:**Thanks Tony, I'll have a look tonight (D.Recorder is on vacation). As far as I know, the main contributors are American and British (excepting NVO who's Russian I think) - what do you mean 'native speakers' - Russian or English? "Read about single and double quotes" - do you mean quotation marks or quotations from people? --Joopercoopers 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

William Shakespeare

[edit]

previous FAC

Partial self-nom; but I hope my fellow editors will sign below. William Shakespeare is a good article. A number of editors have been addressing the issues raised in June at the previous FAC, which mainly concerned the need for copyediting and a uniformly high standard of references. The article came close last time, thanks to the excellent work of those who prepared it on that occasion. It has now improved further and surely meets the FA criteria.qp10qp 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I heartily agree. Another self-nom. Wrad 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Agreed. It has improved. RedRabbit 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I concur. The accuracy of this entry is probably unsurpassed by any similar article on the Internet. Tom Reedy 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'll admit that I came to this new FAC wanting to oppose b/c of the bad blood resulting from the previous FAC. But the truth is, the article is now vastly improved. The only minor critique I have is that the performances subsection of the plays section is too long and should focus only on those performances during Shakespeare's life. All other performances info can be placed in Shakespeare's plays. But that won't stop me from supporting. I hope other reviewers will not get hung up on trivial POV or technical issues like they did before and see this article for what it is--one of the best on Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alabamaboy; that's really appreciated. As you know, the material about performance history was added only recently (I went through the requests at the last FAC and noticed that it was asked for). I'll remove it for the moment; and it can always be restored if required. Rather than add it to Shakespeare's plays, I think Shakespeare performance history is a large enough topic to deserve an article to itself: so I'll address that when this FAC is finished.qp10qp 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for helping bring the article to FA level. I also agree that the performance history needs its own article (since it already takes up such a large chunk of the plays article). I've created the new article at Shakespearean performances by bringing together the info already present in other articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was much needed; thanks. I've got some spare bits and pieces of material I can add to it too; and I'm about to read Jonathan Bate's book, which might provide some more.qp10qp 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to be "high-class" and accessible (as Orwell showed); so I will see what I can do. Thanks for your support.qp10qp 07:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. It's appreciated.qp10qp 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  Shall I compare thee to a Featured A?
     Thou art as lengthy and as templated:
  Tough dogs may shake the yearling candidate,
     Yet Shakespeare's leash shan't be so fated:
  Sometime too hot the eye of critique shines,
     And often the star's gold complexion dimm'd;
  And every FA from FA sometime declines,
     By chance, or Marskell's changing course, untrimm'd;
  But thy eternal "feature" shall not fade,
     Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
  Nor shall Raul brag thou wander'st in his shade,
     When in the outside light thou growest;
  So long as netheads click, or GNU can see,
     So long lives this, and gives life to qp10qp.</poem>

   –Outriggr § 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( : --qp10qp 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I count that as a support? Or did you just want to praise fair qp10qp? I will allow both together, if you like. :) RedRabbit 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official Proposition I propose that all future comments on any FA candidates should be required to be made in poem form. Okiefromokla•talk 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to all the reviewers for taking the trouble (I was so worried not many people would bother). If any of you have an article you would like me to review, please drop me a line (though, I'd better warn you that, in a polite way, I can be annoyingly fussy).qp10qp 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and engaging. Comprehensive and comprehensively referenced, yet logically organized and readable. Covers the relevant points with admirable brevity where needed. To my tastes the balance between Life and Art is a feather too light on the biographical side, but that's probably as it should be for a general audience. (Note that I've edited this article, just not in any way sufficient to claim any kind of credit for its current state.)--Xover 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As with the last time around, though there has been vast improvement since. A great achievement, well done all. Ceoil 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a long time to read an article like this; so once again, thanks to reviewers.qp10qp 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A judiciously organised and very readable article, well-supported by references taken from leading authorities. Having had no previous connexion with this article, I've jumped in from time to time to ask questions and do a little rephrasing and suchlike, but that amounts to a lot less than 1% of the finished product. Just look at the Talk page to see how seriously everyone - and I mean everyone - has taken the task of co-operating on improving the article, with special kudos to qp10qp for actually doing so much of the legwork and to Tom Reedy for successfully stirring things up. --GuillaumeTell 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a great article. Though it is a tad long, it is well worth the read. My only qualm is about the speculation section being split up into three stubby subsections. Is it not possible to have a single section summarising the speculation in several paragraphs, and then make the main link from that go to a summary-style article (say Speculation about Shakespeare) that further links to the three subtopics of authorship, religion and sexuality? Oh, and all praise to Outriggr for the best ever FAC support! :-) Carcharoth 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. The idea is intriguing. The Speculations on Shakespeare article could explore other facets of speculation about his life... But it would be very difficult to reign things in. It may just turn into a mess of every kind of speculation that any average Joe every thought up... Wrad 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Speculation about Shakespeare" section is an oddity that we inherited. The stubby sectioning results from our unwillingness to allow these speculations to gain undue weight. Any lengthening there would undoubtedly give the section too much importance in relation to other aspects of Shakespeare's life and work. Ideally, these questions would be subsumed in the "Life" section", where speculation issues about less controversial matters can already be found; but we can at least keep a better eye on them in their own sections. The "Speculation" section is a wiki-compromise that you don't find in other encyclopedias. Maybe it would save us some trouble at James I of England if we put the sexuality-speculation stuff in its own section there too and restricted it to a set weight.qp10qp 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research: that's really thorough (I wouldn't expect anything else)! I intend to check the articles that main-link to our sections, but I suspect it will take years for all the linked articles to come up to scratch. This is a particular issue with such a multiplicitous subject as Shakespeare, but it's an issue throughout Wikipedia, since every article links to others. The Shakespeare Wikiproject intends to improve the quality of Shakespeare articles overall, but it wanted to start with this one, which is the mother and father of all the others, even if, like Old Mother Hubbard, it has so many children it doesn't know what to do.qp10qp 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. I've added some initial comments to the ones that seem to need most attention, but obviously concentrate on this one for now. Carcharoth 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to clutter this with side issues, too much, but a couple of comments. Firstly thanks for your kind comments on a few of those pages. Secondly, I think that so-long as the linked articles are not awful then their shortcomings (if any) shouldn't detract from the FACacy of this article. Thirdly, I'm not sure I really approve of a direct main article link to Chronology (Oxfordian). I'll look into that and report back. Sixth-and-lastly, I have great plans for List of historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare, but at the moment it only exists at all because "Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare" got deleted, so it contains nothing but a listification of that former cat. I'm inclined to think that in its current state it shouldn't link from the main article, either. AndyJones 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reporting back: so far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, please??) the two articles that bothered me aren't linked from anywhere except the {Shakespeare} template, so I don't think I need to take any action on them. AndyJones 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC) - agreed - the ones you mention are just linked from the templates. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I agree with AndyJones that the offshoot articles should not be held against the main article. Most of them are of good to very good quality, but obviously they are not yet at FA level. Still, the Shakespeare Wikiproject intends to improve the quality of all these Shakespeare articles over time and, once this main article reaches FA status, we will turn our attention to the secondary articles. I'd also prefer to leave the speculations section as is.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to add, in agreement with the previous two posts, that the outstanding work done on this article has already vastly improved all of the articles mentioned and sent them well on their way to GA and higher status. If anyone wants to help with these articles, they are welcome to join the Shakespeare WikiProject, which is becoming more and more effective in its goals by the day. That said, let's continue to focus on the article in question, William Shakespeare. If every related article had to be FA before one could be, we'd never have any FAs until all of wikipedia was one! Wrad 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the above. Consider my comments a "don't stop there" vote! :-) Obviously my support stands, and I'd be surprised if anyone finds any major problems with the article. And congratulations on getting the Shakespeare article up to this standard. I remember thinking a few years ago that this was something that needed doing, and the results have been spectacular. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we considered the quality of the linked articles at FAC, I don't think any article would be an FA. :) Awadewit | talk 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a small, picky question in an otherwise excellent article. Does every sentence in the lead need to start with the article subject, Shakespeare? I would prefer more variety. Mattisse 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to soften the effect.qp10qp 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - I agree with Alabamaboy that this article has greatly improved since the last FAC. I am definitely leaning towards support, but I have some small concerns that can be easily (I hope) addressed.
Since I rewrote the biographical section at least once, I peppered the following with a few comments. I also unstruck the comments I think need attention or more discussion. Tom Reedy 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, it's the convention that we only strike or unstrike our own comments. Otherwise, it is confusing for the director. It would be better if you marked any reservations that you feel need addressing as "Comment". Your comments will be taken seriously, whether other people's comments are unstruck or not.qp10qp 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I apologize. I was trying only to make them easier to find. Should I go back and restrike them? Tom Reedy 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the life:

  • William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)[a] was an English poet and playwright who is now regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. - Surely not everyone agrees on this? "by some scholars" or "by many" perhaps?
(Umm..can you find a reference of someone who doesn't? I'd be surprised. I thought it was pretty universal) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike this opening as much as anyone but it's eminently referenceable, while the opposite isn't, and all the other encyclopedias and popular books have something like it (even so, it is referenced to good sources). But then again, I am not reading books in Greek, Chinese or Arabic. I have added "often", but I don't hold out any hope that that sentence of the article will ever be stable.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Often" is fine with me. To answer your question, Casliber, yes, there are many people who don't think that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language or the world's pre-eminent dramatist (I would be one of them). More importantly, there are published work that ascribe to this view as well. Perhaps more importantly, in a situation like this it is nearly impossible to claim universality - you would have to survey the entire population of the world to prove it, or at the very least, read every scrap ever published on Shakespeare. Since I'm pretty sure the editors haven't done either of these things, some qualifier seems in order. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I see no reason for the word "now" in the lead sentence. I think "is" takes care of the temporality of the statement. And I think "usually" or "generally" is a better word than "often," which makes it seem as if people think about it several times a day, or at least moe than once a week. Tom Reedy 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Now" takes helps take care of the universality problem. Certainly people in Ancient Greece, for example, did not think Shakespeare was the greatest playwright in the English language. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that English did not exist at the time, I would have to agree. My point is that "is" implies the present time, and so "now" is redundant. The sentence does not state that Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer in any language or of all time. Tom Reedy 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think it will be read that way by careless readers. I think that the redundancy is a necessary emphasis to make sure that the sense is adequately conveyed to the reader. (Why is everyone always against redundancies? They have a long and noble history ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.....")) Awadewit | talk 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can do much to ensure careless readers don't read carelessly; nor do I think we should be in an article about shakespeare. And that's not a redundancy; that's an parataxical antithesis using anaphora. Tom Reedy 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, man! I'm feeling left behind now. I should buy a dictionary of literary terms or Teach Yourself Ancient Greek to catch up. RedRabbit 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "usually" or "generally"? I thought that was an improvement. I'm not wedded to the "now", but I do think it is a courtesy to the reader. We are all poor readers sometime. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it to the satisfaction of all (I hope). Tom Reedy 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His surviving works include 38 plays,[b] two long narrative poems, 154 sonnets, and a few other poems. - perhaps "a few other short poems" to distinguish them from the narrative poems?
I've changed it to "shorter" (because A Lover's Complaint is medium length).qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But some of them are longer than the sonnets - rearranged the sentence to fix this. --GuillaumeTell 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smart.qp10qp 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family house on Henley Street is assumed to be Shakespeare's birthplace, though firm evidence is lacking and scholars have suggested other possibilities. - Perhaps some of these other possibilities could be included in the footnote?
I've cut this because none of my biographies bother with it, and I don't have the book that is is reffed to.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I thought this was unnecessary also. Tom Reedy 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, no attendance records for the period survive. - some sort of phrase about "therefore we cannot be certain Shakespeare attended the school" needs to be added here
(I would have thought it was self-explanatory - hence adding the phrase would be redundant and not good prose)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusion is implicit rather than explicit. For this article, which is read by such a wide variety of users, I think it is best to be as explicit as possible. But that's MHO. Awadewit | talk 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this change introduces almost a tautology. Since no records exist, there is no proof anyone attended the school, yet apparently there was one. Tom Reedy 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was just attendance records from this period that didn't survive. Leases, contracts, and attendance records from other periods might have survived - what do the sources say on this? Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some go all the way and flatly say he attended, since his works indicate he had a grammar school education -- not a private education or university training -- but most of them use a variation of "we can be sure he attended Stratford grammar school even though no records survive," which is what I call a shadow of a qualification, similar to what we had. My point was that the explicitness is unnecessary, because payment records, contracts, etc. indicate there was a school and it was free. Saying we can't be sure Shakespeare attended because we have no attendence records is akin to saying we can't be sure anybody attended for the same reason, which verges on the ridiculous. Tom Reedy 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not insisting on the "obvious" conclusion for that reason. I was insisting on it because I have a feeling that many readers would not be able to draw that conclusion from the paragraph. Perhaps my years of teaching freshmen composition have made me too cynical. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, I remember those days! We should put a few rare key words in the article to catch them if when they plagiarize it! Tom Reedy 05:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. I always have at least one plagiarized paper a semester. What is wrong with people, anyway? (I heard that the grad students who used to write CliffsNotes deliberately put in false information so that the students relying on the handbooks would get caught - is that an urban legend? Awadewit | talk 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I doubt that grad students wrote CliffsNotes, tho; more likely PhDs who couldn't get jobs. One incident I remember particularly: I had my freshman students write five essays during the semester, and one weekend my son bought an encyclopedia on bodybuilding, and I thumbed through it a bit. The next Monday an essay was due, and a jock turned in a paper on bodybuilding that was suspiciously familiar. I was merciful and gave him the option of dropping out, which of course he took. Tom Reedy 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either the original or the changed version.qp10qp 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I happen to know that graduate students used to write CliffsNotes. I met some. Whether or not they later got jobs, I couldn't say. They were simply trying to supplement their meager income. What are we doing about the sentence? I vote for inclusion, but if I am overruled, that is that. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See if the rewrite is acceptable. I pushed the qualification to the front to give it a bit added weight and also made it clear that biographers were aware of the lacuna to fend off any there's-no-proof-Shakespeare-ever-attended-school people. Tom Reedy 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much more elegant, I think. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images in the early section of the biography are on the right side of the article - could they be staggered? It would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Done.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most agree that Greene is accusing Shakespeare of reaching above his station in trying to match writers who had been to university. - Might we name at least one of these?
Names added.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot, especially when we learn Greene himself is one of them. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should Marlowe and Nashe be referred to by their full names on first reference? Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the article didn't follow that convention - I thought it was to save space. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I thought we tried to follow it. I'll change those two and look for any others. Tom Reedy 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much to save space as to prevent name pile-ups clogging sentences. My principle was: where a list of names is given purely as incidental examples, use surnames.qp10qp 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be something like that. I don't mind. However, some of the names might be obscure to readers, such as Nashe. Either way. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we don't know this, but how did Shakespeare have enough money to buy a share in the Lord Chamberlain's Men?
Added point, reffed to Honan.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with this change, because (a) Honan doesn't reference it, (b)I can't find it in Schoenbaum (tho I'm not saying it isn't there), and (c) Chambers says he might have paid £100 for his share. Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to remove the £50. Such overdetailing is not crucial, and Honan's point is handy, though it may be his speculation (Honan is the most cautious of the biographers I've read, however). Chambers is an old book, and I'm sure Honan would have taken him into account.
I suggest we cut the entire sentence. It just introduces a needless speculation that can't be answered, and they don't cover all the possibilities. Shakespeare may have been a founding member because he was an apprentice with the former troupe, etc., etc. We don't know how any of the members became sharers, or how much of even if they paid. Tom Reedy 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate request by a reviewer has been answered. And referenced material has been added. It is of far more value than some of the other speculation in the article.qp10qp 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it answered the question. He or she asked HOW did Shakespeare have enough money to buy a share, not how much he paid. The question was also prefaced with "I'm sure we don't know this," which tells me an answer or a change wasn't really expected (but I'm sure he or she can let us know better than I). Tom Reedy 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom is correct about my original intent. I was curious how it was that Shakespeare could have amassed whatever amount of money needed to buy into the company. From the answers I received, I just concluded that the amount was all we knew. I think the amount is less interesting than how he managed to scrounge it up. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he won a £50 bet with the earl of Essex over whether true love could be realistically portrayed on stage. Tom Reedy 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Lord Chamberlain's Men attracted the patronage of the new king, James I, and changed their name to the King's Men - is the "Lord Chamberlain's Men" singular? should it be "changed its name"? is it a group, that is, rather than assemblage of men?
I've edited to avoid the problem. Usage differs on each side of the Atlantic.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know about the usage difference - I'm not trying to stir up AE/BE trouble. :) Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1599, a partnership of company members built their own theatre on the south bank of the Thames, beyond the reach of the city authorities. Naming it the Globe, they leased it to the playing company. - This is a bit unclear - which company built and which company leased?
I've cut this. Colleague Tom Reedy has this in one of his books, but none of my books trouble the reader with the financial niceties of the way the company and leasings were set up.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, both Schoenbaum and Chambers cover it in detail, but I don't think it's that critical for a general-article encyclopedia. Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1597, he bought the second-largest house in Stratford, New Place. In 1605, he invested in a share of the parish tithes in Stratford. In 1613, he bought a gatehouse near the Blackfriars theatre. - could these sentences be combined? "in + date" is repeated three times in a row in an inelegant manner
Improved.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absence of his name from the 1605 cast list for Jonson’s Volpone is taken by some scholars as a sign that his acting career was winding down. - Might "winding down" be too colloquial?
I've changed it to "slowing down".qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting: according to the OED, "winding up" is the correct term! Tom Reedy 04:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually know that. :) The issue is more about readability, I think, though. What are the associations that the average reader has with the phrase "winding down". In America, anyway, it is used for things like "winding down after a long day at work" and is quite colloquial. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, and it's not an issue for me. I just had one of those "duh" moments when I looked to see if the term "winding down" was listed in the OED and thought it was funny. Tom Reedy 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He signed legal documents as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon". - This sentence seems unrelated to those around it.
I've related it. The point is that even though he lived in London a lot, he still chose to sign documents as a Stratford man.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I see. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a maker of ladies' wigs and ornamental headgear - It is not entirely clear to me what "ornamental headgear" might be.
I've changed it to Greenblatt's "and other headgear" to save the reader thinking about it. Both Honan and Schoenbaum say "ornamental headgear" and leave it at that. No one knows what he actually made, that's for sure.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes we do. Mountjoy was a tirer, who made tires, onamental headgear for women. In its simplest form, it was a metal headband, but most of them were studded with semi-presious and precious stones, and intricately woven with gold and silver wire. There are extant records of Mountjoy making such for Queen Elizabeth. "And other headgear" could mean scarves or hats, which Mounjoy did not make, so this is an example of a simplification that introduces an inaccuracy. Tom Reedy 04:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All simplifications are inaccurate at some level. I think that this one is acceptable, since this piece of information is barely relevant to Shakespeare at all. Too many new ideas and details weigh a reader down and they simply give up. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comment was that "ornamental headgear" (which is a simplification) was unclear, and just "headgear" is certainly unclear. I think if we're going to choose between two simplified, unclear descriptions I opt for the most accurate one. Tom Reedy 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think "ornamental headgear" sounds odder and will stop the reader (well, some readers anyway, like me). Precision can lead to unnecessary confusion sometimes. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both "other headgear" and "ornamental headgear" are correct. But I agree with Awadewit's point, which is subtle. "Ornamental" makes the readers wonder about something which they really needn't be bothered with. And how do we know that Mountjoy didn't make hats or scarves, anyway? Yes, we know that he was a tirer, but that could mean a lot of things. One theory, which makes a lot of sense to me, is that he was a tirer for the King's Men. In that case he might have made a variety of barnetwear, not just wigs and jewelled bands. Theatricality and pageant were a feature of the age, so I bet he turned out all manner of monstrosities.qp10qp 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1613, he bought a gatehouse near Blackfriars Theatre - "a" gatehouse or "the" gatehouse?
I've changed it to "the gatehouse".qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorted out double word, + clarified - priories only had/have one gatehouse. --GuillaumeTell 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness we have an ecclesiastical adviser on the staff.qp10qp 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of confusion about this. Although there may have been only one gate, apparently there was more than one house built over it. In 1623, an adjacent gatehouse collapsed when more than 400 Catholics held a secret mass on the third floor (see http://www.genealogysource.com/druryrobert.htm for the short version). Shakespeare's house was passed down in the family until Lady Bernard willed it to her kinsman, Ed. Bagley in 1647. It burned in 1666, and the next year Bagley sold the land to Sir Heneage Fetherson for £35. So "a gatehouse" would be accurate. Tom Reedy 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "he bought a gatehouse in the Blackfriars priory". This allows for there to have been more than one gatehouse—but even if there were only one gatehouse, it still works. It's like saying, "he lived in a bungalow on Rye golfcourse": whether there was one or more bungalows there doesn't come into it.". We had similar problems with a gatehouse of the Old Bishop's Palace in Oslo at James I of England. It's hard for us to visualise how these old Catholic complexes were cannibalised by property developers.qp10qp 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare wrote no known plays after 1613. - This repeats information already given.
Sorted. Good catch.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his will, Shakespeare sought to hold his large estate together by leaving the bulk of it to his elder daughter Susanna.[60] The will instructed that it be passed down intact to a male heir. - This is a little confusing as Susanna is not male - do you mean a male grandchild?
I've added a little phrase from the will to make it clear.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer - thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be clearer, but it is inaccurate. Shakespeare's intention was to pass down the bulk of his estate to a male heir, not just to keep it together. He gave it to his daughter Susanna to hold for her natural life but entailed the property to be passed down to her male heir, and in case she didn't have one, to the male heir of her daughter (who was living when he died), and in case she didn't have one, to the male heir of his other daughter, Juddith. So we need to decide if we want to be generally correct without much detail or generally correct with a lot of detail so there's no chance of confusion, but I hope you agree with me that clear but inaccurate is not an acceptable option. Tom Reedy 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say he entailed it on the next male heir, then? This is the same as Pride and Prejudice, is it not? Awadewit | talk 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it similar to that originally, but a few of the editors objected, (something about how the word "entail" would stop the reader, or some such nonsense!) and so it was replaced with the previous version before now. Tom Reedy 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Through an entail, a complicated legal arrangement, Shakespeare sought to both hold his estate together and bequeath it to his next male heir." Awadewit | talk 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my original: In his will Shakespeare left the bulk of his large estate to his daughter, Susanna Hall.[58] Shakespeare sought to hold together the real property of the estate for a male heir, and so he entailed Susanna’s share to be handed down to her eldest male heir upon her death, or to the eldest male heir of her daughter in case Susanna produced no sons, or, failing that, to the eldest male heir of Judith.[59] The Quineys had four children, all of whom died without marrying, and the Halls had one child, Elizabeth, who married twice but died without children in 1670, thus ending Shakespeare’s direct line.[60] I agree that was too much, so it was then changed to this: In his will, Shakespeare sought to hold together the real property of his large estate by leaving the bulk of it to his daughter, Susanna Hall,[62] and he made arrangements in the will for it to be passed down intact to a male heir. Then I left the country and someone made this change: . . . and the will stipulated that it be passed down intact to a male heir. Tom Reedy 06:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was inaccurate at all. But I've changed it to: In his will, Shakespeare left the bulk of his large estate to his elder daughter Susanna.[60] The terms instructed that she pass it down intact to "the first son of her body". This removes "hold it together" (not my wording), which is covered by "intact". And by emphasising that "she" pass it down, any final vagueness is removed. Of course, we could say a lot more about the default provisions, but that would be too much information for this article. And Honan describes the whole thing without lumbering his readers with the word "entail", so I think we should do the same. qp10qp 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer writes. As some of you know, I do equity law in my day job. I'm no expert on the law of the time, of course, but looking at the will I'm not altogether sure it is an "entail" in the strict sense of the term. On the face of it it's more like a remainder. I suppose my only real point is that we should avoid using the term "entail" unless we have a reliable (ideally legally qualified) source. In that respect. I think QP's last version is best. AndyJones 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that big a deal for me, so I doubt it would be for the expected audience. My only point was that his desire to keep the estate together was because of his intention to found a dynasty with a male heir, not just to give it to his daughter. I'm a bit nit-picky myself sometimes. Tom Reedy 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did make a point, however, of leaving her "my second best bed", a bequest that has led to much scholarly speculation - Might we put some of the speculation in a footnote?
We are trying to keep footnotes to a minimum, but I've added a line about this to the article.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I just felt like readers would be left hanging otherwise. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which edition of As You Like It is being quoted in the text box?
Oxford. I've added it.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the rest of the article in the next day or so. Awadewit | talk 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Astute observations, as usual. Most of these points are easily addressed. I'll be on them in an hour or so.qp10qp 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, too. We need an advocatus diaboli for these matters, and for the added fun! RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your patience with my nit-picking. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the plays:

  • may also belong to Shakespeare’s earliest period.[67] His early histories, which draw heavily on the 1587 edition - repetition of "early" is inelegant
Changed.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:MOS-L#Form, apostrophe "s"'s go inside the link (it is logical, after all)
I can't get it to do it that way, for some reason.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[Shakespeare|Shakespeare's]] is the only way I know. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a few - I'll just fix them myself. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • dramatise the evil results of weak or corrupt rule and have been interpreted as a justification for the origins - "evil results" sounds a bit cheesy
Changed to "destructive".qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their composition was influenced by the works of other Elizabethan dramatists, especially Thomas Kyd and Christopher Marlowe, by the traditions of medieval drama, and by the plays of Seneca, with their rhetoric and bloodthirstiness. - "with their rhetoric and bloodthirtiness" is hanging off the sentence; also "rhetoric" is vague - what kind of rhetoric? bloodthirsty rhetoric, perhaps?
Me. Removed the hanging bit.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't name you, qp10qp, so that you could make a grand entrance. :) RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned you here and there lower down, so that you can make several grand entrances of your own.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Two Gentlemen of Verona, in which two friends appear to approve of rape,[72] the Shrew's story of the taming of a woman's independent spirit by a man presents difficulties for modern critics and directors. - perhaps also include something about these themes ordinariess at the time? also, why are we privileging the modern viewpoint at this point in the article? This kind of statement seems to belong to a section on modern interpretation or performance.
We don't have a section on modern performance. I find that books talk about these plays as performance pieces at the same time as analysing them purely as literature. The approach in the article is to mix it all up, as the sources do.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems to be out of place since the only modern reactions the article mentions, at this point any way, are reactions of disgust or discomfort. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it punctures the subtext of the article, which is very pro-Shakespeare.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Italian and classical style of Shakespeare's early comedies gives way in the mid-1590s - I missed the bit about the "Italian style" - where is that?
Added earlier mention of "Italianate".qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what does "Italianate" mean? About Italy and sex? That is what I can deduce from the text. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a phrase about it.qp10qp 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is some sort of delay in updating servers or something, because I don't see anything new. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italianate seems needlessly obtuse to me. Is it a specialist term? I only see it applied to architeture — cf. Italianate — elsewhere. Do we need to use this term here?--Xover 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the bit: "Shakespeare's early classical and Italianate comedies, with their tight double plots and precise comic sequences, give way in the mid-1590s to the romantic atmosphere of his greatest comedies."
The word "Italianate" is in the source. I like it myself because it captures for me the fussy precise style of those plots, which are indeed architecturally self-conscious. The alternatives are relatively clumsy, in my opinion: "Italian-influenced", "Italian models", "Italian-style", etc. We might wish away the need to pin down the generic styles of Shakespeare's early comedies, but, though the general reader probably knows little about this, the Italian influence is accepted by scholars, and we owe it to the readers to mention it.qp10qp 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link? Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Midsummer Night's Dream is a witty mixture of romance, fairy magic, and comic low-life scenes;[75] but the next comedy, the equally romantic The Merchant of Venice, contains a portrayal of the vengeful Jewish moneylender Shylock that may trouble modern audiences as racist. - Again, I'm not sure why were are privileging the modern reaction at this point - for hundreds of years, Shylock was anything but controversial. I think that this needs to be made clear.
I've added that the depiction reflected the prevailing view of Jews at the time. I don't think it is possible to mention Shylock in this article without mentioning racism. Which is a modern response, as indicated.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, mentioning modern discomfort in this section seems skewed somehow. Also, note the POV: misogynist plays are described as "presenting difficulties" for modern audiences, while Merchant is clearly described as "racist". Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are different. You can play Shrew and Gentlemen to subvert the misogyny: the difficulty can be got around, and I've seen an RSC feminist Shrew. And there's definite ambiguity in the script, as critics point out. But no matter how sympathetic you make Shylock, the racism is overt. I am also only using the sources. Park Honan, a mere biographer, says, "There is an odd difficulty in the author's treatment of a Jewish villain, a problem no easier for modern directors and audiences after the Holocaust." And he quotes the director Peter Hall on racism and Shylock.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still don't like it, but I accept this explanation. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the poetic Richard II - aren't all Shakespeare's plays "poetic" - why are we singling this one out?
Improved wording to show that this play was written in a lyric vein and almost entirely in verse. Roland Frye has shown how different was the style of the next two histories (the Henry IVs, my favourite Shakespeare plays), which often launched into comic prose.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''After the poetic Richard II, Shakespeare introduced comic writing into the mature histories of the late 1590s, Henry IV, parts I and 2, and Henry V. - the use of "mature" is very common in literary scholarship, but I'm not sure readers will understand its usage here - I would explain the word a bit
I just removed it, and it reads cleanly enough.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Julius Caesar—based on Sir Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Parallel Lives—which introduced a new kind of drama - what new kind of drama? the combination of history and comedy? perhaps this paragraph could be reordered a bit
I added a quote from Shapiro to explain the breakthrough in this play. It's not a simple matter to reorder the paragraph, if you think about it. Julius Caesar has to come at the end: it is seen as the last tragedy before the great tragedies and the last of this period. It also opened (very probably) the Globe and so needs to appear at this bridging point. Yes, it's clumsy to mention R and J with it, because that came at the beginning of the period: but it's the only other tragedy. The comedies and late histories are the meat of this paragraph as they are of this period.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is a little vague, but it helps. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plots of Shakespeare's tragedies often hinge on such fatal errors or flaws, through which evil overturns order and destroys the hero and those he loves - evil is vague; Shakespeare would not be considered a great playwright if he only wrote about "evil"!
I've removed "evil" there.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • an old king commits the tragic error of giving up his powers to his evil daughters and rejecting his good daughter, triggering scenes of unrelieved cruelty - again, it is not really "good" vs. "evil" - at least something like "ambitious and selfish" vs. "compassionate and dutiful"?; also, what does "scenes of unrelieved cruelty" mean? for whom? This is clear to those of us who have read the play, but not necessarily to others.
I've tried to add to this by describing two pieces of cruelty and adding a quote from Kermode. Kermode's view on this play is a key one, from what I've read. By the way, I am adding a quote or two from critics and scholars to balance the Eliot one. I realise my summaries of the theories aren't getting over (I've read a lot about "evil", and I assumed that was a standard interpretation), so I'm going to let the scholars chip in for themselves.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope they would be using "evil" in some sort of context. Here, unfortunately, it looks cartoonish. Awadewit | talk 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • until their own guilt, assisted by supernatural forces, destroys them in turn - is their guilt "assisted by supernatural forces"? this seems awkward and not quite right
I know. That sentence was a nightmare. It's so contorting trying to sum plays up so briefly and still make the paragraphs work as a whole. I've broken the sentence up.qp10qp 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare's last major tragedies, Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus, contain some of Shakespeare's finest poetry and were considered his most successful tragedies by the poet and critic T. S. Eliot. - We have no mention of critics' names until now - why single out Eliot? Such a statement belongs in "Reception", I think.
To be honest, I didn't quite know what to put about these two plays that would single them out. The fact that Eliot rated them so highly struck me as very interesting. It made me read Coriolanus for the first time, and I am hoping that his name will prompt some readers to do the same. Apart from Hamlet, I dislike the great tragedies, but I really enjoyed Corry.qp10qp
Well, not everything Shakespeare wrote was a masterpiece. How about at least saying that Eliot's conclusions are unusual? Awadewit | talk 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are unusual in saying that they are the best plays. But the two plays are highly rated, particularly A&C. I don't see a problem here.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I won't battle it out over this one. :) Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less bleak and more artificial than the tragedies - artificial has such a negative connotation now - is there a way to explain this better to the uninformed reader?
I've removed it. But I read Shakespeare's Late Style, by Russ McDonald, which goes on ad infinitum about artificiality.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. I didn't mean remove the world, I meant explain the word. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I agree that the word is used everywhere, but the audiences reading it in those books are generally more familiar with its positive connotations than your average wiki-reader, I think. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear for whom Shakespeare wrote his early plays; the title page of the 1594 edition of Titus Andronicus reveals that it had been acted by three different companies. - a little confusing at the beginning of a section; I can hear my students now - didn't he write them for the public?
Improved.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The popular comic actor Will Kempe played Peter in Romeo and Juliet - "Peter" is not jumping out in my memory (I had to go look him up); perhaps at least "the servant Peter"?
I added your suggestion. For a long time I tried to understand why these two parts were mentioned, since Kempe is associated with many other parts. But I have to give the original editor, whoever he/she was, some credit, because it turns out that these are the only two parts for which there is documentary evidence that Kempe played them.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all makes sense now. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the last to touch those particular sentences; and, yes, I was quite careful to restrict it to rôles for which there was actual evidence (the previous text was… less selective). However, a later hand seems to have excised the text relating to Cowley entirely, and in the process undone my careful citations — with quotations, no less! — and mis-ref'ed it to Armin's roles instead. “Oh, fie, Miss Susanna!” — if De Quincey will forgive the appropriation — the drive for concision seems to have sacrificed precision here.--Xover 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De Quincey will also forgive me for all the opium I smoked (an obvious debt to him, I know). Sorry, I'm rambling off-topic. RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was mis-reffed. The fact that the following sentence about Armin was reffed does not mean that the ref applied to the preceding sentence about Kempe. I've now reffed the Kempe sentence, too–to make it clear. I cut the Cowley information because I did not regard Cowley as a notable enough actor, and I thought the general point had been made sufficiently without the need for further evidence.qp10qp 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry; I'd meant to actually fix this rather then just whine about it! The Chambers cite on Armin was wrong; it talks about Kempe and not Armin (and the quote would have made that clear, which was why I mentioned it above). I've fixed it now; apologies for my sloth (must be the opium ;D). My Shapiro seems to be a different edition: it seems to have the relevant information on pp.221–3 rather then pp.247–9. Could someone with the right edition of 1599 double check that pp.247–9 discusses Armin (the first paragraph should deal with Armin replacing Kempe)?--Xover 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Shapiro ref, and it is correct. I've got the Faber hardback.qp10qp 19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and no opinion on Cowley. I didn't add it, I just ref'ed his roles since they were unref'ed and removed the unsupported ones.--Xover 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfred Pollard termed some of them "bad quartos" because of their impure and often garbled texts. - why were they "impure"? perhaps a little rearrangement of this section would make this clearer
Added a little more.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better, except there are some weird characters there now. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird characters on Wikipedia? Surely not! Removed.qp10qp 15:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The folio version of King Lear is so different from the 1608 quarto that the two cannot be combined without loss. - "without loss" of what?
I couldn't find a way to word this properly, though I know what I want to say. The plays are structurally different: so it's like sewing two teddy bears together with three ears between them. One ear has to go. Instead I've just noted that the Oxford Shakespeare prints both versions because they are so different.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Hamlet? The "to be or not to be" soliloquy is quite different from quartos to folio. How about something like "the versions are different enough that they cannot be coherently combined" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without loss of material, coherence, or spirit? RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for: "they cannot be conflated without confusion". Harley Granville-Barker is quoted much to this effect in the preface to the Oxford versions.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a sentence somewhere near the beginning of the "Plays" section that lays out the various periods in Shakespeare's career - it would help guide the reader through the rest of the section - prepare them for what is to come. I'm thinking here of that old standby, the "topic sentence". :)
Can't cram it into one sentence. So I've put a little paragraph at the top of the section.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will move on to other sections later. Please don't hate me - I just want this article to be the absolute best it can be, since it will be one of the most popular literature articles on wikipedia. I appreciate the editors' Herculean efforts here, I really do. Awadewit | talk 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your close reading. The article is improving as a result of your observations!.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you go ahead. It's all manageable. As you can imagine, there's a great deal on the cutting room floor that can be be looked through again.qp10qp 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the article:

RedRabbit sorted this. Looks fine to me.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the same problematic sentence to me. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a stab at it. Maybe I'll do better after a full night's sleep. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to: "Both proved popular and were often reprinted during Shakespeare's lifetime."qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*in which a young woman complains of being seduced against her will - "complains"? that whiny bitch :) - seriously, how about something a bit stronger like "laments"?

I've changed to "laments". I had used "complains" because the poem is called A Lover's Complaint.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she's not raped. She's seduced.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is there now is better. ("Complains" just doesn't have the same meaning anymore.) Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Can we change "seduced" to "induced", or something similar? RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put: "in which a young woman laments her seduction by a persuasive suitor". I know the poem (which is irritating but has some lovely poetry in it) and I feel this sums it up accurately.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most scholars now accept that Shakespeare wrote A Lover's Complaint, but critics consider that its successes are marred by leaden effects. - I'm not sure of the logic behind the "but" here
I have no idea. Is that fixed now? Awadewit | talk 02:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plural because there was more than one good thing about it. It is thought to be fine in parts but not a success overall. I think I've improved it now with: "Critics consider that its fine qualities are marred by leaden effects". qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under "Poems" becomes listy at the end.
  • He seems to have planned two contrasting series: one about uncontrollable lust for a married woman of dark complexion (the "dark lady"), and one about pure love for a fair young man (the "fair youth"); but, despite many theories, it remains unclear if these figures represent real individuals, or if the authorial "I" who addresses them represents Shakespeare himself, though Wordsworth believed that with the sonnets "Shakespeare unlocked his heart". - This sentence is too long - could it be broken up?
  • Whether this was written by Shakespeare himself or by the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, whose initials appear at the foot of the dedication page, is not known; nor is it known who Mr. W.H. was—though theories abound, including that he was the "fair youth" addressed in the text—or whether Shakespeare even authorised the publication. - the last phrase after the dash doesn't quite seem to fit there
RedRabbit has sorted this well, I think.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite these difficulties, critics praise the Sonnets as a profound meditation on the nature of love, sexual passion, procreation, death, and time. - I don't understand the "despite" clause - much literature lacks a known author and no one has trouble saying it is profound. Usually literature is considered profound because of what it says, not who wrote it. :)
    • Agree. "Nevertheless" instead. It conveys the intended spirit. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we know who wrote the poems but not who wrote the dedication. RedRabbit has copyedited that well, I think.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both “despite” and “nevertheless” imply a contrastive connection with the preceeding, but there is no contradiction. The relevant sentence is somewhat non sequitur there, which is why you're having a hard time tying it to the rest of the text (and introducing artifical formalities like “nevertheless”). I would suggest moving the sentence up to be the second(ish) sentence of the paragraph, or even deleting it alltogether.--Xover 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut "nevertheless".qp10qp 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Style" is a bit vague - it is still not entirely clear to me what the "traditional" style was.
I've added some more.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it only appear stilted to us or was it considered stilted at the time? Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern critics have described it as stilted. The others, though, are in a better position to answer this. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stilted" is the word used by Frye. His book was the best I could find on this early stuff. I read the play as well, and I agree with him: the verse is remarkably stilted (yet the comic prose is so good that some people suspect it was written later). Shakespeare is praised so often in our article that it does no harm to give him a knock or two, I feel. I've added a couple of modifying phrases to filter the remarks through critics. qp10qp 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain blank verse and iambic pentameter - few people know what they are.
Yeah, me included. I've now explained it as far as I understand it, which isn't that far. qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of "literary terms" books out there. Here is a pretty good website - [104]. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A ten-pound note to anyone who can explain this clearly to the readers in one sentence.qp10qp 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like: "Blank verse is unrhymed poetry, generally consisting, in Shakespeare, of ten-syllable lines divided into five units of unstressed and stressed syllables (or iambs). Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think QP's version is fine and less wordy for our purposes, or whoever made the version that is on now. Wrad 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, I'm afraid I can't give you the tenner for that. The average reader won't know what "five units of unstressed and stressed syllables (or iambs)" means. Unless George Orwell turns up, I think my money is safe. qp10qp 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Blank verse is unrhymed poetry, usually consisting of ten-syllable lines divided into five units of one unaccented and one accented syllable called an iamb." Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting better, but I think the present explanation in the article (which is there thanks to you, so your point has been addressed, even if simplistically) is kinder to the readers (Shakespeare's standard poetic form was blank verse, composed in iambic pentameter. In practice, this meant that his verse was usually unrhymed and consisted of ten syllables to a line). I've never found that those accent-stress-syllable-iamb explanations really help when, as a layman, you apply them to the actual lines. And I've read the wonderful Playing Shakespeare by John Barton, which is about speaking the poetry. Even with a monosyllabic line ("In sooth I know not why I am so sad"), the units and iambs are not clear, and they are even harder to make out when punctuation interferes ("Which, hearing them, would call their brothers fools"). This might only be because we speak poetry differently these days. If a reader (and there are those who would) took your explanation above and tried to apply it to a line of the poetry, I think they would come unstuck, as I always do when trying to make sense of the standard explanations.qp10qp 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does blank verse have to be explained when it is linked to a Wikipedia article that explains it? The Marlowe entry doesn't explain blank verse, nor any of the other playwrights who used it, and this article is just a summary. It doesn't come close to comprehensively explaining how Shakespeare developed his use of blank verse, nor should it, IMO. Tom Reedy 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should at least attempt to explain blank verse because it is integral to Shakespeare's style. I dislike relying on readers' initiative to click on a link. Again, my cynicism popping to the surface. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a friend who has published several academic books about metre. I'll ask him for some help. Tom Reedy 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is his reply to my request for a one-sentence, easily-understood definition of blank verse:
  • That's easy: blank verse is unrhymed iambic pentameter. The hard part is defining iambic pentameter; it took me a whole book (Strange Music: The Metre of the English Heroic Line). It's available on Amazon. In case you're wondering, "heroic line" is just a non-prejudicial way of referring to iambic pentameter, but I rather wish I hadn't used the term, because it's caused endless confusion to librarians.
  • So I doubt if we're going to come up with a satisfactory comprehensive definition in one or two sentences if he can't do it. Tom Reedy 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we scared of de-dum-de-dum-de-dumming? Are we afraid it won't come over as academic enough? "This meant that his verse was usually unrhymed, and consisted of ten-syllable lines with a de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum rythm (e.g. In sooth I know not why I am so sad)." People tend to get it if you explain it like that. John Barton does, and it can be sourced from his book if a footnote is needed. Do I win £10? AndyJones 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that so many of Shakespeare's lines don't readily fit a de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum rhythm. At random:
That I did love the moor to live with him
My downright violence and storm of fortunes
May trumpet to the world. My heart's subdued
Even to the very quality of my lord.
The first and third line, yes. But can we make de-dum work with the second and fourth lines? You would get stresses on viol, and, of, ven, the, y, it, and of. These are hard to stress when spoken; and I don't see them as hidden stresses either. It may be just that I don't get it; but I doubt I'd be the only one to furrow my brow at such an explanation.qp10qp 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second line has 11, not 10, syllables. It is a good example of why one size does not fit all when trying to describe Shakespeare's style. While it is true that iambic pentameter is the foundation of his style, he took what he learned from Marlowe (which was the use of feminine endings) and developed it much further. Often the line begins with a trochee instead of an iamb, and often it ends with an unstressed extra syllable.
For a good discussion of this, see Timberlake's The Feminine Ending in English Blank Verse, 1931, and Wright's Shakespeare's Metrical Art, 1988.
How is this for a definition:
Written speech, divided into unrhymed lines of ten (occasionally eleven) syllables, each line consisting mainly of five pairs of syllables, and each pair usually, but not always, having an unaccented syllable followed by an accented one. The accented syllables are manipulated to vary the degree of emphasis as a way to signify importance, and the result is a rhythm that's pleasing to the ear when spoken aloud.
As I said, I'm all for relying on the link. I doubt any reader who needs an explanation is going to understand it from any short definition we come up with. Tom Reedy 12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. According to Russ McDonald in Shakespeare's Late Style, one in three lines of Shakespeare's late romances have more than ten syllables—some have thirteen.qp10qp 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum is what "iambic pentameter" means. Your criticisms of my explanation of it demonstrate not that my explanation is wrong, but, if anything, that the article is wrong when it says that Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter. [Andy's comment]
Andy is right. Although Shakespeare did vary his meter, iambic pentameter is as Andy said. It would be absurd to say, for example, "Shakespeare wrote in 13-syllable iambic pentameter;" which would abuse the very origin of the name. RedRabbit 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm just desperately trying to avoid paying out ten quid, all right?qp10qp 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; thinking that a definition of blank verse explains Shakespeare's metrical style is a delusion. Actually, what Shakespeare did was compress 11 and sometimes 11 1/2 syllables into 10, and he would often stretch out one syllable for an entire foot. He didn't do this just to be doing it: the positions of the stresses in the line and the variation in the number of syllables was for emotional effect, a type of aural code that the mind picks up and translates into emotional responses. While the de-dum example is a flat representation of iambic pentameter, it is akin to declaring that there is only one shade of red or blue or any other color.
All this discussion underscores the futility of trying to comprehensively explain Shakespeare's use of verse in a short sentence or even a short paragraph. All we can offer is a generalization, and not a very useful one at that. About all you can say is he began with rhyming verse, he moved on to blank verse, he followed Marlowe in varying the verse, and then later developed it into an instrument that no one has been able to duplicate. Tom Reedy 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's like saying that a waltz goes bom-ching-ching, bom-ching-ching. It's kind-of true, but it hardly conveys the beauty of the thing. AndyJones 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't understand iambic pentameter and blank verse, let them follow those wikilinks. Putting "dum dee dum" in the article is unencyclopedic. Hate to say this, but people are overthinking some aspects of this article. Let the dum dee dum go. There should be a limit to how much we "dum" down things around here :-).--Alabamaboy 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, AB. Wikipedia is not My First Reference Book. If we feel compelled to explain this, why stop there? Why not explain the terms "rhyme" and "rhythm?" Why not define what verse is? I think since Awadewit has struck the topic, we should let it rest. Tom Reedy 11:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This technique releases the increased power and flexibility of the poetry in plays such as Julius Caesar and Hamlet. - vague - how does this work? an example, perhaps?
It can only be illustrated with long examples. I'm not sure that would help. I will try to think of a better way of putting it.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His verse has greater majesty and scope in his tragedies, compared with his early plays. I don't have a source at hand and can't think of a specific example. I'm sure Qp10qp will come up with something tomorrow. RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Hamlet quote used by Watkins in his discussion of the matter. This is by no means an easy part of the article to make clear. The point that Shakespeare took one major stylistic step forward with Julius Caesar and Hamlet and then another with the next five tragedies is difficult to put over and possibly little known. But I'm convinced it's worth it because that's what the critics say; and it would be nice if GCSE students, etc. could pick this up from our article. I hadn't realised until I started researching for this article that the stylistic differences between the early verse of say Two Gentlemen and that of The Tempest are really quite staggering. I'm in no doubt that Shakespeare deliberately pushed the boundaries, and that we have to make a stab at mapping the transitions.qp10qp 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the space is worth the effort. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare "mingles everything...runs line into line, embarrasses sentences and metaphors". - What does Lamb mean by "embarrasses"? I don't think it is clear out of context.
I've cut this for something based on McDonald.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much better. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Lamb meant, but his quote does have a certain charm (for me, though, probably not the general audience). RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lamb was actually comparing Shakespeare's style to Fletcher's more orderly image development. I think it would have been clearer if the next clause had been included: " . . . before one idea has burst its shell, another is hatched and clamours for disclosure." It means that Shakespeare's late style was far more complex and used more run-over lines, double endings, trochees, omitted syllables, elliptical constructions, redundancies, etc. Tom Reedy 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his late romances, he deliberately returned to a more artificial style. - Again, is there a way to explain "artificial", what was not considered negative at the time?
I've added that it emphasised the illusion of theatre.qp10qp 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare wrote some of the most admired plays in Western literature, with Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth rated among the world's greatest. - Rated by whom? This suggests a "U.S. News" type of thing to me.
I've cut it, with great pleasure. It's a leftover from the bad old days of meaningless puffing. The top of that section is left ragged, though, so I'll fix it tomorrow.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done the latter now.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the gods! A much-needed cut. Tom Reedy 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Influence" section, be sure to identify writers a bit - not all of the names will resonate with readers - at least something like "American novelist", for example.
Identified Melville and Freud.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dickens often quoted Shakespeare, drawing 25 of his titles from his works - the "his"'s (how do you make that plural?) don't work out grammatically
All good FACs should have an opium-eating rabbit on hand, I've decided.qp10qp 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critic Harold Bloom claims that Shakespeare has influenced not only language but identity. "All of us," he writes, "were, to a shocking degree, pragmatically reinvented by Shakespeare".[150] He points to Sigmund Freud's use of Shakespearean psychology, in particular that of Hamlet, in his theories of human nature. He goes so far as to call Shakespeare, rather than Freud, "the inventor of psychoanalysis". - This is a typically ridiculous statement by Bloom. Must it be included? Who else agrees with him, for example? Is this a mainstream view?
I've only ever heard it ridiculed, I'm afraid. I think it does matter if it is a unique statement. Bloom does not have enough authority on Shakespeare to render his statements all that interesting (he's a Romanticist) and he is not important enough to render his statements interesting (he is not T. S. Eliot, for example). Barring those two exceptions, his statement should reflect some sort of scholarly consensus. I'm not convinced that consensus exists. Awadewit | talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I. Sorry, I have a pet hate of Harold Bloom. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either, so I've cut it. The edit has had the side-benefit of bringing the section down to an encyclopedic length.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Critical reception" section, it would be a good idea to identify people and eras being mentioned more exactly (when was the "Restoration", for example - few people know that, I'm afraid).
Sorry - I should have been clearer. I did not mean include the description in the link; I meant, describe when the era was in the prose (ex: "During the late seventeenth century, Restoration authors embraced classicism") or describe the person in the prose (ex: "the French philosopher Voltaire" or "the French novelist Victor Hugo"). Awadewit | talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I misread your reply. I think that this article contains far too many links to expect readers to click on every link that they don't know - I think helping them out is a bit is only a courtesy. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it adding identification here and there.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among his supporters were Voltaire, Goethe, Stendhal and Victor Hugo. - "supporters" seems an odd word here since you haven't mentioned the great Shakespeare wars (another place where it might be a good idea to label people with a phrase)
I've called them "writers" and changed it to say that they were among those who championed Shakespeare.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the "Speculation" section. These sections are so small that I fail to see why they can't be integrated into the article (other speculation, such as what happened during the "lost years", is integrated). Separating these topics out gives them a primacy that I am unconvinced they deserve.
We intend to do this; but in my opinion FAC is not the time. As you know, the section is a way of corralling the operations of the POV pushers. A move now might bring that contingent out fighting and disrupt the FAC. The section is a wiki-compromise, but it has helped stabilise the article; and in my opinion it doesn't offend any of the FAC criteria. My proposal is that we work on this after the FAC.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(And therein lies the trouble with compromise and consensus!) Since this is going to be done later, I withdraw that objection. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I myself think that integrating them into the article gives them more legitimacy, which is why I like them clearly labeled as speculation instead of biography. Tom Reedy 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But so much in the article proper is speculation, too. The most logical arrangement for the page, as it now stands, is to remove all of that speculation to the "Speculation" section. One can use good diction to convey which bits of information are more speculative or outlandish than other bits. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think the difference is that the speculation in the article proper is informed speculation, some based on early biographical reports, while most of the three topics in the speculation section are fantasy based on reading biography into the works. Religion is a partial exception if discussed in the context of the era and the few facts presented in the section (the interpretations of which are vigorously disputed), but it, too, sips strongly from the literary cup. I think in the end after FAC a religion section could be hammered out, but the other two I think should always be separate from the biography. Tom Reedy 04:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least we are trying to achieve the same goal - point out how very speculative these other claims are. I just think that giving them their own sections actually lends more legitimacy to their claims - even if one doesn't read the whole article and only skims the headings, these topics will jump out as important whereas if they were included in the main body of the prose they would not have the same weight. At least that is how I see it. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about including a separate section listing all of the major works of Shakespeare scholarship? Or simply the ones consulted for this article? Such sections are incredibly helpful to the reader who wants to know what works to read on an author and also helps them determine the credibility of the article at a glance. Poring over the notes is more difficult. Or perhaps another page entitled "Sources on Shakespeare" akin to General relativity resources?
    • I began a section by adding the obvious sources to it, but it may need more. I know QP has expressed an interest in creating an article like the one you're suggesting... Wrad 05:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't "Further reading" imply the sources weren't used in the article? Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought you'd say that, but what else do we call it? Besides, these are all books, and we have narrowed all refs to them down to page numbers, so this really is further reading beyond what we have refferred them to, pointing them to the entire book. I don't think it implies anything untrue. Wrad 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Guillaume has changed the other title to "List of works", this could be called "Bibliography". But even though I usually believe in such sections in articles, I am strongly opposed to one in this article because it will slow the page download speed too much if it grows to any useful length. William Shakespeare is not a normal article: the list would be enormous.
The solution is clear, in my opinion: we need a list on a separate page. There is no rhyme or reason to having a partial list on the article page. When people look at it, it will be pot luck whether the book they are looking for is there. We might have, say, Schoenbaum on it; but would we have Hoeniger, for example, who is only reffed once in the article? I doubt it: but Hoeniger is the key scholar for Pericles. And we could logically add the few key scholars we have not cited (Stephen Booth, Granville-Barker, John Dover Wilson spring to mind) if the list were placed on a separate page.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be behind a separate page - it is certainly warranted. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only major omission that I see in the article right now is that there is no mention of Shakespeare as a political playwright. His histories, for example, are commentaries on contemporary political events. It would seem to me that a hint of that should be in the article.
The article does say that the early histories have been seen as justifying the Tudor usurpation. We could add that Henry V might reflect the Essex campaign to Ireland, or that Macbeth is sympathetic to James I. Is that the sort of thing you mean?qp10qp 01:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...And the ancedote about Essex staging Richard II before his failed rebellion. Queen Elizabeth, I believe, said something like, "I am not Richard II". RedRabbit 03:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's "I am Richard II..." AndyJones 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - some tidbits that will convey that Shakespeare's plays were social and political commentaries. I took a whole class on Shakespeare and politics, so I was struck with the lack of references to that issue. The article seemed to reflect "New Criticism" (in the very best sense) more than any other interpretative framework. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all done (for now!). Kudos to the editors - they should all get barnstars - who are the major editors, by the way? Awadewit | talk 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you go strictly by edit count, which sometimes is misleading, but in this case is at least roughly accurate, here are the top five editors: 1. Qp10qp 2. Alabamaboy 3. AndyJones 4. Wrad 5. RedRabbit1983. The push for FAC was a product of a collaboration from the entire Shakespeare WikiProject, though. Other editors, such as Xover and Tom Reedy helped a lot with copyediting. GuilliameTell (sp?) as well. Wrad 05:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should invent a new award for all the work qp10qp did on the plays, performances, and style sections. I honestly don't understand how he pulled it all together in that short a time. Tom Reedy 06:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the double barnstar of high culture? RedRabbit 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the Lord Chamberlain's Men were renamed the King's Men in 1603, they entered a special relationship with the new King James. Wasn't it the other way round: they changed their name after entering a special relationship with King James? RedRabbit 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to find a better wording for it. The point is that after they became the king's official acting company under the new name, they often performed at the palace, wore the royal livery etc.qp10qp 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say, "The Lord Chamberlain's Men were renamed the King's Men in 1603, in honour of their new patron, King James"? Then the following sentence can explicate this relationship. RedRabbit 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it. See how that works. Tom Reedy 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a different sentence. RedRabbit 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, then. I changed the Chamberlain's Men --> King's Men sentence to say they received a royal patent. They didn't change their name "in honor of" the king; they actually became members of the royal household. Tom Reedy 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know what happened. I just objected to the "after changing they entered a special relationship", which suggested improper logical sequence. RedRabbit 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't the Greene quote be consistent in its language? As it stands, only the "Tygers hart" phrase is contemporary; the rest has been modernized. Tom Reedy 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent in modern spelling or Elizabethen? RedRabbit 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, as long as it's consistent. I changed it to the original a long time ago, but somebody changed it back. I don't care which style is used, but I think it should be consistent throughout. Tom Reedy 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it consistent. Can we discuss editing on the article talk page, please? qp10qp 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was starting to feel high and mighty pontificating on this article from the review page. I'll come back down to the talk page now. RedRabbit 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When will this article be promoted? RedRabbit 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul usually gives articles at least couple of weeks. It's not just a matter of achieving support but of giving editors enough time to comment. Patience, Sir Rabbit.qp10qp 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* If I must be. I'll nibble a carrot in the meantime. RedRabbit 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's only a matter of time before this page is closed. Goodbye, FAC. RedRabbit 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot isn't functioning at the moment. So Sandy and co are having to do everything by hand. Many thanks to them and to everyone who has commented here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Pygmy Hippopotamus

[edit]

I learned a lot from my first FAC, and I tried to incorporate as much of that experience as possible before nominating. A few notes: this is not as extensively sourced as Hippopotamus, only because there is so little information on the pygmy hippopotamus (beyond those sources contained in the article already). Research on the rare and inherently difficult to study animal has been rendered nearly impossible in the past 20 years by civil war. Since the 1950s only three field studies have been conducted, and one of them is unpublished and another in German. I'm confident that this is more or less the extent of what is known about the animal. But, as before, I will work hard to address, clarify and clean-up as needed! --JayHenry 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed - just started looking through it and fixed a couple of straightforward things. The LEAD suffers a little with repetition of "The Pygmy Hippo is...." - need to mix up the prose a little. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I rearranged the article in a more appropriate manner treating the subject as a biological organism. Having said that, I'm still bordering on a minor oppose vote. As it is, it still sounds too informal. Calling the organism "the pygmy hippo" throughout most of the article just doesn't seem right to someone coming from a scientific background. More mention of the scientific name within the bounds of prose should make the article more educational for readers. The anatomy section (renamed it from a mere "description") is too incomplete. It straight away mentions that it is "half as tall as the hippo" without establishing what the animal actually looks like. (Heavyset, quadrupedal mammal following the xxxx body plan etc) Shrumster 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many many articles are laid out the other way, including many FAs. We're not dissecting the animal and morphology isn't as widely understood as the more succinct description. I do agree about describing the appearance first though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a general interest encyclopedia, while the information is written with academic level sources and adheres to the highest standards of accuracy, I don't believe the language should itself be exclusively academic. Two, "pygmy hippo" is widely used, even within academic literature, on second reference. As for the structure, I simply mirrored previous FAs and I'm unsure how to address this, again I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia conventions? That said, I'm happy to follow whatever conventions are agreed upon here, regarding both language and structure. I'll definitely add variety to the language, but I'm unsure how to proceed if FA reviewers disagree on the basic structure. As for the final point: I will definitely write a more fundamental description to top that section (and the majority of readers can, of course, look at the pictures to establish what it looks like!) --JayHenry 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the language in articles don't have to be exclusively academic they shouldn't be exclusively non-academic as well. That having said, one more point for my oppose vote: the systematics section needs much work. The article doesn't have any particular in-line citations and/or reasoning for the dispute with the animal's scientific genus. It states that the current genus is Choeropsis and not Hexaprotodon. However, the article, in its rare mentions of the animal's scientific name, keeps mentioning both, leading readers to believe that both are in use. Either way, something must be done within the classification section to prevent such confusion. Either stick with Choeropsis as seems to be the case with the article (and discard mentions of Hexaprotodon except in an appropriate taxonomic history section) or update the article's infobox, etc. if indeed that both are truly accepted synonyms of the same species. Shrumster 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just because other articles are one way doesn't mean that particular way has to be followed or better. It just so happens that one particular way seemed to work at one time, then everyone just copied that one and it all cascaded from there. re: description Hence the word that preceded it, "anatomy." Anatomy is more than mere dissection, you know. But then again, that isn't within the scope of this FAC. In which case, as it currently stands I'm going to have to vote oppose. The article as it is right now is too zoo/human-interest-centered and many of the sections/topics are rather incomplete. Shrumster 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um..the fact that you find it necessary to name a section Anatomy and Morphology highlights the fact that you understand the term anatomy as you want people to understand it requires other words to explain it - hence the use of the succinct description rather than the cumbersome one you've placed on many articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, description it is. What about the animal is being described though? The animal's behavior? Its diet? The range in which it can be found? That term actually sounds too general now. You can shorten Anatomy in the same way that you can shorten Range and distribution to just range. They're still describing something more specific than just a general catch-all header though. Shrumster 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You don't have to vote anything - and highlighting what you feel has been left out specifically would be more constructive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'. No, I don't have to. But I apparently have. Whoops. Anyways, I've looked over the article and even with the new revamp, it's still a tad messy and disjointed. The overall flow doesn't feel right for FA-quality. Feel free to discount my vote above though as I might not be able to check this anymore in the next few weeks. Shrumster 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on improving the flow if you can point me to the sections you feel are inadequate. Unfortunately there's not much I can do about the "zoo-focus" of the article, because, to put it simply, almost all research on the animal is from zoo research. I understand how it might seem too human-focused, but this is the only context in which the animal is known. They are nearly impossible to study in the wild, as noted in the lead. --JayHenry 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well done to Casliber for helping out. I've significantly refactored the article [105] and would suggest cropping the last image to focus on the juvenile. Make sure that all images are also uploaded to Commons with appropriate listings in categories and/or pages. 82.71.48.158 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to help with transferring images to Commons, but it's not a process for which I know the rules. If someone can point me to the procedures, I'm happy to work on this. Also, would anyone object if I re-added Image:Pygmy hippo edinburgh zoo 2004 SMC.jpg, which got taken out during one of the refactors? It's a better image of the animal's actual shape than any of the others. Thanks everyone for all the help so far! -JayHenry 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've massaged the text to improve flow and am happy with how it sits now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The section "Prehistoric species" is not at all related to the species "Pygmy Hippopotamus" (capitals for distinction), but to current and past small-sized hippopotami species in general. It only mentions one species from that is directly related to this one, notwithstanding the two possible placements. Similarly, "Evolution" is far more detailed than needs be, and although it would belong very well in Hippopotamidae, it looks entirely out of place in the current article. And while I'm commenting, I agree that "Description" is the way to go. We want to avoid unnecessary jargon, and this would be exactly that: unnecessary jargon. Circeus 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is one thing the House hippo commercial taught us, it was to check your sources and question what you are seeing. So I will:
    • What source calls the Madagascan Pygmy Hippopotamus a "Choeropsis madagascariensis"? The sources provided all call it "Hexaprotodon madagascariensis" and google is draws a blank.
    • What source says that "Their meat is said to be of excellent quality"? --maclean 07:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sharp observations. Thanks for reviewing so closely! The complicated taxonomy of this species is explained more thoroughly at Malagasy Hippopotamus. It's especially complicated by the fact that the Madagascan pygmy hippo was initially classified as Hippopotamus by Stuenes, placed in the same genus as the Liberian Pygmy Hippo in 1992 by Harris (when the species was more commonly considered Hexaprotodon), and nobody has written exclusively about Malagasy Hippos since pygmy hippos were returned to Choeropsis by Boisserie in 2005. At any rate, here's one Taxonomy and Conservation Status which uses Hexaprotodon (=Choeropsis) Madagascariensis and others use this sort of parenthetical formulation. A two-year-old reclassification is a blink of an eye in taxonomy (my favorite example is Brontosaurus, a genus that was still used more than 70 years after the fossils were recognized to be Apatosaurus.) As for their meat? "Pygmy hippos are hunted for their meat; they are regarded as a very desirable food species, resembling wild pig in taste and texture."[106] The alleged tastiness of all hippos is also mentioned in Eltringham's "The Hippos." Not sure if I should make this clear in the text or if its sufficient to note here for reviewers -- but Robinson conducted one of the only field studies of the animals, and is considered by some the foremost expert on the species. --JayHenry 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Eltringham (1999), speaking of both species, "Hippo meat is generally considered to be excellent and is readily eaten over most of the hippo's range." May I be the first to say, in my best Homer Simpson impression, "Mmm... hippo" --JayHenry 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see you're back at it Jay. Good job! I'll try and go through this more fully, but I'll only suggest for now to audit for repetition in the prose. This confused me: "All research on living pygmy hippos is from Choeropsis liberiensis liberiensis (or Hexaprotodon liberiensis liberiensis) from..." This introduces subspecies but there's been no mention of them previously. Or am I missing something? Marskell 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Marskell, I'll make that clearer about the subspecies. I think it was introduced earlier in the text in an older version, but accidentally got edited away... I'll also go back and give it another copy edit to try to reduce repetition and generally improve the flow. Any more tips are greatly appreciated! --JayHenry 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Blood Sugar Sex Magik

[edit]

A highly influential and successful album of the early nineties. The article was promoted to Good status in late July, and has, since then, been reviewed by outside eyes. Vocalist Anthony Kiedis wrote about this album's era most extensively in his autobiography, therefore more information was available to write about. Self-nom. Have at. NSR77 TC 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I've been over this article pretty extensively myself already and I can't find anything else that needs to be improved, although further suggestions for improvement are of course welcome :) Kamryn · Talk 13:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Pretty good overall. Work on these items:
  • Move the mention of Frusciante's departure later in the lead. It's an result of the album, and thus should be mentioned further down.
  • "Frusciante had, since then, considered becoming apart of Thelonious Monster, a punk rock band formed by Bob Forrest" . . . "It, therefore, ended his short-lived time with the Thelonious Monsters". Awkward sentences. Rephrase.
  • Why was Rick Rubin chosen to produce the album?
  • Move the Rolling Stone review above the Allmusic one, since the Allmusic review was not written when the album was released.
Try to look up a few more thrid party sources (meaning sources that don't rely on the band itself). In particular, try to look for source material at Time.com and nytimes.com, which are mainstream news sources with excellent archives. Also, I seem to remember that rollingtstone.com had a transcription of an article from 1991 about the making of the album.
I might have more points later. Overall it's better than the other Chili Peppers articles were when they went to FAC. WesleyDodds 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this [107] the rollingstone article you're talking about? Thanks for comments, I'm searching for more secondary sources now. Kamryn · Talk 07:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If, however, I have not addressed your concerns sufficiently, and/or new problems arise, don't hesitate to point them out.
  • Oppose I copyedited the article, but there are still a few major things that need to be addressed:
  • There are quite a few sentence fragments prose weaknesses within the article, for example: nearly every sentence within the first paragraph of the "recording and production" is a fragment prose weakness. Try expanding or merging these sentences using commas and whatnot.
  • At the risk of being accused of sabatoge, none of those sentences are fragments (at least not sentence fragments). They all have nouns, verbs, objects, dependent clauses - the whole bit.--Esprit15d 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps fragment isn't the right word. I found that these sections spoke in short, choppy sentences that didn't flow well and weren't structured for grammatical clarity. If you wish to attack me based on my misuse of the word "fragment" in lieu of the word I was looking for, but failed to find, then so be it. I say we address the validity of what I was attempting to say instead. Grim-Gym 06:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chill out, you're not being attacked. Criticism =/= attack. Esprit is well within his rights to point out things that don't make sense. This is a discussion, after all. Anyway, it would help us a lot more here if you gave specific examples of what doesn't read right for you. Kamryn · Talk 07:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attack I received was a subversive one on NSR's talk page and is verbatim as follows: "I don't know if this is orthodox or not to mention it to you here, but much of Grim-Gym's review is bullcrap. I defended some of the more outrageous claims, but really, I have no clue what grammar/copyediting book he/she is taking her cues from.--Esprit15d 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)". I've let it go because his failure to assume good faith and propensity towards personal attacks are not my folly. Grim-Gym 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "writing and composition" page (excepting the first sentence) deals with the 'writing and composition' of "Under the Bridge" rather than its 'recording and production'. This event is also mentioned in the "writing" section, so you might want to merge these two portions there. You could also, if possible, expand on the Rubin's recording and production guidance, after you remove the aforementioned content from the "recording" section.
  • You mention "The Greeting Song" like it's already been mentioned and we know what it is. Give us a little background here. Also, the sentences mentioning it are fragments have weak prose.
  • What is this about?: "Kiedis had also been thinking about his former band mate Hillel Slovak again, and as with "Knock Me Down", composed a song in his tribute."
  • "Upon initial release, however, "Give it Away" was rejected to be played by Warner's target radio station, telling the band to "come back to us when you have a melody in your song." Which target radio station?
  • There's a paragraph of sentence fragments weak prose at the end of the "promotion and release" section.
  • "Robert Christgau gave the album a two star honorable mention."? If this is relevant, you need to say why.
  • Clarification on the above point This statement will surely go over the head of an average reader. You don't even mention that he's a critic, or if his review is positive. "Is it two out of four stars?", "of five?", "of two?". Implying some of these things will seem fine in certain cliques—perhaps even "go without saying"; but for the majority of readers, this statement is totally useless. Grim-Gym 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the US leg, Kiedis and Frusciante became close to Smashing Pumpkins' lead singer Billy Corgan, and the rest of the Smashing Pumpkins." Not relevant.
  • "Following several more shows the band traveled to Europe, where Frusciante, in need of someone to connect to, brought along his girlfriend." Can we get his girlfriend's name at the end here?—I don't feel like looking it up.
  • The ellipses here make this quotation a mess: "..we were planning to do "Under the Bridge" as our second number...I was entirely dependent on John for the musical cue into the verse...he was playing something in a different key, out of tune, in a different timing, basically reinventing the song for himself and nobody else." You could add a more cohesive statement, or even blockquote the (relevant portions of the) whole paragraph.
  • I'm not sure everything that has more than one citation listed needs multiple citations. This is usually only necessary for contentious material. If one citation is solid and the material is not controversial, just go with the best one. It doesn't matter if the same info is stated elsewhere.

That's it. Good luck. Grim-Gym 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I'm just going to run through the last paragraph in the "promotion and release" section, which I referred to as a "paragraph of 'fragments'"—I recognize my misuse of the word "fragment", by the way.

  • "It was also during this period when Frusciante began to experiment with heroin. The European promotional trek took its toll on Frusciante, and he decided to return home when he and Kiedis reached London." What I noticed was that these two paragraphs do not flow well into each other, and kind of clash. I believe there's a sentence in Scar Tissue or somewhere else, that has Frusciante stating the reason he returned home (to focus on his drug use, painting ect. I cannot remember exactly but I'll find the source of the statement). Something to that effect should be annexed into the first sentence, thus serving as a bridge between the two and increasing the strength of the prose. I suppose what I meant to do with my "fragment" statements was to address the strength of the prose, rather than grammatical accuracy. Perhaps if you look at the "fragment" issues above, as prose issues instead, the validity of these issues can be seen.

Are there any other "bullcrap" claims that I can help clarify? If you could go through one-by-one and at least tell me how I was so off-base, that would at the very least allow me to improve as an editor. Grim-Gym 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real sentence fragment: "How his life had come to it's lowest point under a bridge in downtown LA." Kamryn · Talk 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was supposed to have been apart of the sentence before it, separated by a semicolon. Nonetheless, fixed. :) NSR77 TC 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, such incompetence around here :) Kamryn · Talk 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very impressive article. Comprehensive but not overwhelming.
  • The only remaining issue I have is with the "Critical reception". I find that this section is too overwhelmingly positive. I don't think that the criticism of the album's sexual content is enough to counterbalance the rest of the acclaim. While the album did receive a majority of positive reviews, it would favor evenhandedness (especially considering that there's already an "accolades" section) if you could reference a negative review—if you can find one (hehe). Grim-Gym 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhmm well NPOV doesn't mean that we have to balance every positive claim with a negative one - just that we have to represent views with due weight. And the fact is, the response to BSSM was overwhelmingly positive. Kamryn · Talk 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Every single one of my ("outrageous") claims have been addressed and remedied to the benefit of this article. I consider it to currently be the best Chili Peppers-related article on the English Wikipedia—which is saying a lot considering the two FAs we already have. I say the following with the utmost humility—I love knowing that Esprit15d is going to see how much my comments and effort have improved this article. While I'm sure he won't comment on this FAC ever again, just the fact that he'll see it is enough to satisfy me. And I apologize in advance for the impropriety of that statement. Kudos to everyone who contributed to this article. It has my full endorsement. Grim-Gym 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, now that's an attack, and completely uncalled for too. Don't be a dickhead. If this is your idea of 'letting go' I'd love to see what happens when you hang onto something! Kamryn · Talk 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of work has been carried out on that article and it shows, it is both thorough and interesting. NSR77 has fixed all of the main identified flaws which shows outstanding commitment. An overall compelling read that deserves to be featured --Childzy (Talk|Images) 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sir Psycho Sexy himself would be proud of this article. Good job! Just one aside, in the accolades section, do we need to advertise the website "AcclaimedMusic.net". Wouldn't a better introductory sentance read: "Blood Sugar Sex Magik has been named to many lists of top albums." and just leave the source as a footnote? Other than that, this is a fantastic article. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. looking more closely at the list, it looks incomplete as well. Didn't VH1 name it as one of the top 100 albums of all time? Maybe researching a few more accolades (for an album THIS influential, there are BOUND to be more awards given to it) would help with the completeness of the article... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are probably over one hundred "Best of" lists the album has been involved in, but listing them all is impossible, and would be far too tedious. The link to the full accolade list is intended for those such purposes. NSR77 TC 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is a difference between a blog that no one really reads and a major cable TV network like VH1, n'est pas? I just want to see that all 'notable' accolades are included; including major awards (grammys? ama's? etc.) and notable top 100 lists... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Cædwalla of Wessex

[edit]

Another Anglo-Saxon royalty FAC. Similar FAs, for reference: Penda of Mercia, Ælle of Sussex, Æthelberht of Kent, and Ceawlin of Wessex. Mike Christie (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why is "Sources" the first section? It seems parenthetical to me. I'd put it under "References" instead, but maybe we have other articles with a "Sources" section up front; I've not seen them. BenB4 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "sources" section is intended to be a brief explanation of contemporary primary sources -- the references section is for the secondary sources, and primary sources in modern editions. I've done this in a couple of other articles (e.g. Ceawlin of Wessex). I think it's useful where the original sources are so few in number that it's helpful to the reader to know how little information we have. It also helps to place in context the later references to those sources.
Some of the textbooks in this field start the same way, with a discussion of sources, and that's where I got the idea. For example, the first chapter of Hunter Blair's "Roman Britain and Early England" is "The Nature of the Sources"; and each chapter of Yorke's "Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England" starts with a section called "Sources". I recently got some comments on another article from an editor who felt it wasn't necessary to do this, but neither of us could cite a style guide in support of our preferences, so I think it's something to be considered on an article-by-article basis. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd move the "Sources" and "Ancestry" sections, maybe in line with WP:BRSG, towards the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, that'll mean a copy-edit as you'll need to move some of the links about. There's one bit I'm unsure about: "Æthelred maintained overlordship of the Hwicce, in the Severn river valley, and while he was less militarily active than Wulfhere had been in the south, the gains Wulfhere had made were not returned." Shouldn't this be "Æthelred maintained overlordship of the Hwicce, in the Severn river valley, but he was less militarily active than Wulfhere had been in the south, and he did not retain the gains Wulfhere had made."? Otherwise, I think it's unclear who is retaining or returning or gaining control. DrKiernan 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the sentence above in the process of copyediting; I dropped the note on the Hwicce as I don't think it adds much. I hope the new version now reads more naturally. Mike Christie (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm happy to comply with DrKiernan's suggest to move the sources information about, but my own opinion is more in line with Haukur's here. Can I ask for either a consensus of commentators to make this change, or a reference to some policy or style guide that would govern? WP:BRSG, which DrKiernan cites, certainly doesn't mention a sources section of this type, but I think there is a special situation with early biographies -- an understanding of the sources is important to judging what you read. As I said, I am happy to comply with whatever the style consensus is; I don't have a personal stake in it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give two examples of FAs that I have not been involved with, Penda of Mercia does not have a "sources" section, but Óengus I of the Picts does. Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there doesn't appear to be a style consensus, which gives you the freedom to choose! DrKiernan 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support—1a and 2a.
    • Opening: you'll have to do something about "(c. 659–20 April 689)". And to top it off, these apparent years are contradicted straight away. Anglicised from the British; let me digest that.
    • The lead is most unsatisfactory in terms of paragraphing and scope.
    • "In 688 he abdicated and traveled to Rome to be baptized. He reached Rome in April of 689, and was baptized at Easter, dying ten days later on 20 April 689." Again, you're messing with my mind over dates. The sequence seems to have vagueness and holes, and inconsistent precision. Why is "Rome" linked? Who doesn't know where it is? Surry isn't linked, but Kent is. Mul isn't but Ine is. I'd minimise the links of places.
    • Why the American spelling? See MOS on links between topics and major varieties of English.

The whole article needs a good copy-edit. Tony 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points in order:
  • you'll have to do something about "(c. 659–20 April 689)": I assume you mean that it should be a spaced en dash. I've made that change.
  • these apparent years are contradicted straight away: I think you must be referring to the fact that he died in 689 but was only king till 688. This is because he abdicated; I have mentioned this in the first sentence now to avoid the appearance of contradiction, but it was already mentioned in the lead. To be honest, I'd rather not mention it twice in the lead, so please let me know if you think this is really necessary.
  • Anglicised from the British: yes, this sounds weird but it's accurate (though evidently misleading). The British is the term used in history of this period for people who were already inhabitants of the island when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. To "anglicize" a British name at this time meant that it was turned into a form that was more natural to an Anglo-Saxon speaker. I went ahead and cut the word "anglicized" because it's not the main point being conveyed, and it would be quite difficult explain it concisely in-line.
  • The lead is unsatisfactory: I'll do a separate rewrite and post another note here when done.
  • You're messing with my mind over dates: I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what the problem is with dates. The varying precision is a reflection of what is known. I could get more detailed about that in the body, but I wouldn't have thought you'd want that in the lead. Here's a restatement of what is known (I'm omitting source information): he abdicates at some time in 688, date unknown. He is known to have travelled to Rome, and we know some locations he passed through on the trip. We also know he was baptized at Easter in 689, and since Easter's date is known exactly, we can be precise there. Are you asking for the date of Easter to be included, e.g "baptized at Easter, which fell on 10 April that year, dying ten days later"? If that solves the problem I can make that change; I'm not sure it does so I'll hold off till you comment.
  • Links: Surrey is not linked because there was no Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Surrey. Kent is linked to Kingdom of Kent; the apparent inconsistency is because the link is piped. I've unpiped it, so I think that addresses your concern there. I've linked Mul, and unlinked Rome; I agree on both. I did leave the Isle of Wight linked as it may be less well-known to non-British readers.
  • American spelling: this is probably because I've spent decades on both sides of the Atlantic and both varieties of English now look natural to me. I will try to clean it up when I do the copyedit.
  • The whole article needs a good copy-edit: I'll make a copyedit pass and post back here when done. Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done a copyedit, and worked on the lead to some degree. You'd said it was "unsatisfactory in terms of paragraphing and scope"; I've adjusted the paragraphing a little, and added one more element from the body: the story of the underkings. I hope this is moving in the direction you are looking for. I've also changed the only US spelling I could spot: "baptize" has been changed to "baptise". If there are others please let me know. I think that I've now addressed all your points, except your comment about "messing with your mind over dates": if you could clarify that I'll have a go at dealing with that as well. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it possible to find more images for the article? The one that is found in the box is actually a crop of a painting image found later in the article. That means there is only one image and one map. Avala 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images are a problem with these early articles. There are no coins from Cædwalla's reign, so I don't think a coin will work -- it would have to be a generic Anglo-Saxon coin from the period. There are definitely no contemporary portraits of any kind -- coins would have been the only possibility. I don't know of any other imaginary portraits, but I think one of those is probably enough, even if there are any. There are no buildings definitely identified with him. That leaves maps; I could perhaps add a map showing the places he is known to have visited. I have done this in a couple of other articles -- see Asser, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ælle of Sussex for examples. If that would be useful, let me know and I'll see what I can create. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support, because there's a lot of good in the article. It still does need polishing, though. Here are random observations that show that 90 minutes' work by an unfamiliar copy-editor wouldn't go astray.
    • "... evidence of the extent of West Saxon influence is provided by the fact that Cenwalh, who reigned from 642 to 673, is remembered as ..."—Yucko.
    • "However, it appears that the many difficulties and contradictions in the regnal list are caused partly by the efforts of later scribes to demonstrate that each king on the list was descended from Cerdic, so Cædwalla’s genealogy must be treated with caution." Make it "Cerdic; thus, Caedwalla's ..."
    • "which may imply British ancestry"—"Imply" is already hedged with uncertainty; do you need "may" as well?
    • "Despite being in exile"—ungrammatical; will "Despite his exile" do? Tony 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed all these points except the first -- haven't figured out a cleaner rephrase yet. I changed "may imply" to "may indicate" rather than "imply", since "imply" connotes logical implication and so isn't very conditional to some readers. I'll think about the first point some more. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Leek Town F.C.

[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I had to drive through Leek and happened to pass the football ground, so I thought I'd stop and take a photo which could be added to the club's WP page. When I saw the feeble state of the article as it stood at the time I decided to try and expand it. I think I've done as much as I can, and I'm pretty pleased with the results, which have been peer reviewed, so I thought I'd bring it here to FAC. Let me know what you think............ ChrisTheDude 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I don't conoscere (excuse me) the team, but the article is OK Green Owl Uh uh
  • Support I saw no major problems at the peer review, and all minor points that I raised were either actioned or kept and explained to my satisfaction. BeL1EveR 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that the history section is too heavily skewed towards the recent past. The last 14 years are covered in a lot of depth, more so than any other 14 year slice. Secondly, there are some standalone sentences which need to be merged. The club is pretty obscure, but I would hope that more prose information could be found if possible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written the history section to de-emphasise the last 14 years and tightened up the writing throughout - is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 07:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd have preferred that you fattened up the article actually.....so says the guy who wrote Ian Thorpe which passed FAC at 105kb (55kb text) and was declared the worst and cruftiest article on TFA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it specifically the history section which you feel is too short? Because it's approximately the same length as in existing football FAs such as Arsenal F.C..... Or is it that you feel that the article as a whole needs to be longer? Just trying to understand exactly where the problem lies so as to see if I can try and rectify it..... ChrisTheDude 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred you to beef up the early history! I like comprehensiveness. If there is simply no coverage of the old days, then simply restore the big recent info. I don't want loss of information. If this club is obscure to the extent that there is no book about it then we'll just have to live with it though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the info I trimmed out of the modern history section and have had a further hunt round but genuinely can't find any greater detail on the club's early history than what is already in there. While I wouldn't say the club is fantastically obscure now, detailed accounts of county league-level football from fifty years ago are pretty much non-existent.... ChrisTheDude 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finding a pre-1990's source of prose for a club of Leek's stature would be very difficult, if indeed one exists. Thus meeting the above request could only be done by incorporating existing statistics in the article into the history. Whilst I agree this could be done, it might detract from the quality of the prose. Additionally, in the absence of a source any further comment on these statistics could constitute OR, and thus lead to the article failing to meet criteria 1(c). BeL1EveR 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think from where this article was to where it is now is amazing! Well done (Everlast1910 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Chicago Board of Trade Building

[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination persons with opinions remaining undecided: Giano, Epbr123, Wetman, Kranar drogin, Green Owl

Active renomination debate participants not yet voicing opinions: Mackensen, LurkingInChicago

Strong Oppose, 1c. factual accuracy, reliability of sources, copyedit, and Carcharoth's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My continued oppose is based on reliability of sources.

Wikis are not reliable sources; more reliable sources are surely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From their website, peak6 looks like an options trading firm. The citation is a press release saying that they're leasing the trading floor. I think this can be considered a reliable source for the purpose we're citing it. Raul654 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced the virtualtourist reference (can I just strike-though, or what?). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Mackensen, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy, some of the statements that are referenced to sources you don't consider reliable, aren't particularly challengeable, or likely to be challenged - If peak 6 are claiming on their own website they'll be occupying some of the building, why is that unreliable - do we dispute they are a real company, I know the preference is for secondary sources, but it's not mandatory and the fact is trivial? The emporis site is pretty dodgy - would you have a look at this apparently bountiful citation buffet and let us know if you think it's reliable enough. Certainly the first emporis reference could be replaced by the statements on page 27. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm 99% certain its the first chapter of this book by Caitlin Zaloom. --Joopercoopers 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! confirmation - here's a chapter list which tallies with the pdf. --Joopercoopers 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --Joopercoopers 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caught up with you now, but I couldn't determine if the cas PDF is a copyvio. It looks like someone could access that book in a library and cite it directly. We now have four citations pointing to emporis.com, as well as the other non-reliable sources; not sure if that book can be used to source all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've checked all my local catalogues Uni & public and we don't have it this side of the pond. Nonetheless, the cas PDF either is copyvio or up there on an educational license. In the worst case, I'm not aware it would be a problem for us to link to a copyvio'd source. I'm gonna do it tonight if I get Tony's blessing to muck about with his article....? --Joopercoopers 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Peak6 site references an entire paragraph (not just their lease), which discusses the history of the building. I don't know Chicago; if others consider the rest of that paragraph sufficiently cited by Peak6's interpretation of the history of the building, I'll strike that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the emporis references. The "tallest A-deco bldg outside of Manhattan" statement is still in abeyance - I've asked Tony if we should move it to talk until we can confirm it. --Joopercoopers 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the realcomm reference too and replaced with the CBOT website. I've also removed the Skyscraperpage.com references --Joopercoopers 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition readded in italics below in order to reply.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be helpful if you were to post those comments here so the nominator could action them - perhaps you might take the time to see if any have already been actioned. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-per above, and what on earth is that picture of a mailbox doing there? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nice article. I have a few questions first though:
    •  Done "Movie star Will Rogers once roped a group of men in the pit during a visit." - what on earth does this mean? At first I thought it was a typo for "groped"...
    •  Done New comment (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - the Will Rogers bit shouldn't be under "film". From the source provided, it was a stop in Chicago on a tour of the country to promote the new city of Tulsa. Nothing to do with the building being depicted in film.
    •  Done In my layout, the Expansion title section is lost between two pictures. There should be text immediately following a section title, otherwise the reader's eye is lost and doesn't know where to go next.
    •  Done There is an ugly yellow date and time stamp on the photograph illustrating the Chicago Board of Trade logo. Incidentally, that photo needs a logo fair-use rationale placed on it, as it is photograph of a logo, and a copyright probably pertains to the sculpture as well.
    •  Done Many of the photos need the timestamps removed. When doing this, keep the original photos as evidence of the date, and reupload the altered pics under a new name. Oh, and when taking new photos, try and avoid this timestamp. - sorry, thought you took those photos, for some reason.
      • I've removed the timestamps - as the commons keeps a record of each image in it's revision history, I've just uploaded them as the same name. (people might need to purge there cache's to see the new images). I don't think there will be copyright problems with the statue pics as the US enjoys freedom of panorama --Joopercoopers 13:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Please add dates to the photo captions where available, especially the two main shots of the building in the day and at night. This is needed so people know whether the photos were taken before or after changes were made to the building. The day shot is dated 2006, but the night picture is not dated, which is unfortunate. Was it before or after the 1982 expansion, for example? Hassle the original photographer and slap him with a wet trout for not giving the date he took the photo.
    •  Done The statue photos are nice, but are not next to the text describing them. I read through the facade section several times, before eventually finding the history of the statues further down the article. This is annoying, and shows poor layout.
    •  Done The "Tenants" section is far too small - is there really nothing at all to say about this?
      • More on this (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - I see that earlier in the article you mention that the first tenant was the Quaker Oats Company. Why is this not mentioned in the "tenants" section? Is this meant to be the current tenants of the building? If so, how will this be kept up to date? Say as of 2007 to indicate when this bit about the tenants was written.
    •  Done The "pedestrian passageways" and "proximity to transit" section are clumsily titled and too short. It would be better to combine this into a "surroundings" section, and then expand and say a bit about the surroundings. eg. how far is the building from the shores of Lake Michigan? Say more about the LaSalle Street canyon you mention in the lead. Say something (briefly) about how the surrounding area has changed along with the building, and mention the main neighboring buildings.
      • Further comment (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - The new section was more than I was expecting, and could be shortened. Some of the material could go in the article about the area - I was really only after a brief summary here so that people get an idea of the surroundings.
        • Concur with Carcharoth. The suggestion was a good one, but its implementation has resulted in text that strays from a tight focus on the topic, introducing too much detail about surrounding buildings. One problem (comprehensive) has been replaced with another (tight focus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I stongly disagree with both of you - a building is not an isolated island in a desolate ocean, it's immediate surroundings and 'site' are critical to how the building responds to the city and it's locale and history. --Joopercoopers 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe that's why Carcharoth asked for the expansion; the problem is that the expansion hasn't discussed the surroundings as much as provided specific detail on surrounding buildings. I believe we agree in principle, but disagree on implementation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sandy is right. The section needs to tie the area in more closely to the building. Instead of just describing the area, give the history of the area, and weave it into the history of the building. If possible, get some photos illustrating the views from different angles and from the top of the building. Regardless, I'm happy that the section is now there. Carcharoth 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done In the night-view picture caption, mention that the large statue on top of the building can be seen. If possible, try and get a large-res pic that can be cropped to show the statue on top of the building.
    •  Not done Do try and find some old pictures of the building, both before the fire and afterwards. There are sure to be some out there somewhere.
    •  Done The article ends with a whimper. Better to finish on a strong note rather than the pot-pourri of cultural references, some of which are frankly trivial. I would recommend putting the events and visitors bits in the history of the building - if they are not notable enough to be part of the history of the building, they shouldn't really be in the article (though by all means add the references to other articles if they will enhance them - this is part of making sure that this article is linked from other articles). That will leave film, graphic arts, and literature bits, which can be combined in a section called "cultural depictions" (rather than "popular culture"). And I'd recommend structuring that as three paragraphs, losing the bold minisections which break the text up too much.
    •  Done Could the rather large Chicago skyscrapers navbox at the bottom be changed to hide by default?
    •  Done Can we have a source for the 1985 award, please?
  • That's about all I can find for now. If these points can be actioned, or a start made towards finding sources for the suggested new material and restructuring the sections to avoid short stubby ones, then I'd be happy to support. Carcharoth 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated my comments below, marking the bits I think have been satisfactorily addresssed - thanks for making those changes. Awaiting a response on the other issues. Carcharoth 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivia. This is an example of something that I consider complete trivia, straying from "tight focus" on the topic:
  • "Events" The celebration parade for the 2005 Chicago White Sox World Series Championship officially started at the intersection of Jackson and LaSalle Streets, directly in front of the building.
  • Comments (if I may): (i) I thought that the prose was a bit ponderous, what with all those instances of "located", etc.; I've cut some of it and hope you like the result. (ii) I've reformatted the trivia section. That does not mean I think all or even most of its content is worth keeping. Still, I do like the way that Gorby, Chaz Windsor, Dubya and others are relegated to "popular culture" (which is what they are, really, stock figures in a transatlantic sitcom). (iii) I read The additional 35 feet (11 m) Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures are pictured right; their "rightness" depends on CSS, I believe, and if I'm right [I can't be bothered to check] it will not be apparent to people using browsers that lack CSS. (iv) The article appears to be aimed at people who are at least averagely intelligent and educated. I believe that in our splendid new century all such people are conversant with the metric system and don't need the antique alternative. Reading this article, my metrical mind tired of the relentless repetition of the combination of olde-worlde measurements and their metric equivalents. Of course mentions of feet and the like are appropriate where historically significant (the CBOT building was the first in Chicago to exceed a height of 600 feet, etc.), but I'd happily skip the rest of this quaint folderol and I suspect that nobody else likely to read this would mind either. -- Hoary 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—It is looking better, but it's still too easy to find glitches. I looked at "Architecture" this time.
    • An en dash that should have been a hyphen.
    • "Twenty" and then "20" (where's your boundary? MOS now says nine/10 is it, normally).
    • One of the most disturbing aspects is the use of the conversion template. Am I assuming that it's so inflexible as to render "605-foot talll art deco-styled building" as "605 feet tall ..."? There are quite a few more of these. So it won't allow the singular and the hyphen when used as a double adjective ... MOS says the hyphen is required; as to the former (the singular), it's silent, but I'm sure that it's normal to use it. I can't imagine "a 50-miles long route", can you? These can be fixed by recasting the sentence, but can someone confirm that the template is seriously inadequate in this respect?
      • Those can be fixed within the convert templates, or by doing them manually where necessary. Yes, US articles need non-metric units per MOS. The text has been changing a lot and isn't really "stable" yet; I've been trying to keep up with the footnotes and the converts, but it's been time-consuming and I've probably missed a lot. Running through all of the converts once the text has stabilized should resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just examined some of the problematic converts. The original editors used a ft to meters template ({{Ft to m|605}}) that I'm not familiar with; I don't know if it has the functionality of the convert template. Some of these may need to be redone manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "representations of bulls protrude from the building's north side"—material? (Marble? Bronze?)
      • I never lose that much sleep over dashes. I seldom if ever bother to look in the MoS, and don't much care what it says. Worries about the conversion template would evaporate in a trice if the article simply specified dimensions metrically, as educated people around the world generally do. -- Hoary 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I think a lot of your fellow Americans would go ballistic. I don't lose sleep over dashes, or anything to do with prose, frankly, but they're an important part of writing professional-standard English. They need to be taken seriously, and the apparent inability of this conversion template to work properly is of major concern. Tony 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an American, actually. And my gut feeling is that I couldn't give a hoot if that particular kind of American goes ballistic. But gosh, if the MoS says that readers of articles about the US must be provided with antique mensuration, then they must be provided with it, mustn't they? Now, granted that they must have their "feet", we should reconsider your conversion question. What baffles me here is the need for automated, template-triggered conversion. Most of these numbers are fixed; and since they're fixed, why not convert them (e.g. by reading off what's on the current page), and putting them in whatever's the least inelegant way, sans template? -- Hoary 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on how much you value correct data over correct prose; with an automated conversion, at least we know the data is correct, even if the editor isn't using the template parameters correctly to account for the prose (1c vs. 1a). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC, with 200 edits since this version came to FAC weeks ago. I wonder why some of these issues are just now coming to light; the convert problem was there at the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but the (mostly splendid) article is new to me. That's why I raise the issue for this article now. I hadn't previously come across an article with so many olde-worlde-and-metric-in-parentheses combinations. I had suggested deletion of the silly old stuff during the FAC process of The Turk (an article with a smaller number); the suggestion didn't go down well, but I'd hoped against hope that American francophobia had declined somewhat further since its goofy peak. However, if the Americans must have their feetsies, I'm not convinced that use of a template helps ensure the correctness of their metric glosses; rather, it automates the extremely trivial conversion of a number that could be wrong. (It's also a very minor waste of bytes and, I presume, a minor waste of processing power.) -- Hoary 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment - Is 'trivia' really a cypher for 'not notable' - I suggest we weave the genuinely interesting into the article and delete the rest. Leaving it as it is, everytime it's seen as a backdrop for any TV report/show/movie/advertising hoarding it will be a cruft magnet. --Joopercoopers 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. A bit like "see also"'s being woven into a text, let's fold in the cultural references - picking the ones that (a) we have something reasonable to say for; and (b) that are notable. Well, that might be same thing said two different ways, but I think you see my point. Carcharoth 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the 'trivia' section here is actually justifiable. Lots of interesting things have happened here, which are not exactly relevant in other contexts, but which are well worth including in this article. The really execrable 'trivia' sections are connections of the subject to fictional events (the subject of this article was once mentioned by Spock in a never-screened Star Trek episode, etc, etc) The Land
        • Ah but for millions of right-thinking readers of WP, what you and I call "fictional" events seem to have more reality, certainly hugely more significance, than what happens in the real world. And some of the trivia on display is pretty trivial. Chaz Windsor visited in 1977. Uh-huh. So? Dubya "toured" the floor in 2006. I suppose he was lucky to have been greeted with such bland references to Texas rather than by remarks about Enron, but this too is whelming stuff. -- Hoary 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is snazzy. Speciate 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "ThinkQuest - Oracle Education Foundation" is a reliable source; it's a collection of school homework projects. If it really IS the biggest trading floor in the world this deserves some mention in the lead section.
this line is copied directly from the reference, regarding the 1930s trading floor: The 19,000-square-foot trading floor was the world’s largest. so in the section regarding architecture, i believe it is an appropriate reference. in the expansion section, a different reference is used for the 60,000-square-foot trading floor, though the first source also mentions the new floor as the largest. so with two different sources citing the presence of the world's largest trading floors, can the lead be updated again? can the dubious and failed tags be removed? LurkingInChicago 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the world's largest trading floor at some point in its history. It no longer is. If you can date the statement or change it to past tense, it will then be accurate. I'm not sure it needs mention in the lead since it's no longer the world's largest trading floor. UBS has the largest, and soon will have an even larger one. If you can find a way to date or update the statement, then it will be factually accurate, but it currently says that CBOT "still" has the world's largest trading floor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upon quick reflection, you are completely correct. i'll put some time into this today, along with removing the thinkquest references and updating with a verifable source. LurkingInChicago 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's common knowledge enough that when I inquired around the dinner table last night, "Who has the world's largest trading floor?" I got 3 simultaneous responses, "UBS" :-) I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's page about two different ways to fix. Lurking, what do you think about my suggestion below to move all the hard data to a table or box, simplifying the prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i sourced each of the "world's largest" statement with a verifable source, some statements have multiple sources. i made an attempt at wordsmithing the text to read in the past tense, or to a period of time. i am sure others can polish the edges now that the information and references are there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LurkingInChicago (talk • contribs) 19:11, August 4, 2007
  • Please give all sources in the References section, not just the footnotes
  • Does the building occupy any important place in the Chicago (and hence world) financial community, given who its tenants are? If so worth including more about it.

And PLEASE can we lose the box at the top? Regards, The Land 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 20, 2007 "The move will put two of the world's largest financial firms across the street from each other. UBS, which by market capitalization is the world's sixth largest, has the world's largest trading floor across Washington Boulevard." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing an article from the Stamford Advocate "via NewsEdge Corporation" on "A Cygnus Business Media Website" that's "Cygnus Interactive, a Division of Cygnus Business Media". I can't start to work out what most of that mumbo jumbo means (Fox? Murdoch?), but the Advocate sounds like an actual newspaper. So if this credible, why not edit the article accordingly? A bit simpler than a continuing series of vote changes. -- Hoary 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because how to fix it is an editor's choice (I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's talk page). If they have data about *when* it was (past tense) the world's largest trading floor, they can date the statement. If not, they can remove it. I don't want to remove it if they are able to date it. (Yes, the Stamford Advocate is a hard-print newssource, and there are multiple sources verifying that UBS has the world's largest trading floor.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second calls by The Land and Sandy for the vote-box to be removed? It hasn't been updated and gives the sense that it is a crude tally. TigerTony's self-inclusion, albeit with the rider that he's the nominator, is a symptom of the vote-tally mindset: balance the red with as much green as possible. However, the critical comments matter more than simple, unsupported declarations of "Support: the article is snazzy" (anyone can do that, without even engaging critically with the text). While it's nice to know that people support the snazzy article in principle, to maintain the professional standards that a gold star indicate requires hard work and attention to detail, right now. I like the article, but I want the writing to be on a par with that of architectural FAs by Giano, Bishonen et el., which are luminous. This is not luminous—not yet, anyway. You need to bring on board people who will scrutinise the writing and Sandy's issues concerning verification.
I know that Sandy has found a lot of good in the conversion template, so I'm sorry to come out against it, at least until I can see that it's flexible enough to do singular/plural and hyphenated; using the singular unit when it's part of a double-adjective (six mileS high, but six-mile highway, not six-mileS highway) is something that we forgot about in the recent MOSNUM/MOS overhaul. Because this template has brought it out into the open, I'm going to take it to my colleagues at MOSNUM to see whether they agree. There, we've had to jettison a number of formatting improvements involving templates because of technical problems. Damned nuisance, but we have to live with it. Tony 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about the conversion templates, and we can take it up at MOSNUM, but this article in particular illustrates the can of worms we could have if every article does its own math. There are already factual inaccuracies here; imagine that we also have to check the math. Also, the problems in evidence here aren't so much the templates, as inaccurate use of them and faulty proofreading. It's not the template; it's another symptom of the copyedit needs in this article. I submit this article isn't the best one for judging the correct use of convert templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the conversion is usually obvious if wrong. I thought we did conversions in FAC Reviewing 101 ...? Tony 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to do a lot of things in Reviewing 101 that never happen, like check for reliable sources :-) I have a suggestion for possibly fixing the entire Architecture section, which Hoary also says has too many convoluted conversions. Can all of that data be moved into a box/table in that section, removing the hard data from the prose and making it more digestible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of conversion/copyedit problems
Stripping out the metric conversions and refs to illustrate Tony's concerns about the measurments—this is a sample only of copyedit needs on units of measurement (the density in the Architecture section is higher):

  • To each side of the 13 feet diameter clock facing LaSalle Street are hooded figures, an Egyptian holding grain and a Native American holding corn. ... The additional 35 feet Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures pictured here are considered part of a four-piece set. The central structure is capped by a 31 feet tall aluminum statue of the Roman goddess of grain, Ceres, as a nod to the exchange's heritage as a commodities market. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these pluralised hyphenless items will cause a professional to hiccough, and all other readers to bump (even if they don't quite realise technically why). That's why MOS specifies how to construct these items correctly. Tony 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By stripping out the conversions, you can see the conversion isn't the problem; it's incorrect grammar and a lack of copyediting resulting from blindly using the convert templates incorrectly. This is from the Artwork section; the Architecture section has a much higher density of problems. The grammatical problems are obscured by the conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic, but can we, then, trot out a clear, concise how-to-use on the template page? I'll copy-edit if someone does that. Tony 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The templates already have instructions; you can lead a horse to water and all that. Again, the problems here are grammar and failure to copyedit, not the templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Still the case. Tony 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what your getting at now - I've added the abbr=yes flag to all instances of the temple so we get xyz ft (xyz m) therefore both terms are abbreviated and the plural/singular issue is sidestepped. --Joopercoopers 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the article yet, Joopers, but there are three problems: plural, hyphenation, and text cluttered with conversions. The hyphenation could be addressed with either rewording or doing the converts manually in some cases. Rewording might be a better option, but I still wonder about just moving some of the data into a table to make the text flow easier and eliminate the clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there was a typo at WP:HYPHEN which should be straigtened out now. I think hyphens may be OK now, but I'm not certain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - while this review is still going on, I thought I should note major changes I've made to the article, both for transparency and to allow reviewers here to, well, review them.
    • Something had been bugging me about the Will Rogers reference. I finally realised that it was because it was a reference to an event that took place in 1905, about a building that was built in 1930. Of course, the event took place in the previous building, but that should be covered in the section about that earlier building. I did this with these two edits: [109] and [110]. Here is a wet trout for everyone who failed to spot this before (including me).
    • I then decided to take a closer look at the building history. There was a section called "history", which I retitled to the more proper "early history". The building section covers the history of the construction and later architectural features, but the other material felt more like "later history", so I created that section and moved "visitors" inside it. While renaming those section, I took the opportunity to rename "in popular culture" to "cultural depictions". See [111] and [112]. The "surroundings" section doesn't quite fit, and the "awards" section is technically part of the history, so this could still be re-organised a bit more if anyone wants to do that. Carcharoth 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I've removed Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg ([[:Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Lobby mailbox at the Chicago Board of Trade. (photo: 2007-02-27)]]) from the article, because the statue pics were in the wrong section and had to go in the section where the mailbox photo was (which I've now done). I tried to put the mailbox picture somewhere else, but the picture layout is difficult to handle with so many short sections. Can anyone think of a way to get the mailbox picture back in?
      • How is the rearrangement of the pictures now (with mailboxes back in)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That arrangement is not acceptable. Let me explain. That arrangement is almost identical to the arrangement I was objecting to. You've moved the double picture of the statues of Agriculture and Industry up to the section that talks about much larger relief sculptures on the corners below the roof. Contrast the following quotes:

          "Similar figures are repeated at the uppermost corners of the central tower, just below the sloping roof. The additional 35 ft (11 m) Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures pictured here are considered part of a four-piece set." (quoted from "Artwork" section, my emphasis)

          and;

          "When the old CBOT building was demolished in 1929, two 12 ft (3.7 m) tall gray granite statues of classically styled goddesses were moved from the second floor ledge above the main entrance [...] One goddess represents agriculture and is shown standing with wheat and leaning on a cornucopia. The other represents industry and appears with the bow of a ship and an anvil [...] both were returned to the CBOT building's plaza and rededicated on June 9, 2005." (quoted from "Renovation" section)

          The former quote appears to be about much larger, 35 ft (11m), relief sculptures that were (and presumably still are) part of the 1930 building. The latter quote appears to be about smaller, 12 ft (3.7m), statues that were originally part of the 1885 building. The misunderstanding probably arose because they are both named Agricultre and Industry, but they are not identical. Same theme - different objects. Looking at the pictures, the statues themselves do appear to be about 12ft tall (if you discount the bases they are resting on), and they do appear to be in the building plaza. If you agree with my analysis above (which is an expansion of my earlier comment "The statue photos are nice, but are not next to the text describing them" (see above), and my edit summary here: "the statues are not part of the original artwork [...] hence swapping", but then those comments probably got lost in amongst all the other comments you've been reading during this review), then I suggest moving the pictures back again, as I did, and losing the "pictured here" bit that I emphasised in my first quote (I'm ashamed to admit that I missed that when moving the pictures). Just out of interest, though, did anyone else even notice this? Even after I had mentioned it above? I note that Hoary suggested changing "are pictured right" to "pictured here", without noticing that these were the wrong pictures. Looks like more than one person missed this, even after I had pointed it out. Carcharoth 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for now. My only outstanding issue is pictures. Would be nice to get older pictures of the pre-1930 building, and some pictures of the architectural features described here, if possible. My previous support still stands. Carcharoth 15:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some here which we can use I think as Library of Congress images - I've yet to find a convincing photo of the whole building - perhaps we should go for one of the 'event' pics in the old trading floor. --Joopercoopers 10:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice pics there, well, apart from the first one. I liked the ones of the building being torn down and the new building being constructed. Pity most of them are after 1923. The ones after 1929 are probably not public domain yet, though I'm never sure about that sort of thing. Carcharoth 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and strong opposition for people who show an understanding of policy as poor as their understanding of civility and writing. I supported before. I still do. I also object to re-running for the pleasure of one person. Geogre 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this fingerlicking-good article, of course. -- Hoary 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing copyedit needs, samples selected from the lead only to indicate the need for a thorough copyedit (in addition to a remaining source that doesn't meet WP:RS):
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management." has --> have.
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management ... " --> won awards for building preservation and office management.
  • "The current structure is known for its art deco architecture, ..." known --> notable.
  • " ... designed by William W. Boyington before the current Holabird & Root structure, which held the same title for over 35 years" the same --> that
  • "The building is a popular sightseeing attraction and location ... " a location.

There is only one non-reliable source remaining; if the data sourced to that site is removed and the entire article is copyedited, I'll strike my Oppose. It's not unusual for little things to slip by, but I'm somewhat surprised that we have a grammatical error in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase sourced to inventionfactory.com; only copyedit remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree with your assertion that the peak6 press release (saying they are now leasing the trading floor) is not reliable. Raul654 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outstanding source (now corrected) was inventionfactory.com: here's what I said about Peak6.[113] No one ever replied to that, so I took it as acceptance that Peak6 could reliably source more than its lease (building history) and struck my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - I know people didn't like TonyTheTiger's box, but I'm getting confused here, so I'd like to list the remaining opposes: SandyGeorgia, Tony1, The Land (weak), and Dalejenkins. The number of supports matters less than whether the concerns of the opposers are actionable, so it should be noted that Dalejenkins was "per above" (referring to Tony1's objections, I believe). Only Tony1 will know if the article now meets his standards for professional writing - though I'd agree with him and SandyGeorgia that a final copyedit is probably needed. The Land's non-actioned objections appear to be:
    • Please give all sources in the References section, not just the footnotes
    • Does the building occupy any important place in the Chicago (and hence world) financial community, given who its tenants are? If so worth including more about it.
  • Does that summary look about right? Carcharoth 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, they're not my standards at all; "professional" standards of writing may vary in style and quality, and sure, reviewers and nominators need to interpret just what level is required to satisfy most of the criteria that are not binary, but lie on a continuum. (Writing quality is a continuum issue; satisfying MOS is binary—it does or it doesn't). Despite the role of quality judgement, I make my calls according to what I perceive would gain wide agreement among professional copy-editors. In particular, issues of redundancy and disconnected logic would see no objections from good writers.
My point is that I own nothing here. I'm just a servant of the process. Tony 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC) PS Even if Hoary is lickin' his fingers! Tony 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but there are various contradictions. Professional copywiters of this kind of stuff would I think be working on it for architectural publications aimed at an archectural readership. While I don't have any architectural mags on me right now and so can't check, I have trouble believing that they stipulate that every dimension must be presented according to one system followed by another system. To me, this repetitiveness sucks. But apparently it's what the MoS (may the gods preserve it) demands, and I have better things to do with my summer (non-) vacation than attempt to change the latter's excrescences, which are sure to be vigorously defended on behalf of the booboisie. So I put aside the matter of dimensions. The article is surely better than that on, say Iowa class battleships (right now, at the top of Wikipedia:Featured_content), whose introductory paragraph tells us they were "built in the early 1940s" and "saw action throughout the" -- no, hang on, you guess: Which century? Got it yet? -- "saw action throughout the 20th century". Etc. -- Hoary 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, let's just get the grammatical errors corrected. Can someone tell me if this is the correct use of acres? "When the old CBOT building was demolished in 1929, two 12 ft (3.7 m) tall gray granite statues of classically styled goddesses were moved from the second floor ledge above the main entrance into the gardens of the 500 acres (2 km²) estate of Arthur W. Cutten, a wheat and cotton speculator who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. " Shouldn't it be 500-acre estate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I edited it accordingly. D. Recorder 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was supposed to be hyphenated per WP:HYPHEN—just asking. Things like that need to be reviewed throughout by a copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such attention to detail! I don't think it needs the hyphen throughout since the units are almost always abbreviated. The MOS suggests the hyphen for when the unit of a measurement is spelled out and that was one of the few instances when it was. D. Recorder 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the sample from that section, which was the section I checked to see if the article had been copyedited yet; thanks for fixing it. So, I moved down a few sections and found this: "The CME Group occupies 33 percent of available space, while financial and trading concerns occupying 54 percent of the three-building complex." The point is not to fix one or two errors as they are pointed out; the entire article needs a copyedit. Each time I return, no matter where I look, I find something, and I'm not a copyeditor. There are basic grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, D. Recorder. At last someone ran through the entire text.[114] I've struck my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916

[edit]

This is an article I have been working on since April and just recently found time to complete (my first FAC that's not horror film or Star Wars!). The article covers the background and impact of a series of shark attacks along the coast of New Jersey in 1916. No major issues were brought up during the short period at peer review and minor comments generated by an automated bot have been addressed. I haven't nominated an article at FAC since January, so if something procedural has changed that I'm not aware of, I apologize in advance. Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism, advice, or support. Dmoon1 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent article. I have a couple comments but nothing that prevents me supporting:
    • …but scholars believe that the increased presence of sharks and humans in the water led to the attacks in 1916. I don't see any mention of increased numbers of sharks in the water later in the article.
    • The first paragraph of "Background" lacks context until the end. Perhaps move some mention of increased bathing near the beginning?
    • The second paragraph of "Background" has some irrelevant details about the American psyche and Woodrow Wilson. What do we care where he was considering having his summer residence (even if it is in New Jersey)? If the US isolationism somehow drove people to go into the sea, then including it would be fine, but I don't see any more relevance here than mentioning Boeing being founded.
    • Thanks for your comments. I have done my best to address them: the increased number of people in the water in 1916 is discussed in the background section and the number of people relative to the likelihood of shark attack (plus an increased number of sharks) is in the section on identifying the shark. I have revised the background section somewhat per your suggestions. I removed the part of isolationism and Wilson, but kept mention of WWI and added a blurb about U-boats, since this is a factor later on in the article (some people thought the U-boats were causing the shark attacks, and later U-boats were caricatured in cartoons as sharks). Dmoon1 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

Octopus card

[edit]
FARC, if repromoted, re-categorize at WP:FFA, has been on main page
previous FAC

Article had been demoted from FA status earlier this year. Subsequently I had spent time improving it, eventually succeeding in getting it promoted as a GA article in late May. Then I listed it for a peer review in early June, and the peer review request sat for an entire month without anybody commenting. Now the peer review had been archived, and so I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it for FA. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The non-free media pages don't explain the significance to the article. Jay32183 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you're talking about Image:AdultOctopusCard.jpg and Image:ChildOctopusCard.png? Those are the only non-free images that I see in the article. What kind of explanations would you like to see? One is the adult Octopus card, the other is the child Octopus card. Just a note - the reason that they are marked as fair use is because the designs of the card themselves are copyrighted. There were similar images scanned and uploaded to Commons by individual editors and then tagged as public domain, but they have were speedy deleted as being derivative of copyrighted works. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to see why their inclusion in the article is necessary by means of encyclopedic value. The current rationales suggest they are there for decoration. Jay32183 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are necessary in order to show the readers what the cards look like. Would you prefer I remove them? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's the whole of your rationale, then I would prefer you remove them. Jay32183 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the article explains that the logo on the card is supposed to look like a Mobius strip as well as the arabic numeral 8. There's also a table that lists the picture/colour of different versions of the card. That's why I felt it necessary to have those pictures. But if other reviewers agree that the pictures should be removed, I'd be glad to remove them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have a free image of a Möbius strip so you don't need the non free image for that. If the only other thing you need to show is color, that can also be done in a free way. Jay32183 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we just add a fair use rationale to the image. I don't see how one card is distinguishable from the next without an image. Benjwong 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earlier I inserted more into the "Summary" sections of both of the image spaces. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing that distinguishes their appearance is color, which can be done without a non-free image. You don't need to show the copyrighted image to say the child card is pink. Jay32183 21:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the design of the child card is different not just by the colour itself. Take a careful look at the images. Anyway, since we're not talking about non-free images of living persons here, and more importantly since there are no free alternatives and the company doesn't generate revenue from the copyright of these designs, I've been assuming that fair use of these images are OK. I'd like to hear what other reviewers have to say about the images also. But I don't want something trivial like this to get in the way of FA status, so like I said, if others also agree that they ought to be removed, I'd be happy to remove them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jay32183 just gave us the best reasons why we need those images. (YES! you read it right! It's not a typo!) A lot of people don't know the differences between each type of Octopus card because they never use it before, so it's even more important for us to show the differences. What differentates the type is the symbol on the bottom right corner of the card. Child has a lollipop, senior (not shown) has a cane, student (not shown) has a graduation hat. I can tell you that there's no other way to obtain these images. I will support this article in relisted as featured article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although it is for the identification of the cards, it is impossible to use a non-free image to depict them. If the designs are copyrighted, you can't even redraw the octopus card with a pencil and paper, since what you are drawing is still a copy of copyrighted material. So, no free equivalent could exist. And since it's not replaceable, the Fair Use Criteria are met.--Kylohk 09:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FeliCa says it's an RFID system, but RFID doesn't cover anything as sophisticated as FeliCa's challenge-response public-key encryption. It is actually a "contactless smart card" and both the article and FeliCa should be changed to reflect this. BenB4 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this article, Octopus card uses "Sony's 13.56 MHz FeliCa RFID chip". Is there a source that contradicts this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I may have found a response to your concern - according to this other article, the 13.56 MHz RFID chip was designed to be able to handle challenge-response authentication. And the Octopus card uses a 13.56 MHz RFID chip. See if that adequately addresses your concern. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not happy about it, because the vast majority of the use of the term RFID is for a very much simpler set of components, but I suppose it's a buzzword with meaning on the run. BenB4 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah technically speaking, application of radio frequency for identification via a transponder is "RFID". Having actually worked with RFID in my career, I understand that the term "RFID" has become quite buzz-wordy because we're finding more and more application with this simple technology. But I do want to point out that the article does introduce Octopus card as a contactless "smart card", and only mentions "RFID" in the Technology section, and specifically that the card uses an RFID chip. Maybe the term "RFID" is spammed and abused elsewhere here on WP or in real life, but I don't really see this article doing that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having read the article through, I say it's very well written. The tech spec part is understandable, even though I am a person who has little interest in the internal workings of stuff outside academic hours.--Kylohk 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just as in FARC, for failing 1a.
    • "widely-used" is still there at the top: I've pointed it out in a previous nomination. NO HYPHENS AFTER -LY WORDS: please read the MOS.
    • "has garnered international recognition"—This is a lah-de-dah way of writing "has been internationally recognised".
    • "there are currently over 14 million cards"—Remove "currently". Some people prefer "more than", but it's up to you.
    • "used by 95% of the population of Hong Kong"—Hard to believe. Babies too?
    • "These cards were either used as single journey tickets or as stored value tickets."—"The" is strong-enough a backreference here. Reverse "either used"—see why? In fact, get rid of the rubbish: "used as either single or stored-value tickets". Yes? Tony 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've addressed the issues you've listed.
        • Got rid of the hyphen in "widely-used".[115]
        • Changed "garnered international recognition" to "been internationally recognised".[116]
        • Specified that 95% of the population aged 16 to 65 uses the card. This information is taken directly from the source at ref number 4 that provided statistics of usage.[117]
        • Got rid of "currently" and changed "over" to "more than".[118]
        • Altogether deleted the sentence "These cards were either used as single journey tickets or as stored value tickets", and specified in the preceeding sentence that the magnetic plastic cards so mentioned were used as fare tickets.[119] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it weird that child cards are not counted in. Child card is valid for those from age 3-12. I thought the "used by 95% of the population of Hong Kong" is not too approrpriate as well. You never know the exact amount of people who holds a card, and the % will be less than this statement as some people have multiple cards. I for one, have 2 adult cards. My parents have another 3 cards and 2 watches (each watch = 1 card). That totals to 7 cards used by a family of three. But we have to treat this reference as accurcate since the rules limited us to interpret. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the population aged 16-65 is exactly what the source says. That's a good point that it excludes child cards. But it's not difficult to derive the percentage of the population that use the card despite the fact that many people obviously have multiple cards. Instead of looking at the number of cards issued, all they need to do is look at what percentage of travelers use the card on the MTR or KCR as opposed to the single-fare magnetic strip cards, or what percentage of bus and mini-bus riders use the card as opposed to using cash. Heck, ride the bus or the MTR during rush hour and you'd think that Octopus card usage was actually 100%. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the source sounds far fetched, I think it actually may be true. If the adoption rate is 95%, you have 1 in 20 people using cash. When I ride a bus, minibus or MTR, most people don't touch the ticket machines or insert coins anymore. The only people I find using the ticket machines are tourists. So, it does sound real.--Kylohk 05:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Heck, ride the bus or the MTR during rush hour and you'd think that Octopus card usage was actually 100%." *nod* I definetely agrees on that. I find those that don't use Octopus card a bit weird (excluding tourists). Sometimes I get on the bus and for the whole trip, nobody goes for coins, they just use the card. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, 95% doesn't sound far-fetched at all. I would have thought that it was an even higher percentage. Even for tourists, I've found that people who blog about their travels usually talk about the Octopus card when they blog about visiting Hong Kong (I came across these blogs while online-researching for more info on the card). Also I wanted to point out, if you look at the end of the intro, the article specifically states that 14 million cards are in circulation. Maybe a line should be inserted after that to point out that that is twice the population of Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved. But still needs work. Get another person to go through it, please.
    • "reward dollars" and similar—See MOS on "words as words".
    • "However, the cardholder may not elect to only use a partial amount of "reward dollars" as payment." Clumsy. Push "only" as late as possible in a sentence. "A", not "the" cardholder. Better still, merge with the next sentence and make it positive. Pluralise. To redeem ..., carholders must use the whole amount of ...
    • "In MTR and KCR stations, enquiry machines can be found where one can place his/her Octopus Card"—Grammar. Get rid of the pronounds. "where cardholders can place their ...".
    • Still lots of redundant words: "even if the card is held in a wallet or a purse" (held);
    • "Also, as of .." Yuck. Remove "also".
    • "Two main types of Octopus cards exist, On-Loan cards and Sold cards, together with two other less common types, the Airport Express Tourist Octopus and the MTR Airport Staff Octopus." Yuck. "There are two main types of Octopus card (On-Loan and Sold), and two less common types (the Airport Express Tourist and the MTR Airport Staff)".

This is way way sub-professional writing. Urgent attention required throughout; I'm sure Raul is sick of it by now. Please let me know when to look again. Tony 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Tony, thanks for reviewing the article again. I'm certainly not a professional writer in any capacity, so I've missed areas in the article that reflect sub-professional writing. If you know of a professional writer on WP who is willing to help improve the article, that would be a lot of help. I only wish someone like you had reviewed the article when I had listed it for peer review - but not one editor responded to the peer review request! At any rate, I think I've addressed your concerns:
    • "Words as words" problem fixed.[120]
    • Sentence about using partial or entire amounts of reward dollars has been reworded per suggestions.[121]
    • Pronouns removed.[122]
    • Got rid of redundant word.[123]
    • Got rid of "also".[124]
    • "Two main types of Octopus cards..." sentence re-worded.[125]
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose These fixes needed:

  • I don't think "mathematical", "library", "public transport" and "mobile phone" need wikilinking.
  • "The Octopus system was launched after three years of trials on 1997-09-01." - incorrect date format as per WP:DATE
  • "As of November 21, 2004" - comma not needed, as per WP:DATE
  • "in order to indicate the card's "infinite" possibilities" – the "in order" is redundant
  • "and even between operating routes within the same company" - "within" is inappropriate. An operating route can't be within a company.
  • "available upon registration" - "upon" is overly formal and archaic. Use "on" instead.
  • "conferred upon its cardholders" - "upon"
  • "Some notable businesses that accept Octopus cards include" – the "some" is redundant
  • "with six participating financial institutions offering an option" - the use of "with" as an additive link should be avoided. It's best to use a semicolon instead.
  • "wholly-owned subsidiary" shouldn't be hyphenated
  • "15% of Octopus card transactions" - % should be spelled out in words, as per WP:NUM
  • "a discount of up to 64%" - %
  • "while the mobile phone covers were specifically designed" – "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.
  • "There are two versions of this card" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
  • "and many other point-of-sale applications" – the "many" is redundant
  • "with very few coins used" – the "very" is redundant
  • "various school administrative tasks such as" – the "various" is redundant
  • "that connect the various components that deal with" – the "various" is redundant
  • "the first city outside of Hong Kong" – the "of" is redundant
  • Some cites aren't placed immediately after punctuation.
  • "is between 30 and 100 mm" - non-breaking space and imperial equivalents needed. Epbr123 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me work on these. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've addressed all your issues. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DATE states, "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison."
  • WP:CITE states, "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation. For example: President Bush called for a halt to the violence,[3] and opposed a timetable for withdrawal.[4]". Epbr123 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to work on those dates, actually. Tony answered my question in the WP:MOSDATE talk page. Initially I was confused because wikilinking them should make them show up according to your user preference. But then I realised that anonymous readers won't have user preferences. The cite problem - I simply just misread your sentence. I thought you wrote "cities". Let me go through and fix them now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

300 (film)

[edit]

This article on the movie 300 is ready for FA status. Just a side note the images that are used in this article all have proper fair use rationale. You can look at the article's talk page for that. Mercenary2k 07:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LEAD indicates that citations are not required in the lead section, though there is an ongoing discussion about that matter on that policy's talk page. The reference for the Plot section is the film itself, and it's accepted across FA-class film articles that referencing is not required, as long as the Plot section meets WP:MOSFILMS#Plot criteria. The Cast section is also similarly evident and based on the credits of the same film. Like the Plot section, referencing is not required (unless there is a serious dispute about who portrayed who, such as in an experimental film). I hope that clarifies things. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A little more copy-editting needed.
  • "numerically-superior enemy" - when the first word of a two-word modifier ends in ly, hyphenate only if the ly word can be used alone with the noun
 Done Removed the hyphen
  • "The remaining Spartans are killed in the hail of arrows, with Leonidas finally falling..." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "The remaining Spartans are killed in the hail of arrows; Leonidas finally fell..."
 Done Added semi-colon
  • "...was released on March 6, 2007, with the special edition containing..." - ungrammatical "with"
 Done Removed with
  • "...have been particularly critical, with film critic Robby Eksiel saying..." - ungrammatical "with"
 Done Removed with
  • "...a battle against Eastern centralism and collective serfdom which opposed.." - a comma is needed before "which"
 Done Added comma
  • "Outside of current political parallels, some critics have raised more general questions..." - "of" and "some" are redundant
 Done Removed of
  • "but it was not a democracy. [76]" - remove the space before the ref.
 Done Removed space
 Done 2007 is linked
 Done Moved the DVD Release and TV broadcast to marketing section
    • And upon further inspection it seems that the plot summary implies Leonidas went to meet Xerxes after fighting the Immortals. It might also be good to replace "later" in the final sentence with "after the second day of fighting" or something. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Done. Sentence has been re-written. Mercenary2k 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its covering all aspects of the release. From the release date, the box office numbers, the reviews and the controversy generated by the movie. Mercenary2k 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging the "release" information into the "Marketing" section and rename the new section "Promotion and release"? It seems to be a somewhat more fitting place for the limited commentary on the release and somehow leaving the article without an explicitly titled "Reaction" section seems...a touch off. I'll probably support this anyway, but I want to know if something like that could be done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moved the release into marketing and renamed it promotion and release and re-named the release section into reception section. So Can I count on your support? :) Mercenary2k 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to reinstate the TV airing information...okay Support.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is really in-depth, and very neutral. The production could be expanded, but that can easily be done soon with the DVD. Alientraveller 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - The lead needs work. It's kind of weak. It needs to be more of a summary of the entire article. The "Awards" section doesn't need it's own subsection if that's all the awards it was nominated for. Production needs to be expanded. The DVD will be out, so the sources will be readily available. It seems "Historical Inaccuracies" and "Controversy" should be last, and in their own sections, maybe even under one section together but under separate sub headings. That's it for now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it out? Well, it's not avaliable to me yet. Alientraveller 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope..lol, I miss read "July 31" for "June 31". My bad. Adjusted my wording. Even more reason that may be a premature FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a Movie article cannot be considered FA until the DVD has come out? Mercenary2k 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, unless the film itself is decades old and just hasn't made its way onto the DVD plane (which isn't the case for modern day movies), then no. DVDs nowadays usually come with tons of special features that contain a lot of encyclopedic material. Part of FA requirement is comprehensiveness. If a source, which may contain potentially major additions to an article, is not yet released (but there are obvious plans for its release [e.g. this will be out in 6 days]) then you cannot possibly say you've looked over all possible avenues of sources. Obviously you couldn't look at every source that exists, but we know there is a DVD; we live in a time where these DVDs contain an exhaustive amount of information most of the time..especially with these bigger films; we cannot say that the article is comprehensive if a potentially major source has not been officially released. No one will touch an FAC for a film that is still in the theaters, because it hasn't had a chance to make any lasting mark (whether critically or commercially). Technically, the DVD release is still part of the "release" of the film. Also, you might not consider a film "ready" for FAC until you can say that it hasn't garnered any awards. What Award ceremonies have come to pass since the release of the film that the film could have been considered for? MTV Movie Awards? They aren't that significant. I would be willing to bet the movie would be up for Academy Awards in at least the visual effects field. It hasn't had time to sit and stew properly, in my personal opinion. The DVD may turn up nothing useful, we don't know yet, but that's a bridge to cross when it's released. Considering the limited production information in the article, I have to say "we should wait".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article lacks any mention of a significant criticism of the film, best outlined by Dan Savage in his nationally syndicated column, that the film was homophobic. Big strapping,red-blooded straight men who fuck their gorgeous wives before heading off to fight the fetish gear-wearing deviants. While it does mention the commentary that the Spartans were masculine and the Persians "androgynous", it glances over the underlying conclusion. VanTucky (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been discussed to death in this article's talk pages and a general consensus was reached that it was not needed for this article. And for that reason your oppose is not valid. Mercenary2k 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're overstepping your bounds. The nominator does not under any circumstances decide whose opinion is valid and whose isnt'. Second, if a clear consensus has been reached on this issue, please provide a direct link the discussion in question. Simply calling "consensus reached" is not proof of such. Lastly, even if that discussion reached a consensus, if new, outside editors are bringing it up as a violation of FA-criteria, the issue should be re-addressed not summarily dismissed. And some politeness might help too. VanTucky (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Savage's column was discussed here. Primary objection to inclusion: Savage is neither a professional historian, nor a film critic, but rather a sex advice columnist, and therefore in the present context fails notability requirements. In any case, I fail to see which of the FA criteria this comment addresses. Perhaps 1d, neutrality, but to achieve NPOV it is not necessary that an article detail every point of view. To become "significant," a criticism should probably have been expressed by more than one commentator. --Javits2000 11:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article lacks information on the worldwide impact of this film. The Iranian reaction deserves more than one paragraph, and the reviews, promotion and box office section are overwhelmingly US-centric. The article uses far, far too many quotations. At least some of these have been cherry-picked to present the film in a positive light, for example, the Paul Cartledge quotes suggest that he liked the film with few reservations, when his view is more nuanced.--Nydas(Talk) 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the suggestion is, once again, that the article is not neutral? It seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I'm not sure by which algebra one would determine that the "Iranian reaction deserves more than one paragraph"; more useful would be to point out aspects of that reaction which are not covered in the article, if there are any. Similarly, the suggestion that Cartledge's remarks have been "cherry-picked" is a bald assertion without any substantiation; as it stands, the account of his reaction seems to me to balance praise & blame. Better to point out what has been ommitted (if anything). Presumably every response addressed in the article is more "nuanced" than can be expressed in a summary; this is why references are provided, to allow interested readers to track down fuller accounts.--Javits2000 11:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the article goes into considerably more detail about what writers in American magazines think than what the Iranians (including the President) think. We only learn that Ahmadinejad 'denounced' the film, we hear nothing of his reasoning. Other Iranians are not mentioned, except in vague terms like 'various officials'. At the very least, I would outline the views of Ahmadinejad's cultural adviser (Javad Shangari) and an archeologist (Hamed Vahdati Nasab) who organised an online petition against the film.
Paul Cartledge says in his Guardian article that he enjoyed the film, but it had no pretence of veracity. The article simply says he enjoyed it, omitting this crucial qualifier. An ordinary reader might get the impression that a historian enjoying a film means it's reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, the he-says-she-says format of the historical accuracy section makes it muddled and slanted. Why do uncontroversial facts like Sparta having slaves or pederasty need to be phrased in the form 'X states'?
In addition to this, the problems of the US-centric box office, production and reviews sections remain.--Nydas(Talk) 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The detailed plot summary, while typical of Wikipedia, is not representative of the best of Wikipedia. The opening para. doesn't encapsulate the article yet. Have any themes been detected in discussion of the film in print? --Wetman 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly do you see wrong with the plot summary? What aspect(s) does the lead section presently not reference? What sort of "Themes" are you talking about and how do would you want them included in the article? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He means themes in the academic sense, something akin to these academic studies found at my subpage (just to provide an idea). I personally believe it's too early for academic studies of 300 to be available now because one would have to go to the theater constantly to study the film, as opposed to owning the DVD and studying that with the pause/rewind/fast-forward features. I could be wrong, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are going to be any academic studies on 300. All furor over 300 has died down and all the academics have already voiced their opinion and their opinions are already covered in this article. Don't see why the release of a DVD is going to re-ignite Academic debate over 300. So this is an unfair critique of this article.Mercenary2k 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Most academic criticism doesn't come till well after a film is released, when ample time has taken place for people to actually review a movie and critic. Academic scholars are just that, part of academics. They aren't paid film reviewers who have tons of time to go see lots of films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
I agree that the film is likely to attract some attention from film-studies scholars, cultural historians, etc. (And although none will ever admit it, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a view will use this article as a first stop for sources on the contemporary reaction.) It will be important to track this literature once it emerges, but nothing has come to my attention as of yet. --Javits2000 11:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is rather well-written, and I can speak from personal experience that the neutrality of the article has been a very difficult thing to attain. As the blowback internationally was confined to a small group of people and for a small time, referencing it in a single paragraph seems more than appropriate; the controversy has died down to less than a murmur since the film's release. Were it more enduring, more might be called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranians are not a small group of people. You can bet that if The Passion of the Christ was featured, there'd be more than a paragraph and a half describing the Jewish reaction.--Nydas(Talk) 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the assumption that all Iranians responded, en bloc, to the film in the same fashion? But this is hardly the case, no more than "the Jews" did to the Passion of the Christ. --Javits2000 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just semantics. Would you agree that the reaction of certain Jewish groups would get more than a paragraph and a half in a featured Passion article?--Nydas(Talk) 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, having now looked at the Passion article, I find its coverage of the various controversies long-winded, and would advocate editing for brevity should the article be nominated for FA. --Javits2000 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Iranians are a small group of people, in the scope of the world population (67 million versus 4 billion), and their reaction was short-lived. AS well, I think it's insulting to insinuate that we would give preferential treatment to one ethnic/religious group over another other. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, almost any group of people is small. How long does their reaction have to go on to warrant more than 1.5 paragraphs? I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but the US/UK bias of Wikipedia is well known. In this case, the controversy section details the views of several named American film critics in detail, whilst the Iranian reaction is played down. You can tell there's more to be written here by the sheer density of sources. It is often the case that sources outside of the developed world are hard to find, but in this case they are plentiful. Your accusations of racism have no place here, I was merely making a comparison. The fact that a featured Passion article would contain a lot of information about the reaction of some Jewish groups is good, the more the better.--Nydas(Talk) 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, whatever. If the US/UK "bias" is so "well-known", perhaps your evangelizing efforts might be better utilized somewhere else, say Village Pump. Making your little stand here is only disruptive. You accused people of shutting out comment of Iranian dissent, which was minimal both in number and length of time, and then compounded the matter by suggesting that we might have iven preferential treatment to Jewish sentiments. You are damend by your own words. Like I said, take your soapbox elsewhere, please.
How is a head of state calling the film 'psychological warfare' minimal? Is it more or less minimal than the views of the film critic of the Philadelphia Daily News? Instead of using inflammatory language, please address my points, particularly the lack of worldwide box office coverage.--Nydas(Talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction of the Iranian government were noted in the article. I am sorry if you feeling my calling you to account for your indefensible accusations 'inflammatory'. Apart from that, I am not goign to address this anymore. Take your soapbox elsewhere. I am not feeding you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's noted in the article, but not covered in sufficient depth. I have posted a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Have I done something wrong?--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Alientraveller; also, I wouldn't have put this up for FAC before the DVD release since it will almost certainly help improve the article. But I don't really think that that precludes this from possibly being featured. Cliff smith 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article meets all four FA criteria; written in an encyclopedic and consistent tone, remarkably comprehensive coverage of all aspects of production, release, and reception; extensive verification; NPOV acheived through a long and exceedingly thorough process of negotiation (cf. the talk archives); stability also hard-won; logical and consistent style; well-considered use of images (cf. again relevant talk archives); suitable length for the significance and complicated nature of the subject. As for the DVD release; of course, it will be extremely interesting to see if additional encyclopedic information is presented there; but the current account of production is synthetic & based on a wide variety of contemporary sources, which is arguably better than regurgitating the "official" account of the production presented by the studio. --Javits2000 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • The prose could be better improved. Sentences like "Producer Gianni Nunnari was planning a film about the Battle of Thermopylae, but director Michael Mann was already planning a film based on the book Gates of Fire, about the battle." could be better written. And then some choppy prose as well: "Director Zack Snyder, who already attempted to make a film based on Miller's novel before making his debut with the remake of Dawn of the Dead,[4] was hired to direct in June 2004.[5] He hired screenwriter Kurt Johnstad to rewrite Gordon's script for production.[5] Frank Miller hired on the project as executive producer and consultant.[6]". And then this one: "Snyder photocopied panels from the comic book, from which he planned the preceding and succeeding shots. "It was a fun process for me... to have a frame as a goal to get to," said Snyder.[8] Like the comic book, the adaptation also used the character Dilios as a narrator. Snyder used this narrative technique to show the audience that the surreal "Frank Miller world" of 300 was related from a subjective perspective. By utilizing Dilios' gift of storytelling, Snyder is able to introduce fantasy elements into the film, explaining that "Dilios is a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."[9] Snyder also added the sub-plot in which Queen Gorgo attempts to rally support for her husband.[10]" And choppy again: "At Comic-Con International in July 2006, the 300 panel aired a promotional trailer of the film, which was positively received.[41] The trailer was then leaked to the Internet.[42] Warner Bros. released the official trailer for 300 on October 4, 2006.[43] This trailer found its way to Apple.com in the fall of 2006 where it received considerable exposure."
  • These series of citations are really ugly IMO: "a particularly noble page in their history."[97][98][99] Various Iranian officials condemned the film.[100][101][102][103] The Iranian Academy of the Arts submitted a formal complaint against the movie to UNESCO, labelling it an attack on the historical identity of Iran.[104][105] The Iranian mission to the U.N. protested the film in a press release,[106] and Iranian embassies protested its screening in France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan.[107][108][109][110]" There are ways to merge them.
 Done I fixed up the prose as you recommended. Take a look at it and tell me if you are satisfied with it. The citations, I am not really sure how to merge 3 or 4 citations into 1 citation. The reason that there are so many is because it gives Iranian, European and American news coverage about Iran's reaction to the movie. If you know of a way to merge these citations then please tell me and I will do it. Mercenary2k 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these stacked citations are a problem, but I'm also not sure how to fix it. In the case of the last series, at least (107-110) each citation references a specific embassy protest. In the other cases, the attempt was to present the "official" Iranian response in a concise fashion while allowing readers the possibility to track down various reports -- a sort of compromise between too-expansive / redundant converage & short shrift. Like many compromises, it's none too elegant. --Javits2000 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Sandy's method in Tourette syndrome could be helpful with the citations.--Yannismarou 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides these issues the analysis looks to me fine, and the intro adequate. I am a weak supporter, waiting for further improvements.--Yannismarou 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though some sentences are tagged with 3 or 4 notes, the referencing on the page is properly formatted. But it's understandable why some sentences have multiple notes. Like these:

Various critics, historians, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[88] have denounced the film.[89][90][91]
Various Iranian officials condemned the film.[100][101][102][103]
The Iranian mission to the U.N. protested the film in a press release,[106] and Iranian embassies protested its screening in France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan.[107][108][109][110]

  • Each of these sentences refer to multiple things, like various people in the Iranian gov't: each note refers to a different official; and each embassy that protested has its own note. Now in the last sentence, the notes should be next to the specific nation whose embassy protested. That would clear up the end of the sentence. The issue of crowded sentence ends aside, the referencing here is fine. Cliff smith 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories

[edit]

Like the promoted Kingdom Hearts, the article got recent improvement from some dedicated editors. A current GA, it's well-written and referenced, and seems good enough to reach FA status. igordebraga ≠ 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hidden message telling other users not to add unnecessary information, like the Kingdom Hearts article. The message reads:

This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first or direct your proposed addition to a more detailed subarticle that pertains to the topic at hand. Example: If you wish to add detail on the finer plot details, follow the links to that article and insert the detail there or discuss it on the talk page. Any unneeded info added to this plot will be quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level.

This should stop many other users in doing so. I think this article is an FA potential. One of the best game articles and certainly one of the best of Wikipedia IMHO. Greg Jones II 01:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • checkY "they forgot all of their abilities" – the "of" is redundant
  • checkY "In order to explain the loss" – the "in order" is redundant
  • checkY Em dashes should be unspaced
  • checkY"Among the four are;" – the ";" is unnecessary
  • checkY Some full dates are linked, while others aren't. This should be consistant.
  • checkY IMDb isn't a reliable source as anyone can edit it.
  • checkY The biography of Utada Hikaru at LyricsFreak.com is from Wikipedia, and therefore can't be used as a source [145]
  • checkYThe Dengekionline.com source is missing a language tag
  • checkYReferences don't need to be indicated when they're in English
  • checkYAccording to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 09:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

Tang Dynasty

[edit]

The Tang Dynasty (618-907) of China is often considered the golden age of classical Chinese civilization. Ever since the medieval Song Dynasty it was veiwed as the zenith era of Chinese poetry, an era of political stability and military victory in its early half, and an age of high sophistication and cosmopolitan culture. It was an era marked by strong mercantile presence in the world with the Silk Road and seaports in the south that had sea trade links as far as Egypt. The article itself is quite nuanced and broad in coverage. According to Wikipedia:Article Size, in order to keep a reader's attention, an article's main text prose should be no larger than 10,000 words (or about 50 KB). This article is just below that number at 9931 words, although covering this 300-year period of China's history makes the length of the article's content justified (in my opinion). In addition, each sub-section is relatively small and manageable, with three main overhead sections: History, Society and Culture, and Historiography about the Tang. I hope that you enjoy the read.--PericlesofAthens 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article. Dahn 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another incredible article by Pericles. Well-done! --Hemlock Martinis 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, this article has certainly seen some of the best improvements to any article found in wikipedia that was merely a "start" article perhaps just 5 or 6 months ago.--PericlesofAthens 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Great article. I learned so much from the article. RS2007 09:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excellent article, thank you Pericles and others so much for your continued work. Can you address my question at Talk:Tang Dynasty#Red crab? Thanks. Neutralitytalk 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.


Richard Hakluyt

[edit]

I'd like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. It was originally based on material in the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, but I expanded it based on other sources and added images, and it was given Good Article status on 25 April 2007. Cheers, Jacklee 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Prose is good, very well referenced. I think I'd loose some of the red links though, maybe either start stubs or unwikify. Cricket02 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well referenced and well written. Two issues; you may want to remove the size parameter on some of the images (to let the user choose thumbnail size and because the images tend to bunch up for me in the Later Life section). Second is that I'd remove the See also section; the only link is already present in the text. Otherwise, good work! CloudNine 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question – can you explain what you mean about the size parameter? If I remove it, won't the images be too big for the article since the original sizes of some of them are quite large? Thanks also for your complimentary remarks about the article. Cheers, Jacklee 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For most users, the thumbnail size is 200px (it defaults to that if no size is given), whereas some of the images in this article have 300px+. Purely a comestic change. CloudNine 16:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: removing the size parameters makes the thumbnails very small, though. Cheers, Jacklee 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • There are a few areas where citations are needed. I have marked these with {{fact}} tags.
    • This sentence does not read well. "At the age of 30, being acquainted with "the chiefest captaines at sea, the greatest merchants, and the best mariners of our nation",[10] he was selected as chaplain and secretary to accompany Stafford, now English ambassador at the French court, to Paris in 1583."
    • The article does not always appear to have a neutral POV. For example, "his important work" -- this needs to be directly sourced or "important" should be removed; other similar words: "monumental," "invaluable treasure", "Unfortunately"
      • Comment: I think that it is clear from the context that the work of Hakluyt's referred to was "important". It was presented to the Queen of England, and supported the colonization of North America, which eventually took place. Also, it seems appropriate to describe the squandering of a person's fortune by his only son as "unfortunate". I haven't any strong feelings about this adjective being deleted though. Have deleted the sentence using the terms "monumental" and "invaluable treasure". Jacklee 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The red links should be removed
      • Deleted the red links. Why, though? Is there something in the guidelines on featured articles about not having red links? Isn't it better to have red links, in case new articles are created by other editors? Jacklee 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a comma after a single year (In 1588,)
      • Comment: I think this is just a matter of style. There's nothing really wrong with omitting the comma. Having a comma at that position sometimes causes the reader to mentally pause when there is no need to. Jacklee 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full dates should be wikilinked

Karanacs 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Really well-written. I just have a few concerns:
    • "Yatton" needs to be linked, and "emulments" currently links to a disambig page
      • Comment: There's an article called "Yatton, Herefordshire", but it says that Yatton is eight miles northwest of Leominster instead of two miles southeast as stated by one of the citations in the footnote, so I don't know what to make of it. I'll remove the link to "emoluments" as I don't think any of the articles listed in the "Compensation" disambiguation page are on point. Jacklee 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although this was his only visit to the Continent in his life, he was angered to hear the limitations of the English in terms of travel being discussed in Paris." What exactly does the last part of this sentence mean?
      • Comment: This was from Encyclopædia Britannica. I believe it means that when he was in Paris, he was angry to hear about other people criticizing the fact that the English were not well-travelled – although this was rather ironic because his presence in Paris was his one and only visit to Continental Europe. Jacklee 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1605 he secured the prospective living of James Town, the intended capital of the intended colony of Virginia." Why not Jamestown?
      • Comment: Again, this was from Encyclopædia Britannica. I realize that the modern spelling is "Jamestown", but did not change the spelling in case "James Town" was how the town was spelled back in Hakluyt's time. Jacklee 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we need the see also section? The Hakluyt Society is already linked in the "Later life" section.--

Carabinieri 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • MOS is about to require a space after "c.".
    • Awkward joining of ideas in the opening sentence. "... writer, who is ...".
    • Why is "English" linked twice in that sentence. Remove the first link: who needs to look at the article on "England", that little-known country?
    • Shift comma after "Oxford" to after "1588". Do we need the word "English" in that sentence?
      • Comment: The shifting of the comma would distort the sense of the sentence. Hakluyt was chaplain and secretary to Sir Edward Stafford between 1583 and 1588. These were not the dates when he was studying at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford. And yes, I think the point does need to be made that Sir Edward was the English ambassador (and not the ambassador of some other country) to the French court. Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then after all of this English English English, you tell us he was Welsh?
      • Comment: There's a significant difference between someone being of a particular nationality and having ancestors from elsewhere. I'm Singaporean but of Chinese extraction (my grandparents came from China). Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colon is wrong after "extraction".
    • "two miles (about 3.2km)"—No, "two miles" is less precise than "3.2 km", so why "about"? Remove it. Space before "km". (MOS)
      • Comment: The source cited gave the distance in miles and I converted the figure to kilometres pursuant to a suggestion by Epbr123 (see above), so the figure in kilometres is less accurate. Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it has to be converted, and must be to a similar level of precision. 0.1 of a km is not as accurate as a whole mile? You're kidding me. I think you're misunderstanding the concept. Remove "about".
      • Removed the word "about", but am afraid I don't understand quite what you mean. Two miles is equivalent to 3.2... km, with non-repeating numerals after the number "2". So by rounding the number to 3.2 km, isn't 2 miles equivalent to "about" 3.2 km? Jacklee 10:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that logic, we'd need to insert "about" in every conversion to and from metrics and imperial. No, we accept the conversion without "about". For small values, a different level of precision is allowed (one decimal place, here, as opposed to no decimal place), but this is a separate issue.
      • Comment: OK, thanks for the clarification. Jacklee 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A person named Hugo Hakelute was elected"—Spot the three redundant words.
      • Disagree with you there. The words "A person named" arguably indicate that there is some uncertainty as to whether Hugo Hakelute was an ancestor of Hakluyt. Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see now what you're trying to convey, but it's a "long-shot" to expect readers to get it. Can you make it more explicit in the text if this meaning is necessary?
      • Added more words to make the meaning clearer. Jacklee 10:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Records also show that"—"Also" is redundant, but the whole phrase is, since you provide a reference to the records at the end of the statement.
      • Comment: No, the phrase is not redundant. The reference at the end of the statement merely states that there are other records showing that Thomas Hakeluytt was a ward of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we need a reference to the "records" that you're referring to in the text, as well. Then get rid of the phrase.
      • Comment: Would love to, but unfortunately the reference at the end of the statement doesn't state what the actual records are, only that there are other records. Cheers, Jacklee 10:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, it depends on how much precision is needed for Featured Articles. The existing reference is to John Winter Jones's introduction to Richard Hakluyt's Divers Voyages Touching the Discovery of America and the Islands Adjacent (London: Hakluyt Society, 1850). No doubt he or someone else that he trusted did the necessary research. The full text of the book is available on Google Books, so I read the relevant pages personally. If the reference was to some random website I would say a better reference would be needed, but I feel that a citation to a book published by the Hakluyt Society should be sufficient for Wikipedia. Much as I would like to, I certainly don't have the time, knowledge or resources to go hunting around for original 16th-century documents. Cheers, Jacklee 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading further. Please fix the whole article, not just these examples. Get someone else who's fresh to it to help out. Tony 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who's willing to help proofread and improve the article is welcome to do so. I've given up listing articles for peer-review because nothing seems to happen with them. Thanks for your comments. Jacklee 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard Hakluyt" was promoted to Featured Article status today. Thanks again to everyone who took time to give comments on improving the article! Cheers, Jacklee 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.

Ironclad warship

[edit]

Self-nomination; this article is a thorough treatment of a fascinating and neglected part of naval history, which has recently passed an A-class review from MilHist. Regards, The Land 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can do, but it's been like this since 2003 and there is no overwhelming reason to change it. The Land 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The lead includes the statement that "At the same time, it was often held that the ram or the torpedo were the crucial weapons of naval combat" but fails to explain why this is relevant to ironclads. It could mention, for example, that ironclads were designed for ramming, but their deployment tactics had to be modified to account for the torpedo. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed this up, will return to it shortly. The Land 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk)
  • Support Saw a few things I didn't like, but overall this looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose — Severe problems with the citations, which aren't very specific. When there is a specific claim being made, the reader shouldn't need to search through a whole book that has a much more general scope. Presumably, the authors will have found that specific claim on some page, or in some section of a given book. If there is a whole chapter about the claim in question, give the chapter; else, give the section or the pages — otherwise, the citations are of little use to readers of the article. "Naval Warfare 1815-1914" serves as a reference for over 20 specific claims (that the US Navy had no ironclads as the war broke out; that the Union was building two specific ships a bit later; that a specific ship arrived at some location at some specific time and so on), and not a single one of them has a page number or any information more than that, presumably, it is covered somewhere in the 270 or so pages of that book. As far as I can see, the other citations have the same problem. Even a direct quotation such as the one given for R. D. Hill in the "Before the Ironclad" section doesn't have a full citation to support it. In short, article doesn't at all comply with WP:CITE (full citations).
This is now fixed - at least, for the 97% of references where I have access to the source. The Land 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some other issues:
  • References/notes: Some irregularities — one book is cited like an article (quotation marks instead of italics for the title); one ISBN is not linked; if there is a reference section, why are some titles given only in the notes, and not in the references; at least one book cited without year/publisher; citation style in notes uneven (sometimes the author first, sometimes the title)
Think I've fixed this.
  • Not quite - some books are now present both in the notes and in the references section, the Northrop news is only in the notes. You're mostly there - just one more run to make sure that all the cited works are in the reference section, and referred to in some uniform way in the notes (author/pages appears to be the chosen style), and it's done. I'm not going to quibble about style (using the proper kind of dashes, space or not after "p."), but there should be uniformity. Go these last few remaining steps, and I'll withdraw my opposition. --Markus Poessel 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, I think! Everything listed in the notes should now be in the references; and every fn should be in the format, Author, A.N. "Name of Book" p.1-2 The Land 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting more than 15 red links. Some of them look like they can be readily rectified - for instance, why does there need to be a red link for chilled iron if there is a WP article chill (foundry) which presumably would be appropriate here? If there's no article for nickel-steel, is there some useful subsection of steel that could be linked to? If the gas cementing link is red, would it make sense to link to Krupp armour? In short, the article doesn't look like anyone has made a thorough wikification check yet. Also, as far as I'm aware, editors presenting a FAC are encouraged to create stubs in order to keep down the number of red links in the candidate article.
  • Talking of wikification, has anyone checked the non-red links? Why, for instance, does mine point to the disambiguation page instead of the Naval mine page? Why does the link for the seasoning of wood point to the seasoning page that is about food, instead of seasoning (wood)? Why does at least one monitor point to the disambiguation page? Why does the ram point to a disambiguation page, when there appears to be a perfectly good article Naval ram (which even links back to ironclad)?
  • Lead tweaking: "The first ironclad battleship, La Gloire, was launched by the French Navy in 1859,[2] and was quickly followed by Britain and other major navies." — The warship was followed by navies? How about "The first ironclad...was launched...in 1859; Britain's and other major navies quickly followed suit" or something like that?
  • Lead tweaking: "After the first battles with ironclads took place at the 1862 Battle of Hampton Roads of the American Civil War" — singular or plural? Can several battles take place at a single Battle? Or is it more like "After the first fighting/engagements/encounters involving ironclads took place"? (Also, "involving" sounds more suitable than "with", since there wasn't some strictly non-ironclad force doing battle with ironclads.)
  • Two further tweaking issues I noticed while looking through the wiki links: "the British Cowper Coles" should probably be "the British inventor" or "the British Naval officer Cowper Coles". In describing the Japanese Imperial Navy, it would make sense to mention that Kotetsu was re-used CSS Stonewall. Markus Poessel 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead has been written, did as you suggested with Coles. The Stonewall/Kotetsu link is mentioned.

The Land 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some copy-editing still necessary, though: Re-reading once, there's one double punctuation (comma, reference, semicolon), at least one lower-case that should be uppercase, and at least one misspelled word. Apart from that, at least from my point of view, it reads better now. Markus Poessel 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those were the things that I found just randomly scanning the article - so there's definitely no guarantee that, say, I found all the instances of sub-optimal wikification. Markus Poessel 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the wikification, which I will address. Regarding citations, I'd point out that WP:CITE said it rather differently when I nominated the article - [146]. I can address this but it will be a lower priority than the wikification. The Land 12:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE has had this requirement for years, but it did apparently get lost in this revision by User:Christopher Parham and was only restored a few weeks later here. You seem to have had bad luck on timing for your nomination to fall into this specific period of time. Please don't take this issue lightly, though — having incomplete citations is almost as useless as having no inline citations at all, and it makes Wikipedia look very unprofessional — Potemkin encyclopedia articles, if you will. Wikification, as far as it concerns issues like readers having to make two clicks to go to Naval mine instead of a single click, is much less serious by comparison. Markus Poessel 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've sorted the wikification issues. Next, the citations. The Land 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. I expect those issues can be address easily. Don't we have any modern (color) photos of those ships? The article could use at least one. Lead should have no more then four paragraphs, it is also ilink light - terms like 'steel armor plates', 'explosive or incendiary shells' or 'coastal defence ships' - from the first few lines - need to be ilinked. 'There were many types of ironclads' misses citations for the last two types. 'End of the ironclad' could be expanded a little. 'Ironclads today' section needs more references, and transformation of the list into a paragraph.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the photos - ironclads are an under-photographed subject; at one stage I was worried too much use of modern photos would result in having too many photos of HMS Warrior. There is quite a good free image of the Huascar, which I'll include as well. References and other fixes I will attend to but I might need a bit of time to do so. The Land 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am spending some time on this over the weekend, pelase don't close the discussion before then! The Land 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is now shorter and more thoroughly linked. I've added the photo of Huascar. I had a look for decent copyfree photos of either the new Monitor model or the Cairo; and can't find any. The Land 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—well, I will support when it's received a run-through to fix things.
    • Provide metric equivalents.
    • MOS breach: spell out units and hyphenate when a used as a compound adjective: "36 6.4 in" (this may be an instance where MOS allows you to omit a conversion on the grounds of awkwardness). Also, spell out "36", in a rare instance of the need to avoid a clash of digit functions.
    • "Very" is usually very redundant. I can cope with "very long vessel", but not "very successful" straight after.
  • Where's your boundary between digits and spelling out numbers? (nine/10?) I see "sixteen" and "16".
  • There's the awkward U dot S dot and there's US.
  • "Amongst" -> "among": keep it plain.
  • Do not use hyphens as interruptors. See MOS on em dashes.
  • See what MOS thinks of hyphens after LY.

Tony 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will deal with theissues you raise on Sunday. The Land 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the units but nto sure I've got the guns totally right. I'm not helped by the fact that during this period one could classify a gun by the nominal weight of shot, or the calibre, or the nominal weight of the gun. I have attempted to provide a calibre in both metric and imperial for all the guns so readers have some sort of conistent basis for comparison.
Had another look and think I've got it this time. Though exactly when a calibre is used as an adjective and when as a measurement, I don't know. The Land 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABB says that U.S. is preferred to US, so I've standardised on it.
Think I'm there with the numbers and appropriate use of mdashes.
Have de-veried the article (yes, I do seem to overuse it!) and I think you'll be happy with a number of other prose tweaks I've made.
Let me know if you have any more thoughts! The Land 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These minor fixes needed:
  • "It is often held that the power of explosive shells to smash wooden hulls" – sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything
  • "It took until 1881 for the Royal Navy to lay down" - as above
Not heard of that before. It is a perfectly valid English usage to do so. The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with calibre increasing from 8-inch (203 mm) to 16-inch (406 mm)." - the use of "with" as an additive link should be avoided. It's best to use a semicolon instead.
  • "with the French laying down centre-battery ironclads in 1865" - "with" as an additive link
  • "with Britain possessing as many ships as the next two navies combined." - "with" as an additive link
Fixed the latter two of those; I think a semicolon would be clunky in the first instance
  • ly- words need to be fixed per Tony
You're going to have to help me here - I can't see them so you need to point some out to me. The Land 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no clear end to the ironclad period" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
Again, never heard of that before. One might say "There is no such rule". The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were nonetheless real innovations from Russia" - as above
Fixed that. The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens
Will sort eventually. The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while receiving a number of shell hits which bounced off their armor" – the "a number of" is redundant
  • "with a number of innovations like" – the "a number of" is redundant
Done, thanks for pointing that out The Land 16:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were very influential on the designs" – the "very" is redundant
"Very" is not redundant in every case. In this case, I think it's justified.
  • "offered many advantages in terms of the engineering of the hull." – the "many" is redundant
Done The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design, 1870-1881 - the date range needs an en dash instead of a hyphen. Other date ranges in the footnotes also need fixing.
Yes, will get round to it, dash formats in footnotes is not something I can get worked up about. The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Noel, Gerard H U Noel et al" - is the Noel meant to be repeated?
Done The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which weighed 6.5 tons," - is this a long, short or metric ton?
Long, throughout. I've made this clear on the wikilink on first use of the unit.
Fixed thanks. The Land 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules against starting sentences with "there" or "it", but they involve using passive voice, which should be avoided. Epbr123 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take the point but I think it's appropriate in the examples we're discussing. E.g. "It is often held" is better than the vague "Many historians hold" or the excessively long "A long tradition of naval history holds". "It took until 1881" indicates that significant time passed, as opposed to "In 1881". And "There is no clear end" is surely better than "Naval historians agree there is no clear end" or "Naval historians cannot agree".... Unless you have a better idea about how to express these points! The Land 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The power of explosive shells to smash wooden hulls, as demonstrated by the Russian destruction of a Turkish squadron at the Battle of Sinope, is often held to have spelled the end of the wooden-hulled warship."
"The Royal Navy took until 1881 to lay down a long-range armored warship capable of catching enemy commerce raiders, Warspite, which was completed in 1888."
"The ironclad period had no clear end, but towards the end of the 1890s the term ironclad dropped out of use."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.


Henry, Bishop of Uppsala

[edit]

Bishop Henry is a former B level, then GA level and now after peer review from WikiProject Biography and co-operation with WikiProject Saints a probable FA candidate. The article seems to comply with Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Kindly invest your time to review and comment on the candidate. --Drieakko 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as contributer. Very well-referenced and exhaustive article on a figure is often not much more than a footnote in the history books. Pastordavid 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rant Look at how much text is in the footnotes. I am well aware that many FAs have such parenthetical text down there, but it is by far the exception as the vast majority of our articles use footnotes only for citing sources; so I think it does a disservice to the reader. I'm not opposing, but if it were up to me that text would be inline. BenB4 09:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the worthy rant! I inlined many of the notes now and removed a few altogether. Some are still there on a kind of nice-to-know basis, but I'll figure out ways to get them away as well. --Drieakko 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, support, then, if you're going to be that way about it. :) BenB4 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am very satisfied with the current version, as the article has been greatly improved recently. My last concern was fixed when Drieakko improved the notes and references. Still I would create atleast stubs on the articles which appear as red links on this article, as I was requested to do this myself for an article I nominated. Though it doesn't really have much to do with the article itself. Otherwise support for the candidate due to Drieakko's work on a quite hard topic, based on legends. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The number of red links is now halved, mainly by creation of stubs. Managing the rest during the upcoming days. --Drieakko 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. --Drieakko 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Plain difficult and unattractive to read. Can you get a native speaker to smooth it out and make it more engaging? The whole text, not just my examples here from the top.
    • The opening is long, tortuous and uninviting. Who's engaged with the topic after struggling through this: "Bishop Henry, also known as Saint Henry, (pyhä Henrik or piispa Henrik in contemporary Finnish and "Heinärikki" in folk traditions, Biskop Henrik or Sankt Henrik in Swedish, Henricus etc in Latin; d. allegedly 20 January circa 1150[1]) was the name of one or more legendary medieval clergymen in Sweden and Finland."
    • And then there's no need for the next phrase, since we know it's legendary: "According to legends, Henry was a contemporary of King Eric the Saint of Sweden and died as a martyr in Finland. The historicity of the accounts of Henry's life, ministry, and death have been widely disputed." Try "authenticity" rather than the ugly "historicity".
    • "tremendously"—unencyclopedic (it's rather attitudinal and puffy).
    • I hate the way the infobox crowds the text. It's like reading a short-column newspaper. Can you remove the infoblot or narrow it? "Allegedly" is not the right word. Tony 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I cleaned up the lead as you suggested. For the infobox, it is the standard saint infobox in Wikipedia, crowding the text like the infoboxes do elsewhere as well. The subject itself is not attractive in general, and never will. It is for someone interested in medieval saint veneration and early phases of the Finnish church, hardly especially engaging to many people. --Drieakko 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the native copyedit, that has prior to the nomination been done by a native person from US. I am myself not a native speaker, so I am blind to certain issues regarding the fluentness of the text. However, please note that there is next to nothing available in English about Bishop Henry, and this is definitely the most complete ever presentation of him in English. In the lack of English sources, the whole thing is more or less bult from the ground up for Wikipedia. --Drieakko 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is improved from what Tony posted above, but I still think it could be better. It noticeably lacks any specifics as to why he's important, other than saying he's a legandary clergyman. Raul654 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I improved the preface further, hopefully getting the essential covered now. --Drieakko 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is most commonly referred to as "Saint Henry" in English language media, which is also the direct translation of his usual Finnish and Swedish names. However, as his position as a Catholic saint is rather unclear, the current heading is just neutrally "Bishop Henry". If more "Bishop Henrys" are to appear in Wikipedia, naturally rethinking the heading is required. --Drieakko 18:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Henry I, Bishop of Augsburg, the first of several found by search (also Frederick Henry (bishop) who is of course called Bishop Henry). This is our usual way of dealing with Catholic saints with a common name, like Augustine of Hippo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop Henry of Uppsala could be the most suitable new name for the article. The current "Bishop Henry" has been the name of the article since 2003, I think (revision) --Drieakko 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per article's talk page, "Henry, Bishop of Uppsala" has been shown to be the correct new name for the article. The move is proposed be done as the FA review has drawn to its conclusion, unless reviewers regard that best right away. --Drieakko 06:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Conquering Finland together with King Eric the Saint of Sweden and dying there later as a martyr"—Later? How could you die earlier? This makes WP look foolish on its main page.
    • So where's your boundary between digits and spelt-out numbers? I see "eleven" and "12th".
    • "(1286-1289)". Breaches MOS. See en dashes.
    • "The intense war period between Novgorod and Sweden"—"War period" is not idiomatic. "Period of war", or just "war"?
    • "Very" is usually "very" redundant.
    • Don't use contractions ("wasn't"). Have you read the MOS?
    • "to receive widespread acceptance"—no, "gain".
    • "Reality is known to have been quite different"—"THE reality was quite different".

If you've had a copy-editor go through it, s/he missed a lot. Please have it polished so you can be proud of it. These are just isolated examples. But congrats on improving it (a little). Tony 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out more to polish. Actions taken:
  • Fixed the "later" in the lead.
  • Digits are used for centuries regardless of the century, as WP:DATE seems to prefer. The "eleven" indicating the number of miracles is spellt out since using "11" would look a bit lonely. Is this acceptable?
  • En dashes fixed.
  • Fixed the "war period", "very"s, the one contraction and "receive" with "gain".
  • Fixed the sentence about reality.
Unfortunately I have no copy-editors in my disposal unless some member of the community wants to take the task of further polishing the text, if that is still needed. --Drieakko 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is not known, if this was just a conclusion by the writer himself" – sentences shouldn't start with "it" when the "it" doesn't stand for anything. "not" shouldn't be used when easily avoidable. The comma is unnecessary.
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
  • "In far more reliable sources, some Henry is mentioned as" - "some"
  • "That would make the claim about him coming to Finland together with King Eric a late innovation" - the "together" is redundant
  • "presumably meaning that all of the bones" – the "of" is redundant
  • "There is no mention of his burial in Finland." – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
  • "There is no sign in sources of a popular assumption" - "there"
  • "There is no pity for Lalli" - "there"
  • "There is some dispute if the translation took place" - "there"
  • "it is not known if the bishop operated" - "not"
  • "several papal letters have survived" – the "several" is redundant
  • "Valerius (1207-1219/1224)" - en dash needed in date range
  • "a 25-30 year gap before Thomas" - en dash needed
  • Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked. Epbr123 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Comments:
  • Fixed all grammar ("there", "it", "not", "of", "several", "some", "together") issues that you raised.
  • Fixed en dashes that had escaped my earlier check.
  • Removed several image size definitions, however keeping a few for layout reasons, where the image should be clearly bigger or smaller than the default 180px.
  • I did not fully understand the remark about the date link. The few dates in the article that have a link, contain both the day and the month. Can you be more specific? --Drieakko 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Years on their own shouldn't be linked.
  • "were still in place in 1720"
  • "were translated to Turku in 1300".
Also, the em dashes need to be unspaced, eg. "his bones — were translated"→"his bones—were translated". Epbr123 23:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unspaced em dashes and removed links from years. --Drieakko 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.


Saturn

[edit]

Self-Nomination: I have been working on this article for a couple of weeks now, and I think that it is ready for FA status. Most of the concerns raised at a Peer Review were taken care of. Furthermore, I believe that it follows all of the Manuals of Style. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support - looks nice at first glance. Will add some notes on a further look:

Wind speeds on Saturn can reach 1,800 km/h, (which is) significantly faster than those on Jupiter.
Saturn has a planetary magnetic field (that is) intermediate in strength between that of Earth and the more powerful field around Jupiter.

Both bracketed bits can be removed as redundant - the sentences flow better without.

Saturn has been known since prehistoric times - this sentence reduplicates info in the Ancient times and observation subsection and could be removed

In Physical characteristics it compares Jupiter's mass to Saturn but saturn's isn't mentioned (in terms of earth multiples).

Relative to the abundance of the elements in the Sun, the atmosphere of Saturn is significantly deficient in helium. - flip the clauses, then you can lose the comma and it flows better
average close to one kilometer in thickness - "around" or "almost" sound better than "close to"
Saturn's rings were not known to be existent.. - "Saturn's rings were unknown.." or "not known to exist"
Could probably leave out mention of hydrocarbon lakes on titan as it doesn't pertain directly to saturn.
The stubby section In various cultures WRT names etc should somehow be merged into a name section - maybe History and Naming. Furthermore there is no mention in the main text of what is touched on WRT its name in the lead. Granted it is hard to expand but still everything in the lead should be in the main article.
  •  Not done Well, that section is not about the etymology of Saturn and about how it was originally named but rather about how ancient/modern foreign astronomies related to myths and cultures put Saturn. I am not sure how that can be merged with the "History" section. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it would be that all the names have some mythological significance, and so this fits in well with Ancient times and observation - in fact you could place the material after sentence two. The info about the rings is distinct enough to warrant a separate paragraph which you couldn't do as is as it would leave the first 2 sentences very stubby. Ancient knowledge of planets was tied up with mythology - but this isn't reflected in the article - that's why advocated a name change then it is nice and chonological - ancient --> modern. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I agree with RJH about the lightning, ratios with Jupiter's orbit, and other points he raised.

Overall, though, a good read and very nearly there. This one shapes up better prose-wise than Mars did on first read-through when it got to FAC. Good job and the end is within sight. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intensely dislike having my comments green-marked, because they clutter the FAC and obscure reviewers' comments; my comments should be considered addressed when I strike them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I do it all the time..but have a look at Circeus' neat trick here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried it once, don't like it. As soon as "we" start hiding our addressed comments, someone else will start hiding them as well, and they may not be addressed. I don't want to have to come back to every FAC to see if someone else hid my comments, any more than I want to come back to a FAC to see if someone erroneously checked my comments as "done" when they may not be. We need to get this to stop; it's cluttering FACs and obscuring what is truly "done" according to the reviewer. The instructions are clear; reviewers strike comments when they are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find the "Done" and "Not done" templates to be the best form of replying in article reviews. If not, then what were they created for originally anyways? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my Oppose here below, top is cluttered. These are samples only; please do not check them "done" and consider my object resolved. These items need to be addressed throughout:

  • A good deal of text is cited to Bernd Onasch's homepage (self-published)? Who is he, what makes him a reliable source, and can't this data be cited to another source? Further, it's a German language website, so I can't determine who he is. I'm surprised that info can't be found on a reliable English-language source for a major planet.
  • No publisher identified, no idea who this is or what makes it a reliable source. Saturn's Known Satellites. Retrieved on May 23, 2007.
  • Who is Robin, and what makes http://www.eternalsailormoon.org/ reliable? Sailormoon Terms and Information. Robin (1996). Retrieved on July 5, 2007.
  • What makes http://www.crystalinks.com/ reliable?
  • No publisher identified, don't know what makes it reliable. Hamilton, Calvin (1997). Voyager Saturn Science Summary. Retrieved on July 5, 2007.
  • Ditto. Arnett, Bill (May 11, 2005). Saturn. Retrieved on July 15, 2007.
  • A Yahoo, Geocities personal website? Kepler's Law and the Mass of Jupiter. Yahoo! Geocites. Retrieved on July 15, 2007.
  • On the other hand, this source has a publisher identified, an unformatted publication date, but at least I can determine it's a reliable source:
    • Munsell, Kirk (2005-04-06). The Story of Saturn. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; California Institute of Technology. Retrieved on July 7, 2007.

That is my review of the first ten sources used only. This is a planet; there must be reliable hard-print sources. Why are we relying on personal websites? Please review all sources for reliability and complete all information on sources, including the publisher, which will reveal personal websites.

  • I was not able to verify any of this text to the source given. The source has multiple pages, so perhaps I scrolled through them incorrectly. Please provide a direct citation that allows me to verify each piece of this paragraph. For a scientific article, the level and reliability of sourcing should be high; this should not be a difficult topic to source correctly. (For example, Io (moon) just passed FAC, and it seems to be sourced almost exclusively to scientific journals.)
    • Saturn is the most distant of the five planets easily visible to the naked eye, the other four being Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter (Uranus is visible to the naked eye in very dark skies), and was the last planet known to early astronomers until Uranus was discovered in 1781. Saturn appears to the naked eye in the night sky as a bright, yellowish star varying usually between magnitude +1 and 0 and takes approximately 29½ years to make a complete circuit of the ecliptic against the background constellations of the zodiac. Optical aid (large binoculars or a telescope) magnifying at least 20X is required to clearly resolve Saturn's rings for most people.[23]
  • There is still uncited text throughout.
  • My units, dash, mixed refs, MOSNUM, and external link concerns appear to be addressed, except that I'm not sure you've used the correct symbol for a negative sign (see WP:MOSNUM; it shouldn't be a hyphen.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reply to all of these would be the following: Why does a publisher need to be there in order to make it a reliable source? WP:SPS says that self-published sources may be used in some cases. For the Geocites website, it clearly states where the data would obtain from; so, I would think that it is acceptable. Yes, the Sailormoon website is bad; I will try to find a better source instead of it. Other than that, I think that all sources are fine. For example, look at other FA's. Many do not even list the author or the access-dates. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, most (I would assume 90%) of the references in the article are from respectable sources (journals, BBC, American Astronomical Society, NASA, etc.). The small amount of the rest that are not can come under the "exceptions" category as per WP:SPS. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, supplying the publisher doesn't make a source reliable; it makes it apparent when reliable sources aren't used, and lets Wiki readers know when quality sources are used. Often missing publishers are a tip-off that personal websites or blogs were used as sources; when quality sourcing is used, most editors are pleased to have that show. Here's what WP:SPS says:
        • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
      • In the case of a planet, it's doubtful this information can't be found in a reliable source, and there should be no need to rely on personal websites. See the sourcing at Io (moon) as an example. Further, you haven't answered my question about who these people are even if we are to consider them published experts in the field. A major planet article can be sourced to scientific journals. By the way, thank you for not cluttering this discussion with graphics; I find it much easier to read and respond, and it will be easier to strike my concerns when they're addressed, which is the goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still uncited text throughout.
    • Most, if not all, of it can be easily verified by any of the two books given separately in the "References" section or by the links in the "External Links" section. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How about citing specific pages of those books inline to make it easier for people checking out the books to verify your statements (should they want to).--Rmky87 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:SOURCE says the following: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (Bold emphasis already there). In other words, not every single statement in an article needs a direct citation but can be verified by general reference sources. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Well done, but I see little glitches at random, such as:[reply]
    • No imperial equivalent for at least one unit instance.
    • Upper-case letter after colon in a caption.
    • Can you use "that is", or something like it, instead of double parnetheses? "(120,536 kilometres (74,897.6 mi) vs. 108,728 kilometres (67,560.4 mi))". Read MOS on equivalent precision in conversions of units/values: you round up the decimal place?
    • Infobox: read MOS on spacing around common mathematical symbols such as > and ×.
    • "Saturn's winds are among the Solar System's fastest." Better: "fastest in the ...".

So I think it needs a quick but close run-through by an unfamiliar copy-editor.

Now, having been nice, I'm going to be critical of the mess you've made this page: strike-throughs, gaudy colours and ... your HUGE signature, which I find objectionable and obstructive. How about toning it down? Tony 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small note: if Universe=Atom would remove the 120% font size from his sig, and not chop up reviewers' comments with done checkmarks, the FAC would be much more readable, it would be easier for reviewers to strike comments when they're done, and easier for Raul to determine when the article can be promoted. Just an idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the mess. I will try to be more careful next time. I have started crossing out "done" comments instead of the green checkmarks. I have toned down my signature. I hope that it is better. (BTW, it was already toned down before from even another much larger one: as seen here.) Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better; thank you so much :-) Tony is satisfied on the prose; if you're able to replace some of the sources, I'll strike my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC) PS, Universe, take care not to strike someone else's comments. It would be most helpful if you would just indicate at the end (so as not to chop up comments) that you've addressed those items. Reviewers should strike their own comments; when you chop up their comments, it's harder to strike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to Tony: Before you had written your comment, I had not struck out anyone's comments. The strike-outs that you saw before writing your comment were performed by the users whose comments they were. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.


ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

[edit]

Thanks to a helpful review from the Video Games Wikiproject, useful comments from visitors to the talk page, and helpful comments from an early good article nomination I am ready to submit the ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for featured article candidacy. I have rendered several quotations into summary prose, following the recommendations of that first CVG peer review, added images and split the lede following the GA nomination's recommendations, and improved the glosses for Snow and Bully following the comments of an Anon on the talk page. I will be glad to receive any further stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. If this article is not up to par right now, I should hope it to be by the end of this nomination! Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a few comments that I noticed. Per WP:MOS#Images, there should be a right-aligned image at the start of the article, though it might be difficult with the subject matter. The section "retailer response" begins with "Later in the day", though it has no context. Publisher response begins similarly, with "Bethesda issued a response before the evening fell" being quite awkward. Also, references to Hot Coffee should not be called a debacle, as that sounds slightly POV-ish. It would be fine calling it a controversy, as that's what's in the title, though I would like to see a link to GTA:San Andreas prior to that. Contractions in the article (wouldn't, they'd) should be avoided. There seem to be a high ratio of quotes to prose, though given the fairly narrow scope of the article I think it is a good balance. I'm giving it a weak oppose, though with some minor fixes I'll gladly change it to a support. Good job with the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I believe I have addressed everything that you have mentioned (I have moved the topless image to the top of the article, cleaned up the intro sentences on the sections you have mentioned, changed instances of "debacle" to "controversy", introduced an earlier link to HCMC, and removed contractions in the article's unquoted prose.) Thanks again! Geuiwogbil 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Honestly, I'm impressed that you were able to make such a lengthy article on this narrow topic at all. It meets the criteria, and I doubt that much more could be included.--Danaman5 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The second paragraph of the "Publisher response" section is full of original research. I don't see any sources that state a direct relationship between the re-rating and financial losses. The Washington Post article has a quote from a person unrelated to the publisher who said, "pulling games and re-stickering them is an expensive process." The aforementioned paragraph uses this reference to source the following statement: "The rating controversy damaged Take-Two financially; the process of pulling the games from shelves and re-stickering them alone was expensive, far worse was the decline in Take-Two shares." Obviously the Post article does not back this up. It then goes on about the decline in Take-Two's shares, while no sources support the implied relationship between the re-rating and the decline, nor do they link the re-rating to future actions taken by Take-Two. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. --- RockMFR 03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get to work on that. I was misled by a CNN Money article, which, in retrospect, refered to the other re-rating. "Take Two was rightly criticized for the Hot Coffee debacle - and, in all honesty, probably got off easier than it should have. The long-term affect on the stock, though, was notable. Take Two (Research) shares closed at $27.07 the day of the ESRB re-rating. They're fallen nearly 40 percent since then." Geuiwogbil 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut the paragraph. It seems I misread the article; the shares did not drop 40% since the second re-rating. They dropped 40% since the first re-rating. The rest is, as you say, Original Research. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
  1. ^ Renewable energy... into the mainstream p. 9.
  2. ^ International Energy Agency (2007). Renewables in global energy supply: An IEA facts sheet, OECD, p. 3.
  3. ^ Maryland State Resolution on the role played by Hispanics in the achievement of American independence. Las Culturas March 16, 1996. Retrieved on August 4, 2007.
  4. ^ "World War II By The Numbers". National World War II Museum. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
  5. ^ Stetson Conn; Rose C. Engelman; Byron Fairchild (1961). "The Caribbean in Wartime". U.S. Army in World War II: Guarding the United States and Its Outposts. Center of Military History, United States Army. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Bellafaire, Judith. The Contributions of Hispanic Servicewomen. Women In Military Service For America Memorial Foundation, Inc. Retrieved July 10, 2007.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Timeline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Reagan's mixed White House legacy". BBC. 2004. Retrieved 2007-08-19.
  9. ^ "The Iran Contra scandal". CNN. 2001. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
  10. ^ Parry, Robert (2004-06-02). "NYT's apologies miss the point". consortiumnews.com. Retrieved 2007-04-01.
  11. ^ Jackson, Robert L (March 24, 1990). "Witness Says Poindexter Did Not Hide Missile Deal Iran-Contra: But CIA official testifies former White House aide omitted facts during briefing of lawmakers". Los Angeles Times.
  12. ^ Morrison, Fred L. (January 1987). "Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion". American Journal of International Law. 81: 160–166.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  13. ^ "Managua wants $1B from US; demand would follow word court ruling". Associated Press. Boston Globe. June 29, 1986. In addition to its finding that US aid to rebels seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan government was illegal, the court ruled that Nicaragua was entitled to reparations...The United States has assisted the victims' response to Nicaragua's intervention."
  14. ^ "Reagan's mixed White House legacy". BBC. 2004. Retrieved 2007-08-19.
  15. ^ "U.S. historians pick top 10 presidential errors". Associated Press. ctv.ca. February 18, 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-09.
  16. ^ a b Sullivan, Kevin and Mary Jordan (June 10, 2004). "In Central America, Reagan Remains A Polarizing Figure". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-18.
  17. ^ Appleby, Joyce (2003), p. 924
  18. ^ Beschloss, Michael (2007), p. 324
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cannon128 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Richard Reeves. "President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination". Richard Reeves (richardreeves.com). Retrieved 2007-04-21.
  21. ^ .
  22. ^ .
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference NMM Saturn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2007&oldid=983716439"