Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2008

[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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Hell Is Other Robots

[edit]

Hell Is Other Robots has gone through some reworking since November 2007, when it had its first GA review, which brought up some good points, all of which were addressed and the article was listed as a WP:GA the second time around. It then had a Peer Review, and a month ago it was kept as a WP:GA, as part of GA Sweeps. I'd also like to acknowledge Stardust8212 (talk · contribs), who has put a good deal of work into the article as well. I believe it is of a high-quality and should be considered for FA status. I will do my best to address any points that come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think that this article is good enough to reach this rank. I did make a minor edit with the grammar in the introduction, but apart from the this article appears to be fine. ISD (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image query I believe that at FA quality, if you want to use a fair-use image, you need to specifically need that image, ie the text includes detailed reference to something which the image clarifies, eg the Robot Devil's appearance is described. If I sound vague, it's because I am (!) so I'll solicit expert advice on this. Incidentally, the article is very sparsely illustrated (that's the only one). I'm sure there are some appropriate free use images somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I added a free-use image to the article, I'll see if there are any other relevant free-use images that could be added. Perhaps we could try to get a different fair-use image to use in the top of the article, I'll look into that as well. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can get the fair use image later tonight, are there any sections of the text which you think would be specifically improved by an image? I'm open to suggestions. Stardust8212 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks so much for offering to do this. We could probably have 3 images in the article if they are relevant and discussed/analyzed portions of the episode, and still be fair use if detailed rationales are given. Scenes that might be nice would be Bender with Reverend Lionel Preacherbot and the symbol for Robotology, Bender awakening to see the Robot Devil in Robot Hell, and the Fiddle battle. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I had to rewrite one sentence, but the article is otherwise very good. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose Support, my concerns have been addressed, thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fair use image in the infobox doesn't have a properly filled-out rationale. The "portion used" is not "all" - that would be you used the whole episode. It should be "one frame" or similar.
    • The lead seems a little weakly written. I think you could sum up the plot in better prose.
    • "After a Beastie Boys concert Bender attends a party with his old friend, Fender, where he develops an electricity addiction." That seems to jump through a lot of action with one sentence. How does he develop an electricity addiction?
    • The Plot section doesn't meet criterion 1a. Please get someone to copyedit/rewrite.
    • "in order to" is a bad phrase.. you just need "to" in most cases.
    • "David X. Cohen and Ken Keeler traveled to New York in order to work with the Beastie Boys but after three days of waiting they gave up and returned to the studios." This sentence doesn't really explain what happened. Who gave up? Cohen and Keeler? The Beastie Boys? Why?
      • Done, I think the new wording clarifies this though Cohen never states why they needed to return to LA so I can't really answer the why portion (I suspect it was because they had a show to make :-P) Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did the Beastie Boys refuse to perform "Fight For Your Right"?
      • Not done, no reason is given, the conversation is simply "Can I tell the Fight for your right story" "What story?" "They didn't want to do it" "That's a good one". I wish there was more so I could answer this question. Stardust8212 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about adding a sentence like, "The Beastie Boys' reason for declining to perform the song was not made public." or similar? That would at least satisfy the reader that the reason is unknown. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed it to "It was initially requested that they perform "Fight for Your Right" but they did not want to perform that particular song." which I think summarizes pretty much everything we know about that particular point. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Production section is a mish-mash of talking about music and character development without any clear organization. The first paragraph talks about the Beastie Boys but leaves out a lot of information. The first sentence of the second paragraph talks about music but... What was the song's name? Why did they decide to write an original song? Then we skip to character development in the same para.
      • done...mostly I reorganized it somewhat, it probably needs a copy edit though (Qst? Cirt?) I couldn't answer all your questions from the resources available but I think the organization of information makes slightly more sense now. Stardust8212 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, it looks much better. I changed to Support, although I really would like to know more information on this particular point, the song name at the very least. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In an old version (a year ago) before I removed the song lyrics it was referred to only as "Robot Hell", I'm not sure that's official though, I'll see if I can find anything else referring to it but I'm not optimistic. Stardust8212 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This episode is one of very few which focus on the religious aspects of the Futurama universe." Grammar.
    • "In most episodes it is indicated that the Planet Express crew..." Grammar.
    • Lots of uses of the word "which" when it should be "that".
    • Use of the word "riff" is possibly colloquial - suggest better word. I have never heard this word used to mean "spoof" which I presume you meant.
    • "'Hell is Other Robots' is a terrific introduction to Bender and Futurama's irreverent humor, sly social satire, and damn catchy musical numbers". Check punctuation - if the period is part of the quote, it should be inside the end quote.
    • I caught at least one hyphen that should be an em dash, please check.
    • Footnote 16 is formatted wrong - it reads "pp" and then "Page 9" --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to last comment

I will work on addressing all of the above points (unless someone else gets to them first) and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a bit of copyediting to the article now, and possibly some minor rewrite. Qst 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is currently making some edits to the article, and is providing some suggestions/helpful comments in the edit summaries as to how to improve the article further w/ some minor fixes. If no one else gets to addressing these points from the edit summaries first, I will do my best to make these corrections soon, and note it here. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: missing publishers on sources (example, Gord Lacey (May 11, 2005). Futurama - Do the Robot Dance!. Retrieved on June 26, 2007.), endash corrections needed on page ranges in sources (you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script that fixes them), inconsistent wikilinking of dates in sources (example, are dates linked or not? Lane, Joshua. "Futurama: Monster Robot Maniac Fun", AnimatedBliss.com, Joshua Lane & AnimatedBliss.com, February 7, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007. and Staff. "This week in DVDs: Also New This Week", Eye Weekly, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited., August 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 7, 2007.) and WP:MOS#Captions attention needed to difference between punctuation on full sentences and sentence fragments. Pls review WP:OVERLINKing, and empty parameters in the cite templates unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make the text harder to edit. A serious review of WP:MOSDATE regarding consistency in raw formatted dates in citations needed (hint, look at the article when logged out to see if date formatting is consistent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for providing these detailed suggestions here. I will do my best to address all of these above points, some of which I have already begun to address. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will also assist in the addressing of these points. Qst (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As per suggestion from SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), I asked Brighterorange (talk · contribs) for help w/ dashes. See response. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I ran it yesterday. ;-) Maxim(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is pp (plural) used on single page numbers in the citations? There is still inconsistent date formatting in the citations; for example, at times, the last access date is linked but the publication date is not. Please be consistent, sample:
  1. Answer to latest question - The "pp" is used for single page numbers because that is what is generated using {{Cite news}}. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you would use page instead of pages. I completed the ref cleanup and made page nos. consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Sandy, I did not realize that {{Cite news}} had a parameter for that. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. - I wikilinked the unlinked full dates from the cites as per WP:MOSDATE and from suggestion by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Tarbosaurus

[edit]

Self-nom as I wrote most of the article with assistance from my compatriots at WP:DINO. Tarbosaurus is another tyrannosaurid genus article to go along with the already-featured Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus and of course the King himself, Tyrannosaurus. While less has been published on this Asian genus than the North American ones (typical), it is still very well-known from fossil material. Currently this is the 22nd longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia and the 16th longest article on a single dinosaur genus. I believe that it is very comprehensive and well-sourced, with appropriate images and diagrams and no redlinks. I hope that the reviewers find the prose worthy of its subject. Thank you! Sheep81 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The article has just been copyedited by the aptly-named User:Finetooth from the League of Copyeditors, significantly improving the prose in my opinion. Sheep81 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Sheep81 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim! Sheep81 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection I believe the writing could improve significantly.
    In the lead: "Even if the two are not synonymous, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera." - I have personal dislike for this kind of sentence, introductory ___, and would like to know why. Here's how I prefer it: "Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera." - Is this a controversial change?
    "Over the years, other Chinese localities have produced tyrannosaurid teeth and fragmentary remains, several of which have been given names." I believe could be improved to "Tyrannosaurid teeth and fragmentary remains have [later?] been found in other locations within China, and have been classified as [new genera?]"
    I don't believe prefrontal bone should be linked - and rather that frontal bone is a compound - frontal and bone, and that pre frontal (bone) means behind the frontal (bone.
    --Kiyarrllston 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking over the article. We'll go through it and try to improve the prose, and I've also got a request in for the League of Copyeditors. As far as your last point, I'm a little confused about what exactly you mean, but if you are trying to suggest that there is no prefrontal bone, that is incorrect. The prefrontal is a separate bone in reptile skulls (probably other kinds of herps too). It's very small in tyrannosaurids but still separate. Thanks for finding that redlink by the way, I thought I got them all! Sheep81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a short stub on the prefrontal bone so there is that at least. Sheep81 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading my comments, I hope they were helpful.
I noticed, finally that synonymous links to synonymous (taxonomy) - I believe a better place for that link would be under the heading "possible synonymns"
and just now I noticed that "even though they are not synonymous" is an introduction, not to that sentence, but to that entire paragraph - I suggest "Tarbosaurus as a term is closely related and even synonymous to many other terms" - as a more suitable way to begin that paragraph
--Kiyarrllston 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh -wiktionary:sheepish and I didn't know that about prefrontal bone, read that too :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarf Kirlston (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support. I don't know much about Tarbosaurus, but some sources indicate that Albertosaurus periculosus is possibly a junior synonym of Tarbosaurus, so this should probably be discussed in the synonomy section (it is not currently discussed anywhere in this article, and is not present in the taxobox synonomy section). I've done a bit of copyediting on this article, and I think it's FA worthy (of reasonable length, free of errors, well-sourced, etc). Finally, please do not do as suggested above and change the wording of "Even if the two are not synonymous, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are considered closely related genera," to "Tarbosaurus as a term is closely related and even synonymous to many other terms," which misses the point about the animal being closely related (possibly even the same animal) as another dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Even if they are not synonymous is supposed to be a suggestion that they might be? - so "Tarbosaurus is a synonymn of other taxonomic terms." I think would be proper. Continuing with "It is notably closely related to Tyranosaurus but not a synonymn."--Kiyarrllston 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [PS: or "and possibly synonymous"] --Kiyarrllston 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved that clause to the end of the sentence, hopefully it reads better while conveying the same meaning. Sheep81 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added periculosis to the synonymy section. It's in Holtz 2004 so I don't even need to add another reference. Not adding it to the taxobox since Albertosaurus is definitely not a synonym of Tarbosaurus. Sheep81 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sole concern (about A. periculosis) has been addressed. No further observations here. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support as a member of WP:DINO and a very very minor contributor. It's comparable to other recent dinosaur FAs, no flags are going up, and if there's something reasonable that needs addressing, I know it'll get done. J. Spencer (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding linking - agree about first 3 mentioned. I think force is more valuable in this case as it has more of a specific and scientific connection. I'll look further and I am sure Sheepy will too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samples only, will leave it to your better judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The periods in the captions were added just last night, when we were asleep. They've been re-removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'll teach you to sleep :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahaha! Well, we've learned our lesson now: we'll sleep in shifts! ;) I've fixed the dead links. Paleo Graveyard just recently went off-line, so we were caught off-guard by that. The link to BioOne works when you click it, but shows up as a dead link in the Dispenser tool. Advice as to how to proceed is welcome. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The linkie-checkie tool is only a tool; it helps, but has issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! There's still a dead link. I will fix it this afternoon, but don't have time now (RL issues). Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on the Carpenter link and it works fine, even though the tool says it doesn't. It links to Carpenter's PDF archive rather than directly to the paper though. Sheep81 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, Sandy. And thanks for implementing them, guys. I re-added the link to fossil cause a lot of people don't know what fossils actually are (and aren't)... seems like a different situation than the other examples Sandy listed. Sheep81 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The other links are good I feel. The article is denser than many that pass through here with terms that benefit from a bluelink, due to its technical nature. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur! Sheep81 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Kit (association football)

[edit]

Self nomination - I only discovered this article just over a week ago and was surprised to find out poor it was. I spent last week working on it and it's now approximately ten times longer and, I feel, now up to FA standard.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man

Hey Chris, I know I just commented at the PR but some more things you could consider...!

  • "Kit...is the standard equipment and attire worn..." and then "...specify the minimum equipment which a player..." - possibly you need to replace the "equipment" in the second sentence with "kit"?
Done
  • "numbers 1–11" - I know what this means but with my non-expert hat on, perhaps expand a touch so "numbers from 1 to 11, corresponding to..."...?
Done
  • Not overwhelmed by the lead image. I think it'd be a bit better to show a typical footballer perhaps so you have shirt, shorts, socks, boots as a minimum rather than just the jersey? Perhaps swap with the Stevie G image?
Done
  • "it is not unknown, especially at international level, for teams to opt to wear their away kit even when not required to by a clash of colours, or to wear it at home." - any chance of an example, say England's recent penchant for playing in red at Wembley a la 1966?
Done
  • "Depending on local rules, there may be restrictions on how large the logo may be or on what logos may be displayed.[9] A player's number is usually printed on the back of the shirt, although international teams often also print numbers on the front.[10] Professional teams generally use a squad number system and also print a player's surname above his number.[11] Competitions such as the Premier League may also require players to wear patches on their sleeves depicting the logo of the competition.[12]" - a number of short sentences, consider improving the flow of this section.
Done
Done
  • Perhaps expand a bit on exactly why United changed at half time - I seem to recall they were 3-0 down at half-time and "won the second half" 1-0 in their traditional red?
Done - I haven't specified it in the article, as I don't feel it's especially important and the source doesn't say anyway, but didn't they switch to blue for the second half? They couldn't have switched to red given that they were playing Southampton.......

It's an excellent article. Let me know when you've looked at these comments... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever for your comments, I've addressed them all now, I think.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Stuff what I said weren't right is now. Innit. Great work as always, a pleasure to work with you Chris, keep churning these FA's out and keep involving the community. It's great to be a part of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Woody
  • Comments In basic equipment, could you not reword the first sentence a little bit to get rid of the large parentheses.
  • "which does not retain the sweat and body heat which would be trapped by a shirt made of a natural fibre." Could this not be reworded?
Done, I think
  • "used in the olden days" Bit colloquial isn't it?
Done, I think
  • For the refs match kits, I remember a game at Villa where the referee was forced to weat a white jumper at half time because he was indistinguishable from the players. It was David Elleray, I believe. Something that could be mentioned in reference to conventions. (If you think so of course)
I'll see if I can find a source for this. I used to have David Elleray's book, in which he discussed either this incident or a very similar one, but unfortunately I gave it away.....
Done - found a source and added it in
  • "Blackburn Rovers, for example, adopted halved shirts based on those of the team for former pupils of Malvern College, one of the schools where the sport had developed, but in light blue and white as these were the colours of Cambridge University, where a number of the club's founders had been educated." This is a very long sentence, a reword perhaps?
Done, I think
  • "Two years later Argentina's Club Atlético Independiente chose their red shirts after watching Nottingham Forest play" :Who chose exactly, the cub directors?
the source doesn't say specifically. Is it especially important who made the actual decision......?
Thanks for your comments! ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again sorry for not seeing this at PR. One omission springs to mind re:sponsorship, particularly national sides not having sponsorship and also was it Barca who have refused to have sponsors logo destroy their famous shirts? Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bilbao too, right? indopug (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through and removed what I perceived to be the most glaring Anglocentrisms (is that the correct word? is it even a word at all? :-) ), I'll address the other points you raised shortly..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS That'll teach me for rushing it to FAC ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think/hope I've now addressed all the comments raised above and on the talk page with the exception of national teams not having sponsored shirts - I haven't as yet found a source that discusses this concept..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part support I really like it. It's got some great images to support the work, well referenced, and well-written. I just think there will always be some omissions. Whether they're so trivial that they don't need including, I'm not sure. Some examples would include:
  • Support all issues addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Peanut4
    • Lack of sponsors' logos on international shirts (I've already mentioned this above)
      • As mentioned above, I can't find a source that discusses this, I will keep looking though.......
    • Leeds' famous / stupid (delete as applicable) tags on the socks to throw to the crowd after games.
    • Leeds copying Madrid's colours. (Though some other examples of copying already there - I just thought an English club copying a foreign one would add some balance)
      • Will look for a source to confirm this then whack it in...
        • Done - found a source and added it in
    • International team colours largely following national colour
      • Ditto
        • Done - found a source and added it in
    • Banned articles including the wristbands, which became such a fad almost every kid was wearing up to three
      • What wristbands were those? I seem to have missed that fad......
        • Probably trivial then. I meant the ones that Lance Armstrong started (Livestrong). I know many refs asked players to take them off and some FAs banned them because of broken fingers. I expect it's probably best to leave out. Peanut4 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controversy about how often some teams (e.g. Man U; but certainly a big bone of contention in England) changed their shirts
      • Will look for a source to confirm this then whack it in...
        • Done - added it in
    • Goalkeepers shirts becoming more outrageous and garish. Particularly Jorge Campos who designed his own for the 94 (?) World Cup
      • Again, I think that's pretty trivial. The garish nature of 1990s shirts is already discussed.....
There might be more, and some (even all!) may not be worthy of inclusion. But overall it's a great piece of work. Peanut4 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments! ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Lisa del Giocondo

[edit]

Biographies of Lisa are few are far between though shelf-miles or kilometres may have been written about Mona Lisa. 16k is here now—and yes it is scary to nominate an article this short—steering clear of borrowing too much from the most-cited sources, and steering clear of the painting. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and reading. Hope the strike is the way to go. A number of things have been corrected. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining, but others might. It's best to let the editor strike his/her own comments when (s)he's satisfied. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a really strong oppose, but I think it's rather short for a FA and it is definitely a topic that can be improved upon, for example the "Later Life" section. It is very well sourced but the writing certainly could use improvement, the last paragraph of the lead is mildly confusing and the prose in general could use some tuning up. With some minor improvements, I think it will eventually make it.--The Dominator (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough. Later life (for which, so far, I found almost nothing trustworthy online including scanned books) has been rolled into one biographical section rather than two sections. Added a paragraph about the painting: not about aethetics or legacy but about Lisa's physical part in it. Also added a paragraph about her parents which ought to have and missed that ibeen there before. If those additions would change your vote, I could request help with writing at the league of copyeditors. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of copyedits are done (some in strike markup above), and images and text have been added. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and my fault for muddling this last night. The lead has been reworked. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thanks for taking a look. GA review requested more images. Florence is the only image so far that is unrelated to the Mona Lisa artwork. While a picture a kilometre (.5 miles or so) away of a place she and Francesco lived would be an improvement, for now I like that it relates to Lisa and her families' lives and the "real world". Do you or anyone else here think it should come out? P.S. Her childhood home and her father's second home were both maybe a couple blocks, to either side of this vicinity on the Arno. I will try tweaking the caption. If you or others see this photo as extraneous that is AOK. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Reluctant neutral. The prose is very ordinary, but is required to be of "professional" standard. For example:

  • "The family had income from nearby farmland and lived in Florence near Santa Trinita and also had a small country home about 20 miles (32 km) south of the city, in St. Donato in the village of Poggio." Rather long and winding; redundant "also"; MOS breach in use of US units as main units; When their city home was damaged the family moved to rented space near Santo Spirito." There's a serious shortage of commas throughout the article. Date of death: "15 July 1542 or c. 1551, Florence, Italy"—bit odd.
  • Poor punctuation throughout, e.g., "They had five children, Piero, Camilla, Andrea, Giocondo and Marietta" (colon required).
  • Gawky sentences, like "When he commissioned Leonardo with Mona Lisa and later Domenico Puligo with a painting of Saint Francis of Assisi, Francesco was a patron like his peers. Mona Lisa was painted beginning in 1503, following Andrea's birth and when the family was celebrating owning its own home."

The whole article needs a lot of copy-editing. Big job. Tony (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Requests/Lisa_del_Giocondo. Thanks for your comments. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two copyedit passes done. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony was right. I nominated this under the influence of a cold. Thanks for catching that—not the cold but that this article needed work. The whole article has been copyedited, corrected by another editor (thank you!) and checked by a third reader. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a bit of copyediting, and I have a couple remaining small issues with the prose:
    • "Lisa's stepmother Caterina di Mariotto Rucellai and Francesco's first wife, both members of the prominent Rucellai family, were sisters." Why do we care about this? In my view, this is really unnecessary detail about a husband's mother and former wife. (Lisa's stepmother = Francesco's mother, obviously)
    • "The family's burial site ... gained a painting through the efforts of Francesco's son Bartolommeo." Very vague. Did he buy a painting? Commission a painting? Steal a painting? Paint a painting?
    • The paragraph that starts with "Leonardo had no income during the spring of 1503..." is kind of rambling. I think it could be improved by tightening it up to show the bits that are most relevant to Lisa. What impact did Leonardo's other commission have on this painting? It's unclear.
    • "By the end of the 20th century, the painting—though not Lisa—was a global icon" Is the "though not Lisa" necessary?
  • I've withdrawn the oppose, but I'm still not thrilled with the prose; and I wonder why a source of nearly 100 pages has no page number in the reference for this specific claim: "was a global icon that had been used in over 300 other paintings and in 2,000 advertisements.[2]" Are there similar instances of this? Tony (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paper is 18 pages and is cited four times. The gist of all four, including the exact text you are asking about: "over 300 paintings and 2,000 advertisements", can be read for free from the abstract. I added "Abstract" under pages in the cite template. Just click the link. By the way, this source is used more in the Mona Lisa article. But here, the author is no doubt the best choice at this time in the area of iconization and fame. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added page numbers after all. Thanks for the suggestion. -Susanlesch (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (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 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Ernest Shackleton

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I feel that it meets the FA criteria and is a fascinating subject. This is my first FAC nomination, and I've seen the article grow from a loose collection of prose to a sourced and well-written article (Finetooth deserves most of the credit for the prose). Please let me know how the article can be further improved. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - well written and referenced, good use of images, meets FA criteria in my opinion. Note that in the interest of full disclosure I reviewed the Good Article nomination for this, made three edits to it, and gave some feedback on a new map and wording on a sentence. It has been improved since reaching GA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two quick, likely minor concerns: 1) there are image sandwiching issues, especially in the Endurance Expedition (1914–16) section; this is to be avoided per WP:MoS. 2) I question the necessity for, or, at least, the placement of the “Expedition advertisement” section. This doesn’t really pertain to legacy and the phrasing “is said to have” seems questionable; does the information here really meaningfully contribute to the article? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Thanks for the comments. I think the image sandwiching has been addressed (I removed some images--they are all in commons anyway). 2.) Right, the Expedition advertisement section. Well, we've had some discussion about it. The thing is that Shackleton is related to the supposed "safe return doubtful" claim (there was even a book titled as such and the so-called ad is referenced in many books/media about Shackleton). It's a rather odd situation, because it's a well-known advertisement that probably didn't exist. I see no problem in removing or moving it, if you think it would make the article better--but I think there should be some mention. 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) --- oops, forgot to sign comment Lazulilasher (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precisely because the supposed advertisement is so well known (even if apocryphal), I would argue for its inclusion in the article in some form to address the "comprehensive" and "factually accurate" criteria. Most readers who have some knowledge of Shackleton will have heard of the ad (I had), but most will not know it is apparently a later invention (I did not). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not yet - It's not far off and it's a good attempt at covering his life in a balanced fashion, but it's let down by a few omissions and errors at the moment. I've corrected some, but I don't have the time to go through it in detail at the moment, and I don't feel I can support without a good read through. Some points from a brief skim through:
  • Although dropping "The" is fairly common for ship names "the James Caird" is normally used (I suppose so we don't have James Caird himself making a voyage).
Ya, you're right...that makes sense...ha...Lazulilasher (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of The Heart of the Antarctic?
Addressed. His book is now mentioned in the section Interim between Nimrod and EnduranceLazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penguins were also a staple in the camps on the ice (though why the seals are mentioned in a footnote, I'm not really sure)
You're right. We were a bit concerned about length while editing the article, so I cut that portion. Adding it back now. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Boss" is usually capitalised
Done.
  • The voyage of the James Caird is unbalanced. Two paragraphs are given over to the description of the sea conditions while the men are not mentioned. Only the lead tells us how many men were in the boat. The last couple of paragraphs of the James Caird article cover this better.
This is true. I'll address it.
Ok, I tried to add a bit more info regarding the voyage of the James Caird. Hopefully it's a bit more balanced out now. Good catch on that, btw, I was subconsciously thinking the same thing but it took another eye for it to surface....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrs. Chippy and the smallest pups were killed soon after the Endurance was abandoned (not after the sledging as it appears here)
Good catch. That must've slipped by...thanks for seeing it. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons Shackleton intended to head for Deception Island can be cited to South rather than (or as well as) giving a footnote on the benefits of landing there that he didn't mention. He also considered Hope Bay before setting course for Elephant Island
Added some info from South.Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you point out his legacy as an inspiration for the writers of management handbooks, you should make more of his leadership style in the rest of the article. He clashed with McNish, and to a lesser degree Vincent and Lees during the Endurance expedition and more could written of his relationship with Scott especially the "sending home" which appears somewhat one-sided at the moment.
This has, hopefully, been addressed. I put in some more text. My editing concern was that the article would appear unbalanced...let me know what you think. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In all, every member of his expedition team survived" - is misleading at best. The members of the Endurance party all survived (albeit a couple of toes lighter), but the Ross Sea party did not.
Yep, it is misleading...so it's now...fixed Lazulilasher (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo of the "rescue" is actually a picture of the departure of the James Caird in which the Caird was been scratched out (the original negative has a hole in it where Hurley removed it). Might make a nice footnote.
Good point. I added your notes and referenced to "South with Endurance" (the photo collection of Hurley's work....great book, btw if you don't already have it...which it sounds like you do). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll dry and dive into the to-do list ASAP. Good catches. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better. It looked (from the one spelling clue) like it should be in BE, so I've edited it to remove a few AE idioms. Additionally, there were a lot of "additionally"s, which you probably don't notice after staring at it for months, so I've replaced or removed most of them. A few more points (I'm afraid I haven't got my books with me, so I can't give you references):
Just a quick note before I attempt the meat of the to-do list. Yes, it should be in BE. However, I am absolutely awful at this. I've tried installing a BE dictionary in firefox, so I'll take another run through and hopefully catch some more mistakes....Lazulilasher (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the James Caird the "the" shouldn't be in italics. I think I got all these.
  • There are a few quotes that aren't directly attributed ("bright, good-natured,... and confident" for example)
  • Ranulph Fiennes book has some good stuff on the alternative view of the Scott/Shackleton relationship (i.e. there was no personal animosity).
  • The two paragraphs on "Between the Discovery and Nimrod expeditions" are chronologically confused (and I don't think the bit about outfitting the Terra Nova expedition is correct)
  • The purpose of the Nimrod expedition should be stated clearly. The "goal was to land a party of between nine and twelve men at the site of Discovery's landing" as an opening rather underplays the aims (I've always liked this photo - if you can squeeze it in it might make a good addition to that section)
  • Is the frostbitten toe mentioned in this section that of Brocklehurst? If so that happened during the ascent of Mt Erebus, not when they first arrived.
  • I think Nimrod returned on 1 March, but didn't depart until 4 March
  • It has been suggested (passive, weasel, can't remember exactly who) that Shackleton took McNish and Vincent in the James Caird because they were the most troublesome and he preferred to keep them close rather than leave them on Elephant Island
  • It might be good to give the real title of the Quest expedition in that section
  • "In addition, many books focus on the explorer's work" is a bit of a vague and downbeat ending to the legacy section, especially when you've already singled out Lansing's book. This section doesn't really cover his legacy either. Perhaps something about the end of the "Golden Age" could go here.
  • The references/cites are a bit untidy. I don't care, but I thought I'd point it out. Yomanganitalk 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I should have read more closely. I have removed the checks. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this article a lot, and congratulate the editors. I have taken the liberty of editing it a bit myself, but I have a few questions:
  • What does "Through these efforts," in "The mill owner, William Beardmore was impressed with Shackleton and helped sponsor his next expedition,[4] as well as raising funds from his wealthy friends.[6] Through these efforts, Shackleton convinced Sir Phillip Lee Brocklehurst and author Campbell Mackellar to finance his expedition" mean? It seems a non-sequitur to me.
  • The section Nimrod Expedition (1907–09) could do with some reordering. Maybe try to put the information in order of time? It seems disjointed in the way it is organized currently with talk of goals and then that they weren't achieved and then back to the beginning with the coal and Shackeleton's position etc, funding etc. There is lots of repetition about being the furthest south person etc.
  • Endurance Expedition (1914–16) did he have only one colleague giving recommendations? Also not sure who the colleague(s) are. Is it worth avoiding the pronoun "he" for Mrs. Chippy by using "the cat"? Either that or explaining that the cat was actually male. It jarred me when I read it.
  • Family : it would be nice to know more about this. His children get mentioned later in the Legacy, but perhaps could introduced earlier as part of the mention of his wife and marriage. In general I would like to know more about this side of the man.

--Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problematic' links listed actually work fine from the page itself, but maybe I am missing something? --Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the links also work when clicked on from the wikimedia tool. Huh. Wild and wacky stuff. Though, I'm not sure how these tools work, it is possible that I am in error. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I too had no problem accessing the links shown in red on the link checker. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article provides a fascinating, inspirational account well worthy of its subject. The authors keep the focus on Shackleton, the man himself, rather than on his extraordinary expeditions. Despite the excessive in-line citations (sadly de rigueur for featured articles), the text flows well. The editors take a shrewd line in dealing with conflicting views and information from the published authors.
Also, and irrelevant to the featuring of this article, Talk:Ernest Shackleton could be a featured article too, though not by conventional Wikipedia standards. It shows purposeful, cooperative editing by people with a variety of interests and skills dealing sensitively with subject matter which is surprisingly contentious (at least for those interested in polar exploration!). Thincat (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the kind words and support! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited work 'Cape Horn the Terrible' doesn't appear to be of particularly scholarly origin.
  • "For almost two months, Shackleton and his men camped on an ice floe not far from the Endeavour (Ocean Camp)" - Endeavour?
  • There is a bit of inconsistency in capitalization when referring to a 'party' from the Nimrod expedition. I'd prefer to see 'party' in lower case throughout, but whichever standard is used, the capitalization in "Although every member of the Weddell Sea party that Shackleton had led survived, three members of the Ross Sea Party lost their lives" is off.
Maralia (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the copy edit! Also, I removed the Endeavour part--I'm not really sure from whence that came and the rest of the information is easily verifiable in the sources. Also, 'Cape Horn the Terrible' has come up before--so, it's gone now too. Really, it's fine because we can use Worsley's account to the same affect. Lastly, 'party' is now capitalized when in the form of "Ross Sea Party" but lower case when it is used as "the party walked...". Does this seem right to you? Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (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 18:02, 30 January 2008.

Reese Witherspoon

[edit]

Hi all, this is an FAC nomination for an actress biography. I've been working on it based on the standard of some other actors FAs, with thanks to helpful input from other editors. It's become a GA recently, and I feel the FA criteria is now reasonably met. If you spot any problems, please feel free to leave comment(s) here. I'm often around and I hope we can address the issue(s) as soon as possible. Thanks! PeaceNT (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article is in dire need of a copy-edit from a third party. Just skimming, I see numerous mistakes in grammar, wording, and punctuation throughout. Just a few examples from the lead:
  • "who has established as the highest-paid actress of Hollywood in recent years"; missing "been"?
  • "Her performance received positive reviews, which became a motivation for her to continue an acting career"; it is vague as to what "which" is referring to, the performance or the reviews.
  • "and led to roles in three major movies Overnight Delivery, Pleasantville and Twilight in 1998"; punctuation
  • "Witherspoon appeared in the critically acclaimed Election, which garnered her first Golden Globe nomination"; which garnered her her first GG nom.

It seems to be adequately sourced, but the prose obviously needs work. You could always contact someone at the League of Copyeditors, or perhaps you know of someone not affiliated with the article who can give it a thorough and professional look over. It always helps to have someone who is able to look over the article with a fresh eye. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but fixable (see comments at the end of FAC) A worthy topic but needs to be re-written. The early life part starts out ok. Her "early work" is a massive list written in prose forms. Why is one paragraph 1991, 1996 is the next paragraph, 1999 yet the next paragraph. The awards chart being preceded and succeeded is strange. Those awards are not like political offices or university presidents. You get an award and that's it. It's like Motor Trend Car of the Year. It's not like the award is a term in office or period. The introduction calling her the highest paid actress needs a source. Basically, read every sentence and see if someone could say "prove it". She's American. Nobody in their right mind would ask you to prove it. Highest paid - certainly. A minor thing, Type A Films is actually Type A Films, Inc. It was formed the day after 9-11 (12 September 2001). The references are not the same style, just look at the style of dates. After you have re-done it then have it copyedited. Good luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Four things:
  • First, the material in the "early work" section has been organized by time sequence. I'm not quite sure about your concerns (is it about the logic or the clarity of this structure?) Anyway, I'll try to make it clear how I came to divide the content into the three paragraphs you mentioned: first paragraph (1991-1994) introduces her earliest roles in movies and a few TV series, the second paragraph (1996-1998) is about her rise as a young actor with leading roles in several major movies and her earliest critical awards (note that she made no appearance in commercials during 2005), and the third paragraph (1999) basically gives information on her critically acclaimed performance in Election and that first golden globe nomination.
  • Second, regarding the succession box, it is used in some other actors FAs too; and there is a guideline which lays down that important awards (like the Oscar, etc) can merit a succession box. You may see that I only include major awards in the table. :)
  • Third, I don't cite sources in the lead section, since it is essentially a summary of the article and contains no new information at all. The sentence about her being the American hight-paid actress in the lead is not sourced, but you can find the relevant references in the "Witherspoon in the media" section. I hope this clarifies the issue.
  • Forth, I agree that consistency makes the citations look better, the dates in the refs are fixed now. Thank you for your suggestion!
Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved but work on it a bit more before calling in the copy editors. Copy editors won't re-write content extensively. The headings do help. Will try to offer useful suggestions later. An improvement over a few days ago! Congolese fufu (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Aside from the prose issues, there are some other problems:
    • She shouldn't be introduced as "Academy Award-winning" before her profession is mentioned (NPOV) and following some discussion about this in the past, it's probably better to call her an actor, not actress.
    • I don't know whether the last paragraph of the lead section is really necessary. Is she actually widely known for any of the things mentioned there - I don't think so, but I'm not an expert either. To me, this seems marginal for the lead.
    • Throughout the text, simple and uncontroversial statements have two sources, what's that all about?
    • Again, throughout the text, a lot of common words are unnecessarily linked (debut, board, middle-class, ...)
    • All newspapers mentioned have to be in italics.
    • The awards section shouldn't be one long succession box, a proper table would be much better (see Jake_Gyllenhaal#Awards). One succession box for her Oscar should be enough.
    • Why is her law suit against Star magazine mentioned in the separation section, shouldn't it rather be in the media section?
    • Is being one of 100 "Sexiest Women In The World" by FHM really a notable fact for a Hollywood star? And if you mention the Celebrity 100 by Forbes, you should also tells us her ranks.
    • The separation section might need more work than just a copy-edit. Imho, it's too long compared to the rest of the article and it's very poorly written. One short sentence, starting with "On...", after another.

EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've fixed the article to address your concerns: the succession box reduced, italic text used as needed, the lawsuit moved to "media" section, and unnecessary reference removed (disclaimer: I'm sort of a reference freak. But don't worry, I'm still aware of the "cite only where needed" rule though). I've reworded the lead (first and last parapgraph), too. You're right, her charity work is not especially well-known → reworded to "actively involved in children's and women's advocacy organizations" to be more factual. Thank you for reviewing the article. :) PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And about the FHM list (I missed this in the previous post), I think the inclusion of this material should be fine, since it describes the actor's image in the media, which is the point of the section. Also, the magazine is notable itself, so saying she's on their list would not be a trivial mention. Generally, relevant and non-trivial fact can be included. Regards,PeaceNT (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is this: there are a lot of these 'hot lists' (she probably has been on others like Maxim etc, no?) and if you have to fill 100 spots it is almost natural that well-known Hollywood actresses get mentioned, thus this one particular list is just not that noteworthy to me. Also, I'm still curious why half of the sourced statements have double-references? This seems especially redundant with quotes - if you have one reliable source what's more to prove? And one last thing, I think it's problematic to call her "the highest-paid Hollywood actress" in the very first sentence, thereby making this a fundamental description of the person. Unless I'm mistaken this is solely based on a Hollywood Reporter story (which is basically an educated guess?) and only valid for the last year. I don't think it's a good idea to put this in the first sentence. Maybe "one of the highest-paid" or possibly mentioning it further down "the highest paid in 2007"? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, thanks for the explanation (I was confused initially ;)) Well, concerning the FHM's list, two things. First, it is my view a rank on some "hot lists" by popular magazines merits inclusion, an FA should be as comprehensive an article as valid information can be found. When the materials become superfluous we may leave out the less significant info, but that is not the case here, so I guess we must agree to differ. I haven't check Maxim yet, but it would be noteworthy, should she appear on their lists. Second, though it is natural that a well-known movie star is featured in some "top 100 lists", I believe a place among the "sexiest women" is not typical for her, since the on-screen characters for which she is famous are mainly the intellectual, non-attractive feminist type (she was never given a "sexy" role in any movie, and I was actually quite surprised that I found her on this particular list). And regarding the sources, half of the content has two sources for each statement because I don't feel comfortable relying heavily on one single reference. More importantly, though, a number of sentences are the condensed combination of materials collected from different sources, which is why I have to use more than one source for a sentence on occasion. A long ref list is harmless anyway, methinks. About that last thing, I've reworded the lead to "one of the highest-paid Hollywood actresses in recent years" (for I could realize the previous statement was inaccurate). Best regards, PeaceNT (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still have some nitpicks here and there, but the article sufficiently meets the FA criteria now. Just one more thing I just saw today: You need to decide whether to put character names in quotation marks or not. The career section starts out with all her role names in quotes, and then at the end of "Early critical success" that suddenly stops and all her characters are mentioned as simple names. Although I voiced my support already, I hope you will edit this into one consistent style (probably best no quotes, as they might look strange on the real persons she has played). EnemyOfTheState (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotation marks. Thanks for supporting, and for reading the page so closely. :) PeaceNT (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quick first look. This article suffers seriously from violations of WP:OVERLINK: don't link plain English words. Only make links that are relevant to the context. Please read the guideline carefully because perhaps a hundred links need removing. Right away in the lead section, there's lead actress and debut to unlink and it just snowballs from there. Here are some of worst offenses I see, just so you know what I'm talking about: sibling, nursing, country, critic, negative reviews, impoverished, Type A, TV movie. And you also repeat links, another violation of the policy. To echo other commenters, in the lead sentence, remove "Academy-award winning" and instead briefly describe what critics most often say about her (provide citations)/what she is best known for. That first sentence would therefore tell her significance right off the bat, as per WP:MOSBIO, and then would lead nicely into the specific film landmarks in the second paragraph. I also agree that using "actor" is not only gender-neutral, but is the more serious term for female thespians; not a must, but it's perfectly correct. We no longer say "sculptress" and "poetess", and though we still do say "actress", "actor" is also used for women. --Melty girl (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've delinked the page a bit. And no problem with the gender-neutral term, either, it's been changed to "actor". Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I know you (and your admirable work) from before. I actually did use the FA you wrote as a model for this article (exemplary FA it is). PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until links are reduced as per WP:OVERLINK. I will be happy to remove my opposition once you truly remove the links that violate this WP policy. This is a style guideline issue that should be taken seriously in FAC as per FA criteria #2. Barely any links were removed -- when I said "perhaps a hundred links need removing," I was not exaggerating. Please read the policy carefully. This otherwise admirable article is oversaturated with unnecessary blue for links to articles that do not provide context to an article about Reese Witherspoon, but instead serve as a user's dictionary. If someone actually needs to look up the words, "model" or "pediatric" in the dictionary, they can do so for themselves; they usually won't need to read the (often weak) Wiki articles about them. Also, links should not be repeated. I know it's fun to create links, but to readers you're hiding the useful links among the overlinks, and it undermines the quality of this article. I just removed five from the lead and 19 from the Early life section so that you can see what I'm talking about. Since there are so many more remaining, I'm going to let you dig in to the rest of the article. I'm happy to discuss specific link questions on the Witherspoon talk page. Sorry to oppose, but I bet I'll be removing my opposition soon. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the necessity of links was subject to my judgement, and apparently I failed to follow the cited guideline. It took me many edits to clean up the links (well, definitely need to use the review button more often). Anyway, all unwanted links have been removed (I hope). Please recheck my edits. Best regards, PeaceNT (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition withdrawn: it looks much better now. I removed two in the last section. (Still haven't had time to give the text a really close read.) --Melty girl (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FAC criteria in my opinion, sure there is de-linking to do but that's fixable and most of the other things mentioned too. There is also a dedicated editor behind this so I have no doubt that these issues will be repaired soon. Rt. 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't say it's brillant prose but it's not so bad to deny FA. Please consider fixing intro; unless she's had a recent sex change operation, she's an actress. Ph.D. has punctuation. It's not a Ph.D pediatric nurse. She's probably a pediatric nurse who had undergone graduate studies culminating in a Ph.D. U.S. Army also had punctuation. Not all children live with their father when he works overseas. Consider "she lived in Germany while her father was assigned to --, Germany." The receiving good grades is actually 2 sentences or change the wording to keep it one sentence. 2000 km, give the mile equivalent as is customary in WP articles. Use non-breaking space if possible though this article has few figures to do that.

The early work seems to be a list changed to prose form. It's passable but if you can tie in a theme or leave out minor films (leaving that information to the chart at the end) is a possibility, not a requirement. The later work prose is better. Children's Defense Fund, add (CDF) since you use that later.

What happened to the Star lawsuit? Consider summarizing the divorce case better instead of stringing references and a one sentence summary of each source. Maybe...In October 2006, Witherspoon and Phillippe announced that they decided to formally separate after seven years of marriage. The following month, Witherspoon filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. The divorce was granted on October 5, 2007. The couple had no prenuptial agreement (delete this unless you can cite what assets Phillippe got, alimony is not the same as assets....and Phillippe would customarily be entitled to half of Witherspoon's assets by California law,[102][103]). Witherspoon opposed the granting of spousal support which was not contested by Phillippe. Witherspoon told Elle magazine that it was "a difficult and frightening experience" for her.[106]

I am trying to leave comments for fixing, not simply criticism. A FA star is within reach! Congolese fufu (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. I've fixed the punctuations, several phrases, and combined sentences in the personal life section as suggested. Just some minor disagreement: I didn't change the order of the sentences, for it would be confusing if the article said "The divorce was granted on October 5, 2007." before "Witherspoon told Elle magazine..." (it would be misleading what happened first). I believe a chronological sequence would be best for describing event proceedings. I'd also insist on using "actor" in the first lead sentence, since a neutral-gender word used when introducing an occupation is preferable. (Sort of conflicted assessments here, there're two reviewers above who advised me to replace "actress" with "actor" ;)) The Star magazine lawsuit has been moved to the "In the media" section. About that "living in Germany" part, I didn't really get what you meant. She spent her childhood for four years in Germany because her father was working there. (pls take it literally, not generally: her father's military duty was the reason for her residence at that foreign country. That's all.)
And thanks much for leaving kind comments, criticism is greatly appreciated, too. I'm seeking constructive remarks here to better the article. The more criticism the better! PeaceNT (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:MOSNUM and WP:NBSP; ... a little South African girl who must cross 1,24 miles of the Kalahari ... 1,24 is incorrect notation, there should be a non-breaking hard space, and there should be a conversion. Sample only. I looked in and found easily spottable ce issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—The prose needs polishing before promotion. Here are random samples.
    • "Scotland-born John Witherspoon"—ScottISH-born?
    • US, then spelt out, then US. Spell out first, then abbreviate? Whatever, but be consistent.
    • 1,24? Um ... that's not equivalent to 2000 km, by the way.
    • the Young Artist Award "Best Youth Actress co-star"—can we lose the quotes and make it: the Young Artist Award for Best Youth Actress Co-star?
    • believed Witherspoon was "going to be an enormous movie star"—fat? How much did she weigh? There are plenty of direct quotes, so consider paraphrasing this one to avoid the issue.
    • "This same year, she co-starred with"—Unidiomatic: use "In the same ...".
    • pulls it off."—See MOS on logical punctuation ending quotations (period last if it starts within a WP sentence). Most, not all, are correct.
  • 'She's from Beverly Hills ...—MOS insists on double quotes.
  • "US$35 million"—MOS says in US-related articles, just the dollar sign please. And it's repeated!
  • "Reese Witherspoon being interviewed at"—"in interview at" would be nicer. Tony (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed most, except the double quote. Could you be more specific, I checked the MOS and it said "Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'."? Thank you, - PeaceNT (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has only 3 pictures, which might be a bit low for an FA of this size. Nergaal (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that more pictures will help illustrate the subject better, but finding more is not a simple work, as I'd like to avoid fair-use images. There were a few more free pictures at commons last time I checked, but they were small in size and rather distant. The article originally had only two images, and it took me quite a while to find the third free one. Still looking for more pictures, though I cannot promise you anything. Still, I undertand the concerns. Thanks and best regards,- PeaceNT (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. I did a minor copyedit pass and I'm close to support on this; I just have a couple of questions.
    • I only noticed one really negative comment about Witherspoon's acting, and a whole lot of positive quotations. Is this representative? Isn't there any well-known critic who disliked some of here earlier movies? You don't have to dredge up something negative just to satisfy me on this; if you can assure me that you've looked through the reviews and these are representative quotes, that's good enough.
    • I agree that the succession box for the award just looks weird. I wouldn't withhold support for this, but if I were you I'd drop it.
    • Who's Jennifer Simpson? She's mentioned as Witherspoon's partner in a film project. A half-sentence of context would be nice if you have it: e.g. "which she will produce under the Type A banner, partnering with Jennifer Simpson, an established producer she met while working on Legally Blonde". I just made that up, but I hope you see what I'm suggesting. If you don't have anything on her I'd suggest changing "partner" to "business partner"; without that it is too easy to read as "significant other".
-- Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the sentence concerning Jennifer Simpson, you got it half right (or nearly right :)) — she is a co-producer of Legally Blonde 2, I hope this bit of info is sufficient. Regarding the reviews, I think they are quite representative of the more major movies, which are mostly successful (with the exception of Rendition, of course); minor (or early) movies got only unenthusiastic reviews, and they weren't notorious enough to receive complaints from critics. ;) The succession box, as I notice, is used in some FAs, like Angelina Jolie. Also, according to this guideline, an important award like the Oscar can merit a succession box, so I hope that the use here is fine, too. Thanks for your comments, and also for your help with copyediting. Pls let me know if you have further concerns. Cheers, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns; I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I made some straightforward copyedit changes directly in the article. It still needs some prose work; examples follow.
    • 'the' is awkward and not needed before the names of publications such as Variety magazine, USA Today, Interview magazine, and Entertainment Tonight.
    • Likewise, 'the' is not needed before 'critics' ("well received by critics" and "given negative reviews by critics" are better).
    • Two consecutive sentences in the lead begin with the same verbiage: "2001 saw her", "2003 saw her".
    • "She also appeared as the leading actress in the thriller and black comedy Freeway" - she didn't appear as the lead actress; she was the lead actress, or she appeared in the lead role.
    • "In early 2005, Witherspoon starred alongside Mark Ruffalo in the romantic comedy Just Like Heaven; she played Elizabeth Masterson, a dedicated San Francisco doctor who is involved in a car accident and becomes a spirit, her spirit returns to her old apartment and she later finds true love there." - this sentence needs a total rewrite.
    • "The movie was subject to mostly negative criticism" - criticism is inherently negative, and the movie wasn't 'subject to' it but rather earned it, received it, etc.
    • "she clarified the misconception" - she characterized it as a misconception, or clarified the name's origin.
    • "'focuses on domestic violence" - probably should clarify with 'prevention of'.
    • "In 2006, Star ran a false story on Witherspoon's third pregnancy" - despite 'false story', this still leaves open the implication that she had a third pregnancy.
    • In early 2008, a study conducted by E-Poll Market Research revealed that Witherspoon was the most likable female celebrity of 2007." - not revealed (it wasn't hidden); perhaps concluded. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your assistance in copyediting. :) I've made appropriate changes to address the issues you mentioned (pls check them if possible), except that I still think newspaper should generally have names with "the", so the removal of this article wouldn't be necessary. Best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're absolutely correct, thanks for the explanation. i used to think it's okay put "the" in front of every publisher name. (Was deathly mistaken, of course, kicking myself really hard here.) Glad to learn something new everyday. Anyway, I've checked the page to make sure I left out all the unwanted superfulous "the". Thanks again! - PeaceNT (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, glad we got that cleared up. Just one other issue: the way some quotations are worked into sentences is a bit off. Examples:
  • Academy Award - winning director Alexander Payne praised her, "She's got...
  • This pregnancy was not a hindrance to her work, as Witherspoon believed the gestation had in fact helped her portrayal of Sharp’s character, "I love
  • Witherspoon expressed her passion for the movie, "I really like
  • She also spoke about June Carter Cash, stating that she believed Carter Cash was a woman ahead of her time, "I think
  • However, when asked about the company by Interview magazine, she clarified the name's origin, "... people think
When the quotation itself isn't part of the basic structure of the sentence, it should be set off with a colon rather than a comma. Maralia (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (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 18:02, 30 January 2008.

Ryan White

[edit]

Ryan White: the 1980's poster child for AIDS. This was thoughtfully reviewed by User:SriMesh several months ago when it was listed as a Good Article and also been to Peer Review. Though short, I am confident that it is well-written, engaging, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Because it describes someone who died tragically at such a young age, it is quite brief for an FA; but such was White's life—far too brief. In addition to news coverage (note that AP stories don't always have bylines) this includes the important perspectives of Randy Shilts, Susan Resnik and Larry Kramer. Also a special thanks to User:Wildhartlivie who provided a nearly impossible to find freely-licensed photo of White. As a personal aside, I remember watching White's funeral on TV when I was 5-years-old and being deeply moved and upset—the first time I understood what death was—his story has been with me ever since. JayHenry (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am about halfway through the article, but the prose so far has two issues: it needs further copy-editing for phrasing and punctuation, and facts are partly restated in different sections, which I found confusing and wordy. For example, at the end of "Early life and illness", one reads that "[a]fter the diagnosis, White was too ill to return to Western Middle School in Howard County, Indiana...". The next section, "Battle with schools", begins with the sentence "When the public school that he attended, Western Middle School in Russiaville, Indiana, learned of his disease..." Readers will probably assume that the point was to show that Russiaville is in Howard County, but that is not really the point of the sentence, and therefore I think it is a distraction. Other than those issues, the article is good.-Fsotrain09 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I fixed this, and the highly competent User:Scartol also gave the copy a once over. Hopefully that got it? If you see anything don't hesitate to let me know or of course feel to fix it yourself if it's something simple. Thanks for checking in! --JayHenry (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose has improved, and I apologize for disappearing from the discussion. There is an external link embedded in the prose of the "Legacy" section. Perhaps it can be used as a citation instead? --Fsotrain09 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While I generally don't care for blue quote boxes, and have made some suggestions on the talk page, I found this to be very comprehensive, well-referenced, and professionally written. (I've done a bit of copyediting, so perhaps your concerns have been remedied, Fsotrain09?) The timeline was a nice addition to the prose, and the legacy section is particularly well-organized. Kudos for your work on this very important article. – Scartol • Tok 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before the boxes the article was like the gray wall of death. Computer text, in my opinion, really needs that visual element to be readable. Really wide columns of text are just very reader unfriendly. I'm normally not wild about quote blocks, but presidents don't write many eulogies, and the significance of Reagan's change of heart, as exemplified by the eulogy, was touched upon in many of the sources. --JayHenry (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, already improved from my first look earlier when I didn't comment. I did have one question, though. What is the source on the first paragraph about the Battle with the Schools? Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh-oh! I forgot to include it when I wrote the article, and now I have no idea. I'll have to dig through the sources again to find it. I'll do that soon. Good catch! --JayHenry (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Moni3
  • The lead: I wonder if the term "poster child" is itself POV. In my experience a poster child is an object of pity or even derision, someone who begs for attention in the name of a cause. It's not quite a positive thing, and although Ryan White could be under this category, it's not really objective to refer to him in such a way in the lead. To me it would make more sense to refer to him in the lead as a public figure with HIV/AIDS whose experiences drew attention to the discrimination and poor treatment HIV+ people received in the 1980s.
    He's sort of the archetypal poster child, so I'm reluctant to remove this language. Poster child isn't derisive in the literal context of a child with a deadly disease who raises money for the disease. It's derisive if you're talking about Terrell Owens being the poster child for supporting your quarterback. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is hemophilia a congenital condition? Can someone not be a lifelong hemophiliac, like developing it early and it going away or developing it late? I don't actually know, but I was under the impression that hemophilia is congenital and the term "lifelong" is redundant.
    You're correct. I'll fix that. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early life and illness, it's better to say that White was infected with HIV during Factor VIII transfusions rather than "an unknown point in time".
    At an unknown point in time is in response to a previous reviewer asking when he was infected. I think for the sake of completeness I have to say it is not known. Sorry. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just thought it sounded odd the way it was explained. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it was awkward, I have reworded. --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need parentheses to explain about AIDS and t-cells. Just state it.
    It's a parenthetical explanation. It doesn't fit into the flow of the paragraph otherwise. And in my considered opinion it'd be less elegant to say "Whereas a t-cell count of..." I understand a general aversion to parentheses, but not an absolute prohibition. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no citations int he first paragraph under Battle with schools. Your timeline is cited, but the paragraph needs them, too.
    Thanks to both you and to User:Collectonian for pointing this out. This was an error in writing. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to find multiple ways of stating HIV and AIDS was poorly understood. You have it in those exact words at least three times.
    Good catch. I hadn't noticed the redundancy. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help to state that a press release was written by the American Medical Association on May 6, 1983 with the title "Evidence Suggests Household Contact May Transmit AIDS" and it was picked up by the Associated Press. The full text of the press release I read in And the Band Played On (p. 299), but you may be able to find it in other places.
    Good idea! Thanks! Where do you think would be the best place to add this? I think it's important to give examples of the sort of "information" that was out there in the early 1980s. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to include a background section. You do have a bit of information about how it was understood primarily as gay-related immune deficiency. If you make the point that it was viewed primarily as a gay disease, and the AMA released this flawed press release near the beginning of the article, and subsequent media and public reaction to this news - I think that gives readers a background as to what White was in for in the 1980s. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw at least one reference to AIDS being fatal and incurable in the past tense. Is there a particular reason you have it that way?
    Probably just the tense of the rest of the paragraph. I'll figure out where this is and figure out how to word it more clearly. I certainly don't want to give the impression that AIDS is now curable! --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In National spokesman, you have "poster boy" in quotations - did someone call him that? Is there a reason that term is in quotations? Goes back to my point in the lead.
    Clarified this whole bit. Hopefully this addresses the mention in the lead as well. --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did White say when he addressed Reagan's AIDS commission?
    Will add a brief explainer. There's also the link to a verbatim transcript. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more about what White did in his stint as spokesman. He went on Donahue, but what did he say? What did he do to attract the attention of all those celebrities besides be a victim of discrimination? I see you have his biography cited only three times. I would have thought he would have gone into more detail about being proactive. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I will clarify what he spoke about. It's largely similar to his testimony before Reagan's commission -- his own story. I didn't cite his autobiography much because it's really a primary source, and we start to get into Original Research issues with creating a portrait from the autobiography that's not really supported by the other material. What exactly do you mean by "being proactive"?
    Thanks a lot for looking in Moni. I'll sit down and make as many of these fixes as I can to the article tomorrow (hopefully), but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Your input is very much appreciated. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I remember being impressed with White when he was alive, but I can't remember exactly what for. I hope it wasn't, as I stated, because he was simply a victim, but that he did something. Good luck. I'll keep checking back. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for sources to add a bit more about this to the article. But he wasn't simply a victim. I mean, he didn't have to try to go back to school, he could have just played video games. He didn't have to go on national TV -- goodness knows I wasn't brave enough to do that in Middle School -- and say, "Yeah, I have this stigmatized disease, but it's okay and you need to know that you don't need to quarantine people with AIDS." And he didn't have to say -- in my mind this is the biggest one of all, from a middle schooler in rural Indiana -- "It doesn't matter how anyone got this disease, we have to fix it." White was quite a contrast to Kimberly Bergalis who always said "I'm an innocent victim." And he didn't stop even when he got really sick, co-hosting an AIDS benefit just a few weeks before his death. He was a really genuinely amazing person. I'm not a sissy but I teared up once or twice researching this article. --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: According to FAC, points are covered, and length is 27 k. According to Summary style and article size 30K is on average what is easy to read. SriMesh | talk 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SriMesh, it's nice to have an FA on the shorter side as I think people are more likely to read the whole thing in one sitting. This one would be a pretty good TFA on April 8, wouldn't it? /me Winks at the powers that be. --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a lot of repeated wikilinks e.g. Elton John and other celebrities are wikilinked nearly every time they are mentioned. For me this is overlinking and distracting, as per WP:MOSLINK. Lou.weird (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh geez, you're quite right! I had Elton John linked 6 times, Reagan about 5... don't know how I missed that. Embarrassing! I tried to remove as many as I spotted. If you catch anymore don't hesitate to just chop them out. (The only ones I knowingly left in are people who appear in the lead and the body, as I think it's okay to link in the lead, and then again when it comes up in the flow.) Most readers aren't going to remember who exactly was mentioned back up in the lead. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • I'm concerned by the use of the word "tainted" to describe the blood supply. To me the word carries a connotation of deliberateness.
  • "AIDS is diagnosed once HIV infection has reduced the count below 200" - this only became true in 1993, not in 1984 when White was diagnosed.
  • "His mother asked if he could return to school, but was told he could not." By whom?
  • "His speech was the only one to receive applause from the committee during months of testimony." - if true needs a cite but seems like rather a trivial detail.
  • "The Indiana University Dance Marathon, started in 1991, raises money for the Riley Hospital for Children. Over the past 17 years, this event has helped raise over $5 million for children at Riley." - needs a citation.
  • The dedications of the various songs to White should be cited. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking over the article Otto, and thanks also for the good copy-edits. I changed "tainted" to "contaminated" and added a sentence explaining that it was contaminated because neither doctors nor donors knew to screen for the disease. I added citations where requested, removed the sentence about applause, and clarified the part about his return to school. I didn't realize that the 200 t-cell count became true in 1993 (though I should have known there wouldn't have been clear guidelines in 1984). I want to give the reader relevant context to understand what a t-cell count of 25 means, because I think the number will be out of context for a lot of readers. Can you think of a better way to give the context, or should I perhaps just cut the sentence and wikilink to t-cells or AIDS#Diagnosis? Thanks again for your review. --JayHenry (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that just cutting the sentence works. Anyone reading that his t-cells were at 25 when an uninfected person's are at 1200 is going to understand what that massive a reduction means. Otto4711 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other quick thing. A photo caption includes "Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006" but I don't see an explanation in the text as to what that is and what if any relationship it bears to the Ryan White Care Act. Otto4711 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cut the sentence. You're right, it's clear how massive this reduction is and what that means. Also clarified that the photo is him signing the reauthorization of the original act. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this is a very good and succinct article about a highly inspiring individual. I can't believe it's been that long since he's passed; it feels like yesterday. Anyway, a couple suggestions and comments to better improve on the great work that has already been done:
  • his T-cell count had fallen to 25 (A healthy individual without HIV will have around 1,200): lowercase "a".
  • A February 1986 study in the New England Journal of Medicine of 101 people that had spent three months living in close but non-sexual contact with AIDS patients, concluded that the risk of infection was "minimal to nonexistent," with some of the people studied even sharing toothbrushes, razors, clothing, combs and drinking glasses; sleeping in the same bed; and hugging and kissing: the last part of the sentence is somewhat confusing, although I trust it's grammatically correct. Could this sentence be broken into two for flow and easier comprehensibility?
  • Neilsen estimated that the movie was seen by 15 million viewers: this could possibly need sourcing for verification.

And that's all I've got. Great job, Jay, as always. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (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 00:02, 30 January 2008.

John Michael Wright

[edit]

I believe this is now a fully comprehensive biography (the extant sources are limited). I've had positive comments from a number of respected editors, and have made most of the changes suggested. Any further advice will be gratefully considered. Docg 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I'm afraid I don't know my MLA from my Chicago, so I thought I'd used a fairly consistent style. Since this isn't a deal-breaker for you, I'm not going to take time to fix it properly right at the moment - but I'm perfectly content if anyone else wishes to do so.--Docg 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard to learn - here's one website that explains everything very clearly, if you ever develop the desire to get into the nitty gritty. Awadewit | talk 16:56, 28 January 2008 (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 17:56, 29 January 2008.

Introduction to evolution

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through extensive peer review, and modification in the course of obtaining GA status. We believe it is now ready for careful consideration of FA status. Filll (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose References are formatted at best with troubling inconsistency. They, along with "further reading", need a thorough overhaul. Circeus (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Please ignore this. Being now ithout a computer until further notice, I don't hae the time nor patience to review it via lab material. Circeus (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How would you alter them to make them consistent?--Filll (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re-formated titles of text to follow APA style in future reading section. Other than that, format seems to be consistent and accurate. All ISBN numbers were accurate as well as authors, dates and publishers. Ex. River of of eden. If this is incorrect please provide guidance. Thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This is the APA format for a single author text. [Smith, John Maynard. Evolutionary Genetics. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN-10: 0198502311. A comprehensive introduction to the molecular and population aspects of evolutionary genetics.] Is this adequate? Should we include descriptors along with the citation as is done here?
Comment: I've spent the day applying the templates ... if it is wrong ... well at least it is consistently wrong .. thank you for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Let's see... For basics, the isbn format breaks ISBN linking, external links should NEVER be formatted without text (there's a reason all usual Wikipedia web cites formats put the title there, people!), and if you're going to give full names in references, you might as well do the same in "further reading". Circeus (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Templates applied - format problems should now be resolved --- thanks for sharing information on template for standardizing; made the task so much easier. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will operate on the assumption that the template resolved the problem in the absence of any follow-up.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I truly want feedback on this concern since the lion's share of my efforts have been addressing it. No response since 12-22. It is now 1-10. I thought I could ask on talk page but there was a do not disturb statement at the top: If I commented on a Featured Content candidacy, I will be watching it. So I opted to wait for a commentary here. The do not disturb has since been replaced with a statement that their computer is broken. Can someone else who is keeping up with this FA attempt state whether Circeus concern is still valid before this page closes. I do want this issue to be corrected if it still falls short. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed and noted. The bulleted list, intended to simplify have been worked into text in response to your concerns. The number have been dramatically reduced; the few remaining; I think you will agree are necessary. Thank you for your suggestion. Give me a day and citations will be added to the Hardy-Weinberg. As currently revised; it is essentially common knowledge; but can and will be reinforced with citations. I am assuming my additions here are appropriate; if not please provide me with direction so that I do not violate protocol. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cited Hardy-Weinberg Section. Essentially a section heavy with vocabulary terms which were referenced to the widely read text by Neil Campbell. The section reads better; although I hated to drop my hypothetical examples; which really needed a bulleted list to be retained. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)<[reply]
Both concerns have been addressed; are your concerns resolved?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It might be best to ask here, which sections do you think should be put into prose and why? Which bulleted sections would be improved by being put into prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you returned to strike out the unreferenced concerns but failed to follow-up on our questions about "dot points". All dot points were removed with the exception for the list of reproductive barriers. That marked a dramatic decrease in the use of list. Do you mean to say "too many" when you mean to say "they should not be any"? Please respond so that I may consider revision before time runs out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has many problems and is not ready for FA:
  • Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs:
  • No references in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of *"Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection" section.
  • Paragraphs 2 and 4 are referenced from the first paragraph: Darwin's On the Origin of Species. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No references in paragraph 2 of "Vestigial structures" section.
  • No references in paragraph 2 of "Examples" section.
  • No references in paragraphs 1 and 2 of "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" section.
  • No references in paragraph 1 of "Rate of change" section.
  • No references in paragraph 1 of "Unit of change" section.
  • References 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 38 and 39 have formatting problems. Always put references after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
  • The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate.
  • I see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. The article is not well-written and needs a copy-edit, but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with this advise as per your talk page "Now add a lot of references. FA standard referencing = almost one reference per sentence, all paragraphs must have references." The article has been peered reviewed to the point of nausea and has already reached GA status. I believe the format issues for consistency are being cleaned up. This line ... The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate. I'm thinking this comment - will elicit a response from others on this page; which should make for some interesting reading. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is an Intro to Evolution and does not need to discuss alternate origin theories / suppositions. To suggest it is POV becaue it doesn't discuss creationism is like complaining that an article on the 'Baptist' church is POV because it doesn't mention a little about the 'Roman Catholic' church. The article does a good job as an 'overview' of an 'intro to evolution'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I find the criticism that an introductory article on evolution does not discuss creationism a bit strange. First, it is an introduction, so it cannot go into detail about everything. Second, it is a science article, not about religion or politics. Third, there are links to creationist discussions in the summary, and some discussion of creationist points (for example Objections to evolution and misconceptions about evolution). Since this editor did not realize that the article was already a GA, it is clear that this editor has not read the article very carefully and realized that his complaint about creationism has already been addressed, and has not realized that the article is already a GA. Also, although I am a big fan of heavy use of citations and references, for an introductory article, this is probably inappropriate. For an introductory article, the article should be as accessible as possible, and having a huge number of citations and footnotes really does not make an article accessible, particularly for beginners. Remember, we are not aiming this at a professional audience, or an adult audience, but at a beginning high school level. --Filll (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Referencing has been dramatically increased; despite my better judgment and general agreement with Filll on the need in an Introductory article which links to the primary document that is heavily referenced. None-the-less, there are now nearly 50 sources referenced. May we now consider that concern resolved? I am in strong disagreement with the POV claim. Perhaps you could expand upon that concern on the discussion page. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This creationism issue is a non-issue. The first question at the Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which I think is a good set of guidelines for this page as well, is "Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?". See that page for an excellent explanation that was obviously agreed upon by a previous consensus of evolution editors.
Kaypoh, try to explain why these paragraphs need citations - they don't need it for the sake of having citations - see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines and WP:V. Also, point out what is not "well-written" so that the editors know what to improve (the editors obviously think it is well-written or they would not have submitted it). I might also mention that it is getting a little tiring to read "try GA first" in your reviews. Please check to see if articles already are GA - this comment makes it seem like you haven't carefully read the article. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Citations and referencing has been dramatically increased which was in direct opposition to our mandate to increase readability. I did this to address this specific oppose. The number of references are approaching 70; nearly double the number when you opposed. A hope you will be responding to my efforts as time is surely running out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you have involved yourself in 54 other Featured Article Request since offering your insights on this one; so no doubt you are very busy. Such enthusiasm from a relatively new editor is appreciated. But perhaps you might spare the time to address your oppose as well as our attempts to resolve the concerns that you have raised?? Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaypoh was requested to revisit oppose and has not.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Merge with Evolution. Support. Having read the article, it does seem to me to be comprehensive as an 'Introduction to Evolution' as the title states and is well referenced. It seem to follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Some small stylistic things: should the images alternate (right side, left side, right side)? And, the bullet points at 'Barriers that prevent fertilization' and 'Barriers acting after fertilization' should be changed to straight paragraph style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I believe that this very good article ought to be simplified further to distinguish it from the main article on Evolution. It meets the criteria of an Feature Article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: The bullets work here because this is a list of barriers and the list is easier to understand with the points. Why do you think it would be easier to understand in prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would be any easier to understand. It is why I support the article; it is a minor stylistic preference and is neither here nor there. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the article. I think it is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but I have a few stylistic comments already
  • Is it necessary to have so many pictures in the introduction? I understand that pictures are appreciated by readers, but I don't think anyone will appreciate a glut of pictures so early on. The evolution page keeps it simple with just the template at the top, and my personal opinion is do the same thing here.
  • Regarding the template at the top, I notice it's different to the one on the evolution page - is that wise, considering changes to one aren't guaranteed to be applied to the other in the future.
  • This is just my opinion and not an objection, but I think all of the examples (and there are lots) need to be worked into the article a little better. For instance, in many cases a sentence starts with or includes "For example ..." (20 times by my count). Maybe it could be changed up a bit, alternatives like "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" or something. It just feels awkward reading the same thing over and over. I think the lists at the end of the article should be turned into prose too.
  • For the same reasons given by Wassupwestcoast, I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article. Ben 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heavy use of pictures in the article was planned. This article is meant for a very different audience than evolution. Evolution aims at an advanced undergraduate level (14 or 15 years of schooling). Introduction to evolution aims at someone who is a freshman or sophmore in high school (10 or 11 years of schooling). Look at a book for elementary school students, a book for junior high school students and a book for high school students and a book for college students. Which books have the most pictures? Obviously, the books meant for younger and less educated readers have more pictures and they are more prominent. So at least in my opinion, you are not understanding what an introduction actually is and is meant to be in this situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I wasn't questioning the number of pictures in the article, in fact I have no problem with that. I was concerned with so many pictures in the introduction to the article. Sorry for the confusion. Ben 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, that the excessive use of the term example does not make for good prose. However, there is the advantage of consistency that organizes the data in a way that one unfamiliar with the concept may better understand. In my experience with high school text books; transitional words can not be subtle or the young reader will become confused. If your opposition to the consistency is not passionate; then I would rather leave the For example ... approach as it stands. However, it would be simple enough to convert to "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" if need be. Thank you for your constructive criticism. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Removed "The Tree" that has been added and removed several times in regards to the concern over clutter. It has been very difficult to balance the pictures; again because of my experience with textbooks, with the more "stark" approach of Wikipedia. Hope the removal served to improve the general appearance. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit out many of the "For Examples" as suggested--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be confusion here: "I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article.". The article does not mention creationism; we were addressing an oppose that stated that it should by Kaypoh. If you care to strike through the last one! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other concerns? The list you provided seems to have been addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The statement evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community is attributed to this NIH web page, but did the person quoted (Dr. Brian Alters) in the page literally mean 99.9%? Having read the context, I wonder about both the 99.9% figure and whether he meant it literally. Fg2 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This statement of Alters should be in quotes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot know for sure what Brian Alters meant, but his statement is pretty accurate from all we can determine. Look at level of support for evolution, for example.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should stick in a link to that. DrKiernan (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be there, but I guess it was removed in all the revisions.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was made to minimize the number of references in the article to make it more accessible. We can of course put a huge number of references in the article, just as are found in evolution or intelligent design. However, this was viewed as inappropriate for an introductory article.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that FA director is aware of your random votes on a variety of articles in which you "vote" without any apparent awareness of the procedure or the actual articles themselves. A scan of the Featured Article page will find your name over and over with the same comment. There are over 50 citation in this article. Please understand that this is a serious process; where criticism are respected; however, they should be well founded.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you think needs to be referenced and why using the principles outlined in WP:V and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) There are now nearly 70 references in an effort to address your specific concern. I am requesting that you specifically respond to these revision in citation numbers in order for me to determine if you are still in opposition and if possible, perhaps you could be more specific. Thanks for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it will be difficult to follow-up to each of the 50+ articles that you have reviewed since dropping in here; but I am certain that myself and likely the other writers of the 13 articles you critique, during a three hours time span, would appreciate a follow-up to determine if we have complied to your concerns sufficiently to remove that oppose, which has both inspired and frustrated the numerous editors on the numerous articles in which you have shared your vision of a FA worthy entry. I am sure that your comments are playing through the minds of those who take your words to heart; and recognize your good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Is there not a system in place to flag these things? (sigh)--Random Replicator (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not revisited, requested twice.[2][3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "Darwin incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment" I'm not familiar with that: I think that is counter-intuitive for someone ignorant, and could do with a citation. "The theory of evolution is the foundation of nearly all research conducted in biology" seems rather over-blown. "This has been well documented in the orchid family." example please, or cite a review. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Deleted the orchid comment... a million options I should have cited ... but frankly it seemed to be just hanging there with no real direction. Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your specific concerns --- I know Darwin had no explanation for the source of variations; I will dig farther to see how that morphed into his agreement on LaMarckism. Your specific concerns are appreciated and valued. General statements that it "needs more citations" contribute little when clearly the Introduction to Evolution Article has tons of citations (60 lines of referenced information). Frankly I would not cite the line: The earth orbits the sun. Some information in an encyclopedia is held to standard by "peer review" --- citing every line sounds like an over reaction to criticisms raised by "World Book" readers. It would make this entry cumbersome to read at best. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to concern:"It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."[4] I will add the required citation thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Response "The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy." Toned it down just a tad --- this is not over-blown; hopefully it still emphasizes the importance of evolutionary theory in biology.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What copyediting do you propose? Also, as stated above, the reason that there are so few references is that this is an introductory article. Compared to Introduction to general relativity, which is an FA, we actually have a higher density of references.--Filll (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question --- "extensive copyediting" --- seriously? This entry has been in the making for over a year. It has been copy-edited by a group of very talented individuals with extensive knowledge in English grammar. I've had this thing analyzed by college professors. We deliberated over every word in it. If there are grammar /sentence structure errors then they are from recent edits. As to content. There is no way that information that is obviously incorrect would last 2 secs. on that subject. It is monitored constantly by a large number of informed, passionate people, who constantly need to address the misconceptions on Evolution. Mis-information is challenged before the ink dries. A general --- knee-jerk --- oppose that lacks specificity is somewhat perplexing. Is it the topic itself that is the source of such vague criticism?--Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional references have been added --- roughly 50 which is excessive for an introductory article --- again I ask, what copy-edits would you like me to address?--Random Replicator (talk)
Kaldari, my friend, you know better than that! :) Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been significantly improved since my objection through copyediting and numerous source additions. Changing to Support. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm not too fond of the "Summary" section. As it's written, it reads like one of those dreaded "In conclusion" paragraphs to a high school essay. First person plural should really never be used in encyclopedic prose (I saw this elsewhere in the article, too). "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced..." <-- Hagiographic sentence that serves really no purpose.
  • Since this is being written for high school students (primarily), the conclusion will be comfortingly familiar to them and will reinforce the major concepts of the article. I see nothing wrong with that.
  • Apparently "we" is acceptable in science articles (I saw this in the WP:MOS somewhere once).
  • I believe the hagiographic sentence is there to counterbalance the challenges made to evolution in the United States where a minority of the population accepts it. It is, therefore, sadly necessary. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like first person plural, second person should really be avoided in an encyclopedia article.
  • I agree - it is fixed. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix your inline referencing format per MOS. The "[#]"s should go immediately after punctuation with no space (though there should be space after the ref). I saw various creative styles employed, including one where the ref was sandwiched between two periods.
  • "when the environment changes, most species fail to adapt" I don't think "most" is the best word here.
  • When citing books, please give the page number. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the credit for the in front / in back of the periods issue. I applied templates to all the citations; a rather extensive process and no doubt moved the original placements. A quick and painless fix --- as compared to actually verifying and applying template. Thank you. I will also address this problem "Hagiographic" as soon as I get a chance to look up the word and determine its meaning! Again, thank you for your detailed concerns which will lead to improvement.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the Evolution entry and noticed that none of the textbooks include page numbers. It is featured. Was that an oversight on there part? Also; extinction is the norm when environmental changes occur; however, would "many" be in the direction that would elevate this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it was an oversight or not, but I thought it was just common practice (not just on Wiki, but in academia) that when citing specific facts/quotations from a book, you give the page number where it's from. See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it. "Many" probably wouldn't elevate my concern, but it might alleviate it. :) I also noticed that ref number 4 is missing the title of the work. Overall though, my biggest concern is the Summary section, and the use of first/second person in the article. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) "elevate" That is why they only let me watch and not actually type anything! That line has been revised per your suggestion. They did let me add the title "Biology" to the Campbell / Reese Text. Thanks--Random Replicator (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got a chance to look up the word. Revisit the summary and see if the re-write addressed that concern by "toning down" a bit. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I had to fix a major factual error (Darwin rejected Lamarckism; this was part of his major leap in understanding, and yet the article incorrectly asserted that he embraced it, then sourced it to a source which specifically says he rejected it) and I'm sure there are others in there. Moreover, I went through and removed half a dozen "in fact" and "in reality"s, and the article's overall prose is just not up to snuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."This is the source --- are we reading the same thing?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there were 3 In facts and 1 In reality which = 4. Where 1/2 dozen = 6. But who is counting. If that was your concern ... then you yourself fixed them --- so why is that a problem to list here? I'm not sure I understand this process. You identified a problem ... fixed it ... then declare it a problem after the fact. "I'm sure there are others in there"... I not sure how to respond to that as a concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revision has introduced a new unsourced error. Darwin clearly accepted "use and disuse heritability", as refd. Desmond, A. & Moore, J. (1991) Darwin Penguin Books p.617 "Darwin was loathe to let go of the notion that a well-used and strengthened organ could be inherited" He didn't agree with Lamarck's ideas of "besoin" for change and of progressive improvements, but his Pangenesis theory was an unsuccessful attempt to provide a mechanism for inheritance of variations, including acquired characteristics. After Darwin's death August Weismann proposed the "Weismann barrier" in opposition to what was then called neo-Lamarckism. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Ok, that's the correct statement that Darwin accepted as fact the idea that heritable traits were a product of use and disuse reintroduced with three new references, and the paragraph revised to make the point clearer. .. dave souza, talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My objection on factual accuracy has been more or less met; I think their reading of the section is most likely correct and mine wrong. However, my oppose remains, mostly on the grounds of it just not being as well-written as I think a FA should be (overall quality of prose). Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some specific examples of this? I have just copy edited the article today and while I don't think the article is poetic, I do think it is as clearly written as these things can be. However, if you have suggestions for improvement, I know that the editors would welcome them. Saying that the writing just isn't as good as other FAs isn't particularly helpful - how can the editors fix that? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I noticed that you checked off your concerns on Talk, both the factual concern and concern that it is not well written; yet the oppose remains. Were there other concerns or does this still stand on the more general opinion of it being short of FA standard?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, it provides a good introduction to a complex concept which is prone to misunderstandings. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The mission statement for this article was to serve as a transition between the simple Wikipedia and the Main article on Evolution. It would be easy to riddle the text with PMID references as primary sources; which are easy to cite and format. However, we opted for more laymen secondary sources such as National Geographic and PBS websites. They are beastly to cite and thus do not make for a nice clean reference section as appears in the Evolution article. However, in my opinion they serve the reader much more than an abstract from a complex journal. The article is heavily cited; with the exception of the summary, which is a restatement of the prior (cited) material. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think of it as the planetary model of the atom-evolution page. :) Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Titanium Dragon is wrong to say that there is an error about Lamarckism, and it is unfair to suggest with no evidence that he/she is "sure there are many other" errors. In fact the article correctly asserts that Darwin (in effect) embraced Lamarckism. See the article's talk page and recent edits (including references) to the article! So where are these other errors? In the absence of evidence, I wonder if Titanium Dragon would care to withdraw this point? Snalwibma (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on references. I am somewhat disappointed to see so many people's knee-jerk "not enough references for FA status" remarks above. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for an introductory article to contain only a small number of references. It is meant to be easy to read and accessible, and references get in the way of this, making it appear undigestible and hard work. What is wrong with keeping the references to a minimum, and instead relying on links to other WP articles, where the reader can find both more detail and as many references as he/she wants? Snalwibma (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Oppose - The references annoy me. I personally think books make lousy reference sources, unless there's a good quote to be used. Almost everything written in a textbook or other scholarly books is a review, so the original source is EASILY found. I don't like inconsistent referencing either. I'll help out. I'm anal about references. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an introductory article, and it is much better to send the reader of such an article to a good textbook review rather than to some arcane original research in a journal. Just a thought. Snalwibma (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with the use of the textbooks is that they are not online accessable. I would rather have used only sources that can be access with a direct link. My beef with the Evolution ref. is that it is almost exclusively journals which cannot be accessed without memberships. At best you get an abstract. This gave the article credibility and made for a clean, confident look; but provides little in the way of additional information. Maybe there is a compromise in here somewhere.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not sources are available to be read online should have no bearing on whether or not they are appropriate citations. We should use the best sources available, not the most accessable sources. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wikipedia needs to establish credibility by citing excellent reliable sources, agreed. In our case; however, the entry was designed to increase access to a complex concept via a transition article. Everything in here is general knowledge. Our approach has been to basically use citations as a tool to open doors to even more general "laymen" type web resources. For example: [5][6][7] I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be web accessable; I'm just saying for our audience in an Introductory Article there is merit to doing so if it opens new resources for general readers. Face it, they are not going to go locate the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; however a cool web cite like National Geographic or PBS may be meaningful. The entire Evolution page is sourced from high level journals. It bespeaks of credibility; but it offers nothing to the general reader. What I see as a strength of our entry; at least by some, is seen as a weakness. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I'm moving to oppose. Here are some of my reasons. Although I am a stickler for references, I understand that I am more anal about it than certain editors. However, I do expect consistency in the references, and there just isn't. Some are badly written, and I am endeavoring to fix those. There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. Books should be in Further reading or something similar. Each book has a corresponding peer-reviewed article. Lastly, the article requires some significant copyediting. I use this guide for copyediting. I have also asked User:SandyGeorgia to take some time in editing the article. I am attacking the frequent redundancies in the article. But this article requires a lot of work. But with some focused copyediting, we can get there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to add a statement here on the above comment: There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. - This is not an actionable comment (nothing in WP:V or WP:RS supports this line of reasoning). The rest of the comments are, of course, actionable. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "There are too many books, which are impossible to verify:" this is hyperbole of the silly sort. Part of it resembles the criticism of Mozart - too many notes - and the other part is asinine. I know Orangemarlin you are fixing problems as you see them, which is good, but I'm afraid your book comment is going to be a favorite example of mine to demonstrate Wikipedia weirdness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for personal attack. It must be YOUR article, so I'll leave it alone. This isn't going to pass FAC, and I'll pass along your rude remark to those that care about these things. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books should be cited in the reference section the same as any other verifiable source. We certainly should not avoid citing books and there is not a corresponding peer review article for every book. As for The Origin of Species and (in)consistency, on some points it makes a vast difference which edition you read. --Una Smith (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a bit dismayed by the tone that this FAC has taken. Any pages dealing with evolution are a challenge to take on and the editors should be commended for their efforts. I know that they have worked hard over the past few months because I have repeatedly offered what I hope is constructive criticism on this article and they have always taken it graciously. While I cannot yet support this article for FAC (my little list of comments is currently on the article's talk page, I would like to respond to some of the concerns raised here, which did not correlate with mine at all. Mine are largely demands for more explanation and organizational concerns (and I believe the editors will be able to fix these and I will be able to support the article).
The sourcing requirements for this article should follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, as Wassupwestcoast appropriately notes. I think that the editors have made an excellent decision in sourcing the article to books accessible to the readership they are writing for. Notes are not just for verification, they are also for further reading. If the notes are all to technical articles and high-level textbooks, we wouldn't be doing our users any favors. The editors of this page have thought so carefully about their audience that they have chosen specific sources for them is something we should marvel at, not condemn.
I am also concerned that some of the beautiful illustrations have disappeared. While initially the page may have had a disorganized layout (I complained about this months ago), the solution to this problem is not the total elimination of illustrations, but the careful selection of the best illustrations. Let us work together! Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This probably wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but since I can't see anyone else really talking about the images I wanted to clear up my comment above. I wasn't opposed to any of the images or the number of images in the article. Was it really that unclear? I just thought the introduction area was really cluttered with two images, a template and the table of contents all jammed in there. I think the article would look a little cleaner with just a single image or template and the TOC in the intro area, but that is just my preference so I'm not going to demand that one or the other be moved if you or the other editors disagree. Ben 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) How do you think it looks now? I think that having the evolution template in the white space next to the TOC and under the dinosaur image works fine. (By the way, I think there were people on the talk page discussing the images, too - I've lost track now.) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ...the image concern was not related to your thread.It has been batted about all over the place. Your contributions and your support is greatly appreciated Ben, and sparked some hope that with effort FA concerns can be resolved. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better now the introduction has been fleshed out and filled some of the whitespace. Good luck. Ben 14:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns have been addressed. While I cannot speak to the scientific accuracy of this article (I have asked TimVickers to provide us with an outside scientific peer review on that point, if anyone is interested), I can speak to its reading level, comprehensiveness, and prose. For comparison, I picked up an "introduction to evolution" pamphlet at the bookstore to see whether we were covering the major topics (and we were, with a few optional choices, in my opinion). The prose is at an appropriate reading level for competent high-schools students (the article's audience) and, while not poetic (what on wikipedia is?), clearly explains the concepts. Kudos to the editors. Awadewit | talk 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (part I):
    • I would favour bolding "evolution" at the start of the article, but that's neither here nor there
Done--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not thrilled with the first sentence - it seems a bit clumsy. Also, it stresses speciation - while that's a crucial point to make, it misses the point that evolution is a continuous process, while species are arbitrary points that we assign to continua.
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second sentence says that evolution has "has transformed the first species" into "a large number of different species". That just doesn't capture the millions (of eukaryotic) or billions (of prokaryotic) species that have originated from this common ancestor (or group of ancestors).
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third sentence - "this process" or "these processes"? Shouldn't we speak about "processes"?
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth sentence - there's too much of a jump from evolutionary biology to Mendel and DNA.
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.
    • The second paragraph should be combined into the first. The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable. Guettarda (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (part II):
    • The section "Darwin's idea" makes no mention of Wallace; I think that's a major deficiency. The final paragraph could start with a mention of (and link to) Wallace.
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.
Done (dramatic improvements to this section) thank you --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" could be clearer - the statement that "heredity works by reshuffling and recombining factors" isn't going to make much sense to someone who doesn't know this stuff already. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (part III):
    • The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.
Done --- very much improved--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines. This is where we have hundreds of species originating from a handful of ancestors (one per lake?) in a few thousand years. The image is of an example of a group of hybrids of Central American species, probably Cichlasoma spp. Central American Cichlasomas are fairly diverse, but they show just average diversity for tropical species. The hybrids show high rates of deformity, which is likely to be a distraction. While there don't seem to be a lot of good pix of Haplochromis spp. (this and this are the only ones I could find), Mbunas show a similar, if not quite so overwhelming, pattern of diversification (and there are lots of good pix there).
Interestingly, I have had email exchanges with Dr. Walter Salzburger, a cichlid guru; who I was seeking confirmation on the general accuracy of that section. He is to provide me with more current examples from his studies in Lake Victoria cichlids. But until then, I am open for any picture with strong visual appeal.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" might be better terms "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution". Obviously they are going to be different, or we wouldn't have a separate section. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list is being addressed on the discussion page!--Random
Replicator (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure I have addressed your concerns; will you be responding here or at the discussion page so that I might make modifications as needed to these very beneficial concerns? Thank you for a meaningful critique!--Random Replicator (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is thorough, it is readable and it is interesting. Even the hated info box seems to provide a valuable service here. The author clearly understands the subject and the text seems confident (that sounds daft but I know what I mean). I don't see any good reasons why this can't be promoted to FA. Giano (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose The editors are having a difficult time reaching consensus without belittling others interested in the article. The article is limited to eukaryotic evolution, but the outline box is about evolution in general. This introduces a type of inaccuracy that should not be present in an introductory article. Evolution biologists have been able to discuss and disagree with each other and reach consensus on teaching for a long time. Wikipedia writers should try to do this without personally attacking others who have ideas that differ from their own on an article's discussion page. With editing at this level, resorting to belittling editors who disagree, the article will be a problem when it's on the Main Page. I changed to strong opposed. The supports are not reading the discussion page, the comment to me defending a discussion about my having a "chip on my shoulder" and that my writing "gibberish' are not personal attacks is evidence that the discussion page is not about the article. Upgrade oppose. It seems that any disagreement with the article will be a major problem and gain an army of attackers. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sink, imo--update my very strong oppose Although it may have just been an editing error, probably was in fact, there was a copy vio added to the article where almost two full lines of distinctive text from a major researcher were used without quotation marks.[8][9] I think the article needs thoroughly checked for other inappropriately or improperly used text, particularly when it is aimed at younger readers. IMO this simply has to be done for the entire article before it should be featured on the front page, as this could be embarrassing for Wikipedia and reflect poorly on all of our evolutionary biology articles. This is too strong of a potential bad influence on young readers, also, imo. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<discussion on copyvio moved to talk page>

Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:

  • "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.
Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists call this process natural selection." Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.
Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."

The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"

Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"

Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "

Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. " This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."

He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.

  • "This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"

This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.

  • "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."

This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.

  • "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."

What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."

No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- section moved to discussion page ----

  • "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"
  • "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.
  • "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."

This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.

  • "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.
Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."
  • It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.
  • "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."

Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."

Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.

There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):

Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION

This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."
  • Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."

The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line. "From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool." The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is. Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph: "A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population." It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool." The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler: "Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations." So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this. Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.

Done--- it is gone --- --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


*Object I note the discussion above regarding creationism and my object is wholly founded in this area. Evolution is a theory which is accepted by the vast majority of science, and indeed probably the vast majority of humanity. However, unlike flat-earthers the controversy and opposition to it is (the important thing for a WP Featured Article) notable. I think that the treatment of the opposition need (in fact should) not be over-egged in an "Introduction" article, but it shouldn't be omitted altogether as it currently effectively is. In a similar vein, I'd expect an Introduction to Global Warming article to include reference to the fact that this is not an uncontroversial topic and give a clear marker for those interested in reading more about the arguments. This is a nomination for a Featured Article. Such articles must espouse our highest possible standards, one of which is comprehensiveness. I think this is easily fixed, in probably no more than two or three sentences, perhaps, to keep things on-topic and NPOV, focussing on key arguments used by opponents of the theory that aren't used by critics who support the theory. I suggest the article puts forward apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory, rather than a discursus explaining creationism or any other ism. Perhaps that's not the best way to treat it, but it can't just be relegated to a {{for}} or {{main}} tag. And while it is, I need to object to an excellent article. If fixed, I'd need to review the article in more depth but it does look like an otherwise FA quality article at first reading. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    • Question - I assume you mean that the reference to wide acceptance at the end of the lead section, combined with the clear link to Objections to evolution in the summary, is not sufficient. Is it not? I cannot see, however, what the "apparent shortcomings" you refer to might be. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. First, the link in the lead is obfuscation - it talks about agreement yet links to opposition. Someone looking through the article for objection will not find it (as indeed happened to me). Secondly, the lead should summarise issues discussed by the article, as per WP:LEAD. The article does not discuss opposition to the theory itself. And finally, as I stated above, including a {{main}} or {{for}} tag is insufficient. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We removed this sort of stuff from evolution, and that helped it to reach FA. We removed this sort of material from this article and that helped it to reach GA. The controversy material is more political and has zero to do with science. So we put it in special controversy articles. And that has worked much better, frankly.--Filll (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filll - this is neither a science encyclopedia, nor is this a "science" article. It's entitled "Introduction to evolution". So either introduce it comprehensively or don't seek Featured status. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An "introduction to evolution" is an introduction to what scientists think evolution is. When the evolution editors were working at achieving consensus on this issue, they drew up a helpful FAQ which answers many of these questions (see Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?). This article directs people, via links, to subarticles on the controversy over evolution (which is an entirely different topic than the subject of evolution itself). The article discusses the different modern theories regarding the mechanism of evolution. This is the most responsible and scientifically accurate way to approach the material. Awadewit | talk 10:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you can't define what the reader wants/needs/expects from an article. Just because you say it's "an introduction to what scientists think evolution is" doesn't make it so. See my comments below. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't the reader that defines the article - it is the experts. Scientists define the scope of evolution. The topic of this article is "introduction to evolution". It is indeed true that there have been controversies over evolution (both historical and contemporary), but those topics are political and religious and bring in the opinions of many others besides scientists. That is a different topic that is covered in other articles. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. If experts defined the article it'd be full of incomprehensible jargon, for one thing. Experts write for the audience. And this is not a scientific journal. It's an encyclopedia. Consider how bonkers it would be for an "Introduction to creationism" article not to mention that there's controversy about creationism and that there's this theory called evolution. The editors of that article would no doubt be indignant, but they'd be wrong to think it's comprehensive without mentioning notable opposition. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there are already plenty of references to the controversy in the article. There are links to pretty much all the articles dealing with the topic (Objections to evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, etc.). What more do you want? Snalwibma (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's examine whethere the following words appear at all in the body text of the article:

opposition - occurrences: 0
disagree - occurrences: 0
Creationism - occurrences: 0
controv(ersy / ersial etc) - occurrences - 1 (relating to response in Darwin's time, so not relevant here)
objection - occurences: 1 (I'll address this below)

As I've said, it's not enough to dismiss notable opposition with just a main tag, and the one usage of "objection" is in a Summary section. Well, isn't a Summary usually, erm, a summary of what's been discussed?

What I'm looking for is a brief, honest note in an appropriate place in the article to the fact that there is notable opposition to evolution. Probably two or three sentences. Possibly one if well written and in an appropriate place. (The Global warming FA does with a wikilinked half a sentence in its Lead (!), with a main tag lower down, under an appropriate heading. Not sure about that, as Lead usually summarises the article, but you get my point.) I'm not looking for a treatise on Creationism; it would be inappropriate here.

Incidentally, the one relevant main tag you have is in an inappropriate place, as I don't believe that Creation-evolution controversy is really about "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution", but rather a perspective on the fundamentals of the theory, rather than how it works ("mechanics"). --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cross posting from User talk:Random Replicator

Gosh, what a can of worms for what I thought would be fairly straightforward to address.

I don't really mind how my objection would/could be addressed (I suggested a methodology, but if it doesn't work, that's fine), but I would expect that the introduction article to any scientific theory that had notable opposition (and boy is it notable) should at least mention the opposition, or it is dishonest.

Wikipedia's role is not to decide what is "Truth" or "Right" or "Good for 14 year olds", but to be a mirror of the world we live in. And there is opposition to this theory, even if scientists the world over regard that as barmy.

The controversy over evolution affects school curricula the world over. It fills our newspapers. It's the subject of countless TV documentaries. And it's obviously something that both scientists and clerics spend a lot of time fruitlessly trying to win unwinnable arguments about.

So any article seeking to fulfil the criterion of comprehensiveness needs to mention the controversy.

I'm surprised people disagree with this.

It's hard for me to debate on the talk page without stoking up the temperature - there already seem to be quite a few editors there with hot tempers and I'm not looking for controversy, just to see an article reach our highest values before it passes FA.

If you wanted, we could work in a sandbox on some wording, but I think from the looks of the article talk page that we're not ready to do that yet.

--Dweller (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what is your objection to using the "See also" section? You started this with asking for scientific opposition, but as discussed on the articles talk page there is none from the "teach the controversy" perspective. Now you seem to be asking for the political perspective? As someone mentioned on the articles talk page, look at other wikipedia articles and what types of criticisms are present in our FA articles. Does the Islam article have a criticism section from the Christian perspective, let alone the scientific perspective? David D. (Talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for something like Evolution#Social_and_cultural_views in the FA Evolution article, only shorter and simpler, befitting an Introduction to... article. I'm in discussion with some of the key editors of the article and hopefully we'll soon have something that can be taken forward with consensus. Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but I simply feel that the opposition to evolution is so notable that it must be mentioned. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a bearer of bad news, but as a result of your agitation, the article was just scrubbed and the discussion of the controversy was reduced even further and relegated to one or two links. So, sometimes there is a law of unintended consequences. I would have favored the material at least being mentioned and integrated in, but because of the trouble you caused, others lost patience. Sad.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the changes I made were not because I lost patience with Dweller but because I thought they improved the article. Before Dweller brought up these points i had not considered these points more than briefly. The edits I made were after more careful consideration on my part and after reading the input from other users on the talk page. I believe the "See also" section is the right place for this information where a reader is directed to the articles in wikipedia that give a full perspective, rather than a one liner in this article that seems forced. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the article overall. My concern is that it is addresses subjects that should be addressed in the parent Evolution article-like a Population Genetics section. It also addresses some subjects in fair detail for an introductory article, which I would rather see it in the Evolution article-like the speciation section. I suggest addressing some of the issues in the parent Evolution article and then address it in basic terms here. I guess I would like to see it more parallel the Evo article but just a "simple" version. Really a suggestion more than a criticism, and it does it to a significant degree. I think it a daunting task to write a "simple" or "introductory" version of a subject like Evolution because of the difficulty in translating correct and accurate scientific terminology into something palatable for the novice.I could argue I would have stated somethings differently but I think that is just personal preference. I should state again that this intro article incorporates images,uses examples, and covers topics that should be addressed also in the parent Evo article. Good job.GetAgrippa (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this article develop from the beginning, adding a few things here and there. Despite the critics above I have no problem supporting this for FA. I think the authors have bent over backwards to try and accommodate many different perspectives. There have been some unfortunate clashes but none i believe significant enough to jeopardise the stability of the article. It represent an enjoyable read and a great launching pad for further investigation. I have no doubt this will be the first stop for very many new wikipedians, i think it will be a pleasant surprise for the skeptics of this encyclopedia and may well attract more quality editors inspired by this article. Very well done to the primary authors. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources need seriously checked The introductory section has this sentence "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants, which helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[2]" tied to the reference "^ a b Wyhe, John van (2002). Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. University of Cambridge. Retrieved on 2008-01-16." This puts Mendel contemporaneous with Darwin (which he was), but calls Mendel "the next important step," while referencing him inside of Darwin. This reference makes even less sense than the entire timeline in these two paragraphs.
    • What? --Amaltheus (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However speciation has been observed in present day organisms, and past speciation events are recorded in fossils.[45][46][47] These references tie first to a page that doesn't have the word fossil on it, then to an article about a modern pre-speciation event "hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)-infesting races of Rhagoletis pomonella," and a laboratory experiment showing speciation. If the sentence is about the fossil record, the references should be, too. Or the references moved to the first part, or the second half of the sentence removed, or a reference dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record being added. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With regard to the references the cites in the LEAD were incorrect as they were absent and thus pointed to the incorrect citations (I corrected it). Thanks for noting the mistake. Second the sentence says "in present day organisms" as well as "recorded in fossils". Your complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete. One at least should be about fossils. Rather than complaining here, why not find one and help the process along, or mention this omission on the talk page? David D. (Talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: I struck out some text that was an incorrect interpretation due to lazy reading on my behalf. I completely misread the comment by [User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] David D. (Talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was one of my solutions, as I noted above, simply adding a reference "dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record." It's not a complaint so much as an issue with the article that needs corrected. When I post on the talk page, my comments get ignored, or not read completely, as appears to be the case with your response to my note above. As I noted above adding a reference could solve the problem with the sentence and you told me my "complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete." I don't ever, in my post, "complain that the references are incorrect," but rather point out that considering the structure of the sentence, the references need to point to its topic. Please, reread what I wrote. It continues to be a source of frustration when bandwidth is used to discuss something that isn't there. I offered up the solution you suggest, already. I didn't "complain that the references are incorrect," I merely pointed out that with that sentence, the references needed reworked, or the sentence reworked, or a reference added. Please, simply read what I write for once. thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the homologous structures: "Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species." The image shows the typical vertebrate forelimbs (I think, just glanced) above three different birds. Wings on birds aren't homologous so much as they're the same structure. They're all bird wings. The wings of bats and and arms of human beings, the example given in the Wikipedia article on homology are, indeed, homologous structures, more distantly the wings of birds are homologous with the wings of bats and arms of human beings, as are the forelimbs of all vertebrates. The wings of insects and of birds are analagous structures. But we don't usually say that the wings of one species of butterfly are homologous with the wings of another species. This caption should be deleted or the pictures of the birds should be removed from it. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break
  • (Sentence is no longer there) "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.
Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists call this process natural selection."

Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."

The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"

Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"
  • Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.
Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new first paragraph is truly excellent, except for the first sentence. It is, with the one exception, well written, accurate, and readable by all. Using simply "Evolution" and bolding it rather than talking about the article "Introduction to Evolution" is a great improvement.

The problem sentence, though: "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."

Actually it's the process by why all life accumulates changes over generations (leading to differences, through time, but something along the first part might suffice). All life changes over generations, but all life doesn't evolve due to changing over generations. Again, the people alive today, aren't the same as the folks alive 150 years ago, but human beings haven't evolved in 150 years.

  • "Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "

Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety." Still like diversity better because it's a buzzword in the press.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. "

This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."

He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about,

"In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped later scientists to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

This makes it unnecessary to explain more about Mendel or to timeline Mendel and early 20th century genetics in the first paragraph while still keeping it strictly accurate, also deals specifically with my issue about the next sentence on mechanisms of inheritance, again while being more accurate, not adding too much depth for the introduction and honoring the timeline.

  • "His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.

"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"

This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.

"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."

This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.

(Sentence is no longer there) "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research." What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs."

Is this the correct order?

  • "Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation)."

I'd like to see this tied to a specific source. I took a seminar with one of the world's leading scientists on the issue of species, he wrote one of the most cited papers on the topic. I asked him during the seminar if scientists today understood speciation real well. I asked him because I thought this statement above was true. He said, "How can we be understand speciation if don't understand species?" I'm uneasy about the sentence, but maybe scientists do think they understand species really well 5 years later. I think it needs a reference, also, because it's so definitive.

  • "They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild."
  • Hopefully this is sourced below. Most speciation processes occur at the genetic level, it seems unlikely they've been observed.
  • "This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life."

Unequivocally and simply, yes.

  • (Sentence is no longer there) "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."

No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- section moved to discussion page ----

  • "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"
  • "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.
  • "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."

This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.

  • "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.
Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."
  • It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.
  • "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."

Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."

Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):

Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION

This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."

Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Its gone due to several concerns over overly complex material for introduction. "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium

To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation." The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."

The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.

Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph: "A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population." It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool." The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler: "Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations." So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this. Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.

Done--- it is gone -----Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive since this FAC started, and the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC.
722 edits and five week later: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.

Oppose

  • Titanium Dragon (has this been addressed, has TD been asked to revisit?)
  • OrangeMarlin (objection to book sources is not a valid oppose, most citation inconsistencies have been cleaned up as far as I can tall, except that page nos are needed on book sources)
  • Amaltheus, very strong oppose, questions on accuracy of representation of sources and accuracy of text, extensive talk page discussion, FAC commentary impossible to follow due to strange formatting and moves back and forth to talk page, this is a serious oppose that needs to be resolved and clarified.
    • I'm open to suggestions on formatting. It's not clear that there is a specific format required or desirable that would be easier to follow. There are still more issues in the article, imprecise language and improper synonyms for example, but overall it has generally moved from a somewhat technical introduction to evolution with random areas of greater technicality to a more general and approachable true introduction to evolution that is well outlined. I see a lot of potential in this article for being what its owners initially wanted it to be.
      • Wherever it goes, what is needed is a clear, brief summary of what concerns are left and whether progress is being made. (No, that doesn't belong on your talk page; here on the FAC is preferred.) Because commentary on this FAC is almost never threaded/indented correctly, I can't tell who has written what above (comments aren't threaded, and I can't tell who entered the underscored done comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see you suggesting that this be put on my talk page, something Random Replicator addresses below. The issues are real problems with the article that need addressed as far as I am concerned, and my talk page is no more appropriate for that than it was appropriate for the crap that has been put there. I struck out concerns that were addressed, leaving only issues that impact the accuracy of the article. The stuff on pre/postzygotic barriers should be moved to an article on that topic, as Wikipedia seems not to have one. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He has instructed (all the current contributors) to not intrude on his talk page. I think we should respect that request. I've attempted to incorporate some of his concerns on this page which I see have now been struck. The separate pages were requested to separate concerns over article problems with issues concerning editor behaviors. There has been more than enough said by all on this --- let it rest. The FA Director can decide from here. Please --Random Replicator (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brískelly and Kaypoh have not revisited in spite of requests.

Page numbers on book sources and WP:OVERLINKing still need to be addressed. There is still ongoing talk page discussion and active changes to the article (not clear if the article fails 1e, or just wasn't initially ready for FAC). Please finish up the MOS items listed on the talk page, and clarify where Amaltheus' issues stand, and TD and OM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "not ready at the time of submission"; hence edits to improve - most involving reduction in complexity or a crash course in formating and citations. There is absolutely no edit war. It would be very disappointing to fail FA because of that perception --there is one very unhappy editor with very strong opinions. The changes by recent contributors are also followed with their supports --- the compromises above should dispel any concerns on edit warring. Stability -- as long as its improving I can accept failing on that one. Hopefully, the summation below and the separate discussion page dedicated entirely to his concern over ownership is adequate to express where the Amaltheus' issues stands. Also thank you for coming to the rescue on the technical concerns; fail FA or not --- it is a 1000x's better after passing under the demanding eyes of both you SandyGeorgia and Awadewit; it has been an incredibly humbling experience. --- --Random Replicator (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always believed that temporarily re-focusing upset editors on technical matters can help relieve content tension and bring editors back to working together :-) Great progress has been made here; I hope all will work together to resolve the few remaining issues, so the article can pass without ill will. Working out MOS and citation issues at peer review is another tip for a peaceful FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued concerns with the article As mentioned in my comments above, the editors have used synonyms in the article, such as "variety" for "diversity," (an example, this one is not as important). In the cases I pointed out, which have been corrected, the editors used synonyms with specific technical meanings for general words in English. As this is a general article, "variety" for "diversity" can stand, whether I like it or not. I have not checked the entire article for additional concerns like this. Genetics jargon can't be used in a general sense in an article on evolution. The jargon must be used only in its technical meaning. I don't see that other editors are checking for this.
  • Although I believe it was just careless editing, I am still concerned about checking for copyright violations. Another editor pointed out that this article may wind up sounding like a dozen other general introductions to evolution. Maybe, but that wasn't the problem with the copyright violation-it was a very specific instance. The article has to be checked out.
  • Amaltheus, the best way to proceed on that issue is to go back in the article history and determine who entered the copyvio. Chances are, it was an IP. In any case, see if the same editor made any other edits; if not, there's probably no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references were obviously not attached to what they were referencing. Other editors should have caught this while editing, but did not. This concerns me when no one catches that a reference about Mendel is attached to Darwin's works.
  • The best we can do on this issue is a random spot check; say, every fifth reference, or something like that. It is an important concern; I recall another recent FAC where almost every citation turned out not to verify the text. A spot, random check usually reveals issues if there are any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The templates were being applied during FA which created havok; since it was done to all of them at once by me. I was attempting to do this with limited skills. Fortunately, Amaltheus was there to catch my errors and bring them to my attention here. Even better thou, Wassupwestcoast recently invested a great amount of energy to properly template and link. I hope it is spot-on now; but spot checking is always an excellent idea.--Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of obvious problems that the writers of this article have missed concerns me. There continues to be obvious inaccurate characterizations of evolution in the article. Huge inaccurate characterizations. I keep correcting them here, and they keep slipping in. I'm concerned that the writers don't catch these instances. The first sentence is an example:
    • "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
  • Evolution is not only not the process by which all life changes over generations, all life doesn't change over generations. Evolution is about speciation, the accumulation of change in a population over generations. In an otherwise excellent paragraph, finding something this wrong is troubling, and the lead sentence at that.
  • Evolution is the accumulation of change in a population. I see Wikipedia's article on evolution also emphasizes the generation to generation evolution.
  • This implies that my generation is different from my grandfather's generation, from my mother's generation, which is different from her father's generation. This is not the case. I don't know how to say this any better. It is very difficult to communicate at a level where on the one hand the debate is whether H-W should be included or not (the problem was it wasn't tied into the discussion in its section), and on the other we keep have to defining evolution. It is troubling that the writers keep putting in difficult sentences such as this one after spending ages debating the form of the lead paragraphs. No compromise should be made that puts wrong information in the article, and in such a prominent position.
  • The article is mostly about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution, but has a mind-boggling summary box about single parent clones. The box might be the result of entrenching against me for my suggestion that sex be mentioned in the box. But the summary box should match the article. If the article talks about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution the summary box should not be about an exception to this. This is an appropriate simplification for an article of this nature, sticking with only the large and familiar world. But it's not acceptable to focus one way here another way there.
  • As long as difficulties like these keep arising, mind-boggling difficulties such as making the lead sentence factually incorrect, I think the article is not worthy of being featured. The definition of "evolution" is not a minor issue. Using the term incorrectly is a major stumbling block for this article. Using jargon as general English synonyms is a stumbling block. Missing incorrect references is a stumbling block. Continued hostility to other Wikipedians who can catch these issues, while the writers are missing them, is a major stumbling block.
  • Thanks for the new summary, Amaltheus. I've just read through the talk page here, and I see that things got a bit out of hand. I appreciate the progress made by all, and hope all can refocus on addressing the few remaining concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sources of variation section gives excess credit to Watson and Crick and the historical sequence is wrong. I have left a comment on the Talk page. This section does not have to be long because the article is about Evolution and not DNA, but it must be accurate.--GrahamColmTalk 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an introductory article, the appropriate response is to be more vague and less detailed, not more.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is not accurate, it does not require more detail, it needs the inaccurate details to be removed.--GrahamColmTalk 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.--GrahamColmTalk 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another error, this comes from using a primary source, probably:

:"In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA."

"This" is from the preceding sentence: the described double helix structure of DNA. But it isn't the "double helix structure" that helps demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code, but the base pairing, which immediately suggests how DNA could be the hereditary code by its copying mechanism being a function of its structure:

:"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." (From their article.) Again, the references have to say what they are attached to, not common folklore that the double helix is the coolest thing in the world about DNA. It's the base pairing.

This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The structure of DNA is referred to as the double helix. -- I do not think the author of this sentence intended to imply that helical shape was exclusive or even the primary force behind heredity. I didn't read it that way. It is a commonly used descriptive term for DNA. If it should become a major point of contention; then I suggest dropping "double helix structure" and just say they described the structure of DNA; rather than increasing complexity in that passage. Going into the base pairing rules might be a tad off topic; perhaps best linked out. Would simply deleting the statement double helix structure achieve the same goal without the need to swing toward increased complexity? --Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The double helix is commonly known, the only problem was implying, by the sentence, that this is what Watson and Crick's major breakthrough in the biological sciences was. Most of what we do today in the biological sciences is due to the insight of Watson and Crick into the base pairing. The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask then --- will dropping the double helix structure from the text be adequate to your concerns so that I may delete the newly added information? I'm trying to lean toward simplicity on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed or dismissed my strike out of "my concerns" about this issue above.[10] --Amaltheus (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it as it is [[11]]. Although I agree fully with Amaltheus about base-pairing being the more important concept, readers understand codes, the small addition re: the base pairing G-C A-T doesn't do any harm.--GrahamColmTalk 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way on this one, as long as the proper emphasis is on the major discovery, which is why I struck the issue out after SandyGeorgia asked about it. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic section moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overstepping conclusion:

  • "There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection. As in natural selection, the variations are a result of random mutations; the only difference is that in artificial selection, humans select which organisms will be allowed to breed.[25]"

This sentence oversteps its reference by a wide degree. There is a big difference in natural and artificial selection, in that natural selection ultimately results in viable breeding populations of a new species. I think corn is the only instance where artifical selection has done that. Great Danes and German Shephards have no barriers to cross breeding. They are not species. Many crop plants are grown from clones (fruits for example). I suggest something along the lines of equating the human selection of desirable traits to the natural selection of traits fit to the organism's current environment. The conclusion, in any way, has to be tied to a source, not to a definition. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the double helix offends people, get rid of it. Simpler is better. Rather than adding more detail to make it more "accurate" and "correct", I would advise dumping all the information in that area. Otherwise, we will be heading in a very negative direction. If vague bothers people, just remove that topic completely, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1b, not comprehensive. Not a single mention is made of Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which occupies a whole chapter in his original book, and forms a major part of natural selection. And not a single mention that behaviour as well as physical attributes is subject to evolutionary forces. Tony (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is not about Darwin, or any of his original books, but the theory of evolution. It is written as an introduction for people with little knowledge of what evolution is and probably little scientific background. Why would it have to mention everything that Darwin mentions? Or give things the same weighting that Darwin gave them, decades ago? This article isn't supposed to go into the complex details; there is the article evolution for that. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1e, to begin with. This is what it looked like when the nom began. Not even the lead has been stable. An article shouldn't need 700 edits during FAC. And it raises an obvious question: what will it look like a month from now? Judging the threads that have emerged on this, it seems to be headed toward dispute resolution, not the stability we expect of FAs. I echo Tony's 1b concern: why does artificial selection get a section and sexual selection get nothing? Finally, I question the very logic of having the page. I just did a top-to-bottom read of Evolution. It's a wonderful article. Critical definitions are explained at first mention, the language is as plain as possible, and examples are well chosen. Attentive readers should easily be able to follow it. That isn't to say that there is nothing of use here. It might be retargetted as History of evolutionary thought (post-1959) as it's largely structured chronologically. Marskell (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you've drawn attention to the Evolution article, I note that it includes one of the misconceptions that was the subject of intense scrutiny during this FAC process for this article, so I'll look at clarifying and correcting the evolution article. .. dave souza, talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stability criteria has historically be interpreted to exclude edits made in furtherance of a FAC nomination. Raul654 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It does appear that the community might be able to find a place and a use for introductory articles, which are by necessity incomplete and vague. I am sorry that this is true, but remember your grade school texts on math and science? I am sure if you do, or look at a grade school text, you will find that it is missing many things and oversimplified in many ways. After all, does the atom really look like a bunch of wooden balls on metal springs? Some feedback on this from the community and discussion can be seen at the ongoing AfD discussion for this article. And of course the LEAD looks different now than it did at the start. I would personally expect this, since the point of an FAC is to improve the article. Perhaps there is something I am not understanding about the FAC process and you could help me to correct my misunderstanding? My impression iis that the main authors worked hard to accommodate all requests, and be cooperative, and this has resulted in many changes to the article. Some of these changes even made it less introductory, and might very well have to be corrected. Thank you for your input.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm strongly in favour of this article being featured, but I wonder if either this process should remain open for quite some time, or it should be closed and the article renominated in a couple of weeks when everything that people have suddenly brought up has been processed. I suppose the danger with that approach is that the energy with which people are bringing things up might vanish. I do think this article is excellent (and much needed), and I suppose quite a lot of FACs are thoroughly edited during the process, but I wonder whether a little more time is needed for everything to be dealt with. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (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 00:02, 29 January 2008.

Portman Road

[edit]

Well another Ipswich Town article to hopefully complement the other FA's and FL's. I based the structure of the article and the general tone and content on an existing featured article, namely Priestfield Stadium and had a productive peer review. I humbly submit the article to the scrutiny of the community and will, as I hope I always do, respond quickly and constructively to each and every comment you may wish to make. Thanks in advance for your time and effort in reviewing the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Peanut4
  • Comment. Excellent article, but just a couple of comments before I offer probable support.
  • Support provisionally on the basis of one question. I've made some amendments from the refs, but have one query regarding the building of the first stand in 1905. This ref which is used elsewhere but not for that sentence says it was 1906. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I guess I mistyped. Not sure where '05 came from so I've reverted to 1906 which is per source. Eagle eyes award to Peanut4. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my issues dealt with at PR. Another excellent article off TRM's production line of FAs. Just a shame it's about such a distasteful subject. Still, happy to support (though you might push me if you ever develop John Wark. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • {{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #98285C; color:white;|contentstyle = border:1px;|header=Resolved stuff from Woody|content=

    • Comment I have added in some commas in the minorest(?!) of minor copyedits. Other issues:
    • Safety barriers were removed from the North Stand in 1989 following the Hillsborough disaster and following the recommendations of the Taylor Report, the terraces in both the North and South stands were also converted to all-seating, creating the first complete all-seater stadium in the top flight of English football with a spectator capacity of 22,600. This sentence is a bit long, restructure?
    • Other than that, all looks good. Woody (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    Resolved stuff from Jameboy
    • Comment
    • Firstly, I've made a few minor edits in the last couple of hours, which I hope you're OK with.
    • Looking back, the bit I added about the floods disrupts that paragraph, which is concerned with ground improvements. I initially put it there to fit the timeline but I now think it should be moved somewhere else, though exactly where I'm not too sure. Perhaps it could be changed to "twice in the 1950s" and moved to the start of the paragraph? The lack of any further info on this makes it hard to link into something else.
      • Yeah, it doesn't flow naturally with anything else and, in my opinion, raises more questions than it answers, like, how long was the ground flooded for? what did they do about it? where did they play in the meantime? I'd suggest that if we can't answer these then perhaps we remove the flood sentence altogether? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem if you want to remove it (take care though as that reference is used elsewhere). I'd be interested to find out more about the floods, but it probably needs additional sources in order to add it to the article in any meaningful way. --Jameboy (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The length of this sentence bothers me. Could possibly be sorted out with commas or maybe rephrased: "The complete renovation of the South Stand into a two-tier stand with an additional 4,000 seats and the subsequent demolition and reconstruction of a two-tier North Stand adding another 4,000 seats brought the total capacity of the ground to more than 30,000" Jameboy (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (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 00:02, 29 January 2008.

    Hurricane Lane (2006)

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes all of the FA criterion. Of course, it very well might have some small MOS mistakes, or some grammar things, but I think they'd be minor enough that they could be easily addressed here. So, fire your comments away; I'll be ready to answer them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, this is minor, but the veropedia parser gives me six bad links. 2x410s and 4x404--Docg 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I fixed most of them. Two of them I couldn't find; they were minor, so I deleted their information. One of them says it's bad in the above tools, but it works in the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure, but should there be a comma in here after the ref #3?--It moved slowly westward[3] and steadily organized.[4] Juliancolton (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. A comma would imply a separate clause. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - The article's FAC was my suggestion to hink, because I felt he had done a good job to the article. Mitch32contribs 20:16, 13 January 2008 (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 16:14, 28 January 2008.

    Matanikau Offensive

    [edit]

    Respectfully submit this article about a World War II battle for FA consideration. The article has been through an A-class review [12] with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (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 16:14, 28 January 2008.

    Nottingham Panthers

    [edit]

    This article has now gone through two peer reviews and a successful GA nomination. I have been working on it for well over a year now and I think it now meets FA criteria. I will endeavor to address any concerns you might have. All comments and feedback would be greatly appreciated. KimThePanther (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    done I've removed the dead external link from the External Links section. I can't find the website it was supposed to be linking too. KimThePanther (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixes needed: References section is completely unformatted (it's not clear to me why that section is even there), most of the footnotes are missing complete publication dates on news sources, and there are hyphens that should be endashes in the infobox. Named refs aren't used correclty (see WP:FN), example:
    ^ The A to Z Encyclopedia of Ice Hockey. Ahearne Cup. azhockey.com. Retrieved on January 5, 2008.
    ^ The A to Z Encyclopedia of Ice Hockey. Ahearne Cup. azhockey.com. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responce Sorry Sandy - I've had a bit of computer trouble of the last day or so. Will get working through them now. KimThePanther (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've replaced the hyphens in the infobox with endashes and redone the web and news citations (adding the publication dates for the latter). I can see your point about the References section, all the information is repeated in the Footnotes section, so should I just remove it? KimThePanther (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (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 16:14, 28 January 2008.

    Meerkat Manor

    [edit]

    Nominator: AnmaFinotera


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the qualifications for being a featured article. The article is well written and comprehensive, covering not just the plot of the series but also production details, reception, and criticisms. The article is factually accurate, with extensive reliable sourcing to back up statements. It is neutral in that it shows no biased for or against the show and includes both praise and criticisms the series has received. The article is table with no edit warring, includes an appropriate image, and follows all of the relevant style guides. Referencing is consistent through and the article sections are arranged appropriately per the main and TV style guides. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Filming for a 13 episode series takes seven to eight months weeks - erm, months here, is the 'weeks' just a typo?

    I've changed a couple of straightforward things, though this may be worth seeing what folks think:

    some of the never-before-seen footage on the show - maybe simpler to just have 'unique'? The former sounds a bit advertorial (?)

    Due to the restrictions of to the researchers.. - yikes, erm, of, to - which goes?

    As the meerkats (are habituated, they) are used to having a human presence around - as this is what habituated means could lose bracketed bit - or 'have become used'....

    Meerkat Manor's innovative new methods of filming... - posibly veering close to POV territory. could replace with 'Meerkat Manor's novel methods of filming'

    .....bring nature closer to viewers. - eeww. Bit vague. Also, it is explained in next sentenceso this bit could be cut really, but then needs a little restructuring. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::It is an experimental form that pushes... - 'of media'? 'of documentary?' - trying to think of something as it is left a bit hanging as is. ahaaaa.

    I should add this is a tricky but highly importnat paragraph and may be the trickiest to word well.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done some editing and hopefully have addressed everything. The only thing I wasn't sure on was innovative. Since it was never done before, I thought innovative was the best word, but if it would be considered a non-neutral note, I'm also fine with changing it to novel. I reworded the last two additions...hopefully I managed to make it clearer?AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'innovative' is a very good choice of word - the trick is to get the 'new-ness' of it without going overboard. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose→Changed to Support below↓ - For several reasons. Firstly, there's a great big red link in the very first sentence that either needs to be created or removed. Secondly, the article only has one picture, hardly aesthetic. Thirdly, the article is poorly referenced: Chunks and paragraphs of text aren't even cited in The Meerkats, Production Details and Merchandise sections and none of the Differences between UK and US episodes section is cited at all! In The Meerkat's section's 3rd paragraph, the citation at the end only refers to the last sentence, so the rest of that paragraph is left uncited as well. In addition to that, some paragraphs are written in short or similar sentences (Such as in The Meerkats section). Overall, the article has some MOS, referencing and prose problems. I'd give the article in its current state a GA class, not a FA status. Keep up the good work, but if you want my support, you're going to have to do a lot more of it. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused. Everything in Production details is cited except the award nomination (fixing). The entire merchandise section is also completely sourced, except the summation of the book which would seem to fall under Plot and not require a source as the book itself is the source (though I can add one if desired). Also, what citations are required to summarize the meerkats that appear on the show other than the show itself? I've never seen a character section in a television article having to be referenced, nor a plot, which that section is a combination of? Should I put in more episode citations for the specific events noted like the one at the end, or just remove the one at the end? Red link removed for now...I've been thinking of making an article, but won't get around to it for awhile yet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is as you say, everything in production and merchandise is referenced, but those you mentioned, which is what I was referring to (Hence the "Chunks and paragraphs aren't even cited in..."). If it is plot, why is it not under plot? And how do we know that the plot description is accurate? And yes, the citation at the end is misleading - it makes the reader think the whole paragraph is cited, but only the one sentence is. It would be good if you could include episode citations - it's called referencing lol. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Maybe I'm just thorough, but I like articles to be at least 90% cited, not 70%. JSYK. :) Spawn Man (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've added more citations to the Meerkats section and I think to everything else except the differences between the US and UK versions. I've also added sources for the changes to the episodes from UK to US. Hopefully I've gotten them all? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now. Just fix the prose issues and I'll support. By prose issues I mean the paragraphs like the 2nd of the Differences between UK and US episodes, where it's the same short sentence repeated over and over (Also a bit in The Meerkats section) with no flavour or well worked prose. Spawn Man (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made an attempt at fixing the prose of both. I think I did a better job with the meerkat section, but hopefully both are now better? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it's a start - I'd suggest getting a copyeditor in (If you need names just ask) to give the article a prose check and iron out the writing a bit. In regard to your references, punctuation always comes before the citation, which you haven't done in some places, as well as having a fullstop before and after a citation. That needs fixing too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I always try to put the ref after the punctuation but guess I missed some. I wouldn't mind some names as I don't know anyone who does copy editing, and I'm the first to admit I'm not always a good one of my own stuff :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, in my first FAC I was terrible. You're doing quite well - normally most people wouldn't even get started until at least the next day on fixing opposes. After a few, you get used to them. :) Okay, for copyeditors, WP:1FAPQ has a list of willing copyeditors and I'd recommend a copyeditor which I use a lot (He's undoubtedly one of the best...) but I'll require some cash payment for his name. ;) He's really good, but anyone will do since I don't think the article requires a lot of work. Anyway, after that's done, I'll reassess the article and see if I can support. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have another look too, as I've already read through it and it shouldn't need much. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll see if they will take a peek for me as well. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, the one you use a lot couldn't do it right now because of laptop troubles, but User:Scartol has agreed to give it a look. It will take him a few days, though, as there are two in front of me. Hopefully the FAC won't close before then? *makes note for future FACs to request copyedit first :-) * AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a ref for the fact that many US renamings were to honour early fans, and for the toning down of sex and death refs - or something similar. The US/UK para is a little bit listy and a note on overall themes would be good, but if don't worry if no original quote exists as it would be an OR observation. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the reference at the end of that statement specifically notes those three celebrities were honored with having meerkat names, and with Whoopi specifically being referred to as an early fan. The toning down of the sex and death is something told to us specifically by Caroline Hawkins from Oxford Scientific, so I don't know how to reference it (and I would understand if it would need to be removed without a more formally published reference). I had planned a theme sections early in my work on the article, but thus far there hasn't been any reliable sources that also discuss it other than the expected theme of the harsh realities of a meerkat's often short life. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (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 00:15, 28 January 2008.

    Imagination (magazine)

    [edit]

    An 1950s US science fiction magazine. The most similar existing FAs are Beyond Fantasy Fiction and Fantastic Universe, both of which are US magazines, and Authentic Science Fiction, a British sf magazine of the same era. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not opposing, but pity my first sample of the prose was this:

    The volume number was incremented at the start of a calendar year, regardless of the number of issues, with volume one, 1950, having only two issues; subsequent volumes varied from five to twelve issues depending on the magazine's frequency of publication. Unusually, the overall issue number was also printed on the spine, along with the volume numbering.

    Is this better?

    The volume number rose by one at the start of each calendar year, regardless of the number of issues. Volume One, 1950, contained only two issues; subsequent volumes contained five to twelve issues, depending on frequency of publication. The overall issue number was printed on the spine, an unusual practice, along with the volume number.

    Did they not use arabic numerals (Volume 1, Vol. 1)? What was actually on the spines? I used "contained" assuming your angle here is the physical volume; otherwise, "consisted of". Tony (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking the fifth issue as an example, the spine actually says "VOL 2 NO. 3" and "ISSUE NO. 5". I was avoiding using numerals since I was under the impression that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Spelling_out_numbers meant I should do so. I can see why "Volume 1, 1950", might be different, but I wasn't sure; I've made that change assuming that the MOS doesn't really cover this case. Re "contained"/"consisted of": it should be "consisted of", since the physical volume isn't of interest -- it's just a bibliographic record. I think the parenthetical commas in your suggested rewrite of the last sentence are better as parentheses: I've changed to your version with that one modification. Mike Christie (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (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 00:15, 28 January 2008.

    The Simpsons Movie

    [edit]
    first FAC (14:19, August 8, 2007)
    previous FAC (14:55, 14 January 2008)


    Okay about time this was done, in an organised fashion. I've been working on the page since May last year, alongside Alientraveller and some other much valued work from Scorpion and Buc. The first FAC was quick closed because someone nominated it about a month after the film was released, so it wasn't ready. The second was about a week ago, and was also withdrawn, although I'd have liked to see it go on. Anyway, I think its ready now, has had two PRs and a few copy-edits. All comments welcomed, thanks. Gran2 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion from peer review: Should there be a mention of the intro for He Loves to Fly and He D'ohs? Buc (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Most of the issues I found I took care of with my copy-edit:
    • That quotebox is difficult to read with it being entirely in italics. Choose another quotebox (there's that blue one thats nice).
    • Changed.
    • Driver found recording her part "the funniest afternoon of her career",[28] and was disappointed when she was told the scene had been cut.[27] - this seems completely fan-crufty and tabloidy - please remove it all together.
      • I've removed the second clause, but I think the first part is fine.
        • Hmmm, I still think its more magazine article material than encyclopedic; I mean it wasn't really the funniest afternoon of her life was it? That was just a off-the-cuff remark promoting her new venture.
          • Removed.
    • The environment is present in Homer's polluting of Lake Springfield, Green Day's cameo, and Lisa and Colin's romance. - rewrite that; the environment is present everywhere!
      • Not really, at least I think they're the key points to be mentioned.
    • What I meant is it should be environmental concerns/environmentalism there, not environment. The sentence needs to be tweaked to "The theme of environmentalism is present in..."
    • I see, I'll change it.
    • is falted a word?
      • I did a search in the current article, and the version before your copy-edit, and the word was not present either time.
        • "action sequences sometimes falte[d]."
          • Oh I see, it should be falter[d], looks like someone removed part of the word when copy-editing.
    • This caused outrage amongst local neopagans who performed "rain magic" to try and get it washed away. - that sentence sounds unintentionally funny to me. I mean, what!? :D
      • Makes perfect sense to me, even if what happened seems a little silly.
        • Yeah, but what are "neopagans" and "rain magic"? Link them?
          • Neopagans is linked, and there's no relevant page for rain magic.
    • He found translating the song into Spanish the hardest to write. - again seems unnecessary.
      • Seems fine to me, gives a view to Zimmer's specific problems.
    But on the whole, bad-ass article, great work! indopug (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, and the copy-edit. I've answered your listed concerns underneath each of them, in case you still disagree. Gran2 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Empire State Building turned yellow." - please elaborate that, its not clear. Fix the external links. indopug (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The source just says it was turned yellow, it doesn't give any specifics, and I couldn't find anything else. And all the links work fine for me, am I missing a broken link? Gran2 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ===Continuity=== The opening sequence of He Loves to Fly and He D'ohs, the the season premiere of the first season to air after the realise of the film, contained numerous references to the film. Buc (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An entire section for one sentence? Personally, I think it's a tad trivial. -- Scorpion0422 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's probably my main problem with mentioning it. I mean, it's not that important is it? And if we include, then we'll have to include every single mention of the movie in the show that is ever made. And that isn't really very encyclopedic. Gran2 18:19, 27 January 2008 (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 00:15, 28 January 2008.

    Silent Hill 4: The Room

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    Has been revised and brought up to A-class on the VG assesment scale since the last FAC. I'm hoping to get this promoted in time for TFA when Silent Hill V comes out. Just like to reiterate that, if anyone can find just how many units of this were sold and can give me the source, I am willing to include it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I have seen very few articles about specific video games that are as well cited as this one's 60 cites provides. Also pleasing was the fact that the vast majority of the citations point to either the an in-game diary from the game or very ruputable websites such as IGn, GameSpot, and CNN.com. In addition, the prose is well written and the article gives an in-depth overview of the game without going into undue detail. Definately FA quality. Thingg⊕⊗ 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I believe previous concerns from FAC were addressed, well written and sourced. Only thing that bothers me are the images hanging off the sides of sections, but that's a minor concern. David Fuchs (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (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 00:15, 28 January 2008.

    Interstate 355

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've meant to add early data from an excellent, well-referenced report by former Cook County member of the policy committee for the Chicago Area Transportation Study. It covers the first long-range transportation plan from 1955-1962 for the Chicago metropolitan area. It's also 36 pages of mostly text. If you'd like to chime in, feel free to with this source: [13] I have no qualms about hearing about other FAC issues. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support This was fun to read. I never heard of this highway before. Maybe the article can get even better with the following suggestions. Most can be fixed very easily:

    • Introduction says "Chicago, USA". Isn't putting Illinois usually done?
      •  Done. I hope "Chicago, Illinois, in the United States" works. —JA10 Talk • Contribs
    • Maybe include a map showing where in the USA the highway is located. See the Interstate 80 article. There you can clearly see where the highway is. The current map is good for detail. But it doesn't help completely because I don't know where Joliet is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolese (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is mention of different areas but if you don't know the area, it takes a lot of searching the list. Since there are no exit numbers, why not add mile numbers to the description (when exits are mentioned?)
    • What were the environmental concerns? References?
      • I'm guessing this refers to original construction? There's multiple references, but I forgot to mention terms of the deal between the arboretum and the tollway authority. Whoops. Tribune and Sun-Times refs exist, and I'll put them in. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Home Depot and others were a result of I-355 or just politician's spin and patting themselves on the back? References?
      • The article (ref 22) connects the projects and the tollway directly (according to my read)... if the tollway wasn't there, neither would the commercial developments. I could mention that local politics had a hand in terms of pro-development policies, but I'd have to find the ref for that, plus I think it's not necessary. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Southern Extension, paragraph 6, notable according to whom?
      • That first sentence should be rewritten. That said, it's been reported on in at least 3-4 articles in local papers as some sort of an engineering feat. I'll hunt down the ref. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. Found and cited. I rarely quote directly from a newspaper source, but I think "one of the most impressive engineering feats on the state's 274 miles of toll roads" is appropriate to quote directly. —Rob (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC criteria says "exemplifies our best work". Being an obscure topic makes it hard for me to think it is WP's best work. Being a nice article and well written is achievable. Being better than major topics is hard. Just a thought.
      • I've thought about that for some time... it's something that affects millions of travelers a year and was a major turning point in the suburbanization of DuPage County, and will soon change Will County from farming to second-most populous county in Illinois. If the article manages to transcend the technical and tells the complete story of the highway's place in its history, it can become one of Wikipedia's best works. Thanks for the comments! —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are the expert, you may find some of my novice comments not helpful. If this is the case, sorry. Overall, a nice article about a highway that I knew nothing about until recently.Congolese (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Addition: Before I gave the article a polite support. It's better now, so I give it full support. Congolese fufu (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (I'm User:Congolese, just changed the name so it wouldn't offend anyone)[reply]

    • Oppose. the early history isn't cited. There aren't any details on what the 1988 lawsuit was over. When did the FHWA add it to the Interstate Highway System? The "major cities" box in the route description is unnecessary. --NE2 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was a typo - it was before 1985, and unfortunately, that's the limit of online news article from the Chicago Tribune. Looking for stuff on FHWA though - that's the stuff newspapers don't cover, and I was hoping the FHWA website would be more helpful. I'll contact the standing committee responsible for route numbering and see if I get something, quickly. Lawsuit information may have to come from a microfiche. —Rob (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I'll put my support "on hold" - as it were. Rt. 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, interesting, only one link remains but I think the external link checker is making a mistake. "Bridge to southwest around the corner" [ref 24 in the article] does not lead to a dead link in the article, as shown here. But in the external link checker, it leads to a different link, a dead one. I don't know what do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No mistake in the linkchecker; the Tribune link was dead, and the link you provided above is live. I switched them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so there really was a dead link, sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. I guess I copied the address bar URL for that one, not the OpenURL link. Infoweb requires authentication to get in (via a local public library, for instance) but it provides individual articles to users (presumably to check references) for free via an OpenURL at the bottom of the page. I've changed that link to the OpenURL link. —Rob (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments (I haven't looked above). More non-breaking spaces are needed, such as 20 percent, $2.5 million, 55 minutes, 200,000 cars, etc. 189 acres should have a metric conversion. The reference is awkward; I don't think that it should reference the Google search. For the broken links in the search, you could use an internet archive website, such as the Wayback machine. For figures involving money, you should indicate the year of the cost, as well as an inflated cost, to provide a modern perspective; this site is used by the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject. I believe 99-year should be 99–year. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is that the google archives lead to dead links, so I'd rather provide a link as proof of the source on google. I'll try using the wayback machine. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put in a few non-breaking spaces, but you have no idea how much I wish Safari/Firefox/anyone could show those more easily. I've also put non-breaking spaces in things like "Illinois 53" and "75th Street". Is there some sort of template that handles inflation for me? I'd hate to have to have editors go in there yearly and update dollars to modern equivalents. Also fixed the ndash in 99–year. Exit list might need to be converted to ndashes as well. —Rob (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the google references problem, thanks for the comments. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Inflation numbers have been added for years prior to 2000. I'm not sure if there's value in putting in numbers from more recent dates than 2000. —Rob (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stability

    Although it's curious to declare stability after a nomination, I'm declaring the article largely stable. (I hadn't expected to be doing this much editing during a nomination... but it wasn't me who nominated the article. :-D That's OK though). Of course further editing will be necessary to address further concerns, but in terms of things I felt were missing from the article when initially nominated... I think those have been added.

    The following items may be added at a later date:

    • 1962 Chicago Area Transportation Study info, if any (remember, the highway was at this point more a concept than even an engineering plan) - see link at top
    • FHWA designates north-south tollway as I-355 on completion. Chicago Tribune no help on this one, but the first mention of I-355 in the paper is April 26, 1988 (see below) which strongly, strongly, strongly points to an AASHTO decision in fall 1987 or spring 1988
    • Brief mention of 20-year pavement life span here: Mehler, Neil H. (1988-04-26). "Tollway tries to get rock-solid pavement". Chicago Tribune.
    • Morton arboretum initial lawsuit and resolution might need to be made clearer. Comments?

    —Rob (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll see if I can find the FHWA thing for you. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. All my issues have been been fixed. This is a well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. It seems to be a well-written article, but there are some WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed.
      • An image should not have been placed directly below the infobox. This means that the TOC is not appearing where it should and you have a lot of blank space.
      • In the section Opening, you have a missing number where you tried to convert $2.5 million to 2007 dollars (it reads $3 to $ million in 2007)
      • Please note that image captions should not end in a period unless they are full sentences.
      • "Veterans Day, 2007 (November 11, 2007)" should probably read "Veterans Day (November 11) 2007.
      • Month-day combinations should always be wikilinked even when there is no year to allow date preferences to work. Please check all the instances of November 11 to make sure they are wikilinked.
      • All newspaper references need to have the date field filled out. You also need to have the title of the newspaper article. For example, reference 6 does not give the title or author (if available) of the particular article that you are citing. It should be reformatted similar to this {{citation|title=Article Title Here|last=Author Last Name|first=Author First Name|date=[[April 25]], [[1963]]|newspaper=The Daily Herald|publisher=Newspaper Archive|accessdate=[[2007-12-22]]}}
      • newspaper names need to be italicized in references
      • Need access dates for all web links, and there aren't any for the Chicago Tribune articles
      • No publisher listed for reg 24
      • Your Chicago Tribune refs aren't formatted consistently. Ref 54 is the preferred way to do it
      • WP:NBSP - I second the need for nonbreaking spaces.

    Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On a revisit, it looks like most of my concerns have been addressed, but please note that the articles taken from the Newspaper Archive need to have the actual article title (and authors, if present) cited. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is that "newspaper archive" either doesn't show the title or the actual stories don't have titles, I don't know what to do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed replaced the newspaper archives. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments—It's good, but the prose needs fixing here and there throughout; please don't just fix these random examples—get someone fresh to go through it (a word-nerd found from the edit histories of similar good articles).

    • "Illinois" appears three times in the first three lines now, so I'd have rejected that advice to add it after "Chicago" (that little-known town). Also, it's linked TWICE in the same sentence ...
    • "North-South" should have an en dash here ("North–South", even if the owners of the highway were mitaken in using a hyphen. It will google just the same. See MOS. Same issue for "Schaumburg-Wheaton-Bolingbrook corridor", which needs to be piped into proper formatting, despite the wrong punctuation in its article title. And "north-south transportation corridor"—audit all compounds that are to -->
    • I'm wondering why you bothered to put a tiny, squinty map in the infoblot at the top, and then to duplicate it at a better size immediately below. Why not provide a photograph at the top? That would be more interesting.
      • Mostly stylistic - the teeny tiny map that every other Interstate article has is useful for determining general location, but I found it unusually annoying to have to click the map to read the words. Hence, the larger map. It will be moved off to "Route description" and a pic can be bumped to the top. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need "US" dollars linked (twice in a row, hello?). MOS says not even to bother specifying US dollars in US-related articles (with good reason). Good conversions into 2007 dollars.
    • "April of 1985"—MOS breach; spot the redundant word.
    • Why is a common word such as "earmarked" linked? It's not wiktionary.
    • "decided to pave I-355 with pavement"—ungainly repitition; I can't think of a solution, but one is needed.
    • "The concrete on the tollway was 12 inches (30 cm) thick and an 8 inches (20 cm) sub-base"—with an 8-inch sub-base? Ungrammatical as is.
    • "The new pavement also incorporated"—remove "also".
    • "at a cost of $2 million to $2.5 million (1990, $3 to $4.0 million in 2007)"—MOS breach WRT decimal points. And even three point nought dollars won't do—that's a huge range.
      • Is "around $2 million" better? It may be possible to narrow the range, but without looking at the original bids, it may not be possible. And for something relatively ancillary, too. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you know that it was $2.0–2.5 million, don't sacrifice that level of precision; do it to one decimal place in both units, though. Three dollars to four million is surely not what you mean (range of $3,999,997). Format as I did in the first sentence here.

    Plus lots more. Tony (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - there are some issues to address before this article meets criterion 1a:
      • "From 1963 to 1970, a new expressway was built..." - passive voice obscures subject, who built?
      • Some long sentences are extremely hard to read: "Of these corridors, the vast majority, including the Des Plaines River expressway, the Crosstown Expressway running north-south along the west side of Chicago, and most of a proposed northern extension of Illinois 53 ran into intense local opposition and were never built."
      • Why is "earmarked" wikilinked?
      • "The $100 million (1979, $284 million in 2007) remaining was then earmarked for the new freeway to replace Illinois 53. However, this amount was found to be insufficient for construction. The project was then converted into a tollway, and the money spent on other projects in the county." All passive voice, all sentences whose subjects the reader might like to know. Who earmarked? Who converted? Who spent?
      • "In addition, earthen berms would be built along the tollway to prevent salt spray from damaging arboretum plants, which had already been affected by salt spray from the then East-West Tollway, which itself was 0.25 miles (402 m) away." Too long, too many prepositional phrases.
      • "Under the agreement, Morton Arboretum would charge DuPage County residents a lower prices for admission one day of the week, built a bicycle path connecting the arboretum to nearby forest preserves, and begin a joint clean-streams program to improve the water quality of DuPage County's lakes and streams." Mixed verb tenses.
      • "Concerns were somewhat alleviated when the tollway agreed to..." Passive voice again, and how does a tollway agree to do something?
      • "The tollway agreed to..." Same comment as above.
      These are just in the "Early history" section and I have not read further because it's clear that the article needs a thorough copy edit by a fresh editor. Please pay particular attention to writing in the passive voice; its use here frequently obscures the subject of the sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Tollway" and "Illinois State Toll Highway Authority" are used interchangeably to refer to the entity that manages the toll roads - yes, that causes confusion. If earmark really is such a common word, I'll just delink it. —Rob (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ooooh, thanks for clearing that up. One of those local colloquialisms that aren't clear to the rest of us :) --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the help so far. It really does need a more thorough copyedit though - your changes were fairly minor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JA10 and Rob, have you asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) to have another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change to provision support: I hope this gets through, but everywhere I look there are glitches.
    • Someone has gone wild changing all of the hyphens to en dashes. Please read MOS on both. "two–lane wide Rohlwing Road"—no "two-lane-wide Rohlwing Road". "limited-access".
    • "In an effort to head off problems"—Spot the three redundant words".
    • Three problems: "a 8 inches (20 cm) sub–base" --> "an 8-inch (20 cm) sub–base".
    • "As a Christmas "gift," the first two days of"—comma after the quote mark. See MOS.
    • "$3 to $4 million in 2007"—no, "$3–4 million in 2007"; et al.
    • Clumsy: "As one of the newer tollways in the system, the Veterans Memorial Tollway has also seen considerable toll–collection related improvements"—remove "also"; "considerable improvements in toll collection" better than what should be a two-hyphen unit (not one hyphen, and certainly not one en dash, which means -->"to"-->).

    These are just odd samples. So much work has been done, and just an hour by someone else who's good at copy-editing and knows MOS will do. Tony (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (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 00:20, 27 January 2008.

    Somerset

    [edit]

    Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support per the previous nom; here are the points I posted there:
      • The colour coding in the climate chart appears wrong, on my screen anyway--the August temperature is cooler than July's, but the colour is a "hotter" colour.
      • A map of the county showing the main settlements and rivers would be very helpful. I don't know of a UK county article that has such a map: this is one of Massachusetts that's the sort of thing I mean. Not required for FA but very handy if you can find one.
      • "Somerset is often regarded as a marker on the journey": why is marker in italics?
    -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Thanks for the comments & support - italics on marker removed. I think the map issue is related to UK copyright rules on maps which are very different to the US - I will ask a couple of map experts if they can help but in the UK they have to be totally redrawn to comply with licences etc & I don't have the skills or software to do this.— Rod talk 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK on the climate chart and "marker". I understand about the map; I'm supporting anyway, but it would certainly be an asset if you can locate a map. Re the "Done" markers, which Sandy has removed: they don't bother me, but there are reasons for not using them, so you might want to skip them in the future. It's fine to respond (indented) below each point in a list of concerns, and then let the commenter strike their own comments; that way you can see what they think you've achieved (which is what counts if they're going to support!). Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with the colour coding comment above, and I think it would be better if the demographic and education tables were also centred instead of left-aligned, I fixed one non MoS unit fmt, otherwise no concerns, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support. No serious issues. However the motto (Sumorsaete ealle) would look better with IPA, I think. --Brand спойт 19:32,

    22 January 2008 (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 00:20, 27 January 2008.

    Prairie Avenue

    [edit]
    previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)
    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 00:20, 27 January 2008.

    Doomsday (Doctor Who)

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it to be of a quality similar to The Joy of Sect and Through the Looking Glass. I've been working on it for several months from this, full of a unwieldy plot summary and too many inconsequential points, to its current status. I am aware that the plot summary is about 620 words long, when it should be about 100 less, but 600 appears to be the lower limit where the plot summary loses clarity. Will (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Resolved stuff from Buc

    That's it for now. BTW your Through the Looking Glass link is the wrong article. Buc (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Suddenly, he looks up" Why Suddenly?
    • "Overnight ratings showed that 7.72 million people watched "Doomsday" with a 43% share of the audience. The episode peaked at 8.58 million viewers in the last five minutes of the episode. " Needs ref.
    • Could do with a mention of the unpredented appeaence of both the Daleks and Cybermen in the lead.
    •  Not done Will (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008

    (UTC)

    More

  • "What!?" not very encyclopaedic.
    •  Done - it's a bit relevant to the episode - he actually says it three times. He does it again at the end of another episode under similar circumstances. Still, it's taking up twnety words I'm trying to get rid of to make the plot section as small as it can while being clear.

    • Will (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

    • Weak oppose
    • "Noel Clarke and Phil Collinson felt the position should have been given to Mickey." Could do with saying why they thought this and why there suggestion was turned down. On a side note has this article had a ce? Buc (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The source doesn't go into detail why it should've been Mickey, neither does the commentary (which are the only two places where the information can be gotten from, really). And what do you mean by "ce"? Will (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ce mean copy-edit. What do they say then. Buc (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sullivan says that there was a rift, and all the commentary says is that Clarke was "petitioning" (Davies' words, not mine) for the privilege. Re c/e: I haven't requested a copyedit because I find the LOCE too slow; I had an article on FAC (now FA) two months ago and they haven't got to that yet. Will (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gardner
    And [Rose's] dad...
    Davies
    How much did Noel Clarke want to be the one who came through? He was petitioning, he was phoning me up!
    Gardner
    And it could've been Mickey.
    Davies
    And you all... didn't you want it to be Mickey?
    Gardner
    Phil wanted it to be Mickey, I wanted it to be Pete.

    However, there is still no mention of the nomination on the article's talk page. If this is done, then great - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a mention of it- it's the top banner. StuartDD contributions 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake! Well, I guess this removes any opposition that I have to the idea - Weebiloobil (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – I made a number of minor changes to the article. I did not understand the plot section, but this article will generally only be read by one who follows the show. Nice work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Object Strong Oppose On my cursory read-through, I found various stylistic issues, and a number of places where the plot could be tightened. I expect that there are more still present. There is one statement that I think needs a citation (I marked it in the text). I'm extremely surprised that the Doctor Who Magazine hasn't been used as a source – I would have expected it to be a valuable resource on the production of the episode (the producer writes a "production notes" column for the magazine). No mention of the Radio Times covers? There would have been a cover story in that Radio Times, which would also be expected as a source. Bluap (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      What stylistic issues? DWM is cited by A Brief History of Time Travel, which is cited by this page. And with regards to the plot, I invite you to try and shorten the plot while keeping it coherent. Will (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My mistake, you actually did try. The plot is below 600 words now which isn't anything to complain about - the GA version summary was about 200 words longer. Will (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed my opinion to strong oppose, since the article editors have responded to my citation request by simply removing the {{fact}} tag, rather than finding a suitable reference. (The citation at the end of that paragraph does not support the statement. Parallel worlds are a recurring motif in science fiction: there are plenty of stories that could have inspired this aspect of the episode) Bluap (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That is just the worst reason to oppose anything ever. I am quoting the source here.

    Pullman also talked about the end of series two of Doctor Who - when Billie was left in a parallel world - and how similar some people say it is to his own Dark Materials series.

    "I was flattered by it," Pullman said.

    "That's how stories work. Stories are made out of other stories. I borrowed things for His Dark Materials. He [Russell T Davies] took my ending and twisted it to fit his story. That's fine."

    • That to me does not say the parallel worlds aspect alone came from Pullman, and I don't believe it did: the writer of this episode resurrected a one-serial villain that no-one on Outpost Gallifrey guessed, so I'm pretty sure he'd know about the whole season that was set in another universe. The citation to me says that the end bore similarities to His Dark Materials beyond parallel universes. Either that, or Pullman has delusions of grandeur. Will (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Missing publisher, is this a reliable source?
    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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

    Emma Watson

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    I believe that all the improvements that could be extracted from the previous FAC have been implemented. With the details of Ballet Shoes now integrated this is an ideal time to develop the article to FA status. Happy‑melon 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Checking back, and noting that Ref 2 is still there. It would be nice if a more reliable source was found to replace it. BuddingJournalist 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support.

    • Both reinforced the notion that her character, Hermione, should romance Ron Weasley: this doesn't seem supported by the following citation, and in any case I'm not sure what it means -- does it mean that the actresses told Emma Watson that they agreed with her analysis of the characters? If so I think this could be rephrased.
    • Can you identify the people in the shot from Ballet Shoes? I.e. "left to right" at the front of the list, or however you like.
    • It seems odd to call The Tale of Despereaux "her first non-Harry Potter project" after talking about Ballet Shoes. Isn't Ballet Shoes her first non-Harry Potter project? Or do you mean first film?
    • I suggest changing "whilst"; see Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid contested vocabulary for the MOS point of view on words like that.
    • Although I think the focus on interviews with Watson rather than Radcliffe or Grint is entirely right, there's one moment where I'd like to hear their point of view: Watson maintains that there were never any romantic feelings involved. Surely they've been asked this question in their interviews, and any reader interested in Watson is going to wonder what they said.
    • I think it would be better to expand PPE to "Philosophy, Politics and Economics"; I know it's linked but readers who don't know it (most, I would think) won't want to see the article, they'll just want to know what it stands for.
    • Watson says her greatest wish is "to have two friends, which stay – people with you can always be together and who don't scoot, because you are a film star." I assume this is an error in the source, probably for "people with whom you"; it reads very oddly to me. You've transcribed it correctly from the source, but this is so jarring that if you can't source it elsewhere I think this should probably go.
    • I know it's a little early in her career, but is there sufficient material in academic film criticism that mentions her yet to have a "comments and criticism" section? I took a look at the Bette Davis article, which is an FA; of course there is an almost infinite amount written about Davis. I tried some digging for myself on Google Books, and what little I found was more about Hermione Granger than about Watson, as you might expect. For example, Lana A. Whited's The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon has some material. I know this is a long shot but I thought I'd ask.
    • I noticed that a Wikipedia editor has provided a translation of an interview, cited in a footnote. Would this be counted as a reliable source? Is it covered in a policy or guideline? While I've no reason to doubt the translation, and my rusty German confirms most of it, I do wonder what policy says here. I found the answer in a link provided in the previous FAC.
    • I also noticed in the previous some discussion of her position at 98 in an FHM hot 100 list of sexy women. This was discussed on the talk page, I see, and briefly thought to be in error, but ultimately found to be factual. Was it removed for some other reason? I don't see it in the article now.

    -- Mike Christie (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of the opposes below, I'll just comment that I don't personally share Indrian's and Melty Girl's objections, though I agree with them that some of the material (e.g. the comment about kissing Grint) is the sort of thing that would appear in an article in Seventeen. I'm not sure any of our content policies directly forbid this material. I also wonder about precedent; have there been FAs on famous people that included material like this? If Indrian is willing, it might be useful to take up his offer in order to have a version to compare, but I am not yet convinced that this content renders the article unsuitable for FA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an issue of content policy; it is an issue of quality. Featured articles are supposed to be the best encyclopedia articles on the site. The less an article reads like it belongs in an encyclopedia, the less this ideal is realized. Anyway, sometime today or tomorrow I will start working on a revision. I reiterate that most of the article is very good; it just needs a little polish and a little less of Watson's comments on tangential topics. Indrian (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be a little clearer about my objections to some of the content. An encyclopedia article about an actor should primarily cover the actor's career/acting: the performances, the critical response to those performances, the degree of success of the films/shows/plays, awards, the actor's influences and who they influenced, whether they affected the craft, the things they're most noted for by critics. Yes, it should also give the basic facts of their personal origins and primary relationships, but the article should not overly dwell on the feelings of the subject about their life, and certainly not how they feel about everyone they've worked with. (It's on this basis that I have in the past targeted the whole "Professional relationships" section as superfluous; and I haven't seen such a section in other FAs.) Not only are Watson's feelings about colleagues gossip, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but they're off-topic -- this is an article about Emma Watson, not all these other people. And our sources should be reliable publications, not the website of Emma Watson, which is not neutral and is probably co-authored by PR people. There's a balance to be struck, and it's off here. This is an encyclopedia; it should be a sober, dispassionate, outside view of the subject. While much of the article's content overlaps with magazine content -- Seventeen would discuss her acting too! -- the focus and language should be very different here. --Melty girl (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to note that I don't disagree with any of this - I simply dispair as to how to achieve this while leaving something in the article! I will be very interested to read Indrian's revised version. I do, however, take issue with the reliability of http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com - let's not lose track of what we're citing to this website. Reviews, commentary, critical reception - of course this can't be sourced to her website, as it's certainly not going to be neutral. But please explain to me why her official site is unqualified to note that she will be involved in The Tale of Desperaux? Or that she was born in Paris? I just picked the first two references, but an official site would seem to be the most reliable source for pure, objective facts. Who is going to know Emma Watson's birthday better than Emma Watson? If the question was "Where did Watson go to school" and two possible sources were "Where I went to school" by Emma Watson, or "Where Emma Watson went to school" by the BBC or The Times, I would say the former is the more reliable source of the two, although of course I would include both if they were available. Am I missing something here? Happy‑melon 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to echo Mike's thoughts here. What would an "encyclopedic" article on Emma Watson look like? I just have no idea what encyclopedic means in this context. Would Britannica ever have such an article, and if it did would anyone even be interested in the way they'd present it? Over the summer Emma Watson was frequently a top-100 article, read by demonstrable millions. Why do we have an encyclopedia article on Watson? Is it not because she was cast as a member of one of the most iconic trios in popular literature? Is not her relationship with the other members of that iconic trio pertinent information? I agree that you could have too much of such info, but I think you could also have too little. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, there's a balance to be struck, but I found it to be off here. Jay, what do you think of Indrian's version of the article? --Melty girl (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Melty! (Hey when is your next FAC coming through ;) I haven't had time to give a detailed look at both versions or to put a huge amount of thought into it. It looks like Indrian's version is based off the premise that Watson's own feeling about her film roles are irrelevant. I'm not sure I accept that as a valid biographical premise. I'd certainly want to know what Ronald Reagan felt about his presidency, or what Ernest Hemingway thought of his books. With Miss Watson, her film roles are the reason she's here. I want to know what she thinks of that! I do agree that it's a balance, but I think Indrian's version goes too far. If nothing else losing the bit about the dentures -- what an incisive little nugget about life as a child actress! I would suggest that the issues with Emma Watson at the moment are prose issues, rather than content. It wouldn't seem so Seventeen-y I think, if the sections weren't as formulaic. I.e. facts about movie 1, "later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 1. Facts about movie 2. "Later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 2. So as far as the Indrian version integrates things smoothly, I think that's something to work toward. Hmm... depending on the status of my other projects I'd enjoy hashing this one out. Be fun to work on an article that gets onto that top-100 list. --JayHenry (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I must once again voice my opposition to this article as I did before on the grounds that it still reads like an article in Seventeen rather than an encyclopedia article, running afoul of criteria 4 relating to summary style. The article is not an interview with Miss Watson in which she tells us her feelings on kiss scenes, co-stars, and favorite dramatic moments in her movies; it is an encyclopedia article chronicling her life and career. Each individual Harry Potter movie summary is incredibly short and could probably be combined into one or two broader headings that do not break up the text so much. The "post-mortem" comments on how Miss Watson felt about working on each movie should be elminated, though there is certainly nothing wrong with sumamrizing at some point how she viewed her experience in the movies. As I stated in the last FAC, there is absolutely no need to give a quote about what she thought about having to kiss a co-star; no professional encyclopedia would include this kind of gossip and not because it would make the article too long. I would be happy to lend a hand in getting this article free of these few blemishes to what otherwise truly is a feature quality work, so just give the word and I will create a revision as a user subpage and work towards hashing out something we can all be happy with. Indrian (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hit me! I'd be delighted to see any such suggestion. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, my revision is done and can be found at User:Indrian/Emma Watson. Just a few notes. The references may be a little messed up because I did not bother to reformat any as part of this run. Also, the headings were created on the fly, and there may be better heading names out there. I do strongly feel, however, that the individual film headings broke up the text to much and would be opposed to reinstating them. Finally, I know Happy-melon, that you are concerned about length, but I would not let that worry you. There is no length requirement for FA, and this version of the article presents all the relevant details of Watson's life with good sourcing and is featured quality in terms of comprehensiveness in my opinion. Note that while your version is longer, it is not necessarily more comprehensive because much of the material I have cut is tangential and does not add anymore insight into her life and career thus far. This version is, of course, by no means final, and all feedback is appreciated. You may be able to convince me that some of what I cut truly is necessary or could be readded in a way that speaks to my objections, but there is no way that the article as it currently stands will get my vote. Hope this helps. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, is there going to be any discussion on this, or is this FAC just going to die due to opposition? Indrian (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was waiting for you and Happy-melon to work out the major points of disagreement on the draft so that it could be implemented in the actual article and officially considered in this FAC. Or do you guys want to proceed differently? BTW, it looks like JayHenry is interested in helping out too. --Melty girl (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That was my assumption as well, but Happy-melon has not commented on the changes yet. Until I get some feedback from him, I cannot really proceed, so I was hoping he might pop on at some point to comment. Indrian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have looked at your version, Indrian, and it has clarified for me the kind of improvements you were talking about. I agree it's an improvement, though there may be some places where you might have cut just a little too much. Anyway, I agree that we should wait for Happy-melon before getting into details; we need to review what's actually at the article, and your version isn't the article yet. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ←Sorry to keep everybody waiting. While Indrian's draft has caused me to have the penny-drop moment and finally realise what Melty girl et al have been complaining about all this time, I agree with those who feel it is a little harsh. I have my own draft going at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, proceeding from the current version down, like Indrian's. Where Indrian has been deliberately aggressive, I have tried to be overly conservative, so that we can come to a happy medium somewhere in the middle. This diff indicates my cuts so far, including (probably to great rejoicement) the entire "Professional relationships" section. I would be very grateful for any comments as to where I have been too soft, or indeed too harsh. Perhaps editors would like to mark (using <font color="red"></font> tags) further phrases they would like to see cut. Once we get the right content, organising it properly should follow fairly easily. Apologies once again for the delay. Happy‑melon 12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll post here for now, but Happy-melon, where would you like comments to go? At the talk page of your draft? Anyway, my main comment on your revision is that I think there is legitimate encyclopedic content in the nature of her prolonged involvement with the same cast over many years of her childhood. I agree with Indrian that the tone of the material you've cut is not right, but how about taking all that cut material, putting it back into "Professional relationships" or some similarly-titled section, and making it less gossipy in tone? For example, this cut sentence: "her parents did their best to make her feel comfortable and that her biggest thrill was getting to know her adult co-stars" is clearly inappropriate; but I think it's encyclopedic to indicate that the child-actor experience was not a problem for her because of her family's support, and that it was enjoyable for her, partly because the other actors were supportive. You don't need the "biggest thrill" approach, or all the quotes (perhaps you don't need any of the quotes); but child-actors are an unusual breed and a note or too about the impact the experience had on her is OK, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The last FAC essentially drowned in its own ink, so I would definitely recommend that comments on the drafts be made on the appropriate talk pages. I have created another draft, User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson/sandbox, which currently contains the offcuts removed from my main draft at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson. Please feel free to have a play around with these phrases and see if you can make something of them - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying can/should be done with them. Happy‑melon 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While many problems I had last time around have now been addressed, I must second what Indrian says above. I had these same concerns last time as well, and the problems remain, i.e. a paragraph on what Watson thinks about her co-stars, etc. It's not relevant, and it is more like a Seventeen article than an encyclopedia entry. I hope the nominator will take up Indrian on the kind offer to do a serious revision. --Melty girl (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok maybe I can give you some stuff to start with. Understand these are just expamples of thing that need to be addressed over the whole article.
      • "She rose to prominence playing Hermione Granger, one of three starring roles in the Harry Potter film series." came instead of rose, portrayal instead of playing, lose the second part of the sentence.
        • Disagree. The word changes are a lateral move, and the second part of the phrase is needed to explain who Hermoine Granger is -- not everyone knows! BTW, I think the indent of this comment list is misleading. It doesn't appear to be from Indrian, but the indent makes it appear as if it is. If this is not Indrian's elaboration, the whole list should be deindented. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also disagree - we had this discussion in the previous FAC. Note that I have moved these comments to the end and deindented them, to avoid the confusion that Melty girl points out. Happy‑melon 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't there be a Internet Movie Database link in the infobox?
      • "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione" don't really need this in the lead.
      • I think "Hermione Granger casting" would fit better in the Early life section.
      • "Watson added that during the production of both films she had lost several baby teeth and had to wear dentures to avoid continuity issues." trivia
      • "Watson said she found comfort in already knowing many of the Prisoner of Azkaban crew, who had also worked on Philosopher's Stone." needs ref
      • Start with the date the films began production rarther than when it was released.
      • Re-phare some of her quote so they aren't quite as long. For example "Watson's commitment to the final two films was confirmed in March 2007 by Warner Brothers. She said, "I could never let [the role of] Hermione go – she is my hero! I love her too much and love what playing her has meant to me. I am excited and honoured to be finishing what I started and playing her in all seven of the films." could become "Watson's has confirmed her commitment to the final two films. She has been reported to be "excited and honoured" to be playing Hermione in all seven Harry Potter the films, and has described her as her hero."
      • Not sure you need the Professional relationships section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I just wanted to let the powers that be in the FAC process know that the primary work on this article has migrated to user subpages and is ongoing. I believe we are close to a final version everyone will be happy with and the lack of activity on the FAC page should not be taken as a sign that this FAC is dying. Indrian (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Objection I think "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione.[2]" sounds very POV. the source (2) - is not very well written, - more importantly however it does not reference that statement at all. - Let me explain why "outperformed" is wrong - others may have been "better actors" overall but been less fit for the specific role. So- both on the count of wrongly referenced and POV, I object against this article as long as it contains this statement in the lead. I hope I was clear, I am very able to re-explain, I am very amenable to discuss this further, thank you for reading. --Kiyarrllston 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this word is a problem. The goal of an audition is to be the best and most appropriate actor for a specific part. The winner of a specific part has outperformed all other actors for that specific part in the minds of the people who have the part to give. If someone isn't a fit for that specific role, that means they were not able to perform adequately for that specific part. The POV in question is the filmmakers' POV; Wiki merely reports the fact that in the opinion of the filmmakers, Watson outperformed all other comers. --Melty girl (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it's an easy fix - both instances removed from the article without damage. Incidentally Melty, is there anything you'd like to comment on from the current version of User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, before I reorganise it and insert it into the article? Happy‑melon 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I will take a look this evening after work. --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree, Melty. "Outperformed" is a loose cannon of a term, often thrown about by papparazzi and definitely an actor's agent. My suggestion would be something like "In her audition, Watson proved to be an appropriate choice based on efficient acting skills and accurate age and appearance." or something a little less... clinical, maybe? --rm 'w avu 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that's a little crazy. The simple fact is that she beat out more competitors than most actors compete against for parts, and that's a notable, factual career win. It need not be quite so downplayed to be NPOV. And what are "efficient acting skills"? -- she's an actor, not a bean counter. But it's moot anyway -- "outperformed" had already been changed when you commented. --Melty girl (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Melon, I don't see anything major I would want to comment on in Indrian's edit, which I think is very good. There are only little things like heading names, paragraph breaks, and minor wording issues, etc. I will wait to see how you incorporate it into the actual article. --Melty girl (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I think Indrian's work is good. When you get a chance to update I'll review again too. Mike Christie (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the word was a problem and I remove my objection as it is now gone - I think "was approved in an audition process involving ___ people" or similar would have been a proper substitution.--Kiyarrllston 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone live with the version cooked up in my sandbox, so I would now appreciate comments and criticisms of this fresh version. Happy‑melon 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment -- I have made a few copyedits, and will continue to read over the new version this evening. I expect I will remove my opposition soon. One suggestion: read WP:OVERLINK and remove some of what the policy talks about with linking "plain English words" -- the idea is to link for context to the article's subject, not offer a dictionary function to readers. For example, I just removed links on "grandmother" and "divorce". If readers do actually need to look those words up in the dictionary, they can do that on their own. I think there are other links you could remove below the Early life section, which is as far as I could get for now. --Melty girl (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is one more sentence I find objectionable: there is no need for Watson's opinion of her new co-stars in the latest movie, that does not really add anything. I will have to take another careful look tomorrow, but I think that may be the last sentence I have a serious objection to. I am close to being able to support. Indrian (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It doesn't seem like you kept all that much from Indrian's edit, though admittedly, it's hard to keep track at this point. But I saw many trivial things still in the article, so I dove into the Career section, trying to help out with an edit showing you my concerns and reincorporating some of Indrian's edits (though not all). I won't explain everything I did in the edit, since it's somewhat self-evident and goes along with sentiments I've shared before, but here are some notes on my edit (perhaps out of sequence)... Indrian's paragraph about the success of Goblet of Fire simply had more brilliant writing; it better framed events, so I put it back in, with one quote from your version inserted. Sorry, but it is more dull to simply state the year of the film's release and unnecessary to say that Watson reprised her role as Hermione; Indrian's alternative there presented the information in a much stronger way (I'm really surprised you didn't use it). His next paragraph about Phoenix was phrased more forcefully as well; I don't understand why you kept in the trivia about the other actors instead -- we don't need a sentence about what Watson thinks of Staunton and Lynch's peformances; we need to hear about what they (or critics) think of Watson's performance! Also, I think that Indrian's break up of the Career section into subsections made more sense (although I did not like the first section's title). I do not think the casting paragraph deserves to be a section on its own; I did a rearrangement of the section headings. Next, I think the Ballet Shoes section had a great deal of trivial content, though I didn't lose as much of it as Indrian did. Announcement dates of a projects are pretty trivial; what's more important is when something is coming/came out, and possibly when it was filmed -- the ITV detail was trivial too. And much of the casting stuff was also trivial and overly fawning (probably because the source is official publicity, not independent coverage). The casting of such a small project shouldn't be dwelt on over the news of what the project is and how it was received. The fact that it was a TV movie and received poor reviews also means that it should not be overly emphasized in the article, because it is not a major part of her career. I tightened the Despereaux bit too -- again, the announcement date is simply too trivial for mention. The reader will start to get lost in dates, and you want the important dates to be remembered. Above that, you'll see I also removed the bit about her awards panel duty; sorry, but winning an award is notable while giving one once is not. And there are a few other trivial, navel-gazing things I removed, but I did incorporate many things that Indrian's draft removed. Take a look at my edit and see what you think. I also touched up the Personal life section, but the changes are not as significant. I look forward to hearing what you and Indrian think of my changes... I really want to support this article, but I just could not given in the shape it was in, so I spent considerable time trying to help improve it. --Melty girl (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou to everyone for your active assistance on this article, rather than being the all-too-common sit-back-and-expect-results FAC reviewer. I think I like all of your modifications, Melty, with the singular exception of "Harry Potter begins". I don't really see why this can't be left as "Harry Potter casting" or some such. Other than that, great! Happy‑melon 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. You're quite welcome. If these major changes are going to stand, I can support. Perhaps someone can think of a better wording for the idea of "Harry Potter begins" (casting is only the first paragraph). Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Thanks to Happy-melon for his willingness to compromise and thanks to Melty girl for making the edits that brought the article the final few changes it needed to get over the hump. Things look to be in good shape now. Indrian (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
      • As I stated twice above, ref 2 is not a reliable source. Please replace this with one that is.
      • "Although critics largely turned away from Radcliffe's acting talent, increasingly labeling him as wooden" I'm not sure "turned away" is the best phrase there. Also, are you sure that Radcliffe's performance was that universally panned?
      • "2006 found Watson playing Hermione..." I'm not a big fan of the construct, "_year_ found...". It also puts a numeral at the start of the sentence, which looks awkward (next sentence starts with a year too).
        • Since I wrote this, I'll chime in. This is a way to vary sentence structure, and it is grammatically correct. Therefore, I don't see a problem. What you are personally not a fan of isn't a make-or-break issue for FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said it was a make-or-break issue for FAC. I'm just giving suggestions to improve the article. Of course, anyone's free to ignore these suggestions. A sentence that starts with a numeral should generally be recast. "_year_ found" is an inelegant solution to varying sentence structure...there are better ways to do so. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a way some of the references can be moved to a spot immediately after punctuation? It gets distracting having a blue number in the middle of a sentence. ("the film stars Watson as white-blonde[36] aspiring actress Pauline Fossil," -> "the film stars Watson as white-blonde aspiring actress Pauline Fossil,[36]")
        • This seems more like personal preference than a legitimate MOS issue, unless you can point to a guideline that says otherwise. Footnotes should be placed after what they document. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, I never said it was a legitimate MOS issue. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm just saying that as a reader, it gets distracting to see numbers in the middle of a sentence not offset by punctuation. And in the example I gave, placing the footnote after the comma is perfectly fine, seeing as how the given source covers everything prior. Moreover, I'm not sure why you're taking such an adversarial tone...
            •  Done Here I agree with BuddingJournalist, and so I have moved all references to be after punctuation (I think only about three or four were affected). Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oops, forgot to comment back to BuddingJournalist. I'm not going to respond to each of your responses to me, because they've already been resolved by others. Just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to be overly adversarial anymore than you did when you pointed out your problems with choices made in the article; I simply disagreed with you. More importantly, I never said that you asserted that your comments were based in the MOS. What I was trying to point out was that your personal wording preferences—and some of them certainly were personal preferences rather than true copywriting or MOS problems—are not make or break issues in FAC. The FA criteria is what we're measuring against here, not whether you personally like a grammatically-correct construction like "2005 found Watson..." Different writing styles, many quite effective, abound in a project like Wikipedia. And if the idea being presented is clear, then it ain't broke. That's not to say my writing is perfect; but this is still something to keep in mind at FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the eldest of three sisters around whom the story revolves" A bit awkward.
        • This phrase is grammatically correct. I see no need to fix it unless you can point out a real problem or a better alternative. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's grammatically correct. However, "around whom the story revolves" is a bit awkward. Also, as it's written, it's unclear whether it's suggesting that the story revolves around the three sisters or the eldest of the three sisters. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it can't be written better.
      • "Watson's next new role is the character of Princess Pea, a starring voice part in animated film The Tale of Despereaux." Awkward sentence in need of fixing.
      • The last paragraph strays into trivia-territory in my opinion, especially since they're just randomly cobbled together. Some of the facts could be merged elsewhere. How has her self-described "feminism" influenced her take on Hermione? Have Johnny Depp/Julia Roberts influenced her acting style? On the other hand, having a cat named Bubbles and liking France as a holiday destination are quite trivial.
      • To strengthen the argument for fair use, the caption of the screenshot should probably mention that this is the scene where she punches Malfoy. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The refs that link to specific news items on "Emma Watson's Official Website" no longer work. Presumably, they've changed their URLs since these were last accessed in fall of 2007. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because of use of fair use image Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg. What's the point? You can't really even make out that it's her, and the fact that (according to the fu rationale) she bleached her hair for the part isn't even mentioned in the article. The scene depicted isn't even mentioned on the article. Totally superfluous image and unnecessary. Same applies to Image:WatsonPoA copy.png, which similarly isn't discussed at all in the text. Totally useless application of fair use images. We already have to free content images on the article showing her appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that an actor bleaches their hair for a part is trivial and typical for the profession; that is why another editor and I favored removing a sentence about that. But I think it is entirely useful to see this actor, best known for her role in Harry Potter, performing in a different role, from a different time period, with a different appearance -- so I think the image is valid. I do not know the full scope of your work on Wikipedia, but whenever I've encountered you, you're trying to curb (end?) the fair use of copyrighted images. But fair use has not been eliminated from Wiki yet, so couldn't the rationale simply be worded better? --Melty girl (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) The note about Watson bleaching her hair was in the article the last time I read it. I'll readd it if you would like. When choosing the PoA image I deliberately ignored several better-lit moments because this is the scene where she punches Draco. Would you like this to be mentioned in the caption? With regards "you can't really even make out that it's her", there's really very little we can do about this when we are required to use low-resolution images. Despite this, I believe this claim to be somewhat exaggerated - Watson is clearly identifiable from the image, as is her hair. Happy‑melon 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this be the scene where she punches Draco, then get a screenshot of her punching Draco and discuss the significance of that scene in the text. The image shows three of the characters just standing there, doing nothing. Hardly useful. There's nothing significant about this screenshot. I.e., useless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? An example of what you would like to see in the text would be very useful to me. Happy‑melon 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You say this screenshot is significant because it's from the scene where she punches Draco. Yet, in the screenshot, there's no punching going on. Just three characters standing there. Get a screenshot of the punching actually going on and then discuss the scene and it's significance to the story line in the text (hopefully beyond just plot summary style). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objection struck, assuming the images not restored on the same grounds they were previously on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slight ppose I am not convinced this article should be a FA. Also, you could surely add some pictures from the movies she played in.Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to let you know, FAC is not a vote. If you have an actionable objection under wikipedia policy or the FA guidelines I invite you to post it so that editors may attempt to address your concerns. Otherwise, I doubt your objection will have any effect. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note to the director: Just in case this FAC has gotten too long to read... This FAC, which has been open for 17 days, currently has three supports, while all opposes were addressed and subsequently stricken, except for this new, seemingly unactionable oppose (that ignores the above debate about screenshots, which were all removed to satisfy an anti-fair use editor). I noticed that the nominator is on Wikibreak, so I just wanted to note that all valid opposition has been addressed and reversed. --Melty girl (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I notice that the director recently promoted 17 articles and this was not one of them. I would hate to see this go down after all the compromise and work that went on here. If the powers that be feel there is still a problem with the article preventing promotion, I would like to know what it is so the final hurdles can be overcome. Indrian (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the article is slight, and fawning in places. Its basically a list of events, and has little insight. For example towards the end it mentions "She calls herself a feminist", and cites this twice, but leaves it hanging with no specifics or substantiation. "has a cat named Bubbles, and lists France as her favourite holiday destination"? Mmm, not very interesting. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first FAC, given the state of the article then, I agreed with your assessment that it was basically a list of events and fawning and had little substance. But I disagree now; now there's critics' opinion of Watson's performances and the place of the HP films in the world of movies has also been added. She's a child star, so I don't think you can expect much more in length because her short career is narrow in scope, and you can't expect anything about her influence or legacy yet. Still, she's a bona fide, if young, movie star, and I think the scope of the article is appropriate and FA is possible for the subject matter. MUCH of the fawning and trivia previously in the article has been removed in a long process of rewriting and compromise (see above). I would be interested to know more specifically what kind of "insight" you think should be added to this article that would make it more fully encyclopedic about Watson.
    Your specific comments relate to two things in the Personal life section. First, as far as I can see, the feminist comment is only there once, not twice; I think it is perfectly appropriate (and common) to state a subject's political orientation in a bio, and that's what this is. There's no need to go on further about it: she states this as her creed, and that's worth including. As for the name of her cat and her holiday destination, you are not the only person who's thought this too trivial. I was on the fence, and saved it because the nominator favors it, and it is the Personal life section after all; but you've convinced me that it should go, so I've removed it. --Melty girl (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree with Ceoil an encyclopedia and a tabloid should have very different kinds of tone - "fawning" is not encyclopedic
    I looked at the sources for the feminist comment "
    PARADE: “I’m a bit of a feminist,” she proclaims. “I’m very competitive and challenging.”" - "a bit of a feminist" is far from "a feminist"
    YOU:""I am such a feminist on this. It drives me nuts when friends say, 'We can't continue because sport gives you muscles and it's so unattractive, and you get sweaty.'" "Feminist on this" is far from "a feminist"
    So... that was wrongly referenced.
    --Kiyarrllston 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "fawning." It is not "fawning" to describe someone as either a feminist or not a feminist. Whether the article is fawning has nothing to do with whether it says she is a feminist or not. Second, she's said both that she's a "bit of a feminist" and "such a feminist" -- these two statements have different emphases, but neither contradicts the assertion that "she calls herself a feminist," as the article says. Additionally, her saying, "I'm such a feminist on this," does not preclude the fact that she also is a feminist on other issues; she may or may not be, but it is unmistakeable that she is a feminist in at least some way. Bottom line: the sources do indeed support the statement that "she calls herself a feminist." I think it shows POV to want to strike something like this fact. --Melty girl (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    let's see - if personality is a good thing - and feminism is a personality trait, then to say someone has a personality trait is to say a good thing about them - definition of fawning (from memory): to flatter immensely to the point of ridiculousness
    I don't know if you know what being a feminist is. - It's a political affiliation. And like being a liberal is different from "being a bit liberal" and "being liberal in regards to this" - so the same goes for feminist. Emma Watson's comments do not support the labeling of her as a feminist - being "very competitive" and "sporty" is not being a feminist.
    I hope I was clear, thank you for reading my comment. I very much appreciate your response.
    --Kiyarrllston 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, feminism is not a personality trait. And to many people, terming someone a feminist is an insult. So no, it is absolutely not "fawning" to state, "she calls herself a feminist." About the accuracy of the statement, did she "call herself a feminist"? Absolutely, she did, both "a bit of a" and "such a," both of which are turns of phrase, as in when a fan says, "I'm a bit of fanatic about Harry Potter." You are coming at two clear sources, where Watson voluntarily identifies herself as a feminist, from a POV place. The statement, as written -- "she calls herself a feminist" -- is entirely accurate. --Melty girl (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the sources?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So - I agree with Ceoil - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras. Rather that she has in interviews used the word "feminist" to describe where she is not a demure fragile female (which both sources note, makes her a lot like hermione) - she is not part of the feminist movement to any stretch.--Kiyarrllston 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not state that she is a feminist activist. If a public figure refers to themselves as a Catholic or a Jew, or a liberal or a conservative, we don't question them because they don't go to services every week or stump for a campaign -- they stated their beliefs and that's enough to be of interest. The article does not leave us thinking that she "burns bras" -- that is an extremely outdated point of view that you're bringing to the word, but it doesn't represent how the word "feminist" is often currently used. Again, as you did above, you have revealed that you are not clear on what "feminist" means. Artists (and others) refer to themselves as feminists all the time when they are not activists. It often refers to a personal political worldview, not an avocation on its own, and yes, that can include a woman's viewpoint of how she conducts herself in her personal life or beliefs they incorporate in their work. You clearly are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist in both sources. Your POV pushing is unfortunate and seems like an attempt to keep readers from knowing what Emma Watson has said about her worldview. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This latest comment I did not appreciate. - not "You [...] are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist [...]" and not "Your POV pushing"
    I would appreciate knowing Ceoil's opinion on how that section could be improved.
    --Kiyarrllston 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose "her academic achievements were good." as in "good vs. evil" or "good vs. bad"- does "exemplary" fit any worse? "pretty"? - why "good" if what is meant is "above average"? why "good" if what is meant is " "were good" according to her mother and father"? - I hope I am clear... It does fit a previous reviewer's comments of "fawning"--Kiyarrllston 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the very next two sentences specify exactly what was meant by "good": she was a straight A student by national British standards. I don't really know how the article could get any clearer. Your opposition regarding this point seems baseless. --Melty girl (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a matter of tone - calling something "good" is not encyclopedic. (- at least as far as I know)
    Saying she was "at the top of her class" (slightly better phrased) would seem to both not repeat the "straight A" comment and keep a [more] encyclopedic tone.
    Thank you for responding.
    --Kiyarrllston 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Terming a grade A student's grades "good" is hardly fawning; "brilliant," "whipsmart" or "top of her class" are what I'd call fawning. "Good" is merely accurate; straight As certainly constitute academic achievements that are "good" by the very standard of the grading system! And since when is the modest, accurately employed adjective "good" inappropriate for an enyclopedia? This is a very odd, if not wholly inaccurate, reason to oppose. --Melty girl (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me first state - if it is "a very odd, if not wholly innacurate, reason to oppose" from your point of view, you should at least know that I do not agree
    not fawning?- I do call it vague, and did call it (once again) not an encyclopedic tone.
    I was hoping that "top of her class" was verifiable information whereas "her academic achievements are good" is not verifiable and will never be.
    the prasing of "top of her class" is not the best - I agree - thus I said- "slighly" better phrasing-
    Thank you for reading this comment
    --Kiyarrllston 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reliably sourced that her grades were straight A's. A's are the best grade you can get, as far as I know. The best grades you can get in a national education system = "good" academic achievement (if not "excellent"!). It's verified, period -- I don't know how you can dispute that. I find your logic incomprehensible. Sorry, Melty girl (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen elsewhere where something is called "good" in wikipedia? or "best"? or "pretty" or "ugly"?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it happens all the time. Superlatives are not a problem if the statement is sourced. For example Æthelbald of Mercia uses "most powerful" and "most formidable"; these superlatives are supported by the source material. I agree with Melty girl here; this is sufficiently sourced and there is nothing wrong with the tone. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most powerful" or "most formidable" are different - refer to a kind of power or size - both would be more encyclopedic than "were good" or (the example) "were the best" or "were pretty". Saying Elvis was "the best musician or that "his records were good" - then referencing with his record sales - is not encyclopedic. The word "good" is not very encyclopedic.
    The sentence - "her academic achievements were good" is an arbitrary judgement of quality on her studies, not an example of very good writing either, furthermore is later repeated in a better form( -"straight A"). I suggest removal of that phrase, I believe the paragraph flows much better without it. If others do not judge her achievements -"straight A"- as anything (good, bad, ugly, strange) then we need not tell them what to think.
    --Kiyarrllston 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Grades are measured on a scale, from good to bad. Grades are inherently a judgment of good to bad. Your comment that we are telling people what to think is absurd. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Academic achievements are measured by grades, grades are measured good to bad. - instead of saying that "academic achievements were good" - you could say she maintained high grades. - which does not use the word "good" --Kiyarrllston 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ←I have reworded this phrase - please let me know whether you think it is an acceptable alteration. Happy‑melon 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "maintaned high academic standards" is something usually said about academic institutions, rather than individuals, but it is a significant improvement, thus I consider this done with.--Kiyarrllston 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection tabloid/fawning tone
      - the last sentence, where it says "Watson lists her interests as dancing, singing, field hockey, tennis and art,[7] and describes herself as a feminist.[10][46] She admires fellow actors Johnny Depp and Julia Roberts"
      I echo Ceoil's thoughts on this. I believe that this can be improved through elaborating as to what she has done in "dancing" (twice participated in Rock ___ at her school?) and so on. "Feminist" seems to have different meanings to different people - is she pro-choice in the abortion debate? does she believe strongly in equal participation in the workplace? does she believe in topfree equality? - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras.
      Thank you,
      Kiyarrllston
      [Message posted at 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
    • Comment: I see absolutely no reason to think that feminism "seems to have different meanings to different people" -- you are just not grasping the true definition. A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for both men and women. What you are describing, Dwarf Kirlston, are examples of common feminist causes, which cover a wide spectrum and is surely subjective depending on the individual or group he/she belongs to. The fact that Watson believes herself to be a feminist, period, is clear and properly sourced. From what I gather, Watson has not described in full what her feminist beliefs entail and therefore they (the beliefs) cannot be added. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JayHenry (below) that Watson need not go into a long explanation of the particulars of her feminist beliefs in order for her self-identification as a feminist to be included in the article. If an American actor says that she's a Democrat, do we keep this out of the article unless she gives a full explanation of whether she's a liberal Democrat or a new Democrat, and which policies she supports and which she doesn't? Jake Gyllenhaal identifies as Jewish, and it was noted in his article last time I checked, but the article didn't need to specify his affiliation or non-affiliation, or report which tenets he believes in, etc. It just states how he says he identifies. I suspect that he doesn't go to services often, if at all -- should his identification as Jewish therefore be removed from the article? No. To say that we can't write that Emma Watson says that she's a feminist because she didn't explain herself to our satisfaction exerts POV. She said it, in the way she chose to say it, on more than one occasion, and it's fully sourced, and therefore we can report it. I thought we were trying to keep insight into who she is in this article! --Melty girl (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there's been a misunderstanding. Just to be clear, I agree with Melty girl and JayHenry in regards to this silliness about elaboration of Watson's "brand" of feminism. Obviously, what has not been stated (i.e. what her feminist beliefs entail) cannot be added to the article because as far as we're concerned, they don't exist. I support the addition of her describing herself as a feminist because it is sourced and I do not believe any other explanation is needed. She describes herself as a feminist, so there it is; if one connects that with bra burning, that is their own (outdated) misinterpretation. María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I get you now! Thanks for the clarification. I thought you had been agreeing with Ceoil's comment that somehow it wasn't "substantiated," and thus could not be added. --Melty girl (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no; I just suck, apparently. :) I'm glad we got that straightened out. I was reading your reply and thinking, "OMG, what did I say?!" María (habla conmigo) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me speak as to what I understand to be her "feminist beliefs": She has said she is "a bit feminist" explaining that she is "very competitive and challenging." -She has also said that she is "such a feminist" regarding whether girls should play sports. ONLY regarding whether girls should play sports. We have only that she has said that she is "a bit feminist" not that she has said she is a feminist.
    If a person said they are democrat, then I hope that at least there is some comment as to under what meaning this is
    If a person said they're a democrat, then, explaining, says "I am very against the Iraq War" - that would serve as something to put next to Jake Gyllenhaal's Jewishness.
    --Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what your second sentence means. --Melty girl (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lists her interests as" is something that would be included in a tabloid, not in an encyclopedia.
    --Kiyarrllston 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that I fully support Melty Girl and Maria's position vis the feminism statement. However, rereading that particular phrase it strikes me that it would improve the flow of the paragraph if the assertion was converted to a quotation, which I have now done. Please let me know if you think this new version is acceptable. With reference the "lists her interests as...", yes, I agree it is something that would be included in a tabloid. This does not, in and of itself, make it unworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Why, exactly, it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article which is not constrained by limitations on ink, paper or storage space? I do not deny that Brittanica would not include it, but Brittanica editors have brutal space restrictions to accomodate to. If it were necessary to reduce this article to half its original size of course the phrase would not make the cut, but fortunately it is not necessary to do so. It is appropriately sourced, it is verifiable, it is neutral, stable and not tangential to the subject. It is well structured, uses appropriate grammar, syntax, and style, and provides information which may be of interest to some readers without being biased. In short, what, precisely, is wrong with it? Happy‑melon 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest "describes herself as "a bit of a feminist" [saying "I am very challenging and competitive"]" - I believe that serves to clarify, elaborate, explain that "feminism" of hers. Hanging sentences are not good writing.
    I believe the reason they wouldn't include it is not lack of space - lack of relevance, meaning, among other things instead. but more importantly they would include it if it was relevant, meaningful - how is it meaningful that those are her interests? - has she done anything regarding those interests? furthermore I believe the phrase "lists her interests" is specifically unencyclopedic tone. This is not a fan encyclopedia, this is not her personal website - I believe that expression is warranted.
    --Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources more readily support that she is like hermione than that she is a feminist to any extent. In fact, the "a bit feminist" is only used to elaborate on that.--Kiyarrllston 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous FAC effectively drowned in discussions to the effect that any direct comparison between Watson and Hermione Granger was inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Please read the previous FAC thoroughly and tell me if you still think this is a good idea. Happy‑melon 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support with thoughts. Kudos to Happy Melon for keeping cool in what's been a mostly impossible FAC process. (Most amusing is the exchange above where one editor demands the fair use images be taken out and the next day a different editor says "it would be nice to have some screen shots from her movies." It is really unfortunate to our editors that the system is such that these impossibilities arise.) Okay, Watson describes herself as a feminist -- that's just fine. It's saying she identifies with the label. An actress doesn't need to write a graduate thesis elaborating her precise views on feminism to identify as a feminist, or for us to mention this identification. Three thoughts on improvement 1) User:Ceoil so accurately mentions there could be more insight. Sadly, although much effort went into this compromised version it stripped the article of some of that insight. I won't object on this ground because I don't wish to prolong this now-unhelpful FAC. 2) In cases where it mentions the films broke records, I would like it to be a bit clearer precisely what record was broken. With many of the film statistics I'm not sure if it's global, US or both. I think this should always be explicit. 3) The first time that the Otto Awards are mentioned it would be good to explain what this award is, especially since there's no article and she's won a handful of them over the years. --JayHenry (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll support when it's fixed up properly. Random issues suggest that a good massage is required. For example:
      • Space before three ellipsis dots (Pauline and others).
      • "USA" is laboured nowadays: US?
      • "outside of"—remove the second word, always.
      • Ref 31 used to support a breach of copyright in the main text. The site says "data cannot be published or posted elsewhere without the expressed permission of Box Office Mojo. To publish or use the stats for professional purposes, please inquire at info@boxofficemojo.com." Have you done so? Remove immediately, please, or find another reference. And in any case, who's the author of the web page, and should we trust it?
      • "the pluses outweighed the minuses."—See MOS on logical punctuation at end of quotations.
      • "a four-year old son"—hyphen missing. Tony (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have done all bar the Mojo ref. Correct me if I'm genuinely wrong, but my interpretation of copyright law in this instance is "tough". "333 million" is not copyrightable, either as a number of a sum of money. The fact that HP5 earnt $333 million" is also not copyrightable, as it is common knowledge and does not represent intellectual work by anyone. The intellectual effort expended by Box Office Mojo to compile that list of top films is copyrightable, as it represents intellectual work for which they should be rewarded with exclusive use. If we were to copy that table in whole or in part, to the extent that we threatened to create a rival source of information on top grossing films, we would be infringing their copyright. Even claiming that HP5 was the third highest-grossing film of all time would be on dodgy ground using that as a reference. But they cannot deny us the right to use the statistic "$333 million", as it is not their right to give or take. Happy‑melon 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's good that you're cautious, Happy-melon, but you can go ahead and take out the copyright notice. It's not needed in a situation like this, where you're just quoting one of their figures. If copyright notices were needed we'd have to apply them anytime we report any list, such as New York Times Bestsellers, or #1 Billboard single, etc. You can simply remove the notice. Also, for what it's worth Boxofficemojo is considered reliable within the industry. It's commonly used by American newspapers as authoritative. --JayHenry (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: There's a strange inconsistency in the citations: part of the periodical names are italicized and part aren't (see WP:ITALICS). The easiest way to consistently italicize all newspaper and magazine names is to use the Work parameter instead of the Publisher parameter in the cite templates (Work is italicized). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find that this produces an unwanted inconsistency whereby sources such as the BBC use {{cite news}} with the |publisher= parameter, while print sources use {{cite news}} with the |work= field, even though both are clearly "published" rather than "worked on". It's more consistent to simply remember to italicise published works - I have been through the references and I think I've done this thoroughly. Happy‑melon 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not aware that the BBC was a periodical; do I miss something? Newspapers, magazines, and journals (periodicals) are italicized. Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Missing publishers: Bravo Otto – Sieger 2003 (German). Retrieved on September 22, 2007. and Bravo Otto Awards 2005 (German). Retrieved on September 13, 2007 (one of them appears to need cite press release). What makes this reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed both of those. Vis the Dannielradcliffe.com ref, I would link directly to the Bravo pages mentioned in the article, but we're not allowed to. Anyone who follows the reference through that page to the original source material (and can read German) will see it's correct - it's just a shame we can't do that ourselves. Happy‑melon 19:15, 25 January 2008 (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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

    Niandra Lades and Usually Just a T-Shirt

    [edit]

    Niandra Lades and Usually Just a T-Shirt is the obscure, avant-garde debut album by John Frusciante. He quietly released this during his leave from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. It is an article on the short-side, indeed. Considering the obscurity of the album, though, Niandra Lades and Usually Just a T-Shirt consults every available source, ranging from published books to online articles. It was promoted to GA status a little less than two months ago and since then Grim-Gym and I have put the finishing touches on it. Please feel free to point out any and all inconsistencies, problems or flaws you can find! NSR77 TC 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note, please straighten out this source, the publisher is johnfrusciante.com, but I can't figure out what's going on there.
    • ^ "John Frusciante: Perso e Ritrovato" (Pdf). No. 570 (March 2004). Retrieved on August 20, 2007.
    That's the title of the interview. It is published on Frusciante's website which has permission, but no further publishing information is given. NSR77 TC 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then johnfrusciante.com would be the publisher for your purposes; you had something else in the publisher parameter on the cite template, and you had two publisher fields. I attempted a correction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this and how do we find it?
    • VPRO Interview with John Frusciante (1994)
    Could be found on the internet; I added a link to part one over at YouTube. NSR77 TC 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not optimal (is it a copyvio?); it might be preferable to spell out and link to what VPRO is and cite it accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article actually talks about the interview because it is pretty important. It links VPRO there and explains what it is. NSR77 TC 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lot of sourcing to johnfrusciante.com. This sentence has ce needs (pls review throughout):
    • Frusciante's use of heroin and crack cocaine became more extreme during the final stages of recording in late 1993; as he began viewing drugs the only way to "make sure you stay in touch with beauty instead of letting the ugliness of the world corrupt your soul."[1][11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the sentence. I'm not particularly sure if that's what you were asking, though, since your question was pretty ambiguous. If it's still bothering you let me know. NSR77 TC 20:51, 25 January 2008 (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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

    Metacomet Ridge

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well written (although the lead section might be improved a bit), is well illustrated, is fully sourced, and appears to comprehensively cover the subject with the right level of detail (further details about individual geographic features are in about 40 other articles). Noroton (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Moni3. Hello. I read through your article and have some suggestions.

    • the abbreviations for miles and kilometers in the lead probably doesn't need to be linked, and certainly not twice...as I went through I noticed you had done this irregularly. Take out all the links to measurements.
    done Eliminated, leaving 1st instances only.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use parentheses very scarcely, such as only when abbreviating anagrams. So your parentheses in the lead and in "Naming" should be converted to regular prose in the sentences.
    done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a 1-sentence paragraph in "Naming"
    done Expanded.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that you're writing for people who have never seen what you're writing about, so generalities such as Several shorter parallel ridges flank it here and there don't help them understand what it looks like and why it's important.
    done --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A map would be very helpful if you can fine a free use one.
    No map availabe; description will have to suffice. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is Mount Warner in italics in "geography"?
    done Italics eliminated.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see "peters out" as a repeated phrase. It seems informal to me, unless it a geologic phrase I didn't know existed.
    done Changed.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence will probably have to be revised: One way to imagine this is to picture a layer cake tilted slightly up with some of the frosting (the sedimentary layer) removed in between. It snaps from formal to informal language.
    done Revised tone.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photos are nice, but there are places, such as the "Ecology" section where it looks crowded. Different browsers may look different from what you see.
    done Removed some photos & rearrainged others.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make your refs easier to read by making it two columns. And you will eventually have to clean them up to make them absolutely perfect. Seriously - I've spent hours on the correct grammar of references. It's tedious, but you can't pass FA without doing it.
    done References revised to conform with Wikpedia style. Left in one column, however, as a two column references did not seem to display well on smaller monitor. Many feature articles also use 1 column reflist.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I stopped at the history section. You will need a copy edit for the article, and I would actually recommend a peer review. There are passages that are difficult to read, and quite a few breaches of WP:MOS. I wish you luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    done Several editors beside myself have gone through the article since & have made adjustments for WP:MOS.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Moni3. Thanks for your feedback. I'm the primary author of the article, not the nominator (I have too much humility to nominate work of my own work), but I'm happy to see it up here & under scrutiny, and I'm glad to respond by making adjustments to the work. So far: removed links to measurements; eliminated 1 sentence paragraph, most parenthetical sentences, generalities you mentioned, italics for Mount Warner, and "peters out"; reduced informal tone in layer cake sentence; revised references to Wikistyle (as best as I could interpret it). Left the phots as is; they look fine on my 13-inch screen & smaller (someone with a larger screen will have to look at it & adjust if necessary). Tried the double column reference list; looked less readable on my screen, so I left as is. As for the difficult passages and WP:MOS, I changed the few I noticed; if there are others, I'm too close to the article to see them. Be well, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted images.
    • No map availabe of the Ridge (that I'm aware of).--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Several editors have now gone over the article since it was originally posted by Noroton; comments?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support—Well-written indeed. You could remove "very" from the lead. North–south" in the infobox needs an en dash. Please consider removing the spaces between adjacent citation numbers (to minimise the visual intrusion—some have no spaces already). Hyphen in "well-preserved"? I think US writers do this. "Rams head" is hyphenated on the image info page; check dictionary? Even merge the words? Unsure. I've hyphenated "23-mile x", etc, but there are a few more to do (not the converted abbreviations, though—see MOS). ".5 miles"—MOS says leading zero and singular required; but why not spell it out? Thanks for not autoblotching the full dates in the reference list, nor using that accursed on [date]. Refs 18 and 24 need an en dash. Would be nice to list more authors for the web-site info in the references. Unclear reliability/status of some of the info; for example, can the Sleeping Giant Park Assocation be trusted? Who is the author? Tony (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support, Tony1. I've addressed the points you've made as follows:
    • Removed "very", hyphenated Ram's-head, converted .5 to one-half, checked over hyphenation.
    • Went through & looked at the places where you suggested en dashes; they seemed already in place, but I pasted the en dash provided in the Wikipedia dash article anyway just in case there was a slight variation in length.
    • I was able to find authors for only one of the references you inquired about. As for the other ones, most are organization or agency websites that lack authorship details. Sleeping Giant Park Association is indeed considered a reputable source of information on the Sleeping Giant; they have been around for nearly 100 years, publish books, conduct research and education, and are considered the primary authority on the landscape feature. Authorship of the history detailed on the website appears to be collaborative. If you have questions about any of the other sources used in this article, I'd be glad to answer them as well.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • done--There are no unresolved links. I re-checked them again. Only one of the article's external links registers as "May not contain content", however, if you click on it, it takes you where it should.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tony, I hadn't realized that. The use of the --done-- template has been so widespread on the FAC page I assumed it was acceptable. I won't add more of them, but I'll leave the ones that are already in place so those following this article won't be confused by their deletion. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comments

      • I think the lead is too short. See WP:LEAD for suggestions.
      • Please be consistent with writing out numbers. two miles (3 km) should be 2 miles (3 km) or two miles (three km). Also be consistent on whether the article is writing out the first unit (miles vs mi). Both forms are used in the article right now.
      • The first section left me a bit confused.
        • Do you know why the USBGN suddenly recognized Metacomet Ridge in January?
        • Need a non-breaking space between numbers and their units/qualifiers (35 miles, etc)
        • Who gave the ridge the name Metacomet? The article explains that other entities don't call it that, and that the name is taken from a sachem, but does not explain how the ridge came to be named that. Given the heading "naming the ridge", I expected it to explain how the ridge came to be named.
      • Do you have a citation for the fact that Mount Warner is geologically unrelated?

    Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your feedback Karanacs. Responses:

    • Made the measurements consistent.
    • The USBGN does not indicate why they included the name into their database in January of 2008. I could speculate that it has to do with the recent inclusion of much of the ridge in the newly proposed National Scenic Trail Act and the NPS use of the name, but it would not be appropriate to include speculation in the article. The USBGN is constantly adding information to its database. And both the NPS and USBGN are Interior Department agencies.
    • Nb spaces included.
    • I do not know who gave the Metacomet Ridge its name; I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. However, I did expand the section to indicate that the name of the sachem has been widely used to describe a variety of geographic features and businesses in the region, and I renamed the section from "Naming the ridge" to "Geographic definitions" to avoid the allusion that the section will describe exactly how the ridge received its name. I'm not sure that I'm happy with "Geographic definitions" however; if anyone has a better suggestion, please let me know.
    • The mount Warner reference was already in place, however, due to image placement on a screen your size, (my size, too), it appears that the paragraph ends sooner than it does. I added a second reference to avoid this illusion. Moving the image was more problematic.
    • Finally, with regard to the lead, I read WP:Lead & the lead seems to be appropriate as far as I can tell. If there is something specific you think it is missing, please let me know. I'd also like to hear what others think of the lead in its current state: is it effective?

    Again, thanks!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be missing something, but when I looked at the article in edit mode, I did not see & nbsp; or {{nowrap}} used to create non-breaking spaces for any of the units/qualifiers. How did you address this?
    WP:LEAD states that an article that is over 32kb (as this one is), should have a lead of 2-3 paragraphs. The lead should also be a summary of the article, and this lead does not mention anything in the ecosystem, history, conservation, or recreation sections. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was confused about the non-breaking spaces. In general, the whole issue of converting measurements has been very frustrating. At this point I have converted most of the measurements using the convert template, which includes non-breaking spaces (at least WP:style says it does). I have applied the nowrap template to others. The conversions at the bottom of the article are tabulated, so they don't need non-breaking spaces. I think I found them all, but in an article this size it's easy to miss something, please let me know if I did.
    • Ecosystem was already mentioned in the lead; I've expanded that part of the article to mention your other suggestions.
    --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

    Calgary Flames

    [edit]

    Over the past year or so, I've slowly re-written and cited this article, looking to bring it up to a similar standard of another ice hockey FA, New Jersey Devils. Following a final push, this article has recently completed a peer review, during which it gained good article status. After spending the last day or so tightening up the references and performing one final copyedit, I believe this article is ready for Featured status. Looking forward to all feedback. Resolute 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • dubbed the Flames "Canada's team."—it would be eccentric for the dot to be part of the title. See MOS on logical punctuation within quotation marks.
    • Check the hyphens in scores, such as 26-0 (26–0). Double hyphens in the table at the bottom better as en dashes.
    • Check the reference list carefully; spot check revealed, for example, missing author's name at ref. 33. Ref 29 doesn't have the site owner listed. Tony (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good article, another quality piece by Resolute. Good to see another ice hockey article going for FA status. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though I wish the team captains section was restored. Overall, this article is flaming hot. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Great job on this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very detailed, well cited. This one deserves a promotion to featured status.--Hokeman (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
      • There appears to be quite a number of statements regarding scorelines (or series scores) but it's not immediately obvious where a reference/citation for those are. I think this verfiability aspect is important. I don't doubt the truth is presented by the editors here, but the lay reader should be able to know what he/she is reading is verifiable. I can cite examples if you want but I think it's fairly clear. In the long term, erring on the side of too many inline citations would avoid silly problems like FA review by anal-rententive editors.
      • "Another bright spot for the team during this time was defenceman Robyn Regehr, who became the youngest nominee ever for the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, which recognizes perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication to hockey, in his rookie year, despite suffering two broken legs in a car accident the previous summer" --> any way to make this more readable? Manderiko (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, do you feel that more citations are needed for the scores? As for the second one, splitting it into two sentences might help. I'll fix it. Maxim(talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (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 18:19, 26 January 2008.

    Anodyne (album)

    [edit]
    previous FAC


    After testing the waters over Thanksgiving Break, I believe that I have raised Anodyne to featured status. The article is short, but is comprehensive. I've tried to provide a fair criticism section to the best of my ability, but the fact is that very few outlets gave this a bad review (and the good reviews failed to point out perceived flaws). I'll rapidly address comments. Teemu08 (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A few comments for now:

    • Consistency with dashes: in the lead, you use spaced endashes as parentheticals, but unspaced emdashes in the main body. One or the other, I think.
    • WP:SEASON: "recorded in Spring 1993" – first, "Spring" should be "spring", per the MOS. Second, "spring" shouldn't really be used at all. OK, it's clear from the article that the spring referred to is spring in Texas, but why not be more explicit?
    • I'd suggest splitting the references into notes & references, and stick that Greg Kot book in the references... just to separate the notes from the referenced sources. Similarly, stick Nathan Bracket's book's details in references, and use Harvard style ref in the notes, as you did with Kot.
    • WP:MOSQUOTE: not entirely convinced by the language in this MOS section, but it seems to suggest {{cquote}} and derivatives aren't good. <blockquote> without the quotation marks?
    • Suggest reviewing punctuation around quotations in the main text, to ensure they meet with logical quotation guidelines and WP:PUNC.
    • Ref#6 – should be "pp. 72–73", rather than "72–3"? Ref#3 also.
    • Stylistic: with multiple references, try and keep the refs in numeric order in the text. So, instead of [16][1], go for [1][16]. No big deal, just a suggestion.

    I'm sure others will come along with more, but those are a few things to be going on with. Best of luck. Carre (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Struck out the comments. I left the logical quotation one, not because I don't think you've done it, but simply because I'm not 100% sure myself of the interpretation of that MOS, so it's a reminder only. Carre (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Although I opposed the previous FAC, the article has made some impressive progress in comprehension. I wasn't concerned with the length, really (an FA can be any size in my eyes). Plenty more reviews have been added, thus negating the neutrality issues the article had during the prior candidacy. Teemu's done a nice job writing this one, as well. NSR77 TC 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I picked up quite a couple of typos, so another round of proofreading might be in order. I also don't quite get the significance of the Tweedy quote to the album, especially since it seems to stem from a live gig, not the recording session. It's also slightly POV, so I would vouch for removal. (Quote moved to Uncle Tupelo bio article.) The review session is somewhat, uh, anodyne, with a plethora of non-descript indirect quotes given preference over direct quotes which put the album in context. Other than that, it reads like an article on an album should. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Btw, I disagree with the objection raised in the last FAC. While we generally don't link to YouTube since much of their material has questionable copyright status, there is no reason not to include an external link if the material has been posted legally by the label (see WP:EL). This is moot in this case of course since the video has since been removed by Warner Bros. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments left on the talk page. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (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 03:17, 24 January 2008.

    Halo 3

    [edit]
    previous FAC 1
    previous FAC 2

    I think all of the concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed. The article is also currently part of a featured topic nomination but because it is already a GA the 2 nominations shouldn't have any effect on each other. James086Talk | Email 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: Pretty engaging read. The plot section is concise enough (without being choppy) with enough backstory to let this stand on its own. Gameplay is descriptive enough. Marketing and critical reception are also quite good. Relevant points seem to have been cited. The only issues I can think of are minor:
      • "The Chief and company quickly activate the installation's Cartographer to find Truth; in the process, Guilty Spark discovers that the Ark is creating a new ringworld to replace his destroyed installation" (Halo 3#Plot). The way I understood it (I haven't played the game, I have just read this article), Ark is like a remote trigger for the Halos. Then how can it create a new ringworld (another Halo, I presume?). Is something wrong here? (Ark used in place of Truth Prophet?)
      • A few screenshots to demonstate the technical features - Forge and Saved games playback/sharing UI (Halo 3#Gameplay)- could be a good option. Its kinda hard to visualize it without a picture.
      • Can't the images in the gallery (Halo 3#Versions) be floated sideways? It kinda shoves the images up in the face and is somewhat distracting.
      • With respect to "In multiplayer games where Forge is enabled, players can turn into a Forerunner Monitor and edit and manipulate objects in-game" (Halo 3#Gameplay), isn't Forge an offline map editor, i.e., the map has to be edited before playing commences using the map? Then what does "Forge being enabled on a map" mean? And if editing has to be done beforehand, what is this in-game editing thing? This could do with some clarification.
      • "...and Forge settings can all be uploaded to the 'File Share'" (Halo 3#Gameplay) - Where is this "File Share" hosted? Is it an XBL-only thing or can be accessed via the Bungie (or any other) website?
        • I added "Anyone can browse user created content that has been uploaded to Bungie's website on a personal computer and tag it to automatically download to their console next time they sign into Xbox Live." to explain how it works. James086Talk | Email 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Halo 3#Versions section says "..."Beastiarum", which is a hard cover bound collection of information and art covering the species" (for the Limited edition) and later for Legendary edition, it reads "Beastiarum (on one of the DVD discs)". How can a hard bound booklet be in a DVD disc? Does this mean the Beastarium for the Legendary edition is actually a soft copy of the content?

    --soum talk 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The fair-use rationales need to specify which article the image is being used for. For example, Fair-use rationale for Halo 3.
    • Unless captions are full sentences, they shouldn't have a full-stop, per MoS.
    • "These are "weapons, grenades, and melee",[16] all three of which are normally available to a player. If by "normally available", you mean an unlimited resource, or something available from the onset, please reword to specify this. "Normally available" seems a bit vague.
      • I changed it to "which are available to a player in most situations" because in the next sentence it describes how "a player forgoes both grenades and melee attacks in favor of the combined firepower of two weapons simultaneously." I'm not sure "normally available" implies an unlimited resource. For example I would say that food is normally available from my fridge but it's not unlimited. Only the melee attacks are of unlimited quantity. It could be reworded further though. James086Talk | Email 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try cut out some redundant "alsos"; this article has loads of them.
    • "save up to 100 films of themselves playing a level". The true meaning may seem obvious, but from this it suggests that the actual person playing is being recorded, rather than the gameplay, if that makes sense.
    • I don't know about the "Setting" section. Try not to delve too deeply into the plot aspect and general Halo context.
    • The same as I've said at the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow FAC. The plot's too long and has that "A meets B, and then" style. Most other FAs follow this style, though, but I just think it's too extensive.
    • The first two sentences of "Development" could do with a source.
    • The first paragraph of "Marketing and release has only one source. Can anymore be found?

    I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to the plot; I expanded the setting section because reviewers at the last FAC thought that the plot section was too confusing otherwise. Halo 3 is a direct continuation off the previous game, and also ties in with the first game- and there's no recap at the beginning, so I expanded the setting in order to make the plot more understandable for those who hadn't played halo before. David Fuchs (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support never played these games, but all the Halo articles are impressive. igordebraga ≠ 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Very well written and informative with excellent prose and an especially well written lead. I do have a few minor issues:
    • I'm not sure if there was a good reason (perhaps because it is only an overview), but the "Characters" section has no citations at all. Again, I'm not sure if this is a problem, but as we are going for FA, it may be a good idea to add some.
      • I think there aren't any citations because it's fairly obvious to a player who is and isn't in the game. Like we don't have to cite the fact that it's a first person shooter. Though I'll come back later today (going out now) and add citations of the instruction manual which has the voice credits (and hence the list of characters as well), unless someone else beats me to it. James086Talk | Email 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Marketing and Release" and "Versions" section have some challengable statements that are not backed up with citations. (e.g. From "Versions": "Gamestation stores in the UK also offered a limited edition Master Chief figurine only available to the first 1000 pre-orders." From "Marketing and Release": "Throughout the course of development four "developer documentaries" were released, which explain the processes behind creating parts of the game.")
    • This statement in "Sales": "According to Microsoft, first-day sales of Halo 3 reached $170 million in the U.S., setting the record for highest gross of an entertainment product within 24 hours of its release. The performance beat the previous record setter, predecessor Halo 2, which earned $125 million within 24 hours after its launch." — which I believe was referenced by a Reuters story in reference 86, points to an article that is (quoted from the website) "...not currently available".
    • This is just a suggestion, but you may want to better convey the fact that all the info in the "Content for download" section is cited.
    • The "Critical Reception and Impact" section may (note the indefinate article) be slightly NPOV. I'm not positive, but I think there may be more criticism of the game (especially the single-player campaign) than is mentioned. I'm not requesting that you dig up all the dirt you can find from any fanboy website, but I was pretty sure there was a fair amount of criticism of the single-player mode in particular. Again, I could be wrong on this one.
      • It was decided (Talk archive 9 and 10) to have 2 paragraphs of positive (although it has since become one larger paragraph) and 2 of negative. At the moment there is about 50/50 positively/negatively oriented text. While the campaign was a point of complaint, the overall average is 93 or 94 (depending on who you ask) so if there was a lot of criticism in the article it would be giving undue weight to the negative points. If there is a specific problem (like the mention of sub-par AI for allies) then it can be added. James086Talk | Email 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to say that these are very minor issues, and as is, this is definately one of the best written articles on Wikipedia. Thingg (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, excellent article. Can't wait to see this on the Main Page. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review and responses. James086Talk | Email 23:21, 16 January 2008 (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 03:17, 24 January 2008.

    R.E.M.

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    Self-nomination This article is one of the Top Importance articles for WikiProject Alternative music, given R.E.M. is not only one of the key bands in the alternative rock genre, but is one of the most important musical groups of the last 25 years period. This article was one of the most successful Collaboration of the Week efforts in the project; it was listed as a Good Article nominee when the collaboration finished and became a GA about a week later. After a number of months of maintenance and a short but helpful Peer Review this month, I've spent the last week or so putting the finishing touches on it to bring it up to FA standards. Not only do I wish to make an article about an importance band Featured quality, but my goal with this particular article is to make it a model for all future musical group articles to take inspiration from. Is it better than The KLF? Well, here's hoping. Thanks for your feedback. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "broad is used twice in the lead in close proximity.
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even considering that it is the lead, aren't citations needed for opinions like "gained early attention due to Buck's "jangly" guitar style and Stipe's unclear vocals." ?
    Those aren't opinion. Buck does play in a jangle, and Stipe's vocals are unclear in early recordings. That's about as NPOV as I could get in describing the band's musical traits in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bandmembers/bandmates aren't words.
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the lead, link everything once again (the band-members, Athens).
    Not necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stipe and Buck soon met fellow University of Georgia students Mike Mills and Bill Berry" - So all four of them went to the same university?
    Yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • link single and EP.
    Single doesn't need to be linked. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • is that inline "radio free" sample needed when there is one at the side? Also, there aren't any other such inline samples
    I forget why we added that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "praised the aura of mystery the songs presented" - put aura of mystery in quotes because that such an aura exists is opinion.
    I can't because it's paraphrasing, not a direct quote. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a very good placing for a college rock band at the time) - is that also backed by the source?
    Yes, same source at the end of the sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Fables paragraph has 2 "miserable"s in adjacent sentences. I'm not sure "poor" is the best adjective to use for food.
    The band and the writer of the book cited (who's British, by the way) describe it as poor. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, those 2 sentences could be combined to "The band members found the sessions unexpectedly difficult, and were so miserable due to the cold winter weather and <poor> food that they came close to breaking up"
    • "context for the album itself, influencing an album" - rephrase
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "critical reception of the album was mixed" - "of the album" is redundant. Maybe "its critical reception..."
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ignored at mainstream - ignored by?
    I believe this was discussed at the Peer Review. Sticking with phrasing of the source cited. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album improved on the sales of Fables of the Reconstruction markedly" to "The album sold much better than Fables..." ?
    The current version of the sentence hews closer to what the source actually says. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is "Top 40 radio"? Link it?
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For its fifth album Document (1987), R.E.M. began a decade-long relationship" - sounds as if for the purpose of recording Document they started a 10 year partnership... Replace "For" with "With".
    Rewrote sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "generated rumors that the singer was dying; the band vehemently denied the rumors." - that sentence doesn't flow well, maybe - "generated rumors that the singer was dying, which were vehemently denied by the band."
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After piecing together two slow-paced albums in a row in the studio" sounds weird - maybe "After recording/releasing two slow-paced albums in a row,"
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "lugubrious" mean? Now I don't know how Reveal, or Up, were paced :)
    • "and praised its "ceaselessly astonishing beauty."" - i think "and hailed it as a "ceaselessly astonishing beauty."" is better.
    Hailed seems too flowery for me in this instance. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't you mention how "Shiny happy" was absent from the best-of cause they hate it?
    Not here. There's only one track from Monster on the compilation as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur," - why quotes not italics?
    Fixed. I missed that one. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The band was one of five nominees accepted into the Hall" - remove (seems awkward and unnecessary) or include "that year" to avoid possible misunderstanding.
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The group was inducted by Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder and performed four songs with Bill Berry." - "The group, which was inducted by Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder, performed four songs with Bill Berry."
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • one of "the two most important alt-rock bands of the day." - just curious, who was the other?
    The Smiths. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not sellout-in other words" - i think there's a MoS error/ punctuation mistake there.
    That's how it's written in the original souce (Spin thought it'd be cute to print the piece as a article written on a typewriter directly scanned into the book.). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pavement and Live." - why not other, bigger, more popular, bands? Like Radiohead?
    Plan to expand that a little bit soon, but Pavement and Live have been more vocal about their debt to R.E.M. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A citation is to Rock's Backpages - why not directly cite the source?
    Yeah, I forgot to fix that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked it. That's the original source. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are Scott McCaughey · Bill Rieflin · Ken Stringfellow in bold in the band template?
    Not sure (but that doesn't really have anything to do with the article). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indopug (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and I suggest everybody read the previous FAC; its awesome. Indopug (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's kinda embarrassing having to acknowledge a previous FAC that not only I had no part in, but was obviously misguided. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just lurking the boards here.... I must concur that the previous FAC is indeed awesome. :-) Deatonjr (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'tis awesome, we are agreed.--Kiyarrllston 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Clearly, a lot of great research has gone into this article. The band's history and their impact on music is very well explained, and I have to congratulate the editors. Atlantik (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Query does the "top 25 alternative groups" allegation have a source? shouldn't the grave importance of this group have center stage in the lead of the article?--Kiyarrllston 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea what you're referring to. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops - I was referring to the glorious stuff you said in the nominators blurb:"given R.E.M. is not only one of the key bands in the alternative rock genre, but is one of the most important musical groups of the last 25 years period." which I believe should have a place in the lead of the article as a really importance fact relating to the importance of R.E.M. ... I figure it was kindof hard to know what I was referring to, I'm sorry for that.--Kiyarrllston 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but with some caveats. This is a a good article which seems to meet the FA criteria. Some of the wording could be improved though - for instance: "After the Green tour ended the band members unofficially decided to take the following year off" - how does a rock band "unofficially" take a year off? - is there a form they didn't fill in? "R.E.M. has continued to influence many subsequent alternative bands, such as Pavement and Live" also seems a bit odd given that both these bands were formed well over a decade ago. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the first sentence: the band ended up taking a long break without intending to. I'll try to fix the second sentence; it made more sense before I rearranged the section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The page cited says "After the Green tour, the band had unofficially decided to take a year off, an extended sabbatical and the first in their decade-long career so far." WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Overall the article is OK and meets the FA criteria, but Wesley has produced better (Joy Division and The Smashing Pumpkins come to mind). I have just a few relatively minor issues:
      • You might want to link "Jangly" to an appropriate article as some readers may not know what it is.
      • "Multi-million-selling" is pretty colloquial. You may want to change it to simply "successful" or something along the lines of "it sold several million copies..."
    Removed. It was a remanent of from before I started working on the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In 1997, R.E.M. re-signed with Warner Bros. for a then-record US$ 80 million" several problems with the sentence: The $ sign is the only thing that should link to United States dollar and the "US" should be removed. It should also be "$80 million" without separations. "Then-record" should probably be reworked, too. There's a lot of hyphenations throughout the article that need to be either removed or reworked because they tend to be colloquial.
    All articles I've seen clarify dollars amounts as "US$0000". I assume because there are other dollar currencies besides the American dollar. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Southern United States" doesn't need to be wikilinked
    I linked it for context. There's a lot of non-Americans who don't know what the constitutes the American South. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "R.E.M. had recorded its debut EP, Chronic Town, with Easter for Hib-Tone when the band's demo tape found its way to I.R.S. Records." Poorly worded. "Found its way to I.R.S." isn't a great way to mention the event. You may want to mention how the demo tape "found its way" to the record label.
    Rewritten. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The album was warmly received by college radio, and its success there pushed the album to number 36 on the Billboard album chart." warmly should be changed to just "well". Also, the article could benefit from adding how well it did in the mainstream, considering College Radio is an underground establishment.
    That was another remanent of the earlier version of the article; I was trying to find a reference that detailed the importance of college radio in R.E.M.'s early career (there's a reference later on in the article, but that just says "While the R.E.M's core support remained college radio . . .") Cut it all out except for the Billboard chart position. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "was more accessible to listeners outside the college realm, with Stipe's vocals coming closer to the forefront." Forefront of what? I'm guessing it means the forefront of the sound but some may find it ambiguous.
    I didn't cite that line, but my guess given my research is that it's referring to the increased emphasis on Stipe's lyrics (see the "Musical Style and influences" section regarding the increasing clarity of Stipe's vocals and lyrics). I'll rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Over the course of Lifes Rich Pageant, Stipe's lyrics touched on a wide variety of themes, with a greater emphasis on politics and the environment." How so?
    I just removed the sentence. Another remanent of an earlier version of the page. It made sense when the paragraph used to describe individual songs in-depth. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For the group's fifth album Document (1987), Don Gehman suggested R.E.M. work with Scott Litt, because he was too busy to produce the record." Change "R.E.M." to just "the band" and "too busy to" to "unable to".
    I like to be begin each paragraph by naming the band directly. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote the entire sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In truth, many early R.E.M. songs had definite lyrics that Stipe wrote with care." Remove "in truth". The sentence is rather colloquial. "With care" doesn't strike me as very well written. Possibly rephrase to say "with emotion and compassion"?
    "With care" is meant to mean that Stipe put a lot of effort into writing his lyrics; that they weren't just thrown together as many in the music press speculated. The page cited has Mills and Buck talking about how Stipe would type out the lyrics on an old typewriter and then stare at them for hours. I'll try to rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Buck's "economical, arpeggiated, poetic" style reminded British music journalists during the 1980s of 1960s American folk rock band The Byrds" the sentence should be clarified to state which publication stated that; I'm guessing only one review has stated this and the sentence should reflect such.
    The article cited does say that Buck's style reminded British journalists of the Byrds so it's accurate. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the final section, a liberal should be wikilinked.
    Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quote "Michael always says think local and act local—we have been doing a lot of stuff in our town to try and make it a better place" implies that Buck is quoting Stripe and should be fixed as: "Michael always says 'think local and act local'—we have been doing a lot of stuff in our town to try and make it a better place." I'm not sure where the quote ends. NSR77 TC 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how it's written in the original source. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (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 03:17, 24 January 2008.

    Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C.

    [edit]

    Self nomination I've spent quite a bit of time knocking this article into shape, following the model of existings FAs Margate F.C. and Leek Town F.C. and I now think it's ready for FA status....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the team group photo has been flagged up as possibly unfree as, although it is tagged {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} , it can also be found on the supporters' club website. I've sent an email to the supporters' club's contact address requesting confirmation that that they did indeed upload it themselves and do hold the copyright but if confirmation can't be obtained then I will remove the image, I don't believe this would significantly detract from the quality of the article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of images, the line art in this article (team logos and graphs) was uploaded in the JPEG format, which makes it look bad and scale worse. I've tagged the affected ones with {{BadJPEG}}. — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not very good with image formats - what would be the best format for them to be in.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SVG would be ideal, because they could then be scaled to any size. This should be possible for the graphs since you created them, but it is sometimes hard to find vector versions of copyrighted/trademarked artwork. For those, PNG is usually best if a vector version can't be found. It's important that you don't simply convert the JPEGs into these formats, though; Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload is a good page to read for the pros and cons of the various image formats. — brighterorange (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the only image manipulation software I have on either my home or work PCs is MS Paint, all of the above could prove quite tricky, but I'll try and find someone who has access to something more sophisticated...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After much aggro all "bad" JPGs have now been replaced with PNGs/SVGs ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most of it seems great. The only thing I'd say is the lead only refers to what is mentioned in the history section but nothing else. Once that and the images are sorted out I can't see anything to stop me supporting it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some changes and the lead now covers the history, colours, stadium, statistics and honours sections. Players and managers are probably too transitory to mention in the lead so I think that's probably everything covered - what do you think? As and when I can get the images sorted out (with a bit of luck a friend of mine can sort this out for me over the weekend......) I'll let you know ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I really like this article. I think it's ready. Great job ChrisTheDude, JACOPLANE • 2008-01-5 22:38
    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 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

    U2

    [edit]
    previous FAC
    dead links

    Nominator: Wikipedia brown (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm nominating U2 because it meets all featured article criteria. Moreover, all concerns from previous Peer Reviews and FACs have been addressed, through major revisions and a September 2007 copy-edit by Wikipedia's outstanding League of Copyeditors. The Campaigning and Activism section is the only weak point, but it does not detract from the article in any way. Thanks in advance for reviewing and offering your opinion!

    • Support as a significant contributor. Wikipedia brown (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good one Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor oppose With a few nitpicks that need changing:
      • The last sentance of the lead says "The band are active in human rights..." Wouldn't it read better to say that Members of the band... While some of the campaigning and activism section mentions some charity performances, most of it deals with some of the members of the band working for causes. Plus, unless acting as a performing unit, its not really "the band" is it?
      • "U2 have also enjoyed reciprocal influential relationships" Reciprocal influential relationships??? Oooohhhh... Sounds dirty... maybe some better phrasing here. Did they perform with these artists? WOrk on their albums? What is the nature of the relationship? Its also fully unsourced.
        • Good point. I've changed it to U2 have also worked and/or had influential relationships with Green Day, [etc].... While I suggest this is an improvement, it's still not brilliant. Perhaps others might show a stroke of prose genius. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, you mention cover versions of U2 songs, but you don't mention U2 doing any notable cover versions of other's songs? Are there?
        • Are there notable cover versions that U2 have played? To the best of my knowledge, U2 playing covers has extended only to live shows (common) and as quickly recorded throw away b-sides. I don't think that is notable - they were never sold as singles, on albums, or were chart success. One exception would be The Saints are Coming which is mentioned in the article, but it's mentioned in the "Campaigning and Activism" section. Perhaps this should be repeated in the covers section. Hmmm. --Merbabu (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, U2 has not done any notable cover versions except for Saints are Coming. Let's see -- Unchained Melody, Everlasting Love, Can't Help Falling In Love, Stand by me (in concert), All Along the watchtower, Paint it Black, Night and Day, Satellite of Love -- nope, nothing that rocked the charts. They have a large songbook and a decent enough lyricist that goes by the name of Bono so they don't really need to. I agree it's not worth mentioning except for maybe Saints are Coming (but that was only so big because it was a duet with Green Day and it was tied to post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans revival). Wikipedia brown (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The campaigning and activisim section has some issues as well, including external links in the main text (see WP:EL. This is a no-no". Also, the sentance "U2 and Bono's social activism have not been without its critics however. There are authors and activists whose work is reprinted by such publications as the politically left Counterpunch which has often carried articles critical of their being too close to power and their attempts to help as doing more harm than good." Citation anyone??? If such criticism exists, it should be cited. This is one of those sentances that contains an external link.
        • Fixed: Removed the first external link altogether (a recent inclusion that wasn't adding anything to the article). Also, expanded the counterpunch statement by referring to specific criticisms and articles and linking them in correct citation format. Wikipedia brown (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The awards section is ONLY a redirect. Could we get a summary paragraph of some sort here? Hit the highlights or give us something here?
      • The Notes section starts renumbering itself? Why two #1's and two #2's etc. This is confusing and should be remedied...
        • Hmmm - this was an effort to elaborate on some interesting but overly detailed and tangential info. ie in this version Ie, they were notes, rather than references and are linked in the article with different notation. The intent of the notation in the prose was to show that these weren't just references, but further explanations. See the Australia article where this works quite well.
        • However, on second thoughts, the info is not that important for this article - it can find a place in a more specific U2 article. I have now removed it - for the best i think. --Merbabu (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these is huge, but taken together represent a tidy list of things needing clean up. Fix these and you will have my support. Overall, its a darned good article, but some of this stuff is definately not feature worthy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Individual years should not be linked. The influence is just a sea of links; just a bunch of linked artists. POV: "based on real-life events and they find their emotional impact from the compelling reality of those situations." I think U2 have got a lot more criticism than is written here, that they're popular because of the campaigning rather than their music and how Bono uses charity to further his band's publicity. "U2's typically superlative standards." - another example of the fanboyish gushing prevalent throughout this article. indopug (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - i agree with you on the individual years - and can fix, and the influences section could be tightened. Also, the specific "superlative" POV concerns I agree too and have fixed this. However, I think it is equally POV to simply say that we need more criticism, particularly as you say you "think" they have received more criticism and offered you own POV about what that might be. Perhaps it's better to that notable criticism be included (if it is available), rather to just offer your own. "fanboy gushing prevalent throughout the article"? hmmm. --Merbabu (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Both instances of POV that you pointed out have been fixed -- thanks for alerting us (funnily enough I think I included both of these instances through the course of my edits -- that makes me the gushing fanboy). I included two additional points of sourced criticism, one under lyrics and themes (an article from Slate.com that I was looking to add for a while but finally got around to), and an additional criticism about the efficacy of debt relief in general (the abcnews article mentions Bono specifically -- the only thing I would ask my fellow editors is does this belong in a general article about U2, or just Bono's article?). Other than this, I agree with Merbabu that the criticism does not tend to be notable enough -- how many people publish a rational diatribe against U2's causes in a respectable source (this does not mean a bulletin board discussion where everyone agrees that Bono's ego is bigger than U2's record sales -- even if there are many such forums where that conclusion is reached). Anyway, your comments are appreciated, please let us know if there's anything else you can think of. Wikipedia brown (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Friendships with Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, and Keith Richards encouraged the band to... - to me 'encourage' is a verb done by a person, whereas the subject here is the friendship itself. It is tricky but a minor reword could help. Different verb?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The band's continual members... - it is a slightly odd construction. I can see why it is used and what it means - maybe 'The bands members have been.....for the duration of its commercial existence' or 'since formation' or something.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Random break for editing ease

    Oppose for now: This article has too many prose and POV issues:

    • The lead needs rewriting: try basing it on the Radiohead lead. I say move sales/awards to the third paragraph and remove all those social organisations from the lead.

    *"In the early years of the 21st century" is horrible (When do these early years end exactly?).

    • Rewrite the second paragraph to summarise their career and musical style correspondingly; right now it moves abruptly from beginnings to stardom. The third para can be sales/albums along with the social causes. Avoid "continue to enjoy high levels of commercial and critical success." - the record sales will explain their success enough. Include a sweeping quote from RS/AMG.
    • "impassioned" [vocals] is POV.
      • Is it POV, or just descriptive? Is anyone arguing they're not? Is this not taking POV too far? "Impassioned" doesn't necessarily mean that they are good. How else can it be described? I am happy for alternatives. --Merbabu (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *"mega-stardom" is unencyclopedic.

    *Why is a 1980 pic in the 76-79 section?

    *Link full dates please (September 25,1976: space after comma too)

    *'phased out' in "double quotes".

    *"praised as one of the better debuts " by whom?

      • I remember that quote distinctly, but cannot find it in the references (although I didn't write it - he he). Now changed to generally positive. Other suggestions welcome - ie, on the whole positive without glowing/rave and with some criticism. --Merbabu (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Say that Island were major label.

    *"recognize that they would have "step up their game"" is more suited for a magazine article than an encyclopedia.

      • That's a quote from the source, but now reworded: It did not sell well outside of the United Kingdom, which put pressure on their contract with Island and focussed the band on improvement. Although I think "step up their game" was more succinct. --Merbabu (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    * "hopes and frustrations of adolescence,[19] such as fear over sex, identity confusion, death, and uncontrollable mood swings": rewrite; wrong placement of comma.

      • changed to "hopes of adolescence as well as its frustrations[19] such as fear over sex, confusion during maturation, loss of innocence, and uncontrollable mood swings" Wikipedia brown (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I trimmed this further. Part of it was not very well referenced. Now simply,
    Bono's lyrics were unfocused and seemingly improvised, but the frustrations and of adolescence were a common theme.[19] --Merbabu (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "received no radio play; it also didn't": should be period not semi-colon: this mistake occurs in many places.
      • Hhmmm - I don't agree that it's incorrect, but I have removed this instance and a number of others. Semi-colons are not just used for listing, but can also be used to join what would otherwise be separate but closely linked sentences. --Merbabu (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    * Why "United Kingdom" after many UKs?

    • "Forgoing a larger initial payment, they..." could you rewrite that sentence, its very unclear now.
    • Quotation boxes are generally meant to be avoided since they highlight one POV over the others; I've seen no other band article with it. Write more detailed captions to the sample songs.

    *Whats a "formula band"?

    *emdashes should be without spaces.

    *"became the band's biggest hit at that point" is completely redundant as the next sentence would suggest so anyway.

      • I don't think it is redundant - the following point explains that it entered the top 40 in America. There are other countries with charts - being the first to enter the top 40 in the US is not the sole criteria for a big hit - it's merely one example of the increasing success. Should we list all the chart figures? Obviously, not in this summary article. I have, nevertheless, tweaked the wording. The whole point is soundly referenced and an important part of the story. --Merbabu (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'weird works' in "s.
    • "Translating the complex..." Rewrite sentence, why begin with a gerund? avoid passive voice. "showing a television audience of millions the personal connection that Bono could make with audiences.": POV (fan-boyish gushing, even). "Songs criticised as being "unfinished", "fuzzy", and "unfocused" on the album made more sense on stage." - what? So, if there was criticism of the album, why isn't it mentioned directly; "the album was criticised for..."?

    *Whats a "songwriting mission"?

    *Remove "we were from outer space" - pointless and breaks flow.

    • "The album juxtaposes antipathy...band had been reading." cant that come after Joshua Tree is introduced? "The Joshua Tree—so named as a "tribute" to, rather than a "metaphor" for, America" - rewrite; we had no idea it was a metaphor so "rather" shouldn't be there. "Rolling Stone as one of rock's greatest" is used twice in the article. Actually rephrase that whole statement in more quantifiable terms (sales, stadium tours, critic's quotes). "stadiums, sold out arenas and stadiums around the world."

    *number one and #1, pick one.

    *"mixed-to-negative" what is that? Why not just negative?

    • Nothing much; for eg: I want "In November 1991, U2 released Achtung Baby." to be "In November 1991, U2 released their sixth studio album Achtung Baby." at least some of the times so that one can keep count of which release it is. indopug (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *"audacious" reword.

    • Remove that quotebox. "Live satellite uplinks to war-torn Sarajevo caused controversy." how, why? I dont think the way you referenced ref 76 is correct (3 different books in the same ref) "The extravagant shows were intentionally..." thats opinion that needs citing like "According to X, the extravagant shows were intentionally..." "Quickly recorded and released during a break in the Zoo TV tour in mid-1993" - use active voice not passive voice; many such mistakes throughout: rewrite.

    I need to sleep now; more later. indopug (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your input. You raise a lot of fair points and changes should be made. Some of your points though are either stylistic preferences over actual problems. For example, your highlighting of using 3 refs in one footnote. If it's the same point, what's the problem? It looks better than having 3 footnotes refs in the prose. I've seen this style used a lot - indeed I've used it, and as yet have not found anything to suggest it is "incorrect" - in fact, many texts i use for history articles (ie, books) do this.
    Further, you seem to
    But, as I said, much (most?) of what you highlight is fair enough - I agree with the prose poitns - and I or others will change soon. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a good go at Indopug's suggestions. More work from me tomorrow. thanks and 'nite --Merbabu (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, the lead is much too long for a featured article. As last time, I find myself having a hard time being excited about the quality of the writing here... but at least now it seems more focused and on-topic. If the lead can be cut down to a paragraph, I'd support. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Hi Mangojuice, can you take a look at The Smashing Pumpkins, a rock music-related featured article? The lead there is three paragraphs that are about the same length as the ones here. Also please see that R.E.M., currently undergoing an FA review, has an even longer lead in terms of raw words. And I'm sure I can find others. I don't see why length is a huge concern as long as it's concise and doesn't have unnecessary details. If you feel that there is extraneous information in the lead, please let us know and we'd be happy to consider removing it, but since I haven't seen a guideline that says the lead has to be one paragraph, I'm not a supporter of this change. Wikipedia brown (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead section should include only the most basic and important information about the subject: if a reader has never heard of U2, what do they need to know about right away? They probably need to know the basic facts: who's in the band, where they're from, and some rough dates. They need to be told the band is extremely popular and critically acclaimed. U2 is somewhat known for its activism, so that should be mentioned too. The rest is detail: it's needed in the article but it's also already there. I haven't looked at the other two articles you mentioned but they probably have similar issues because bands are very simple topics and do not need lengthy introduction (as opposed to a more complex topic like Redshift, which has a very long but seemingly appropriate lead section). Mangojuicetalk 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now looked at Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M.. Both could stand some real cutting. There is no need to get into R.E.M.'s label once, let alone twice, or to discuss so many of their singles in the lead. Similarly, the Smashing Pumpkins lead's second paragraph is mostly unneeded at the introduction level, and the second sentence of the last paragraph removes the need for some of the other stuff there. Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again. This all seems very arbitrary. We agree that only notable facts should be included in Wikipedia articles (as you know, notability has a strict guideline associated with it at Wikipedia:Notability). However, what you're saying here is that there's a second tier of notability that allows only certain bits of information to be included in the lead. This isn't the case, at least it's not spelled out anywhere. It's a matter of style and community consensus, based on the topic. In this case, no one has complained about the length of the lead, so I'm inclined to believe that it's your own personal style to have short leads in featured articles. I took a look at red shift and other science articles such as roche limit. If I was spartan, I'd say some of the stuff in those leads is completely needless: in redshift, you don't need two sentences to detail gravitational redshift, which I don't consider notable in the grand scheme of things. Granted, astronomical redshift is a very important topic as it led to a better understanding of our universe, but gravitational redshift, while maybe an important concept in physics and astronomy journals, has not had anywhere near the significance. Roche limit -- admittedly the most important principle in planetary ring-formation, but do you need 4 paragraphs and do you need to talk about Saturn's E-Ring and point out possible confusion with other roche concepts? And who's to say redshift or the roche limit are "more complex" topics than U2? I could probably hand you a piece of paper with a PDE on it that fully describes both phenomenon. Can I do the same with U2? Back to music articles -- look at Bob Dylan and Radiohead, the first two featured articles that I happened to pick from the list of music-related FAs, both have long leads. My point here is two-fold: music leads tend to be longer than you presuppose and there doesn't seem to be a strict guideline on lead length, so every article (not every general subject) has to be evaluated separately. And here my ultimate point: I'm not against cutting the lead if there's consensus. And by the way, can you point to a music article that you think has an appropriate sized lead? Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it's not like a "second tier of notability", it's just a question of good writing. I looked through some other music articles, and I'll say that most seem to have leads that are no longer, or not much longer, than is necessary. See Gwen Stefani for instance: 3 paragraphs, but she has a career with a group, a solo career, and a career in fashion: a lot more basic stuff that needs inclusion in the lead. Tool (band) is similarly about as short as it needs to be. Godsmack is good. Pearl Jam is three paragraphs, but tight. But anyway, my point isn't that U2 doesn't adhere to some required standard, but that it has too much detail in the lead considering the subject, which makes the lead a bit long-winded and boring. Mangojuicetalk 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just so long as we don't allocate a specific length the lead has to be. If you say that it's boring, that's a fair criticism. What part specifically is boring and long-winded? Having sweeping, superlative quotes from Rolling Stone and the like may serve to make the assertions of their popularity more interesting. We'll try to add some to spice it up, but I really don't think a full rewrite, as Indopug suggested, is in order. Thanks for your continuing cooperation and advice, Mangojuice. Wikipedia brown (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The original suggetsion by Mangojuice to have a "single paragraph" length lead is in direct contravention to Wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:LEAD, articles of greater than 30,000 characters should have a 4 paragraph lead. This one is currently 3 paragraphs long. A one paragraph lead is excessively short for an article of this size. In order for a lead section to fully summarize the article, as WP:LEAD requires, the lead section for any FA article is likely to be longer than a single paragraph. The lead should be an article in minature, and should cover all of the major points. If there are specific problems with the language (unengaging or hard to follow), that might be a specific and actionable criticism that can be remedied, but just "its too long" is both unreasonable, and against the Manual of Style on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I will support if the lead is trimmed; it doesn't feel tightened up, and it should for a FA. One paragraph is not necessary, I just thought it was a reasonable goal in this case. Mangojuicetalk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll work on tightening up the lead - cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (undent) Mangojuice, I believe you are mistaken about the purpose of the lead; it should NOT just "include only the most basic and important information about the subject", but (as per WP:LEAD) "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies". In short, provide a summary of the entire article. In this case that means the lead should include a summary of U2's history, musical style, campaigning and success. If anything, the lead as of now does not summarise the history well enough (read my comments above). indopug (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, the existing history component of the lead sits as nice compromise between these two opposing opinions. (he he). --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm fine with the length/no of words in the current lead. I just want better organisation and tighter prose. indopug (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply on lead - Wikipedia Brown and I have made some changes according to Indopug's and MangoJuice's recommendations - as best as both can accomdated together. ie, we've shuffled the order around, removed some of the redundant statements, and culled the list of charaties and campaigning, etc.
    The changes make sense, but one problem I see now is that the first paragraph is small (fine), the second large, and the third small again. Looks a bit odd - in my opinion, but I'm happy to be told otherwise. Perhaps, the sentence that's starts with "U2 have pursued a more traditional sound..." could be the start of the third.
    I now support. This is much better. I think best thing that was done here was to move the part about the Grammys to the 3rd paragraph: before, after reading the first paragraph I felt like I already knew what I needed to know to read the article and the other two paragraphs were (mostly) not adding stuff I needed. Now, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs feel like they're contributing and it's much more satisfying to read, well done. I think I can tighten it just a bit further, so I'll give it a try. Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This article is particularly full of hidden comments to editors. From what I can tell there is no edit warring going on here, so these comments seem designed to discourage new editors from editing the article without reading a lot of discussion or a lot of experience. I think that once this article is promoted, these comments should be mostly removed, because WP featured articles are an introduction to Wikipedia for a lot of editors and we want to encourage them to contribute and not stress them out about making mistakes (WP:BOLD), and also if there's no edit war going on (as is implied by featured status) then they aren't needed. Mangojuicetalk 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It strikes me as a little paradoxical to mention that featured articles should be stable and then, in the next breath, suggest removing helpful hints to encourage new editors to edit them. Sure, if new editors are sure they've spotted a howler but otherwise entropy, if nothing else, dictates that we should discourage further edits of featured articles unless new or conflicting sources come to light or events necessitate the addition of text. Surely having articles that anyone can edit is a means to an end (a great encyclopedia) and not the other way round? Alice✉ 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Support with the tiny caveat that the first paragraph of the lead may be ever so slightly WP:OVERLINKed; perhaps the wikilinks to the various instruments, etc, can be moved to subsequent sections? Has it been checked for accessibility to those using text readers? Overall, an excellent example for other popular culture articles to follow! Alice✉ 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. I agree with the overlinking in the first paragraph – they are essentially definitional links – and I have now removed the instrument links (as I have done a number of times over the last 12 months – but gave up). It would probably pay to check the whole article again, but I believe it’s fairly good in this regard. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

    The World Without Us

    [edit]

    Recent non-fiction book. Its been through DYK, GA, and PR. Now it meets all the FA criteria. And, I guess all the external links look fine for the moment. maclean 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Very well-researched and most of my comments are copyedit kind of stuff that I didn't do and left for you. It's comprehensive as far as I can tell and informative, but before I support I would have to see several other peers review the article.
    • In the lede: A book-length treatment of Weisman's own February 2005 Discover article "Earth Without People", the text is a thought experiment about what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared. I think this is a run-on sentence.
    • The author of four other books and numerous articles for magazines, Weisman traveled around the world to interview academics, scientists and other authorities. Rephrase this sentence so that in five years when he has maybe six books published, it still informs that at the time he had written four previous books.
    • He uses quotes from these interviews to explain the effects of the natural environment and substaniate predictions. misspelled substantiate and go with "to substantiate".
    • In the U.S. it was moderately successful, reaching #6 on the New York Times Best Seller list[3] and #1 on the San Francisco Chronicle Best-Sellers list in September 2007. Moderately successful? Isn't that an understatement, considering it was on the NYTimes best seller list, but perhaps that doesn't translate into great success. So a qualifier between moderate and great.
    • It has received largely positive reviews, specifically for the journalistic and scientific writing style, but some have questioned the relevance of its subject matter. Maybe "The novel has received... specifically for Weisman's journalistic and scientific writing style..."?
    • I don't know how common the term built environment is, but if you could elaborate on this somewhere or wikilink to it. Obviously it's cities and such, but there's always nuances to these things written up somewhere... or maybe not.
    • on the crash of Maya civilization should be Mayan civilization.
    • "we can't predict what the world will be 5 million years later by looking at the survivors." See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article.
    • and would likely to collapse in a major earthquake or other natural disaster. the phrase is a little broken.
    • Cappadocia was built in thousands of years ago out of volcanic tuff, still stands today, and would be likely to survive for centuries to come. broken too... over thousands of years... and stills stands today?...
    • Hmmm... the Synopsis section needs work. That middle paragraph is too big.
    • Genre section: Excellent.
    • Other cover art uses contrasts of the natural environment with a decaying built environment. This sentence in Publication is awkward. Perhaps "Some of the other cover art contrasts the natural..."
    • You might want to re-arrange the sections. The Publication section should probably go right after the Synopsis section. Then Reception. And finally Genre. But definitely publication shouldn't be last, because it was one of the first things that occurred in the history of this novel.

    Hope this helps.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the early review. I fixed or re-phrased those sentences. I split the second paragraph in "Synopsis" so one deals with nature taking over and the second with the built structures decaying. I rearranged the sections as recommended. I fixed the puncuation in quotations. --maclean 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow- sorry for not commenting earlier.
      I suggest you notify contributors that it is now in FA review - I would appreciate their input into how they feel regarding its quality.
      Weak Oppose - well written, well - participated, well- referenced,
      In reception: criticism should not be prefaced by "However" - it is not however-ly - it is "on the other hand"-ly or even better "The book was criticized for"-ly and section on genre seems an expansion of reception rather than an actual discussion/relate of the book's genre.
      Synopsis (it seems to me) should be renamed "Book's Content" or simply "Content" as a more descriptive term for what is in that section.
      --Keerllston 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the "However", switched "Synopsis" with "Content", and re-wrote portions of the "Genre" section to focus less on opinions and relate it more to style. --maclean 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for messaging me on my user talk page
    I suggest canvassing in the form of Friendly Notices to get more reviews of the candidacy in prompt fashion. - see WP:CANVASS
    imo the first sentence of Genre should explain for better writing style and better organization like following or similarly: it fits into the [[non fiction]], [[science journalism]] and [[environmental book]] genres.. - the genre section still deals with criticism "philosophical bank shot" is not put in proper context as to be talking about genre.
    in Reception again criticism is not a however or a but - it is I strongly suggest"On the book's concept most reviewers found it to be creative and original but several found the lack of an anthropomorphic point of view hurt the book's relevance" -especially since it seems you are talking about different reviewers talking about different things - unrelated subjects- I think better organization in Reception Section would serve to clearing this up
    I believe "Reception" and "Genre" are the only sections needing improvement.
    --Kiyarrllston 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Reception" I removed those odd qualifier/transitions. In "Genre" I added a better intro sentence and summarized the two critics' take on the books approach, without the opinionated wording of the quotes. --maclean 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed at PR and this has improved since. I'm presently reading the book and will have a better comment when done. One small note: I would return to the perfectly acceptable Synopsis as a section heading. Marskell (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your input Marskell - I understand synopsis to be more of a one-paragraph affair - while the current form is more than just the general resume of the book but is more - it gives an outline for how the book goes over four paragraphs. Not as concise as I would expect a Synopsis to be. On the other hand I don't think content a very "professional" word - synopsis is.--Kiyarrllston 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I look forward to your assessment, Marskell. The "Contents/Synopsis" and half of the "Background" sections were written using the book. The remainder of the article was written from the secondary sources in the Reference section, all but a few available online for everybody to read. --maclean 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much improved... my comment seems to be getting more and more outdated, :D.--Kiyarrllston 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well written and adequately sourced. A few suggestions:
    • Two red links are kind of an eyesore: AudioFile (magazine) is linked to twice (once in body and once in ref 37 and there is also BBC Audiobooks.
    • There is a tense discrepancy in the second paragraph of the lead. "Weisman traveled" and "He uses quotes". Because the writing process is in the past, I would switch the last example to past tense.
    • "Contents" is the wrong word entirely for a book, and I do not believe that "Content" is proper, either, because it is vague. The Books Wikiproject suggests "Synopsis" or "Plot" -- I would go for "Synopsis" because a plot narrative is more for fictional works.

    Overall, a nicely summarized article! I enjoyed reading it despite never hearing of this work before. Nice job. María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not too concerned about the redlinks, and I admire your creating articles to better cover the subject of audiobooks on Wikipedia, but like I said, these two links do rather stick out. You could always unlink them until articles or redirects come about, perhaps? María (habla conmigo) 01:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just set the book down and can say that coverage is fine. A little concerned over prose though. Paragraphs might be better rationalized, as some are overloaded. Serial comma usage seems inconsistent (not a huge concern). Excess blue links; I still don't like those massive lists in reception. Give me a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of notes:

    • The list of radio interviews really must be shortened. I can't imagine I'm the only who doesn't like that mess of blue links.
    • More critically, Reception and Genre aren't properly rationalized. Grunwald and Braile are deployed twice, basically to make the same point.
    • I still think there are tense issues here, though it's often hard to put a finger on. I'll just keep going through it on that score. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Marskell. I removed some of the local or lesser known radio programs (they were just examples anyways, not a comprehensive list). On your second point it is a 'criticism of the approach to the genre' so it is difficult to balance. I have tried to create more balance here [17]. --maclean 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to support. In terms of gathering together reviews, this is clearly comprehensive. It's still a bit quote-heavy but it covers every angle. I've tried to eliminate what wordiness I've noticed and I split up a couple of massive paragraphs. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

    The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

    [edit]
    check links LuciferMorgan (talk 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Self nomination. This article was nominated for deletion back in May 2007, when it was much shorter. The article cites (42) sources, and utilizes one fair use image with a fair use rationale on the image page, and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons, products of the Supreme Court of the United States. It recently went through a Peer Review where I received many good constructive comments and feedback, and I implemented several changes to the article from helpful suggestions. The article has been reviewed and passed as a Good Article, and the GA reviewer suggested that it be nominated as a Featured Article Candidate, due to its current level of quality. I now submit this article as a potential Featured Article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment Impressively well-written. Truly impressive.
      It seems a bit POV'd towards "anti-scientology" (perhaps?)- I suggest Renaming "pre-publication" the section called "research for the article", and creating "post-publication" and taking out litigation from the section called "Church of Scientology's response", in other words, at this point it is badly organized. -
      --Keerllston 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He stated that he was investigated by Church of Scientology attorneys and private investigators while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well. This might read easier if it stated he was "investigated by attorneys and private investigators of the Church of Scientology" or "affiliated with the Church of Scientology" or "working for the Church of Scientology".
      • The article itself dealt with L. Ron Hubbard and the development of Scientology, its various controversies over the years and history of litigation, conflict with psychiatry and the IRS, the suicide of a Scientologist, its status as a religion, and its business dealings. This sentence is a little difficult to read towards the end. Perhaps it could be reworded and a colon added before the list?
      • He later came to learn that the Church of Scientology's head private investigator was orchestrating his investigation. This sentence could be improved. The head private investigator would obviously orchestrate his investigation, but I know what you mean to say. Maybe this sentence could be more informative as well.
      • See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. You often do this "threaten, harass and discredit him." and this "front groups and financial scams,".
      • Is it known why Noah Lottick jumped from a hotel tenth floor window? Was it related to Scientology and if so, how?
      • Koppel asked Miscavige what specifically had upset him about the TIME article, and Miscavige called Richard Behar: "a hater." why not just ...Miscavige called Richard Behar "a hater" without the colon? You do this several times afterwards I note, so maybe this is an acceptable style?
      • In "A publisher cannot accept a court prohibiting distribution of a serious journalistic piece..The court order violates freedom of speech and freedom of the press." you should probably use […] after a serious journalistic piece.. instead of those two ..s.
      • Insane Therapy characterized the piece as a "highly critical article" on Scientology." Could you maybe elaborate and improve this sentence with a better quote? It's clear to the reader by now that this is a highly critical article so perhaps they have a little more to say?
      • In the Legacy section you should name the Herald reporter, so to avoid confusing with the reporter Richard Behar.
      • Also in 2005, an article in Salon cited the Church of Scientology's litigation and private investigations of Time Warner and other media sources that criticized Scientology, and posed the question if these tactics had succeeded in decreasing the amount of investigative journalism pieces on Scientology in the press. A slight rewording might be needed here.
      • in a piece on Anderson Cooper 360 entitled: "Inside Scientology." wrong verb. it's titled not entitled. A common grammar trap [18]. As well the colon is unnecessary and the period should be outside the quotation marks.

    So very enjoyable and this article seems like it's well on its way to being featured.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressing points from above
    • Done.-- Took out "Litigation" from "Church of Scientology's response", and made it its own subsection, per suggestion from Dwarf Kirlston (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- This might read easier if it stated he was "investigated by attorneys and private investigators of the Church of Scientology" or "affiliated with the Church of Scientology" -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- Perhaps it could be reworded and a colon added before the list? -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • He later came to learn that the Church of Scientology's head private investigator was orchestrating his investigation. -- Not sure how to reword this, I think it is significant to mention, and it is paraphrased from similar wording in a secondary source. (With citation given.) Cirt (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- WP:MOSQUOTE/WP:PUNC - Fixed a couple instances of this, I also see that BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs) has fixed some of these as well, thank you. Will continue to address this as it comes up. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Is it known why Noah Lottick jumped from a hotel tenth floor window? -- It is not known specifically why, though his parents believe one thing, and Church of Scientology statements from Mike Rinder have said another. But I think, and others have stated that might be too much detail for this article. For more information on that, see Scientology controversy. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I would mention briefly the circumstances, and do a (See Noah Lottick) or something. It's pretty important, and the sentence weasles you into thinking that Scientology was behind the suicide possibly. And considering the cover story goes into the details of Lottick's suicide it is not too much detail. I'd say basically what you said just above in the article, and direct people to the other article for more details. The other thing is, what is the cover story's position on Lottick's suicide? There's something about "an atrocity tale" further down but I'd have to read the cover story to actually know. So say Behar thought this, the family thought that, and Scientology thought this. See here for more.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good points. I will make your suggested changes and then note it here. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • DIFF - How's that look? I tried to implement the wording/suggestions you mentioned. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • It still needs some work. Noah Lottick was a Russian studies student who had taken a series of Scientology courses; he died after jumping from a hotel tenth floor window.[12] Initially, his father had thought that Scientology was similar to Dale Carnegie's techniques. However, after his ordeal, Dr. Lottick now believes that the organization is a "school for psychopaths".[13] Mike Rinder, the head of the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs and a Church spokesman, stated "I think Ed Lottick should look in the mirror...I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable."[12] (See Noah Lottick.) I would place a sentence right after "tenth floor window" that says something like "The blame for Lottick's suicide was placed on both parties... or either side blamed the other... with Scientology saying 'I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable.' while the father called the organization a 'school for psychopaths'." I would also place See Lottick earlier and not at the end of the paragraph. Maybe even add the article POV on this matter. Obviously you want to be brief but the matter is of some importance to the article so presenting a NPOV on the matter is important. Basically, no one knows why Lottick killed himself, right?, and you simply want to state why each party (and I guess there are three: Scientology, Lottick's father, and the cover story) thinks Lottick killed himself because in fact they are quite opinionated about it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you read the actual secondary sources, to my knowledge (though I will recheck this), none of the various parties involved actually comes out and directly puts the blame/onus on another specific party, but rather expresses misgivings about particular events. It would be both POV and WP:OR of us to characterize their statements as such. Therefore, not sure what else to do at this point with that. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions, but without a secondary source that says: "Lottick's father put the blame for his son's death on X, while the Church of Scientology put the blame for his death on Y" - I don't think should draw those conclusions ourselves from the sources. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
                • Just say something like that. While none of the parties assigned blame, they expressed misgivings... I mean basically the suicide might have had nothing to do with Scientology and they are kind of being smeared by association with Lottick's suicide. Anyways, before you left a gap of knowledge that made one wonder, but if you phrased it another way then people will understand that Lottick's suicide just got dragged into something else entirely, and there was no final blame made.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DIFF - Does this look a little better? And as for Behar's position in the article, again, without secondary sources from some interview with Behar or something like that, I'd rather not draw inferences about what may think Behar's position is on the issue. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I added a sentence verbatim as suggested by BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs), and I think it reads a bit better now, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I did an additional copyedit and for me it's fine now.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for all of your help with the article and for your support. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- why not just ...Miscavige called Richard Behar "a hater" without the colon? -- Implemented this change. If there are other places where the colon use is not appropriate, I will remove it there. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- you should probably use […] after a serious journalistic piece.. instead of those two ..s. -- I changed this to three ... instead of the weird use of two, but I don't think the brackets are needed here? Cirt (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- Could you maybe elaborate and improve this sentence with a better quote? -- Expanded on this with a longer quote from the same source. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- In the Legacy section you should name the Herald reporter, so to avoid confusing with the reporter Richard Behar. -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- A slight rewording might be needed here. -- Split up this long sentence into two sentences, should read better now. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- it's titled not entitled. A common grammar trap. As well the colon is unnecessary and the period should be outside the quotation marks. -- Fixed these minor issues as well, will continue to address any other points if brought up. Thank you both for your positive feedback on the article and helpful points, it looks a bit better now. Cirt (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Follow-up to Comment
    I said pre-publication section and post-publication sections would help in terms of organization. it seems pretty obvious to me that Church of Scientology's response, Litigation, Awards, and Legacy sections all would fit very well into Post-Publication - or "Reception" or similar.
    "Contents" - or Synopsis?- usage of contents was disagreed with on another article by Maria - I think it was "The World Without us"
    --Kiyarrllston 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—1a; needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are mere samples from the top.

    • Remove "also" from the second sentence. There's another idle "also" in Para 2. Better audit this word throughout the article (it weakens the flow when redundant).
    • "He stated that he was investigated by attorneys and private investigators affiliated with the Church of Scientology while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well." Is the last point your own, or his? If the latter, insert another "that".
    • Remove unnecessary colon after "including".
    • "Richard Behar received multiple awards in honor of"—"multiple" should be "many", I guess. Can't we have a number? Or just "received awards in honor ... including"
    • "stating that the article was over the top"—the last expression is too loose and informal for this register (it's OK in a quote, though).
    • "atrocity tale."—read MOS on logical punctuation in quotations; check every quote that starts within a Wikipedia sentence.
    • Ungainly repetitions, such as "Behar stated that ..." Tony (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to comment

    Thanks for actually providing some specific examples to address along with your "oppose" comment. I will do my best to work on them, as you can see from above in the FAC I have addressed points from others already and their suggestions have helped to improve the article further. I'll note each point below as I address it. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Done.-- Addressed one point - Removed some "also" mentions as suggested above, and a few others throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- "He stated that he was investigated by attorneys and private investigators affiliated with the Church of Scientology while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well." Is the last point your own, or his? If the latter, insert another "that". -- Added "that". Cirt (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- Remove unnecessary colon after "including". -- Removed colon. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- "Richard Behar received multiple awards in honor of"—"multiple" should be "many", I guess. Can't we have a number? Or just "received awards in honor ... including" -- Removed the word "multiple". Cirt (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- "stating that the article was over the top"—the last expression is too loose and informal for this register (it's OK in a quote, though). -- Removed phrasing "over the top". Cirt (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- "atrocity tale."—read MOS on logical punctuation in quotations; check every quote that starts within a Wikipedia sentence. -- Removed quotes. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.-- Ungainly repetitions, such as "Behar stated that ..." -- I checked, and there were only two instances of "Behar stated that ...". I wouldn't call that "ungainly", but I did change the wording on the second instance. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose for now. The article needs a good copyedit. I did a little bit of work on it, but I think it needs some massaging by a better writer than I. The article does appear to have an appropriate amount of detail, and the references section looks good overall, but I found a few WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed. If you can fix those, I'll change to a neutral; with a good copyedit I will be able to support.
      • After the first time the article mentions a person, subsequent references to them should be by surname. The article sometimes refers to "Behar" and sometimes to "Richard Behar". I've fixed some of these but not all.
      • Why is there a note for (See Noah Lottick) when there could just be a wikilink on his name?
      • Per WP sourcing guidelines, you need a citation directly after each quotation, even if this means that citations will be repeated for several sentences in a row. In the section Church of Scientology's response there are several sentences with direct quotes that are not cited.
      • After the first reference to US$, use only $.
      • Please see WP:DASH. Instead of using --, use & mdash;
      • I removed just about all of the colons in the article, as they did not seem to be used properly.
      • Many, many sentences in the article read "So and so stated that...." Can you try to work on some of these to vary them a little? That will make the article read better.
      • I think the chronology table should be incoporated into one of the previous sections, as it is just an illustration of what is already in the prose.
      • The See Also section can be removed - neither of those links appear to have much bearing on the article.
      • In the references, please wikilink all full dates so that people's date preferences will work.

    Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Karanacs points

    Thanks for these specific pointers. I will do my best to address them, and make a note of it here, below. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Resolved stuff from JayHenry
    • I think this is really marvelously done but have a few questions and thoughts that may be of help.
      • In final sentence of Research for the article I'm not sure what exactly "pre-production development" is. Does this just mean that they agreed to provide Behar with information?
      • In Synopsis, the sentence "Behar wrote of the expensive costs involved in participation in the Church of Scientology, and what he referred to as 'front groups and financial scams', and harassment of critics" seems to consist of themes moving in several different directions. One regarding members, one regarding critics and one regarding whoever was being financially scammed. Or is it members being financially scammed? I think splitting this up into a few distinct sentences with a little more clarification would help.
      • In Church response, I was unsure if "taking out four color, full-page ads in USA Today in May and June 1991" meant four ads that were in color or four color ads. If it's the latter, I think it's better to just leave the "four" off to avoid confusion.
      • "David Miscavige gave what he told Ted Koppel was his first interview on Scientology" if we know it was his first interview on Scientology let's make this more direct. If we have reason to doubt that it was a first interview it's not that significant and we could just say "gave a lengthy interview to Ted Koppel" or something.
      • In Litigation, second grad, "one question was a ... reference to Scientology teachings." Reference isn't quite right here. Maybe something like, "the question was prompted by"?
      • "In a countersuit, Behar brought up..." is it known what became of his countersuit?
      • By 1996 Time had spent 3.7 million (wow). Since it carried on an additional five years, did they ever update that figure? If not, no worries.
      • In Analysis should we mention Healy's first name on first reference?
      • For both Healy and Silk, I wonder if it would help to provide context on these authors? Outside of getting their books published are they known for their opinions or knowledge about the area?
      • Also for Insane Therapy, a short explanation of what, who the author is, would be helpful.
    • I randomly checked citations and they all seem to be carefully cited. Although some repetition is present, it's of the utmost importance in an article that deals with allegations about lots of living people to assure that everything is meticulously attributed, so in my opinion the repetition of "Behar said" and "according to x" are necessary. It's quite well done in my opinion. I picked over it quite a bit with copy editing, you may want to review to ensure I didn't inadvertently reduce introduce errors. Hopefully some of the edits caught a thing or two;) All in all, excellent work! --JayHenry (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --JayHenry (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to latest above Review

    Thanks for these points. I will take a look, and address them here, below. As for your latest copy-editing, I will double-check but so far things look good. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • Done.- Removed "pre-production development" phrase. Not needed to understand that sentence, as it's already in the section on "Research for the article". Cirt (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • In Synopsis, the sentence "Behar wrote of the expensive costs involved in participation in the Church of Scientology, and what he referred to as 'front groups and financial scams', and harassment of critics" seems to consist of themes moving in several different directions. One regarding members, one regarding critics and one regarding whoever was being financially scammed. Or is it members being financially scammed? I think splitting this up into a few distinct sentences with a little more clarification would help. -- I would agree that it would be useful to expand on this information, but it is a "Synopsis" section after all, and I've gotten comments and feedback from others that it might be best to keep that section shorter, as opposed to a tendency to expand on the themes discussed. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • Okay, I understand not wanting to add much length to the synopsis. But it's still not clear to me who is the victim of the financial scams, so I think it would be good to at least clarify that. --JayHenry (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.- Removed "four" in "four color" ads, as suggested by the above review. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.- "David Miscavige gave what he told Ted Koppel was his first interview on Scientology" if we know it was his first interview on Scientology let's make this more direct. If we have reason to doubt that it was a first interview it's not that significant and we could just say "gave a lengthy interview to Ted Koppel" or something. - Removed "what he told" from the sentence about David Miscavige's first interview. Cirt (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.- In Litigation, second grad, "one question was a ... reference to Scientology teachings." Reference isn't quite right here. Maybe something like, "the question was prompted by"? -- Replaced with "the question was prompted by" - as per exact wording/suggestion from reviewer. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • "In a countersuit, Behar brought up..." is it known what became of his countersuit? -- I have looked through the (41) sources currently present in the article and haven't found additional info on this particular countersuit. However, I will recheck those sources, and see if I can't find info on that in other sources. However, I do not think that this is something that should hold back FA status, as that section primarily deals with the litigation with the Church of Scientology as a plaintiff. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • By 1996 Time had spent 3.7 million (wow). Since it carried on an additional five years, did they ever update that figure? If not, no worries. -- Same response as previous, haven't yet found info on the final amount that TIME spent on the litigation as of 2001, but I'll keep looking. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Done.- In Analysis should we mention Healy's first name on first reference? -- Good point. Added Healy's first name to this sentence. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • For both Healy and Silk, I wonder if it would help to provide context on these authors? Outside of getting their books published are they known for their opinions or knowledge about the area? Also for Insane Therapy, a short explanation of what, who the author is, would be helpful. -- Again, I think this might be straying a bit off-topic. I don't want to get too tangential with explanations of authors that wrote about the issue, that might tend to expand parts of the article a bit too much with information that doesn't specifically actually have to do with Behar's piece. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • Well, I think in each case a single sentence could provide the needed context. But if you'd rather not do that it's a minor point and I'm more than happy to trust your judgment. Great work on this article! (Have changed to support above.) --JayHenry (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The docket image and the petition image look bad because they contain JPEG encoding artifacts. I'd suggest removing them from the article and moving the link to the Wikisource library to that section. Papa November (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: How about if instead of removing the images, I just get someone to help with cleaning up the JPEG encoding artifacts? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • Done., PNG images are now used in the article instead. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
          • The PNG versions on Commons still had compression artifacts. I've replaced one, and I'll fix the other shortly. The issue I have is that the images still aren't particularly useful: the text is too small to read and the typesetting isn't pretty enough for it to make a nice illustration. I don't really object to them being in the article - I just think there could be something better. A boxed link to the wikisource information would provide an attractive link to a very useful resource on the subject. Another possible attractive image would be the front cover of US Reports vol 534 which contained the text in question. Papa November (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The recommendations you bring up will be addressed shortly, but surely these are not sticking points that should hold up the FAC? Cirt (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
            • There already is a link to the Wikisource page, in the External links section, as appropriate. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
              • Sure, it's just a comment - not an "oppose". The wikisource link is at the bottom of the article. I thought it may look better in the relevant section about the lawsuit. I've also finished cleaning up the PNG images. Papa November (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for cleaning up the PNG images, and for clarifying that your point was a comment, and not an oppose. Also, please see this comment from the GA Reviewer, Kane5187 (talk · contribs), on the images in the article: Kudos to whatever creative mind thought to scan the official judicial entries/documents and use them. So the GA Reviewer thought the image use was appropriate. And as for the link to Wikisource, I wouldn't mind moving it - but I think that putting the links to the sister projects in the WP:EL section is actually more the norm here. Cirt (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: The second, short paragraph under "Synopsis" seems heavily POV in that it's irrelevant to a summary of the article's contents. I see how it functions as a sort of summary of Behar's argument posited in the article, but I don't see any connection to the article as a whole. In that regard, it seems like it's there to buttress his (and the article's) opinions, i.e., to reinforce a POV that his opinions are fact. I like its inclusion intuitively, though, and feel like deleting it wholesale isn't the solution I'm looking for. I'd just like to see it linked in a bit better so I'm not under the impression that it's there to give credence to Behar's claims. Dylan (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you possibly mean the third paragraph? With the quote from Cynthia Kisser? --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the comment, Dylan, any specific points on how to go about implementing your suggestion? Cirt (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      I'm incredibly dumb -- sorry, I for some reason didn't realize that that quote came from the article. In my first reading of it, I just thought it was an outside commentator commenting on the same issues. Now that I realize it's a quote from the article, I have no objection on POV. Dylan (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Support. This article was very well-witten when I read it a few months ago, and I think it is still very, very solid and worthy of FA status. As I mentioned in GA, the images are sparse, but understandably so as this is a difficult subject to illustrate. The PD court document images are a nice touch -- some other possible candidates would be free images of Behar, or any of the names involved in the article, if they're available. Dylan (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support, and thanks for your positive feedback on the existing images in the articles. I like your idea on suggestions of possibilities of other free-use images in the article such as for individuals mentioned, but that may take a while and be more of a longer term project. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Support by Moni3 I finally read this article yesterday. I remember reading the story when it came out in Time, and it was definitely helped form my opinion of Scientology. Excellent article - made me surf for related information for an hour after I read it. That's what a featured article should do - make someone so interested in the topic that they can't get enough. Good job. --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

    Offa of Mercia

    [edit]

    Another Anglo-Saxon king; the most significant one so far. FAs for comparison: Æthelbald of Mercia, who reigned in Mercia in the first half of the eighth century; Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex overlap somewhat. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support but a few minor things, mostly from the lead.
    • "brother of King Penda" - Assumes knowledge of Penda. Some context?
    I made this "Penda of Mercia"; the reason to mention him is to connect Offa genealogically to previous kings. Is this enough? Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have added "the legendary" or similar but it's your call. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with "legendary" is that you don't have to get much further up Penda's family tree before you get to ancestors who really are legendary. I'll see if I can think of another word; and I'll see if others comment. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Charlemagne refers to Offa as 'brother'" - Context? Standard formal greeting between sovereigns.
    Yes, it is, but there are a couple of reasons historians might mention this. One is the disparity between Offa and Charlemagne's power -- the argument has been made that Charlemagne treated Offa as an equal, and this is perhaps evidence for that. (The idea that they were equals receives rather less respect these days, but it still appears.) The second is that this is a very early surviving example of diplomatic correspondence. What if I cut it from the lead, but leave it in the body, where there is a little more context to explain it? Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fine.--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mid 7th-century" ---> "seventh", for consistency with other centuries.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "five miles from the coast ... less than fifty miles from the Bristol Channel ... about sixty-four miles." - Distances need metric equivalences.
    Done, using the convert template, which I've never used before. I see it forces the numbers to be numeric, rather than words. I suppose that's OK since the parenthetical metric numbers would look odd spelled out as words. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pity. However, I see that WP:UNITS mixes and matches words and numerals "one mile (1.6 km)" so I'd be tempted to crib the conversion values, ditch the template, and follow suit, but maybe that's just me being buccaneering :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, while muttering "Avast there, ye swabs". Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Variously "south-east" and "southeast".
    Now consistent. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Overall, a good job getting the article so large, clean and comprehensive. I just have some comments to make on the article:
    The nature of Mercian kingship is not clear from the limited surviving sources.
    Given the length of the article, and its devotion to historical narrative, some discussion of the sources would make this article far more useful to the reader.
    That power can be seen more usefully in charters dating from Offa's reign.
    What about charters? At several points in the article, charters are used and incorporated into a snowballing narrative leaning towards a highly favourable position of Offa's power, e.g.
    There is less agreement among historians on whether Offa had general overlordship of Kent thereafter. Offa is known to have revoked a charter of Egbert's on the grounds that "it was wrong that his thegn should have presumed to give land allotted to him by his lord into the power of another without his witness", but the date of Egbert's original grant is unknown, as is the date of Offa's revocation of it. It may be that Offa was the effective overlord of Kent from 764 until at least 776. The limited evidence for Offa's direct involvement in the kingdom after 765 includes two charters of 774 in which he grants land in Kent, but there are doubts about their authenticity, and so Offa's intervention in Kent may have been limited to the years 764–765.
    So, laying out for the reader in the background section a overall perspective of the particular charters would be useful. All it does currently is tell the reader what a charter is. The kind of thing that could be useful would be something along the lines of Collins:
    "... by the time of Offa a number of charters or documents recording gifts made by some of the lessers kings of southern England also contain the Mercian ruler's signature ... The absence of such such confirmatory signatures from Kentish charters in the years 775-85 is one of the major pieces of evidence used to substantiate the independence of the kingdom from Mercian overlordship during this decade. It must be noted, however, that the number of such charters that have survived - virtually all in later cartulary copies - from this period is very small, and that, statistically, it is unwise to make too many subtle deductions from so small a sample. Of Offa himself only forty-three charters are known for his thirty-nine years of rule, and of these seventeen have been judged to be spurious or interpolated by some or all of the scholars who have commented on this".
    As it currently is, I as a reader not very familiar with non-Northumbrian, post-Bede Anglo-Saxon history, do not know what the sources for Offa are or understand them very well even though I just read this article. The best we get is :
    No contemporary biography survives of Offa,[3] and the main literary source for the period, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was a West Saxon production, and may not fully convey the extent of Offa's power
    All I'm really getting from this is "Shit, if there weren't so few sources, we'd really know how great Offa was". I understand that laying out a survey of the sources systematically is very demanding in terms of time and resources, but there can be no doubt that the better an article on this period does this, the better it is. The less you do this, the less the reader will learn and gain, and the less they'll be able to think for themselves about the topic and move onwards and upwards.
    Comment. I'm copyediting the article at the moment, prior to reviewing it, and I'm finding that the sources are there: the summary is in the last paragraph of the background section: "A significant corpus of letters dates from the period, especially from Alcuin. These in particular reveal Offa's relations with the continent, as does his coinage, which was based on Carolingian examples". Add that to the charters and the Chronicle and a picture starts to build up. As I read the article, I find that at each point Mike refers to the sources and lays out the issues connected to them—for example, whether Ecgbert was away for three or thirteen years, whether Offa was in constant or sporadic control in Kent, even whether Offa's daughter was such and such an abbess with the same name. It's a mosaic with most of the pieces missing. The pieces we do have hint that Offa was operating all over the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms except Northumbria: he's there in Kent and Sussex, and even if smaller kings pop up here and there, he still noses back into the charters later on: and these other kings never appear granting land in his heartlands: he's bigger than them. He respects Cynewulf of Wessex (but he pounces when there's a succession contest, as he does in Kent), and then he sees off Ecgbert and marries his own daughter to his man Beorhtric. Is it a fair assessment to call him the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king prior to Alfred? I'd say yes, because he seems to be imposing himself and his dynasty rather than making overlordship agreements in the manner of the earlier Northumbrian kings, or Penda and Wulfhere: that's why the Kentishmen and the South Saxons don't want him, that's probably why he executes the Anglian king. Add all this to the sheer length of Offa's ascendancy, compared to the brevity of, say, Oswiu's (whose control of Mercia was relatively brief). Æthelbald is something of a precursor, but he takes defeats and loses areas of influence: Offa understands about forts and boundaries and he can't be budged. And Offa imposes his will on the papacy, which he pressures into giving him his own pet archbishopric at Lichfield. At the same time, he is in marriage, trade, and pilgrimage negotiations with Charlemagne and holding his own. So much can't be said of any other Anglo-Saxon king before Alfred.
    Having said all that, I agree that first-best-greatest claims are tedious, and perhaps Mike could reduce the repetitions and maybe find subtler wordings: if we're going to quote historians, Stenton goes for: As the history of his reign is traced from one fragment of evidence to another, it gradually becomes clear that this formidable and unsympathetic king was a statesman. He grasped the idea of a negotiated frontier. He was the first English king to play an independent part in continental affairs, and he was not overshadowed by the greatest ruler of the whole Dark Ages. He understood that it was the duty of a king to encourage foreign trade. He used the papal authority over the English church for his own political advantage. No other Anglo-Saxon king ever regarded the world at large with so secular a mind or so acute a political sense.
    Stenton is a clever wordsmith. Each statement here has a certain area of evidence peeping through from behind it. qp10qp (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that the sources aren't there, of course they are. I think they could be introduced better, however. Direct and naked citation of sources in the article is limited (as it should be per WP:OR), and as it is they are discussed as the writers cited discussed them, meaning that the article approaches source evaluation differently at different points of the article. A systematic survey of sources at the beginning of the article would reduce the possibility of this, and frees the reader somewhat from the editors choices ... i.e. helps them think for themselves; it would also help the editor, as creating the following article would proceed in a more coherent and rigorous manner. This isn't an FA criterion of course ... but I personally do think we should have topic specific FA criteria ... in this case such an article won't be of "top quality" unless it has this kind of thing. The historical narrative in the current Offa article smothers source perspective, sidelining it as incidental. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a deep issue. If I understand you correctly, you're not simply asking for another paragraph at the front, giving a bit more detail and background on the sources. You're suggesting that instead of constructing a consensus historical narrative and supporting that with citations to historians who make the individual assertions, I should instead treat each section as a discussion of sources. Is that a correct paraphrase?
    If so, I have some sympathy with that viewpoint. I'd prefer to create an article called Early Anglo-Saxon sources, though, and direct readers of a section to that as a relevant discussion. I think we would be asking too much of readers to talk of sources primarily, and only secondarily mention some possible historical narratives they indicate. It's a fairly sophisticated viewpoint to ask of a new reader. I do think Wikipedia should provide that view on the sources, but I don't think that's appropriate for every individual article on early kings. Instead, what I've tried to do is give the plausible historical narratives, but show how they depend on the sources and how they might be wrong or could be otherwise interpreted. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RE powerfulness. We could argue about if Offa was more powerful than Oswiu until the cows come home; the very fact that we could do that shows such assertions should not be in the article as facts ... they aren't facts ... there' s no standard objective way to verify such assertions. Claims, fair enough ... but then you introduce suspicion of POV and bad balancing. Such claims do absolutely nothing for the content. The reader can think for his or herself about such matters ... they don't need editors to push such views in their faces. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to this below. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dyke has not been dated by archaeological methods, but it is generally thought that Asser's attribution is correct
    Really? This may be generally true, I dunno. Collins expresses silent scepticism on the matter ... that's the kind of thing you'd expect. What about disagreement, though? As there's not one single iota of contemporary evidence for Offa building it, and Asser's work is the only authority, there surely must be some, no? I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but looking at the note in Collins, Alfred Smyth's work King Alfred the Great strongly challenged Asser's authority . That kind of thing might at least be mentioned in a note. Surely a short note in 1999 in an encyclopedia (though not a tertiary one by any means) isn't enough to end the discussion, esp. when so much is said about the dyke.
    I believe it's true that Offa is generally credited with building the dyke. I can cite half a dozen sources either uncritically accepting that it was built by Offa, or reviewing the evidence and saying that there is no reason to doubt the assertion that Offa built it. I don't think I can find a source that says "most scholars believe Offa built the dyke". What if I weaken the statement to "…, but no plausible reason to doubt Asser's attribution has been put forward"?
    I knew about Smyth but omitted his views based on commentary about his book by Richard Abels, in Alfred the Great. Abels says (p. 323): "Perhaps it is not surprising that the academic "establishment" has not found Smyth's arguments persuasive. The reviews in academic journals have not been kind. The leading authorities on the Latinity of Byrhtferth and other Anglo-Latin authors have dismissed Smyth's lexical analysis as naive, amateurish and fatally flawed." Abels goes on to list a paragraph of other criticisms leveled at Smyth by historians, archaeologists, and other specialists. I think this is enough to drop Smyth as a source. Mike Christie (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't know how many doubt the attribution to Offa. Such comments about Smyth, and I make no judgment on it, are often as much to do with how well the academic in question is accepted socially in the circle of the criticising academic. Smyth is certainly a distinctive scholar, but he isn't amateurish by any means; he just likes to shake things up, which is not something that goes down well with everyone. If they actually believed that about him, they'd simply ignore him (which is what normally happens to truly loopy stuff). That aside, if you can't find (m)any contrary positions on Asser's attribution, then you can't find them. no case against Asser's attribution has gained much acceptance (or something along those lines) is fine. Collins does it well "It is only on the basis of a statement in the later ninth century Welsh Bishop Asser's Life of St Alfred that the association rests, though few would now deny it" (Early Medieval Europe, p. 192) [that comment is preceded by a more derisory statement, and that quote appears sarcastic in its context; as Collins is a mainstream scholar - specialising in the Germanic barbarian kingdoms - that kinda gave me a smell that there's a lot of silent scepticism going about]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Offa was the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king prior to the reign of Alfred the Great.
    Offa was the most powerful Anglo-Saxon ruler until the time of Alfred the Great, a century later
    Offa's achievements are generally regarded as second only to Alfred the Great among the Anglo-Saxon kings.[104] However, recent historians have pointed out that Offa's reign cannot be regarded as just another step towards the formation of England. In the words of Simon Keynes, "Offa was driven by a lust for power, not a vision of English unity; and what he left was a reputation, not a legacy.
    Why do Hunter Blair and Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England justify the insertion of such assertions? Even if a historian claims this, it is subjective. And honestly, from my own perspective, Oswiu was more powerful than Offa. But that's neither here nor there. Such assertions should not be in the text presented as facts, they should only if presented at all be presented in the texts as claims.
    I think you're right, these need to be weakened somewhat. I think I could find a lot of citations for historians expressing this opinion, but it is an opinion. How about if these are changed to something like "Offa is generally regarded as"? I also see qp10qp's comments about alternative formulations -- something like that approach would be good in the "stature" section, which is really there because I think the articl does have to mention historians' opinions of Offa's stature. I think we only have room for a single sentence in the lead, though, so I'd go for a "regarded as" weakening there. I'll try something like that and report back. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally is word with some unfortunate implications, and isn't as verifiable as "Some" or "Many historians regard". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the lead to "many" as you suggest; I think you're right that it's a better choice. I also did this in the "Stature" section. I am quite fond of the Keynes quote, which in addition to being concise sums up the traditional historiography by opposition. You mentioned it above as something that needed to be supported: do you still think so given the slight weakening of these other statements? Is this point now addressed? Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note 104 does not cite any text after a quote. Hunter Blair's Roman Britain is in the notes, but not in the references (and lacks full bibliographic detail anywhere). Patrick Wormald, "The Age of Offa and Alcuin", in Campbell et al., The Anglo-Saxons, is not in the references. Though I suppose the edited book is so it doesn't matter too much, but Featherstone, Peter, "The Tribal Hidage and the Ealdormen of Mercia" is individually listed (and Brown & Farrs (eds.) isn't) ... so there's no consistency. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the problem with Wormald's ref -- I prefer to include both the article and the edited book, which I think is the standard approach; I've done that in this case (and also for Brown and Farr; everything should be consistent now). I'm pretty sure the Blair quote (104) is in his "Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England", but I don't have that with me so I'll check it tomorrow. I'll work on the other points and will post here when I have an update. Mike Christie (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not a big fan of the way the article is structured and the way the narrative is based around Offa's "power" rather plain presentation of and by the sources, but I guess idiosyncrasies are inevitable in long articles with few authors, and it is a good, well researched and (source discussion aside) comprehensive article deserving to join the growing list of early English rulers with FA status. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. With regard to sources, and your comment that we should have topic-specific FA criteria: I'd be interested to see what a group of medieval history editors could come up with by way of standards for these articles, but there aren't many of us working on them and I don't think we have critical mass. It's a good goal, though. I don't think this FAC is the right place to hash out the historiographical approach we should take, but maybe somewhere under WP:HISTORY there's an appropriate discussion page. Mike Christie (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Impressive work by Mike Christie. I have quite a few comments, but most are probably not that tricky. Offa's one of the big boys, so we might as well fuss over him a bit. I'm sure I'll be able to support very soon.
    • Coins from Offa's reign reveal that he reformed the coinage twice, probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models, as it is known that the Mercians traded and corresponded with the continent. This may be so (I don't know), but the fact that they were trading seems a poor reason for assuming the coinage was based on Carolingian models. Stenton merely says that the development of the coinages was parallel, which makes sense to me. Does your source give any stronger reason for making this deduction? (Gannon, The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage, says on page 13 that "on the Anglo-Saxon coins the choice of designs remained freer and more artistic than on their Carolingian counterparts, and in addition to the king, they named the moneyers, but not the mint". Gannon has abundant and fascinating theories about the iconography of the coins, but they are probably beyond the remit of this article.)
    I've cut this from the lead. I'm a bit annoyed with myself, because I do recall having a source for this, and when I added it to the lead I should have added it to the corresponding sentence in the coinage section, but I didn't, and now I can't find the source. I checked Kirby, who cites Blackburn & Grierson's Medieval European Coinage and Blunt's "The Coinage of Offa" for his comments about the Carolingian model for Offa's reforms; B&G do not mention trade and I don't have Blunt (and it's not visible on Google Books). I don't think the sentence is a big loss for the reasons you give, so it's not a big deal. Anyway, it's cut. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Just to explain: I don't believe Anglo-Saxon civilisation was on the coat-tails of France's at this point in any way, particularly as the Carolingian Renaissance owed so much to the learned Anglo-Saxons on the continent. In terms of art (and these coins are works of art and a great insight into Anglo-Saxon visual culture), the Anglo-Saxon coins of this period are idiosyncratic and arguably superior, in my opinion, to Carolingian ones. And since coinage was used internationally, it stands to reason that the two coinages developed in parallel, through trade. qp10qp (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the coinage, I understand that you can't illustrate it (I must have a look in some old books), but I think the opportunity should be taken to describe Offa's appearance. In particular, the curly, bunched hairstyle on the one hand, and the plaited Roman style on the other. The similarity between depictions of his face, added to their idiosyncrasy, suggests that these were based on Offa's real appearance rather than a standard type. Stenton, not in his main book but in his published lectures and notes, put forward the possibility that Offa may have been asserting his lineage, going back, like that of the long-haired Merovingians, to the gods. I'm not saying that theory should be included, but I do think a description of Offa's appearance might be added (there are books that do this). These coins are remarkable things.
    Illustrations would be great if you can find them; I've been unable to. I can't even find a reference to Offa in images of old ms. pages, in order to use an image of his name. I like the idea of describing the coins, but am wary of putting in my own words for the description -- people see images in such different ways. If you have a book that does this, could you let me have a quote I can use? Mike Christie (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you could find something to use in the following: "The majority of portraits of Offa show him bareheaded, even when the head is framed by a halo. The elegant quality of the execution and the introduction of name and royal title suggest a conscious imitation of classical models, old and new, often drawn via Anglo-Saxon artistic tradition, which, as Keary pointed out, was 'fully capable...of furnishing Offa with designs for his coins'. ¶ Arguably his most striking and elegant portrait is that showing him with hair dressed in voluminous curls...such an exaggerated hairstyle would not pass unnoticed, nor would the refined dignity of his many portraits. Certain eye-catching coins of the moneyer Alhmund represent Offa with a hairstyle with fringe and tightly escheloned curls. Around his neck some dies show a necklace with a pendant. Other bareheaded representations of Offa show him with a variery of coiffures and often mystically heaven-gazing...All these different portrait coins clearly show the wealth and breadth of the sources available to Offa's die-cutters, as well as his interest in experimenting with new models...Although much of the contemporary Mercian art is lost, what remains makes us wonder about the wide-ranging, educated, and cosmopolitan tastes of Offa's court." Anna Gannon, The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage: Sixth to Eighth Centuries. Oxford University Press, 31–32, 2003, ISBN 0199254656.
    Very useful. I've put some of this in in the coinage section; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've finally found a Google Books book that is out of copyright and has colour images (quite amazing, really). I've added an image to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You can see the coiner Eoba's name clearly next to her head. I don't think I have seen such a sophisticatedly drawn English portrait before the late fourteenth century! Well found.qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coinage, trade and government" seems to me a slightly clumsy heading, especially as the section is largely about coinage with a tiny bit on the end about government. For me the logical order would be to move from government, through trade, to coinage, rather than the other way round. What about a section called "trade and coinage" (in that order), and a separate one for "government", which could address laws, charters, and the notion that Offa had an administrative bureaucracy at his disposal?
    I've left this point and the one about kingship below to the end as I have been thinking about reorganization and wanted to deal with all your other points first. I'll start by saying that you're quite right about this section: it was originally a coinage section, but then I found other material that wouldn't fit anywhere else so I stuck it in here and changed the title.
    How about this: I'll cut this to just coinage (not trade, since I don't have much on trade). Then create a new section just called government. Start that with the kingship paragraph (perhaps somewhat reworded for context since it won't be living in a "Background" section any more) and follow it with the paragraph on the burhs and the one on laws. I'd put the government section just above the one on coinage. The kingship paragraph also needs to be edited to address your other point below. Any comments before I try that? Mike Christie (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it might crisp things up. qp10qp (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've made this change. I think that settles the organization issue. Some more rewriting may be necessary to address your other points, but I'll comment on that below under your comment about kingship. Mike Christie (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "mancus" is introduced without explanation, but I feel that one would not go amiss, probably best placed with the information on the dinars. That Offa was talking in mancuses is a sign of the reach of English trade.
    I have references that define it as thirty pence, but per the Wikipedia article on mancus I think you're asking for something more -- perhaps about the difficulty of defining it? Blair just says "(thirty pence)" without further comment; I've found other sources that do the same. The WP article refers to pp. 326-331 of Blackburn & Grierson, but I just maxed out my Google Book views and can't refer to that any more. Now I'll have to buy the darn thing. So is "thirty pence" in parentheses enough here? Mike Christie (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to go by Stenton, 223, the mancus was derived from gold coins of the Kaliphate, and Offa's adoption of it shows that he wanted to facilitate commerce with Arab traders. Stenton says that copies of them were made in England in Offa's reign. The article tells us that Offa agreed to send 365 mancuses a year to Rome, but without telling us about them, and they are interesting (when I came to the first mention of the word "mancus", I had to look it up; not everyone will want to). I also wondered what the relation between a mancus and a dinar was, but I haven't found out: Stenton is vague about it, and the Wikipedia article on mancuses suggests that they are somewhat the same (in which case, why the different name?). Infuriating. qp10qp (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added an explanatory phrased based on Stenton. I had to be no less vague than Stenton ("derived") so I hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not until the reign of Egbert of Wessex in the ninth-century that Mercian power was decisively eclipsed. For me, this is awkward: firstly, it was a long reign, and Coenwulf was strong. It's true that Egbert conquered Mercia towards the end of his reign, but probably not for long: and it seems that Wiglaf kicked back. Stenton points out that "London remained a Mercian town until the Danes conquered it, a generation after Wiglaf's time. It is more remarkable that he and his successor Beorhtwulf continued to possess much of the debatable land along the middle Thames". He says that Mercia and Wessex "stood to each other on terms of virtual equality" after Egbert. I've always been struck by the importance of the surviving part of Mercia to Alfred, and so I don't believe the word "eclipsed" is the only view (I can't find that exact point in your source for it, the Anglo-Saxon Encyclopaedia, but I may not have looked properly).
    I think the Mercia article was intended to ref a mention of the "Mercian supremacy", which I later cut; though it does place Coenwulf with Ceolwulf and Beornwulf in a "third phase", when the supremacy "began to fall apart at the seams". The article on Egbert in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia does say that he was "the man who established Wessex as the dominant power in southern England". However, in the light of Stenton's comments it seems sensible to weaken the statement, which I've done. I think the current version should be OK. Mike Christie (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, I think. qp10qp (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sections describing Mercian kingship and charters strike me as too general, especially coming one after another. The material is useful, but perhaps each of these topics could lead into a consideration of how they apply to Offa. In my opinion, this is particularly important in relation to the kingship section, because it is framed as if nothing was changing. Certainly it represents the nature of kingship to that point, but Offa clearly sought to change the model by having his son consecrated king and by trying to identify his dynastic status, as rex Merciorum, with ancient and sacred Mercian origins.
    I've moved the paragraph on kingship down into the new government section, which I think is the right place for it. Your point that Offa tried to change this model is proving more difficult to source, though. Keynes (in Brown & Farr) seems to disagree: he says for example that "it is questionable how much progress was made, under Æthelbald and Offa, in the transformation of this vast region into anything approximating a unified territorial realm", and "For all we know, the kingdom of the Mercians remained in the early ninth century much the same as it had been in the middle of the seventh century: a loose confederation of the Anglian peoples of the Midlands, between the Thames and the Humber, united in their recognition of a single ruler drawn from among their own number, traditionally the ruler of the Mercian peoples of the uppper Trent valley, but by no means necessarily conscious of themselves as a single people with a distinctive political tradition." Keynes spends much of the article talking about post-Offa politics and the description of kingship that's in the paragraph clearly continues past Offa in his mind. However, your point is really that Offa attempted to change this, and failed. I think I've seen it argued that Offa is likely to have killed off members of his own kin-group to protect Ecgfrith, so that would actually increase the likelihood of the fractured dynastic situation that shows up in the ninth-century and which Keynes analyzes. However, I don't think I have a source making that connection. I also don't quite see what I can say to address your point, given that Keynes stays away from commenting on Offa's motives. Is Alcuin's letter commenting on the blood shed for Ecgfrith enough to base a comment on in the article? Mike Christie (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Keynes is probably right in terms of the looseness of the confederation, but on the nature of kingship, Offa clearly changed things, whether that lasted or not. Keynes surely doesn't believe that the nature of Anglo-Saxon kingship remained static. In Yorke's The Anglo-Saxons, Sutton, 1999, ISBN 0750922206 (I only have this pocket book of hers, but general books are good for this sort of thing), Offa's approach is put as follows (pp 43–44): Offa seems to have appreciated the weaknesses of the traditional overlordship system and aimed to create something more long-lasting. He preferred to call himself "rex Merciorum", "king of the Mercians", and to concentrate on extending the borders of Mercia by incorporating previously independent kingdoms. ¶ In some ways Offa's policy was an accelerated expansion of what Mercia had been doing very successfully since the seventh century...Offa extended the process on a greater scale by redefining the status of subject kings in relationship to himself. The stages can be traced on charters by which the rulers of the Hwicce and the South Saxons, whose province Offa invaded in 771, were redesignated first as subkings and then as ealdormen—officials who governed a province on behalf of a king, but were not of regal status themselves (even though some might be of royal descent). The final stage was the disappearance of the native dynasties altogether and their replacement by other ealdormen who were presumably Offa's own nominees. The same fate seems to have overtaken the royal house of the Magonsaetan.
    Certainly one can see that the sytem of competing Mercian lines continued after Ecgfrith's death, since Coenwulf seems to come from a line linked to Penda (and perhaps Wiglaf did), but one remote from Offa, which may indicate that Alcuin was not far wrong in implying that Offa sought to kill off those who might have competed with his son (if you need a ref for that theory, Yorke, in the above book, p 51, says, "Ecgfrith's untimely death was interpreted by one contemporary as divine judgement for the number of rivals Offa had killed to try to ensure the continuation of his own royal line; the next king, Coenwulf, was at best an extremely distant relative"). Coenwulf's treatment of Eadbehrt Praen was a continuation of Offa's policy of wiping out local dynasties: he appears to have believed his authority in Kent was automatic rather than an overlordship to reassert; he makes his brother king of Kent, and he passes his throne to his brother; when Beornwulf usurps, it is from outside the leading nobility, a new phenomenon. One could see the decline of Mercia in the ninth century as a result of internal kinship competition for the crown, but one might as easily attribute it to Offa's success in measuring his dominion in greater, less divisible units, because that made it necessary for ever larger monarchies to vie with each other on a winner-takes-all basis—for Mercia, read Wessex, then England. As Stenton says, "After 825 Kent, Surrey, and Sussex were never separated from the West Saxon monarchy", and that has not a little to do with Offa's crushing of local kingship traditions in those places. In short, I am not saying that what is in the article is wrong (not at all), but that it could be extended by commentary on Offa's style of monarchy.qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Yorke is good enough, I think, for an additional note. I added this: "Offa seems to have attempted to increase the stability of Mercian kingship, both by the elimination of dynastic rivals to his son Ecgfrith, and the reduction in status of his subject kings, sometimes to the rank of ealdorman. He was ultimately unsuccessful, however; Ecgfrith only survived in power for a few months, and ninth-century Mercia continued to draw its kings from multiple dynastic lines." reffed to Yorke and Keynes. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite all the mentions of Alcuin, the reader is never told who he is (where he came from, what his role was, what his reputation is as a scholar, etc.). The closest we get is hearing that Alcuin intended to broker peace betwen Charlemagne and Offa.
    I've added a couple of comments at the first mention of Alcuin. I didn't mention his reputation; in the context of this article, it seemed more important to mention why he constitutes a link between the Anglo-Saxons and Europe. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might more be said about the Hwiccean abbess? John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, 130, suggests that her pluralism foreshadowed the decline of independent Anglo-Saxon monasticism. Were she Offa's daughter, that would be quite significant, because we know Cynethryth was pluralistic too (she also ran Bedford), and the 798 Cookham charter (S 1258) shows that the tying up of monastic land under royal control there was Offa's doing. The 798 scribe wrote that Offa had transferred "Cookham minster and many other small towns from Wessex to Mercia". This seems in keeping with his moving away from a mere overlordship to permanent royal land ownership, in the form of religious foundations, as a key to royal control beyond the dynastic heartland. In Domesday Book, Cookham is recorded as part of the royal demesne.
    I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this meaning of "pluralism". If I understand it correctly, the argument is that in the eighth century monasteries began to be treated like other estates by kings -- subject to lay control, and desirable gifts for family or retainers. This was already happening before Offa's reign; I recall Bede complaining about it. Then we have Offa using this as a method of establishing royal control, as you say. Aethelburh (and Cynethryth) are evidence for this change. Is that more or less it? If so, I agree this would be interesting to add; can I take a version of what you wrote and cite it all to John Blair, or will I need to find supporting material elsewhere? Mike Christie (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pluralism" in this usage is worth knowing, because it's part of medieval historians' vocabulary for the holding of multiple religious dignities (see the fourth definition here [19]).
    Yes, your summary is more or less correct: no need for other material (Blair is in any case first in the field of Anglo-Saxon religious history at the moment). I do think it's important, especially because of the clear evidence of the Cookham incident, with its blunt account of what Offa did there. There is certainly a change from the days of Bede, and this change is specifically associated with Offa's time. On page 129, Blair says: By the 770s kings were issuing charters straightforwardly to laymen, cutting the link between bookland and monastic patronage and making obsolete the category of thegn-abbot. Charters up to the 780s, mainly from Sussex, show land still being given to found and endow small minsters, but they are the last trickle of the early eighth-century flood: it is likely that only a tiny number of prestige communities (most obviously Winchcombe) were actually increasing their endowment. Otherwise, the impression is of a downward trend. In 767, the abbot of an unknown minster and King Offa exchanged thirty-hide estates in Middlesex, but three decades later, the abbot's portion had passed to a royal thegn. On page 130, Blair notes ...the rise of the monastic pluralists, such as the Abbess Aethelburh who held life-leases of the formerly independent Hwiccian minsters of Withington, Twyning, and Fladbury in the 770s. While there was nothing new about groups of minsters under one ruler, these transactions look more like a speculator assembling a portfolio: the financial control of Aethelburh's minsters was no longer in their own communities' hands, or guided primarily by their needs. ¶ Aethelburh anticipated the behaviour of two much more powerful ladies, King Offa's widow Cynethryth and King Coenwulf's daughter Cwoenthryth, whose control of important groups of minsters in Mercia and Kent contributed significantly to the political tensions of the early ninth century. The new tone comes through in, for instance, a settlement of 798 over the middle Thames minster of Cookham, which the see of Canterbury had just regained from Mercian royal hands. [There follows a long quote from S1258, which I expect you have, including: These lands King Offa caused to be inscribed to himself while he lived and to his heirs after him.] Blair sheds no light on whether this Aethelburh is Offa's daughter, but she sounds like that family to me (the point about what she was up to is valid, anyway; even if she wasn't related to Offa, she would have needed his approval). qp10qp (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- that's tremendously helpful. I've added a few sentences to the Church section; I chose the paragraph that already mentioned Cynethryth's acquisition of property as the appropriate place. Let me know if you think that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. qp10qp (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The part of the article about Kent strikes me as the most difficult to read, no doubt because the situation and the issues are so complex. I had to read it more than once to get the hang of it. You leave out the Chronicle's assertion for 784 that Ealhmund was the father of Egbert of Wessex: is that because it is too doubtful (I don't know the scholarship)? I wouldn't rule it out myself because if there was a dynastic mess in Kent, then Offa might not have been the only neighbour who wanted a piece of the pie. And the chroniclers did know their Wessex lineages.
    I'd meant to put this in and didn't realize it didn't make it; you're quite right this is a key piece of information. As far as I know it is thought very probable but not certain that Ealhmund is Egbert's father; I've seen it asserted unconditionally, and also stated as probable. The way I've added it is to put in a separate paragraph summarizing Kirby's suggestion that it's related to the sentence in the Chronicle about Kent having been forced away from Egbert's relatives; this is only a theory but it is quite hard to see how the Chronicle could be referring to anyone but Offa. Take a look and see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the whole section is clear and cogent now that all the dots are joined up. I don't entirely agree with you that Offa is the only suspect, given that he had been dead over a quarter of a century and that Kent saw conflict on a regular basis. And we don't know if Egbert had brothers, uncles, etc. But I tend to be overcautious, and speculation is unobjectionable, indeed essential, when referenced.qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The limited evidence for Offa's direct involvement in the kingdom after 765 includes two charters of 774 in which he grants land in Kent; but there are doubts about their authenticity, so Offa's intervention in Kent may have been limited to the years 764–765......but......a sequence of charters by Offa from the years 785–789 makes his authority clear. These two statements seems inconsistent to me: it's as if each stage in Kent is treated as self-contained, with no reference to other stages.
    I think I've fixed this. However, I had to do it by mentioning the year 776 in a couple of places, and I now am worried that the date itself is jarring through over-repetition, particularly as it's mentioned again at the start of the next paragraph. On the other hand, perhaps I've just read that section too many times. Let me know if the fix works, and if you think some rephrasing is needed; if so, one option is to move the mention of the battle of Otford up into the prior paragraph, which will give me leeway to say "the battle of Otford" instead of "776" in a couple of places. Mike Christie (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dates don't jar with me. The narrative holds together well now. qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mercian control lasted until 796, the year of Offa's death, when a rebellion under Eadberht Praen was temporarily successful in regaining Kentish independence. Perhaps this leaves it unnecessarily vague when Praen took the throne. The Chronicle simply reports that he succeeded on the death of Ecgfrith, and perhaps that should be noted. I wonder if it is somewhat hard on Praen to call him a rebel, since in taking the throne during a power vacuum he merely did what so many Anglo-Saxon kings had done before. That he was a rebel is surely a rationalisation from his treatment by Coenwulf. Once again, I may be missing something, but it seems to me that he probably had a better claim to the throne of Kent than did Coenwulf. But the affair confirms that Mercia was acting as a new type of state, in which overlordship was attached to the crown rather than to the individual.
    Stenton (225) says "a revolt in Kent, which had broken out shortly before Offa's death". The Chronicle is ambiguous, I think: it lists Eadberht's succession after Ecgfrith's death, but it gives Ecgfrith's succession and death in a single sentence, so it could just as well be that Eadberht succeeded on Offa's death. I don't know where Stenton gets his version from. I've put the details in a footnote; does that suffice? Re "rebel"; well, neither Kirby, Yorke, nor Stenton uses the term -- the closest is Stenton's "revolt" -- so I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I think Stenton probably gets his version from Frankish sources that talk of an "Odberht", sometimes assumed to be Eadberht Praen. I see what you mean about the ambiguity, now I come to look at it again—though I read the ASC, cryptic though it often is, as tending to place events in sequence. I am surprised if Praen rebelled before Offa's death, but it could have been that he'd heard Offa was dying and wanted to get in first. Which, technically, would make it a revolt rather than a succession contest, I suppose.qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sussex, like Kent, had a tradition of joint kingship, and it has been argued that Offa's authority was recognized early in his reign by the local kings of western Sussex, but that eastern Sussex (the area around Hastings) submitted to him less readily. To say that Sussex had a tradition of joint-kingship almost makes it seem as if it was one polity, with co-kings; but really, it was just a geographical area, or a group of tribes, and I don't expect the the kingships were joint in any real sense. Stenton says that Sussex "had never formed a single kingdom" and points out that the area round Hastings had more in common with Kent (as it does today, in my opinion). I haven't access to the charters, but is it true, as I've read in a couple of places, that the South Saxon kings were listed at first as sub-kings and later as ealdormen? This would fit the pattern of Offa subverting traditional patterns of overlordship to ensure permanent dominance for his dynasty.
    The Blackwell article on "Sussex, Kingdom of" certainly says that it was during Offa's reign that the kings of Sussex began to appear with the titles of "dux" or "ealdorman". I can't cite you the charters on this, though. I reread Stenton on this (he goes into more detail than anyone else) and have tried a rephrase accordingly. I thought about adding a note about how there are even fewer sources for Sussex history than there are for the other kingdoms, but decided to leave it as it was. Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes help a lot, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • doubts have been expressed about the authenticity of the charters. I instinctively wanted to know who by and why?
    I tried to slide past this with the footnote at the end of the paragraph, which points at Kirby for an explanation of the charter issues. I think you have Kirby (I can type the relevant bits in if you don't); take a look at pp. 167-8, and particularly at footnote 34, which refers to Stenton's opinions and gives more detail. Does more of this need to be in the article (or the footnote)? Mike Christie (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I think that the improved clarity makes the information depend less on this issue. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accounts of the event have survived in which Aethelbert is killed through the machinations of Offa's wife Cynethryth, but the earliest manuscripts in which these possibly legendary accounts are found date from the twelfth century, and recent historians do not regard them with confidence. But they do find interesting the eleventh-century tradition that Aethelberht was killed at Hereford, where his cult sprang up. I think that's worth mentioning for three reasons: 1. It is interesting that the murder might have taken place so far from Aethelberht's home turf, implying Offa's dominance (or trickery); 2. Herefordshire, along with Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, is the area where Anglo-Saxon religious institutions survived the longest, beyond the Danish period. John of Worcester, for example, clearly had access to chronicles that differ in places from others that survive; 3. I see no logical reason why Aethelberht's cult should spring up in Hereford, on the other side of the country from his kingdom. OK, this tradition is an iffy source, but it's not one I would leave out of the mix, particularly as a more extreme element of it is already mentioned.
    The only place I can find a reference for this is Stenton, who simply says (p. 210) that Æthelberht's cult was based there. Do you have a source in mind that discusses this in more detail? I agree it would be good to include but I'm not sure that what Stenton says is sufficient. Mike Christie (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it requires more than a line, but the following seems to me at least as deserving, if not more, of a mention in the article as the story about Cynethryth (it may just provide a hint about where Aethelberht was murdered, given the location of the writer, the location of the cult, and the unbroken ecclesiastical tradition in the area): The early twelfth-century "Life of St Aethelberht" contains some intriguing glimpses of the region in Offa's time...The murder of Aethelberht in 794 is located at Offa's "palace" of Sutton St Michael...four miles north of Hereford. The martyr's body is carried to the place "once called Fernlage, now Hereford", where the minster is built over his grave. Blair, 288. qp10qp (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also came across a scholar, Richard North (The Origins of Beowulf: From Vergil to Wiglaf, Oxford University Press, 2007) who writes very well, in my opinion (in other words, not a pseudo-scholar), and makes the case for an element of authenticity buried in a largely legendary story. The twelfth-century Hereford "passio" is the oldest extended narrative of Aethelberht's death. M. R. James, followed by Wright, takes this story to descend either from a homily or a poem in the Old English vernacular, from the eleventh century either before or just after the Conquest. Paul Hayward shows that this story is preserved in two other contexts. (M.R.James's edition of Two Lives of Ethelbert, King and Martyr is the text referred to by Stenton (210n), and so perhaps we can take the tradition back a century in the article.) North goes on to suggest that the story's character Winberhtus—who had already known Aethelberht in East Anglia, welcomes him to Offa's palace while Offa is being bled, and executes him—has a real-life echo in a Wynbehrt who witnessed three Mercian charters, one in 794 and two in 796. I mention this just to show that even if scholars generally dismiss this material as fictional, there are those who think it deserves a place on the table of evidence, albeit on the outer edge. What made me prick my ears up from the start was merely the Hereford connection: there is no earthly reason for the cult of a King of East Anglia to grow up in Hereford. Why there? qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some notes based on Blair, and made it "eleventh and twelfth centuries" for the mss, to cover all bases. I didn't explicitly point out the geographical oddity, since neither Blair nor North do so in the quotes you give. Can you see a way to do so without implying that scholars regard that as evidence for the truth of the legend? Mike Christie (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it worth mentioning that the papal mission was the first to England since Augustine?
    I think so; added. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neat encyclopedic touch. qp10qp (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 786, after the murder of Cynewulf, Offa may have intervened to place Beorhtric on the West Saxon throne, possibly in opposition to a rival claimant, Egbert, who had links to the Kentish dynasty that opposed Mercian rule. This is asking a lot of Egbert's age, as we know he died in 839, 53 years later, and boy kings were not feasible in the succession-contest system. The two closest ref tags to this in the article are for a coinage article and for Stenton, 209; but, though the latter's wording is ambiguous, I feel sure he means that Egbert opposed Beorhtric later, particular given his stance on the "three years". The Chronicle says that Beorhtric succeeded, and gives no hint of a succession struggle.
    This was poorly cited; I've added in the correct citations. However, you're right that this goes beyond the sources -- I must have conflated what I read into this version without realizing that Kirby et al. carefully avoid saying this. Personally I think it's plausible -- in fact if "thirteen years" is right then it's even likely. But without a secondary source asserting it, out it comes. Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a connected point, the article talks of Offa acting on behalf of Beorhtric; but the Chronicle makes it clear that Beorhtric acted on behalf of Offa, helping him because he was his son-in-law. It is not clear that Egbert was operating in Wessex; he could just as easily have been acting in Kent, given his father's previous rule there and the tradition of Kentish resistance to Offa.
    Hmm. I don't see the Chronicle as unambiguous on that point: Swanton has "…Offa, King of Mercia, and Beorhtric, King of Wessex, put [Egbert] to flight…"; how do you read that as Beorhtric acting for Offa? Kirby views it the other way round; he says (p. 169) "It is interesting that Offa subsequently required the assistance of Beorhtric to effect the expulsion of Ecgberht from England". Either way, by using "combined" I was trying to avoid the question of who helped who, since I don't see that we really know. On Egbert's acting in Kent rather than Wessex; yes, I agree -- in fact it seems somewhat more likely to me. I was trying to avoid saying Kent or Wessex in the article. Perhaps the fact that the mention of Egbert's expulsion is in the section on Wessex (which is just because that's where the article talks about Beorhrtic) makes it necessary to point out both possibilities? Mike Christie (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that entry I am going on but the one for 839, which makes it clear that Beorhtric helped Offa because he was his son-in-law. I don't think we should smooth over this information, since it gives a clue about the relationship between Beorhtric and Offa and shows who was helping who. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- I'd never noticed that comment before; you're right that that has to be mentioned. I've done some rework on that paragraph; see what you think now. The date of the marriage seems to me to strengthen the case for "thirteen years", despite Stenton's reservations. Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine: all possibilities are covered now. I disagree with you on the last point, although it doesn't matter what we think. Swanton's argument seems to be that "iii" has been written by mistake for "xiii", but one usually makes mistakes at the end of Roman numerals, not the beginning. And Stenton says that since all copies say "three", this must have been in the archetype. It seems to me that the sole argument in favour of "thirteen" is that thirteen years passed between the marriage of Beorhtric and Eadburgh and the accession of Egbert as king of Wessex. I can't see a single other piece of evidence. Stenton and Whitelock (I have the latter's ASC) both go for "three", and when these two wise old hands vote together, I'd back them against all comers. To imagine that Egbert was a problem thirteen years before he ascended the throne seems to me unlikely, since that would make him very old when fighting at Hingston Down in 838. Although one could read it otherwise, it seems to me that the ASC, in Whitelock's version, is saying he was exiled in the three years before he became king ("before he became king, Offa, king of the Mercians, and Brihtric, king of the West Saxons, had driven him from England to France for three years"). My assumption is that he was too young to be a trouble to begin with, but once he reached a fighting age (say, late adolescence), like many such aethling figures before, he became a problem. Finally, I don't see why the date of the marriage has anything to do with it: would Offa hang about and only take action just after such a marriage? That doesn't sound like him. I suspect Egbert became a problem later, at which point Beorhtric was obliged by his loyalty and marriage ties to support Offa, whether Egbert was active in Wessex itself or not. However, this is all talk (but fun), and the article now gives a flexible account. qp10qp (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offa's Kentish charters show him laying these same burdens on the recipients of his grants there, and this may be a sign that the obligations were being spread outside Mercia; this was perhaps also part of Offa's response to the Viking threat. There are two references at the end of this sentence, but it surprised me because I haven't come across this interpretation. By my reckoning, the first northmen came to Dorset in 789, only seven years before Offa's death; the late sequence of Kentish charters mentioned in the article is from 785–789 (if there are later ones, perhaps they should be noted in this context). The only other ravages by northmen during Offa's lifetime are in Northumbria in 793 and 794. Of course, there may have been others not mentioned in the Chronicle; but I suggest this point needs more justification. Would three opportunistic raids (two of them outside his realm) strike Offa as a serious threat to his security?
    This prodded me to find better sources: Abels, in the Blackwell Encyclopedia, says unequivocally that Offa laid the burdens in Kentish charters "against pagan seamen", and I found an appropriate charter to cite too. I'm as surprised as you are -- this even predates Lindisfarne -- but perhaps news from the continent warned Offa. However, after some thought I took out the word "Vikings"; Abels doesn't gloss "pagan seamen" so I think I will avoid doing so too. Yorke does imply they were Vikings (p. 165) but it's not clear enough to cite definitively. Mike Christie (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect raids from northern pirates on a small scale were not unknown. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, is "Vikings" the right word at this early stage? The first lot were thought to be traders (according to Aethelweard) and the Chronicle either calls them "Danes" or says they came from Hörthaland in Norway. qp10qp (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is, though I'd bow to more informed opinion. For example, in EHD, Whitelock introduces a letter of Alcuin with the comment that Alcuin is "warning them of the danger of viking attack in the midst of their internal dissensions". So it appears that the term can be used in descriptions of events as early as this date. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See above -- I've switched to "pagan seamen". Mike Christie (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat Pythonesque, but I like it. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As my comments above show, I've reviewed this surrounded by books on Anglo-Saxon history, and the article is spot on. Hats off to Mike Christie for his thoroughness and diligence.qp10qp (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning towards support - As always, a wonderful article from which I have learned so much. Here are my little suggestions and questions:

    • For those of us not up on our medieval coins, I would suggest adding a sentence to the third paragraph of the lead, explaining why the coin facts mentioned in it are significant.
    This sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure quite what the most effective thing to say is. The two facts mentioned in the lead are the reforms of the coinage and the portrait of Offa's wife. The former is interesting because it provides evidence of the connections between English and continental economies; the latter because of the rarity of pictures of a woman, or anyone other than a monarch, on an early coin. For lead purposes, I was trying to concisely cover the latter by the word "unusually"; the former is hinted at by "probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models". What do you think would be useful to add to this? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coins from Offa's reign reveal that he reformed the coinage twice. One reformation unusually depicts a woman: Offa's wife, Cynethryth. The other reformation demonstrates that Offa had connections to Europe. This is also supported by a letter survives from Charlemagne to Offa, written in 796, which mentions trade, and also refers to exiles from Offa's court who had taken refuge in Francia. - or perhaps something more elegant - "usually" is difficult for the uninformed reader to understand, unless you tell them why it was unusual; also, I wasn't really sure what "probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models" meant. Sorry! My ignorance showing itself. Awadewit | talk 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some changes to the paragraph; I decided it was too hard to describe the reforms in the lead, so I settled for a note about the high artistic quality of the portraits on the coins. I hope this allows me to sidestep the issue! Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That issue, maybe, but now the "topic sentence" of the paragraph is about coins and there is "left over" sentence about the Charlemagne letter at the end of the paragraph. Any way to integrate it more smoothly. (Sorry to be so picky - I'm just sure you can do it!) Awadewit | talk 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Picky is good; I'm glad you don't give up till the fix is complete. OK, I took out the letter sentence in favour of more information about the coins; the gold coin with Arabic text is quite interesting, I think, so it deserves a mention in the lead. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the paragraph is now much more coherent! Yeah! Thanks for putting up with me. Awadewit | talk 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the monk Bede, writing in 731, Æthelbald was the overlord of all the provinces south of the river Humber. - This is the second sentence of the "Background". Perhaps a phrase introducing Bede? Less informed readers might wonder why some old monk's writings are so very important. :)
    I added a phrase describing him and reworked it a little. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, but something should be included about why we quote Bede all of the time. Awadewit | talk 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be distracting to put an aside in that sentence that's longer than the main thrust of the sentence itself, so I took out the mention of Bede completely and instead added a sentence to the next paragraph, describing him as a source and explaining his importance. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful! Awadewit | talk 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nature of Mercian kingship is not clear from the limited surviving sources. There are two main theories regarding the ancestry of Mercian kings of this period. - I expected there to be an intervening sentence or two here - "However, based on x, y, and z..."
    The difficulty here is that the argument isn't simple, so I didn't want to try to précis the points made in the sources. Instead I was hoping that the footnotes would suffice. How about if I put a summary of the argument into the footnotes that cover the two approaches? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good solution. Awadewit | talk 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No contemporary biography survives of Offa,[3] and the main literary source for the period, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was a West Saxon production and may not convey the extent of Offa's power. - Why do we think it doesn't? Because of the charters? If that is the reason, it needs to be made clearer.
    There's a school of thought that says the Chronicle was West Saxon propaganda, and as such would be biased against Mercia. I've tried to convey this by mentioning in the same sentence that Offa was a Mercian; does that do it? 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    He he. You give readers so much credit! I think you definitely have to explain that. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough! I've added a short note. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charters were documents which granted land to followers or to churchmen and were witnessed by the kings who had the authority to grant the land.[8][9] A charter granting land in the territory of a subject king might record the names of the king as well as the overlord on the witness list appended to the grant - a bit repetitive
    Now reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The titles given to kings on these charters are often revealing: a king might be described as a "subregulus", or subking. - Was Offa given any of these interesting titles?
    No -- it's the other way round, in fact; he often appears in the company of a subking, demonstrating that he is their overlord. Evidently this wasn't clear; I've reworded and I think it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, better. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph of "Background" seemed a little disparate to me - a little collection of sentences that didn't fit elsewhere? I wonder if this section could be organized a bit better?
    It's certainly a miscellany -- it's the tail of a list of sources. I changed the title of the section to "Background and sources" and have moved the kingship paragraph elsewhere per a suggestion of qp10qp's. I've also added "Other surviving sources include" to that paragraph, in the hope that that makes it clearer that this is just a list. Is that good enough? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This all better prepares the reader, but the writer in me recoils against the listiness of the paragraph. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you mean. A source listing is hard to get around. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perennial request: A family tree for the "Ancestry and family" section?
    Done. I'd skipped this, thinking Offa's tree is pretty simple, but the marriages of his daughters are enough to make it worth while. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I suggest it is because these names might be unfamiliar to some readers and hard to remember (at least for me, perhaps not for others). All of the Æthel-s lost me for a moment. :) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to a later continuation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the king was "treacherously murdered at night by his own bodyguards", though the reason why is unrecorded. - It is a little odd to mention "a later continuation" when the reader wasn't told Bede wrote an Ecclesisastical History before.
    I think this is fixed as a byproduct of the other edits. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still might mention the actual "title" earlier or leave out the "title" later. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is now OK as a result of the other Bede edits. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The continuation of Bede comments that Beornred "ruled for a little while, and unhappily" - I assume this means Bede wasn't still writing it? Can this be made clearer somehow?
    I've had a go at this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very helpful. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "the Mercians and the inhabitants of Kent fought at Otford" in 776. - Probably best to tell the reader what the ASC is.
    Expanded in the sources section -- is that good enough? I'm a bit sensitive to over-explaining at every location -- I think that's part of the value of the sources section: to allow simpler references to primary sources later in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an excellent place to describe it. I understand the problem of over-explaining. I just want to make sure it is described somewhere, since the article references it quite a bit. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Stenton notes the lack of evidence for Offa's authority over Kent in the years immediately following the battle: a charter from 784 mentions only a Kentish king named Ealhmund, which may indicate that the Mercians were in fact defeated at Otford. - This is the first time the reader is presented with "Stenton" - let us know who s/he is and why we should trust him/her. :)
    I removed it -- I don't think it's necessary. He's still there in the footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cause of the conflict is also unknown: if Offa was ruling Kent before 776, it was probably a rebellion against Mercian control. - The "it" becomes confusing here.
    Fixed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume it is not possible to get images of any of the coins mentioned in the article?
    See the talk page. I did find a public domain image of two coins, but the coin in the infobox is probably going to have to go, sadly. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Images of ancient coins are not the PD, but images of eighteenth-century paintings are? Weird. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the south, Cynewulf, the king of Wessex, came to the throne in 757 and recovered much of the border territory that Æthelbald had conquered from the West Saxons. - "to the south" of where exactly?
    To the south of Mercia. I'd hoped this was clear from the map at the start, but that map's scrolled off screen by the time the reader is reading this. Would it be better just to cut "to the south"? Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut or just say "To the south of Mercia", particularly since the phrase is at the beginning of a paragraph. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like all Mercian rulers of the period, Offa was often in conflict with the various Welsh kingdoms. - Why?
    Well, the Mercians were about the only people the Welsh really could fight directly, since by Offa's time the Mercians controlled the entire border. I meant the comment to be a simple statement of fact, but perhaps it actually confuses. Maybe I should just cut that clause and leave the opening sentence as "Offa was often (etc.)". Would that work? Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think cutting it would be best - I started wondering if there was an ethnic conflict or something I should know about. A grudge, etc. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offa ruled as a Christian king, but despite being praised by Alcuin for his piety and efforts to "instruct [his people] in the precepts of God",[57] he came into conflict with Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury. - You might want to remind the reader who Alcuin is here.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He also promised a yearly gift of 365 mancuses to Rome. - might just mention what "mancuses" are in a phrase
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "Coinage, trade and government" section could be improved by a little reorganization or perhaps subheadings. Right now the paragraphs seem a little choppy as the reader moves from one to the next, particularly towards the end of the section.
    The last two paragraphs have been removed as part of a section reorg; qp10qp made similar comments. Let me know if that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is excellent. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Anglo-Saxon England, Stenton argued that Offa was perhaps the greatest king of the English kingdoms, arguing that "no other Anglo-Saxon king ever regarded the world at large with so secular a mind or so acute a political sense - This secular comment surprised me - is this in comparison to other kings? Is there a way to make that clearer, by giving examples of religious kings?
    I have to say I'm not convinced I know what Stenton means there, so I took out that part of the phrase -- I think the "so acute a political sense" is the significant part of the quote anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, recent historians have pointed out that Offa's reign cannot be regarded as just another step towards the formation of England. - This almost has the air of a strawman argument, as I didn't think anyone was arguing that. The assertion of "King of England" doesn't seem to come until the second paragraph in this section - perhaps a little reorganization will make the claims and counterclaims clearer to the uninformed reader?
    Reorganized as you suggest; I hope this is now more logically sequenced. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes more sense to me now. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Post-FAC suggestion: When you write "historians are divided" or "there is no agreement", it would be nice if the footnotes contained more explanation and additional citations.
    • Post-FAC suggestion: I noticed that you had more of the double and triple citations to back up the article's claims this time around. I would encourage you to include even more (it really helps establish a "consensus" of scholarly opinion).
    Per both the above, yes, good ideas both. I'll deal with the other points first but will bear these in mind both for edits on this article and in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A thoroughly pleasurable read! The dyke, especially, was fun. Awadewit | talk 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All of my major concerns have been addressed. An excellent article - it is well-sourced, well-written, and interesting. Readers who know little about Offa, like myself, will come away with a good idea about his reign and its place in medieval history. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, and for all the comments -- the article is much better as a result. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query is there no image of the king himself to put next to the lead, in the infobox? I would appreciate at least the crown, or his royal dress. What are other's opinions regarding this?--Kiyarrllston 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just added a coin image that Warofdreams found. He also found a couple of manuscript images that I plan to work into the article shortly. Mike Christie (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Nice work, although mine was a fairly hurried read through. "The right-hand penny" might be better as "The penny on the right" (or hyphenated as here). Ellipsis dots need to be spaced, unless there are four dots to indicate a full-stop. Tony (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both fixed; thanks for the support. By the way, Tony, I think MOS currently says not to use sentence-ending punctuation for ellipses; I spotted that when I went there just now to brush up on the rules. You make so few mistakes on MOS I thought I'd let you know on this one! Personally I prefer the fourth dot; I think the eye really does read it as a full stop. Anyway, just an FYI. Mike Christie (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2008 (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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

    PlayStation 3

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    Recently gained GA status after a massive reorganization and rewrite and the addition of more than 45 new citations. Well written and comprehensive without going into undo detail and probably one of the best cited articles on Wikipedia. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmmm... I'm not sure which refs you are referring to, but if you mean the ones that have a name before them, the vast majority of those are linked to reliable sites such as IGN.com, GameSpot.com, Nex-gen.com, and blog.us.playstation.com. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, those are fine...I'm talking about these (there may be others...these were the ones that jumped out at me):
    Three of the cites there were just demonstrating different types of linux being run on the PS3, but they aren't really necessary. I left the Gamespot article on Linux for a ref for the linux statement. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced cite with this page from Kotaku. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    removed with the other unnecessary linux cites. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced cite with this page from Arstechnica. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This Gizmodo page was the originator of the rumor in the United States. They said they used Google translator to find the story from a German website. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot access the WSJ archives without a subscription to factiva.com. I think in this case, since I can't easily access the original story and JoyStiq is a reliable source, it will be ok to leave the cite as is. If you think this is a problem, please let me know. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick notes: Ref 4 should be attributed to the Associated Press as well. Breitbart's just hosting it. Ref 87 needs proper formatting. Why are you relying on a Google translated version of a website as a source (ref 52)?
    Added Associated Press under publisher.
    Formatted cite.
    Changed cite to http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7441&Itemid=2 . Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BuddingJournalist 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review. I guess I didn't look over the citations as well as I should have. My apologies. (I'll look over the rest of the cites later, but right now I have to do something else.) Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

    Northern Pintail

    [edit]
    • Comments Support - just starting - 'widespread duck' just sounds a little odd to me. I know we try to be succinct but I think this has to be 'widely-occurring' or 'with a widespread distribution'. Looks good and I did scan through before and musta missed it. Nearly there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fairly large duck, with a long pointed tail that gives rise to the species' English and scientific names, and a very distinctive brown, grey and white appearance in males. - odd segue and switches into plural. I'd full stop it at 'names'. And make the 2nd 'The male has a....' cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...forming large mixed flocks with other ducks. - just to be clear, this is other species of duck?
    ...not threatened on a global scale. - 'not threatened globally.' ?

    I'd mention Eaton's Pintail as possibly conspecific in the lead, and qualifying the 'no spubspecies' statement. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise nearly nearly there. I'll be back later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done all above fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Greatest Hits (Lost)

    [edit]

    Hello, I recently rewrote this article on the penultimate episode of the third season of Lost. Self-nominate, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per all concerns addressed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)/archive1. Just a few things I didn't notice or may not have been there before:

    • The mention of Rose & Bernard's reappearance in the lead seems unnecessary. It's worth mentioning, but not notable enough to be in the lead IMO.
      • I added this so that there would be a mention of the production sentence in the lead, but it is now gone. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying in the lead that the "first airing of this episode on the American Broadcasting Company in the United States and CTV in Canada on 16 May 2007 was viewed by 12 million Americans" seems a little contradictory when you're stating two countries it was aired in, but only one nationality of viewers. You should either separate the sentence somehow (to make it not sound like Canada's filled with Americans) or find some statistic of Canadian viewers.
    • What purpose does the '<br clear="all">' tag in Plot serve? All it does for me is make a little unnecessarily bigger break between two paragraphs. (But I guess it does depend on which server you're using or whether you have the TOC hidden/showing.
      • SilvaStorm recently added that and a picture, but I do not see why either are necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • SilvaStorm has sneakily added both back. Why should we have the <br clear="all"> tag? –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:46 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Otherwise, good stuff. •97198 talk 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Meets all FA criteria, well done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support two great episode articles (maybe three), hope more come next. Also, see if the DVD featurette for "Greatest Hits" can provide more info. igordebraga ≠ 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually thought that they didn't do a "Lost: On Location" for this episode, but I was wrong. I just got the DVD so I have added a sentence. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. But I still can't see why you want to dilute your useful links with trivial ones to the major anglophone countries. Who's going to interrupt their read and rush to the US article? "Compare the season's average of 14.6 million."—This sentence suddenly addresses the reader directly; the tone needs to be recast. This is poorly written. Here are random examples from the top. Nearly every sentence needs fiddling. Don't just correct these examples: find someone to run through the whole article.

    • Some survivors prepare for an upcoming raid on their camp by the "Others,"—MOS breach, since the quote starts within one of WP's sentences. Period after the closing quote. Please audit throughout for this. "Some OF THE" would be clearer.
    • "Ben's adopted daughter Alex (Tania Raymonde) gets her boyfriend Karl (Blake Bashoff) to"—"Gets" is a little trashy here. "Persuades"?
    • "16 year island resident Danielle Rousseau (Mira Furlan)"—Yuck. Hyphen at least (16-year), if this hedgehog can't be recast.
    • Metrics equivalents?
    • "a cable he found 70 days prior[5] connects to this station"—get rid of this P word. What, tell me, is wrong with "before"?
    • "they will need someone to go on a probable suicide mission there, to which Charlie volunteers"—Is "to" the right word?

    The content is just so trashy that I seriously wonder how we can call this "among our best work". To deliver it in trashy prose is even worse. Tony (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have addressed your example concerns. Can you recommend someone to read it over? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested that the article be reviewed by the League of Copyeditors. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yamanbaiia has run through the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Tony to further comment. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been edited for the new italicized concerns. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:29, 8 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Battle of Musa Qala

    [edit]

    For a change of pace, I jumped into a recent event on this one. The page is just two weeks old but it shouldn't need to see significant changes now that news reports are largely concluded. It's a short but still respectable 12k readable prose. Sufficient background detail, without any extraneous. Scrupulously sourced. User:Richard Harvey and others have also contributed.

    FWIW, we have absolutely nothing on the Afghan war in the FA list. Smallish engagements of this sort may be the best we can do, for stability reasons. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. Including comments from our Part Time Secretary of Defence Des Browne. LOL It was a victory but this is not acceptable. 88.110.215.187 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't act on this without specific examples of POV. Yes, this is mainly British newspapers and MOD—the article couldn't have been written without them. The newspapers are reliable and the Ministry, properly qualified, is also acceptable. If there is information absent, please list sources saying so. Marskell (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Cool - I never imagined that a such a recent event can be made FA-level this quickly and easily. ShivaeVolved 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The introduction lists Musa Qualeh as another spelling for the place, but the quotes and the references seem split between the Musa Qala in the article's name, and Musa Qaleh without any "u". But in any case, neither of those should be redlinks, nor should Battle of Musa Qaleh, and if it is used, Battle of Musa Qualeh. Is this article properly named? How is the place best known in English in connection with this battle? Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because they're cheap, I created a redirect for all of the redlinks you provided, just in case.
      • All of the British newspapers use "Musa Qala", as do American and Canadian sources. So too does the Afghan government, here (PDF). Clearly, I think that's the most common name. Only the MOD uses an alternate spelling (a colonial artifact?) and it's Qaleh not Qualeh, as you say. I changed the first sentence accordingly. Marskell (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the MOD usage is a pretty significant part of the usage relevant to this article. So the question remains, is this article properly named? Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this American Forces Press Service article from the U.S. DoD also uses "Musa Qaleh". Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A large majority of sources use "Qala." The DoD is surprising, as Qala is what I've seen.[20] Perhaps it uses both. A raw google is 476,000 to 7,680, FWIW. It's properly named from where I'm sitting. Marskell (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable enough to me; I didn't know any more than what I saw in the article, and thought it should at least be considered. I'm satisfied that this is okay where it is—at least now that the redlinks have been fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also other spellings of the name: Mūsá Qal‘eh, Musa Qal`ah, Musa Kala, Mūsa Qala, See:- This weather forecast website map. The US Stars & Stripes magazine use Musa Qal'eh on this pdf map of Afghanistan, As do CNN, and the British Government in this House of Commons Defence Report (section 102). The Afghan Journalist Aryan Afghanzai also uses Musa Qaleh on this AfghanSite.com website. I have also seen the same spelling on Historical maps in the British National Archives. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I highlighted both Qaleh and Qal'eh in the first sentence. I'd like to link to your first, Richard, but I'm not sure the publisher of the link. Marskell (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref link now added to end of brackets. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, with an event this new the research on this event is bound to change. So, an article like this can't (or, as better sources come out, shouldn't) remain the same. gren グレン 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, inactionable. (Boo hoo.) Please specify concerns. Marskell (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1.(e) -- I think stability is an issue but more pressing is its adherence to reliable sources. News sources are not reliable way for encyclopedic articles about battles. I striked out oppose because maybe that's nice but I do kind of thing this is not something that will ever be a long term featured article unless someone keeps up with adding information about books / journal articles that include this battle. gren グレン 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's the reasoning behind news sources not been reliable? How are books/journal articles somehow inherently more reliable than news sources? Books often rely on news articles as their sources. BuddingJournalist 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try writing an article about a battle from any war in the past from just news articles. It will be incomplete. Books help to give context to battles. Reading news articles leaves Wikipedia writers trying to define themselves what is important from the news articles more than with books which contextualize them better and give a less abbreviated picture. gren グレン 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose: it's not good-referenced, out of good-prose, there isn't the bibliography - fundamental for a study-depht - and there aren't some important sections (example: deads). --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments "Out of good-prose"! That's a new one! Heh. Anyway, here are my thoughts:
      • "Musa Qala area, after fierce fighting (Operation Snakebite)" The parenthetical is rather cryptic. Is the sentence describing Operation Snakebite?
      • "The Taliban seizure followed a U.S airstrike that incensed militants." Rather vague. Airstrike on what?
      • "was forced to leave in order to protect civilians." How come that would better protect civilians? Did the Taliban demand that he leave in exchange for a halt in violence or something?
      • "Military manoeuvres and a build-up of troops and supplies had carried on..." By whom? The Taliban? The Brits? Both?
      • "began at 4 pm", "was killed shortly after 10 am" Local time?
      • "from 82nd Airborne[9] were landed north of the town by 19 helicopters" Should it be "the" 82nd Airborne? Also, "were landed...by helicopters" is a bit awkward.
      • I only read the beginning of the article closely and skimmed through the rest. I'd suggest one more close proofread by the authors though to correct any unclear sentences like those I found in the beginning.
      • The article mixes British and American spelling.
      • Small quibble: titles of newspapers/magazines should be italicized per MOS. Ref 39 (the video link) should have more info. I'm not sure if the Daily Mirror is the most reliable source.BuddingJournalist 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "was forced to leave in order to protect civilians." I find this very amusing. Obviously the good police chief ran away in order to save his life, and is now putting a humanitarian veneer on his actions! The Helmand police are in fact more of a pro-governement militia than a police force, and they have a very bad record, being sometimes described as "brigands in uniform".[21] The IRIN wrote a report about the Taliban rule of MQ,[22] and time permitting I'll write a summary of that to replace that very dubious quote.
    Should it be "the" 82nd Airborne?: It should be "the 82nd Airborne Division" as this is not self-evident for everyone.
    Airstrike on what?: I wrote an explanation for that, but Marskell shortened it saying it was "too detailed" and "too pat". As this was a crucial event, that explained what happened afterwards, I don't think we can afford to overlook any "details".
    To the above remarks by Buddingjournalist, I could add these: In the infobox, the Taliban casualties are a mess, the "ISAF claim" is unsourced, and the "Afghan Defense Ministry claim" seems wildly optimistic, and not supported by other sources. Also the number of Taliban fighters in the infobox is given as 2,000, but this is in fact a Taliban claim, and the insurgents have been known to inflate the number of their followers, so it should be treated with caution. ISAF estimates are much lower, placing the number of fighters around 300 to 400.[23] Lastly, the article touches only briefly on the tribal question, which is a shame, as certain sources indicate that the defection of local tribesmen was a key factor contributing to the coalition's success. This deserves some mention. Regards. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took care of the parenthetical.
    • Readded that the brother and 20 followers were killed in the airstrike. It "explained what happened afterwards..." is a stretch. The article makes clear that it was a proximate cause, which is why I shortened it. I wrote "too pat" because as originally worded it seemed to suggest that everything was kosher until the airstrike came along and got the Taliban angry.
    • The quote was meant to suggest that the very presence of police caused the Taliban to act up. Of course, the police chief was no doubt acting with self-interest in mind as well, but that's OR unless the source says so.
    • "Coalition military maneouvers..."
    • 4 pm is the seventh and 10 am is the eighth. The article seems clear on that.
    • 82nd Airborne: with or without the definite article seems fine to me.
    • The article likely mixes Brit and American spelling because it was written by a Canadian. I'll take another look; examples would be good.
    • Italicizing titles: if the template doesn't do it, I'm not going to. I've relied on Cite web; I believe Cite news italicizes.
    On Raoul's points: 2,000 fighters is sourced to the Guardian. At least three of the articles make the claim. The interview link is interesting and I'll try to incorporate it; as worded, I don't know if it's saying 300 to 400 in Musa Qala entirely or 300 to 400 engaged at any one time. There are two mentions of defections, in the retreat and commanders sections. Is that not enough?
    More later. Marskell (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please stop adding the passage about Colonel Abdul Salam among the Taliban leaders? Several sources mention this person,[24] and the evidence is that he is a perfectly respectable ANA officer who fought with the Mujahideen against the Soviets in the 80's. There is nothing to suggest that he was ever a member of the Taliban, or that he is in any way related to the former Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Salaam. Speaking of which, Mullah Salaam's defection occurred in October, causing dissension within the ranks of the Taliban. This was the opportunity taken by ISAF and the government to launch their offensive against MQ. [25]
    Sure, the Guardian says 2,000, but they don't say where they got the figure from, and it's suspiciously close to the Taliban claim, so that's probably where they got it from. Also, another Guardian article says there were only 200! [26]
    I agree with Narayanese that the Afghan claim should be removed from the infobox. It's very vague anyway. How much is hundreds: 200, 300, 900? Gen. Champoux, the ISAF spokesman gave a figure of about 100 killed and wounded, which seems credible,that could be used instead.
    Also, after the battle there have been several interesting political developments: [27]. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mullah Salaam who was with the Taliban also fought the Soviets, which is precisely why I added it. Could be a coincidence. I was going to do a paragraph on the fellow.
    If you don't want to use the Guardian and others, I don't know what to do. The only alternative seems to leave it blank. Marskell (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, I think it probably was a coincidence, given that "Abdul" and "Salam" are not particularly rare names. If you read the article to the end [28], you'll see general Ghori says "Maybe one day Taliban will also be with us". As I see it, this means that right now there are'nt any former Taliban in the ANA. Also, for a former Taliban leader, defecting to the government is one thing, but being integrated into the army with the rank of colonel seems a bit far-fetched.
    I have nothing against using the Guardian as a source, so long as it is made clear that 2,000 is a figure that was given by the Taliban themselves. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The caualties box is biased (the Aghan claim seems no less dubious than the Taliban ones to me), and "Other deprivations were typical of the Taliban" should be reworded to neutral wording. It would also help to state what exact role the Taliban had in the drug trade. The 22+ Taliban killed needs a source. Narayanese (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: OK then.

    • There are no quotes in the lead, so I don't think the first oppose from Sumoeagle is operative.
    • Gren struck the stability concerns oppose. I'll say this: if Barack Obama can maintain FA status in the middle of a presidential campaign, I don't see why a smallish engagement in Afghanistan can't do so a couple of weeks after its conclusion. No books are ever going to be written about this battle. I can see nothing wrong with using Guardian, Times, and Scotsman—indeed there's some excellent reportage available here, such as Stephen Grey in The Times. Thus I don't see the second oppose as actionable either.
    • Briskelly does not seem to have provided a cogent oppose.
    • I believe most of BuddingJournalist and Raoulduke47's concerns have been met. We might debate how best to approach the 2,000 fighters figure but I don't see it as a dealbreaker, as I've added to the article that some estimates are much lower. Raoul, note I had the comment about Col. Salam—it still seems perfectly possible they're the same, but it's OR on my part.
    • On the POV front, I've added a couple of dissenting notes to MOD claims, particularly that the Afghans were capable of commanding the battle.
    • A few -ize changed to -ise, and one center to centre. Any other mixed Brit/American spelling I'd encourage people to just change themselves.

    I think the review has helped the article. Anything else? Marskell (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are now 8 quotes in the lead, so the oppose is valid. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well done. A few questions/comments:
      • "Musa Qala was the only significant town held by the Taliban" Time period? Is this referring to the time after the Taliban fell up until now or just at that time?
      • I still think it would be helpful to include "4 pm local time" and "after 10 am local time" (if indeed these times were local). It's not that it's unclear on which days these events happened, but rather what timezones these times are referring to. BuddingJournalist 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the query on timezones strange! With this website being read in all timezones I personally assumed any stated time on an article of this nature automatically meant the local time zone on that date in that locality. For example the start of the combat at 4pm. This included troops from several different time zones, so it would be very difficult to report that, as all the given times used in their home countries. Military forces on the ground always use the local time zone, its the only practical way to work to prevent errors! You wouldn't book an airline ticket showing a stated take off time in the time zone of the country the ticket was bought in, but rather in the time zone of the country that the aircraft was actually taking off from. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, I think it's gotta be local time. The source doesn't actually say so, so I won't add it, but surely if the newspapers were using GMT they would note as much. On first point, I added "at the time of the battle"; can't say for certain the Taliban has never controlled a town like it since their overthrow. Thanks for all of your help, BJ. Marskell (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose. My main problem is that I found a few basic spelling and grammar mistakes while skimming the article - more copyediting needed? The ordering of the refs is a bit odd as well; the first ref is numbered 9. Also, while the article does a good job of describing the recent past, this sentence caught my eye: "Counter-attacks on the town are considered likely and it may be retaken without sustained defence". I don't think any sentence in this article should be written in the present tense; how about "As of December 2007, counter-attacks on the town were still considered likely" (dunno what 'sustained defence' means, either). Very close though, keep it up! The Land (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first ref is Guard9 because it's the Guardian from the ninth. Thus, there's also a Times9 and a Scotsman17. Can't see that this is an oppose basis; it's hidden mark-up I used for organization.
      • Changed the one sentence to past tense with "In the days after the battle..." beginning. Don't know what's wrong with "sustained defence", though.
      • The typos you caught were me from yesterday, thx. I can read back through it, though I did write most of it. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I went through and made a number of pretty small edits. If I buggered anything up just undo it. I think it's back in good-prose at this point. It's nice to see such a good encyclopedic account of a recent event. I hope editors who edit recent events see this and think of using its ideas to provide accounts of other recent events. Spot checked a couple of citations and all were good. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update the second. Thanks Jay; I was also thinking this could be a useful example of what can happen with a recent event. I deliberately didn't read it for five or so days to make my eyes fresh, and looking again I don't see prose issues. We good here? Marskell (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the concern over the Taliban claim about 2,000 fighters has been addressed. Sumoeagle's claims aside, there are currently no quotes in the lead. Marskell (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentative support; just two minor points that I'd like to see fixed:

    1. The campaign is linked several times in the text; can we get rid of the rump "See also" section?
    2. The dates are very inconsistently linked, leading to on-again/off-again autoformatting; could you please link all of the month/day combinations?

    Other than that, looks up to par. Kirill 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, on both. Personally I hate blue linking dates but MOSNUM continues to suggest it's necessary. Tony himself had actually removed a couple, so I don't know what the current status is. Marskell (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comment - This is almost there, I think, with all the facts/refs in place but it has a few slight prose/style awkwardnesses. I suggest a swift copy edit by an uninvolved editor to push it that final bit. Here are a few random examples:

    • Salaam was reported to be in negotiation with the coalition as early as October 2007, causing a rift within the Taliban. Redundancy. Perhaps ---> As early as October 2007, Salaam was reportedly negotiating with the coalition. How and why did this cause a rift, by the way?
    • Fighting continued to be intense on 8 December. Passive voice/redundancy. Perhaps ---> Intense fighting continued on 8 December.
    • Wikilink days/months, still some not done. (Wikilinking years is unnecessary.)
    • Internal consistency of acronyms/abbreviations.U.S. --> US
    • as witnessed by Afghan president Awkward phrasing. Perhaps as confirmed by ...?
    • The battle to retake the town created conflict in adjoining areas Phrasing. Perhaps ---> sparked conflict?
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm missing something, days + months is done. Years are necessary in full dates, according to MOSNUM. Marskell (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. I see now that, coincidentally, you were wikilinking them as I was reading the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took care of your prose examples, with the exception of the first. Because the sentence begins "A leader of the Alizai tribe,..." it would be awkward to phrase it that way. Tony1 shows up in the edit history with some changes, suggesting he read it over. That gives me greater confidence 1a is met. Marskell (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I've given it the quick once-over too for MOS stuff and fixed some remaining trivial stuff. Oh, and changed !vote to support. Good article, well done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:13, 14 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    1983 Atlantic hurricane season

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel its ready. It passed its Good Article Nomination in February 2007, abandoned for a while, and finished mainly by me in November/December. Its detailed in all sections and apparently the 5th FAC for a Tropical cyclone article.Mitch32contribs 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What bibliography's missing, other than not citated link?Mitch32contribs 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it has a reference section, which passes FA criterion 2c. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bibliography... books... ISBN... author... for a major study-depth. When you'll find these things, call me. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Brískelly, could you please tell us which one of the Featured article criteria you feel this article does not meet? It's not clear to me (or several others, it seems) to which criterion your statements refer. This may cause your opposition to be judged as inactionable, and therefore invalid according to the instructions at the top of the page. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a Further reading section, if that's what you want. None of my references are books anyway.Mitch32contribs 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Excellent prose. One good thing to see is this has not been hurried, its been worked on slowly. References are great, no reason to oppose. Qst 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Could you please source the following sentence in the predictions section.

    "However, the predictions proved to be too high, with only four named storms forming by the end of the season and three of those reaching hurricane status." Seddon69 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :Can you go through the article and ensure that all units have metric conversions, and also check for non-breaking spaces. Some examples are:

    • Comments
      • Please include a citation in the ACE section for the fact that is the lease active season on record since 1914.

     DoneMitch32contribs 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Newspaper names should be italicized in the references (you can use {{citation|newspaper=}}

     DoneMitch32contribs 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Alpha Kappa Alpha

    [edit]

    I have worked on this article for about a year. The relevant list of members is a featured list, see List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. I think this article would be excellent to be featured on Wikipedia, especially since AKA's centennial is coming up in January 15. The article failed GA twice because of some sources being only from the AKA book. However, other editors have came and added sources from different books. If other editors don't think this is up to FA par, please leave suggestions here, and I will address them in order to bring this up to FA. Thanks. miranda 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still very Weak Support Oppose (but nearly-there-need-to-tweak-a-few-things-very-sorry-honestly-want-article-to-pass-but...) for now. I am really sorry but here are some examples below. The frequency I am finding things in the first few paras leads me to think I'll find many more. If you want I can go through and try to fix some stuff later. I appreciate you've done alot of work and it's an interesting subject and I'll try to do what I can to get it nearer the finish line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - I am satisfied you're into the 'credit' side of things than the 'debit'...still feel the text could do with a little tweaking but I can't see anything that sticks out. I'll see what else I can find later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    one-third of 1% - eek! why not 0.3% - I know we say it like the former but looks really odd written.

     Done - fixed miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The founders were the leaders of their generation at college and afterward, as they proceeded to accomplish many firsts. - erm, 'founders' looks a bit odd as it is repeated from 2 sentences beforehand. Also, adding some 'firsts' would be good as it really just hangs in the air how it is.
     Done I changed this, and merged the two sentences. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The leadership the sixteen exhibited in setting up the sorority has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years. - is this what you mean -the leadership created the capital or is it the sorority. Currently the sentence indicates the former but it sounds funny.
     Done I didn't add that someone else did. But, I fixed the sentence. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    have led education of generations - why not just 'educated'?
     Done Some, but not many AKAs, are not teachers. So, in this case it would be led. However, I changed the text to say "formed educational initiatives" miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    centennial anniversary - I'd use 'centenary' instead.
     Done miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :Beginning in Spring 1907 - 'From Spring 1907' is simpler

     Done Beginning taken out. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I can see some issues as words are repeated quite often. You need to try and reduce this without making ambiguity. eg. ...future husband George Lyle. Lyle was a.. , Sorority mentioned too many times in 2nd paragraph of Beginnings: 1907–1912

     Done Lyle, who was a charter member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's Beta chapter at Howard in 1907. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add that. Someone else did. I will fix that. Also, I don't want it "near the finish line", I want it "at or past the finish line". XD miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking alot better - now this sentence:
    To expand the sorority at Howard, new members were initiated. - seems to just sit there and add to repetition. Can it be removed or merged into the next a bit?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alpha Kappa Alpha continued to grow at Howard. miranda 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "establish a national organization, enlarge the scope of activities of the sorority, change its name and symbols, and be more politically oriented." - surely this can be rephrased without quotation marks, it isn't asif the exact words are memorable. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The words are memorable, because that's what the group of twenty-two wanted to do in order to separate and form Delta Sigma Theta. I took the quotes out. miranda 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::...adding their support to a major issue of the day. - looks vague. Specifying the issue or rephrasing with previouis bit about the March would read better.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AKAs didn't participate in the march. I took this out. miranda 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::The sorority continued to grow in membership with additional resources. - what resources? Needs explanation. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Financial resources. Yet, I deleted this sentence. miranda 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In summer 1935, Ida Jackson focused on addressing the region's poverty and established a health clinic. - erm, the bolded part comes across as vague and wordy. Maybe best removed or worded differently (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done In summer 1935, Ida Jackson focused on poverty and established a regional health clinic. miranda 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It looks like a lot of work has been put into this article, but I think it needs quite a bit more to be FA status. First and foremost, it needs a thorough copyedit from an uninterested party. Part of the article reads a touch more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia to me and I see a lot of WP:PROSELINE. You might want to contact the League of Copyeditors. Here are some other specific issues that need to be addressed.
      • Last sentence of first paragraph of lead is very unwieldy
    Alpha Kappa Alpha's document and pictorial archives are located at Moorland-Spingarn Research Center and is part of the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC). The current International President is Barbara A. McKinzie. - fixed
    Wrong sentence -- I was referring to the first paragraph of the lead - "Being students at one of the top two historically black institutions in the nation at a time when only 0.3% of African Americans attended college, the founders and incorporators accomplished and broke many barriers"
     Done I deleted this sentence. miranda 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lead references "According to Brown" without mentioning who that is; same problem when referring to "Giddings" - the first time the article needs to say who that is (at the very least include the first name)
     Done According to Delta Sigma Theta historian Paula Giddings, the group of members wanted to establish a national organization, enlarge the scope of activities of the sorority, change its name and symbols, and be more politically oriented.
      • Please see WP:DASH - should never have an mdash with spaces around it
     Done Fixed. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it necessary to point out when the centenary is when the foundation date is already in the lead?
    Fixed "centary in 2008". miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you need to mention the centenary at all in the lead. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Sentence deleted. miranda 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • first paragraph of history section concerns
    Did Ethel Robinson and Ethel Hedgeman share an experience in a sorority at Brown University, or was Ethel Robinson relating her experiences to Hedgeman?
    Fixed. A Howard faculty member, Ethel Robinson, encouraged Hedgeman and shared her Brown University sorority experiences. miranda 06:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That leaves the same pronoun issue that is already in the sentence. I think you mean, "A Howard faculty member, Ethel Robinson, encouraged Hedgeman by relating her own experiences in a sorority at Brown University." Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done miranda 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What did Ethel Robinson do in the spring to lead the effort to create it if she began recruiting in summer of 1907? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She shared the idea with Ethel Hedgeman to form a sorority? If you are referring to Ethel Hedgeman, she recruited members and designed the constitution. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I meant the other Ethel. The paragraph says that she didn't begin recruiting until summer, so there is no information on what efforts she led in the spring.

    Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done There weren't any efforts that she led AKA in the spring. There isn't any information concerning that. Maybe they were studying? miranda 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recommend removing the dates from the history section headings. It looks odd that there is no section for 1913–1920, etc.
    I fixed the 1913-1920 gap. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason that any of the dates need to stay? Usually dates aren't included in the headings. 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

     Not done Yes, the dates need to stay in order to navigate the periods of the sorority. Again, see another featured article, Alpha Phi Alpha which does the same thing. miranda 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I recommend combining the first two sections of the history section as they are both fairly small and are both concerned with the efforts to get the sorority firmly established
    No. They deal with two different concepts. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's four paragraphs total. I think you should be able to come up with a heading that describes both of them. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done again, they deal with two different concepts. miranda 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Can you explain what a Boule' is for those of us who are not/were not involved in Greek life?
    The Boulé is the regulating institution of the sorority and currently meets every two years.[1] ? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain it earlier in the article, perhaps? I know that is is mentioned in a section near the end of the article, but the article uses the term long before the explanation occurs, which will confuse people. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done No, not really. The Boule is a part of membership in the sorority. It's better suited in membership. miranda 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The term may make sense to you to be in membership, but I kept reading about various "Boule"s in the history section and I had no idea what that meant; I suspect most of your readers won't either. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I will put a sentence which describes the Boule, then link it to the section.

    Alpha Kappa Alpha began to unite members at the annual Boulé, the sorority's governing body. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The first sentence in the first paragraph of the Expansion... section seems to have little to do with the rest of its paragraph.
    • The Expansion... section does not flow well.
      • Need non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units/qualifiers
    Please provide an example. miranda 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NBSP for more details. Examples: twenty-two members, 48 adults, 243 school children, etc. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the 24 year-old issue, if that's what you are talking about. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Throughout the 1950s and 1970s"...did nothing happen in the 1960s?
    Yes, see 1964. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence reads "Throughout the 1950s and 1970s, ..." which makes it sound that the things in that sentence did not occur in the 1960s. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I included sixties. miranda 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Throughout the fifties, sixties, and seventies, members helped to sponsor job training, reading enrichment, heritage, and youth programs. miranda 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of the history section reads more like proseline -a list of events in prose.
    I haven't seen a lot of effort put into fixing this. Have you thought about finding an unrelated copyeditor yet? Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed a request with the copyeditors two weeks ago, and they haven't responded. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be text missing in the paragraph about the deaths of High and Saafir
    Like? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All full dates need to be wikilinked so that date preferences will work.
     Done I think I fully linked the dates. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should not be a template in the middle of the article. The International Presidents section should be removed and the template moved to the bottom of hte article.
    Not really, see Alpha Phi Alpha, another featured article. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:Template namespace, Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I added text to this section. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding text doesn't remove the fact that the template is acting as article content, which is not the intent of a template. 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

    (reduce indent) Again, there is a summary before the template, which isn't presented in Alpha Phi Alpha, a featured article. I don't have time to list the presidents. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The Boule section is much too short to be a full section, and section headers should not begin with "the"
    Fixed. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, it looks the same as it did. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Um, I fixed it to just saying "Boule". The section had a table, but due to concerns on the talk page, the table was taken out. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the section is much too short to stand on its own, and that the first sentence which describes what a Boule is should be earlier in the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. The Boule should be separated, since it is the governing body of the sorority. The section had a table before, but the information is separated into a different article. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:EL, there should not be external links in the body of the article (see Regions)
     Done I deleted the EL. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quotes should be better incorporated into the text (Linda Evans and Laura Bush quotes especially)
     Done miranda 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's another quote, by Barbara K. Phillips, which is offset and shouldn't be (see WP:MOSQUOTE)
     Done Incorporated and fixed. miranda 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image captions should only end with a period if it is a full sentence.
     Done Fixed. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the image in Projects section is not a complete sentence and ends with a period. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done changed. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe the Women in Medicine pamphlet image can be used under fair-use rules. The guidelines state that the particular pamphlet pictured must be discussed in the article, and I don't believe it is.
    It's a part of the The Heritage Series'. So, it meets WP:FAIR. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Fair Use licensing for that image specifically states "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." The book in question (in the picture) is "Women in Medicine", which is not discussed in the article. Therefore, I don't think it falls under fair use. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Altogether, the entire series contained "Women of the Judiciary", "Women in Politics", "Women in Medicine", "Women in Business", and "Women in the Dentistry". miranda 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have information about how quickly the sorority spread? Where was the second chapter located? When did it spread outside the US?
    No, the second chapter is located in Chicago area. I thought that would be too trivial. miranda 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be useful at the very least to tell which year a second chapter opened so that readers can judge when the sorority began to expand. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Alpha Kappa Alpha continued to grow nationally. A second chapter at the University of Chicago in was chartered in fall 1913.[1] miranda 00:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it took me a while to come back; I've struck a few comments and left a few more up there. Please note that although there are a few MOS issues that definitely need to be fixed, my biggest worry is the prose. I think this article fails 1a of the criteria and needs a thorough copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I'm not an expert in fair use rules, I left a question at Fair use review about the appropriateness of the image of the "Women in Medicine" pamphlet. When the question is answered there I will update here. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. miranda
    Your changes will make it definitely fall under fair use -- thanks!. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    While I know for certain this article will not be featured tomorrow, I think the article will be stable after this week, because the celebrations would be over. If vandalism gets bad tomorrow, I think we should semi-protect the article. miranda 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the members of this sorority aren't chronic vandals and have a bit more sense than your average 12 y/o who is bored in school so it will probably be ok. I'll keep an eye on it though. James086Talk | Email 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'll jump to the bottom here:

    *Alpha Kappa Alpha has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years. - surely this can be worded better - sounds like a political speech. I know what you're trying to say and can be said better. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Changed to Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..have formed educational initiatives for generations - the same - promoted education? created and run educational programs? something more concrete. I hate the word 'initiative' as it reminds me of a bureaucrat trying to appease the public/media/etc. without actually doing anything.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done changed to have improved education through independent initiatives miranda 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..contributed overseas - more concrete - need to contribute to something, or write 'funded' x.
     Done Soon after the sorority's 75th anniversary, Alpha Kappa Alpha contributed funds to decrease Africa's poverty with the establishment of African Village Development Program (AVDP). miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ..20,000 third graders who were at-risk - need to define at-risk
     Done who were at-risk of failing their education. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the title, because this was the last decade of the twentieth century. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll get another opiniion and if others are happy I'll concede my point. We are nearly over the finish line and the article is looking lots better.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll see if I can help. I'll do some copy-editing, but will try to bring any potentially contentious issues here. Similarly, if I change anything that introduces error, feel free to revert, but please do discuss it here afterward. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...is the first" makes it seem as if there are still no others. I'm not sure how to fix this, as the natural change to "was the first" makes it sound as if it is defunct. How about "became the first"? Unsure about this.
     Done due to NPOV. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I clarified the comment with was the first Greek-lettered of four sororities established and incorporated by African-American college women. Since there is Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta, and Sigma Gamma Rho. miranda 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *The geographical co-ordinates of Howard (or is it Washington - it's ambiguous, which is bad in itself) are irrelevant and a distraction and should be in the articles pointed to, not here.

     Done deleted miranda 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a common Americanism to use "incorporated" as a verb? Horrible in English English ("was incorporated" would work) but wouldn't want to misjudge a regional usage of English issue
     Done was incorporated. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Alpha Kappa Alpha has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years" - multiple problems. 1) it implies (wrongly, it would seem) that the sorority continued something which would necessarily be the work of a previous organisation. 2) it's exactly 100 years today, unless you're saying that originally it didn't do this. 3) I have no idea what you mean by "create social and economic capital" and there's no footnote or wikilink to help explain the jargon. 4) it reads like an ad. I get the sense it's important, so shouldn't just be deleted, but as I don't know what the sentence means, it's hard for me to suggest an alternative; I suggest it should be re-written.

    " Done Changed to Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "According to Tamara L. Brown" is unwieldy. The comment is cited so doesn't need attribution unless doing so adds weight to something or there's a historical reason (like a quote from a contemporary, etc). Can the words be deleted?
     Done Sure. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "little formal authority and real power" Implies they had little authority, but they had real power, which presumably is a nonsense. Delete "real" and it works.
     Done Women forming a sorority allowed spheres of influence, authority and power within institutions, which traditionally gave African-Americans and women little formal authority and power, to be increased. miranda 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about how this reads... I'll come back to you. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Forming a sorority broke barriers for African-American women in areas where little power or authority existed due to a lack of opportunities for minorities and women to succeed in the early twentieth century.[2] integrated into first paragraph. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *I think the Tamara L Brown bit is interrupting a flow between the 1st and 3rd sentences which I think are on the same issue.

     Done I took the sentence out. miranda 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mississippi Health Clinic is too detailed for Lead section, especially if not especially notable (as implied by lack of wikilink, which in turn implies no article)
     Not done The words are notable, because the initiative is one of note within the history of Alpha Kappa Alpha. The health clinic helped to improve conditions of a rural area in MS during the Depression era. miranda 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "influenced federal legislation by Congressional lobbying" needs a whole bunch of wikilinks
     Done Clarified influenced federal legislation by Congressional lobbying through the National Non-Partisan Lobby on Civil and Democratic Rights. miranda 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the founder's name Hedgeman or Hedgeman-Lyle? Needs consistency. Is it that when she founded the org, she didn't have the Lyle? In which case, drop it in the Lead as an anachronism.
    • "In Spring 1907, Ethel Hedgeman led the efforts to create the sisterhood of Alpha Kappa Alpha at Howard University." looks a little crystal-ball gazing. I suspect she might have led efforts to create a sorority, but its name surely wasn't an issue until it was created? Try "In Spring 1907, Ethel Hedgeman led the efforts to create a sisterhood for African American women at Howard University."
     Done del. sisterhood for AA women b/c AKA's membership includes all races. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a "charter member"?
     Done Founder. I replaced with founder. miranda 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worried about capitalisation in "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's Beta chapter at Howard". I suspect fraternity should be lower case.
     Not done Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is a proper noun. Full Name: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the instrumental phases of organizing the Alpha Kappa Alpha in Fall 1907" Why "the" Alpha Kappa Alpha? Also, in English English we wouldn't capitalise autumn 1907 - what about US English?
     Done deleted "the". Also  Not done capitalization, because "1907" is a noun for a year. The noun wouldn't be capitalized according to MOS. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article deals only with Minor Hall, so why discuss "Main Hall" in caption?
    That was the only photo available of Minor Hall on the internet. I had tried to contact Howard's archives a couple of months ago, but they did not respond. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo is fine - just doesn't need to refer to the other building in the caption.
    • Photo captions are overly long. On the Minor Hall one, how about "Miner Hall (left), Howard University in 1868.[9] The building was demolished in 1961.[11]"
     Not done There were two Minor Halls on Howard's campus. The same Minor Hall on Howard's campus is not the same Minor Hall of 1868. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how this is a problem in what I suggest, nor how it's better in the current version.
    • "Main founder" is horrible, but it leads to a broader issue; I'm curious about the WP:WEASEL about her, (here and at her biog). From the History section presented here, it seems clear she should be regarded as, simply, the founder. What's holding you back?
     Not done She was the main person who founded the sorority. AKA's history book says that the idea belonged to her to found the sorority. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But calling her the "Main Founder" diminishes her, implying she's just the main one of many, when in fact she was the Founder, ie the one and only.
    No, she was the main founder. Other individual founders like Slowe and Burke helped to create the motto and the colors. Miranda 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Together" is nearly two sentences away from the nine other women it refers to
     Done Together, the women wrote the sorority's constitution, and devised the motto, colors, and name,[3] with Hedgeman serving as the temporary chairperson. miranda 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name, motto etc should be addressed in the main article and (particularly with the name which is very odd to a non-American audience) explained.
     Not done nah, that's top sekrit info that sorority members only should know. :-) miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So say that!
    Nah, that would be advertising for membership. Miranda 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are "honor sophomores"?
    honor students. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's an "honor" student?
    honor student. Miranda 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will continue. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't oppose, but the writing does need a clean-up throughout. Here are random issues in the lead. Please do justice to this important subject.

    • Problems in the prose, such as:
      • "to succeed"—at what? Perhaps remove it, and let "opportunities" speak for itself.
     Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Throughout the organization's founding, Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years"—I don't get the opening clause: founding? Perhaps use numerals or at least a hundred, or even "Since its founding a century ago, ...".
     Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hyphen: "college educated women".
     Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove comma after "chapter".
     Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS breach: either spaced en dashes as interrupters, or unspaced em dashes.
     Done Miranda 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trivial links, four in one sentence: "education, family, health, and business." Why distract the readers from the valuable links? We do speak English.
     Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In order to implement her idea, Hedgeman began recruiting interested classmates during the summer of 1907." This "in order" disease: why not remove the first two words? Tony (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks! Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Miranda 01:39, 22 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Ming Dynasty

    [edit]

    What's up fellow low-lives; are you ready for this chapter of Chinese history wikipedians? Are you prepared to wade through 102 KB of text to nit-pick every little mistake in this article you can find? You know you want to; yaarrr matey, it's in your blood! One of your great ancestors felt the need to "edit" the cave painting of his caveman friend because he thought it to have way too much of a POV in favor of hunters, and ever since then his descendants—your ancestors—have been a precarious, scrutinizing, patronizing little bunch of (explicit word inserted here). So bring it on if you think you can polish this article and make it better than it already is, cuz I'll bring you down pal...bring you down to Chinatown. Or who knows, you might actually learn something and say "hey...that was pretty cool, I'm glad I took the time to read this and fully appreciate the modern time in which I live, because living back then would totally suck...even more than the new casts of SNL and MadTV combined!" Ain't it the truth. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment blinking good stuff, but (and I'm sure you saw this one coming) could you consider reducing the length of the article, making more use of daughter articles? It's over 100K and WP:SIZE suggests articles this long may be "unreadable" (its word, not mine!), "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". I suggest you aim for a max length of c.80K. Yes, there's a lot to say, but the same could be said of many FA quality articles that cover huge topics, but fit within the guidelines. Also, the lead contravenes the guidelines at WP:LEAD - it should be three or four paragraphs; currently, it's five monster parags. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: complete but too long... can you create new articles with informations (now in the page) about: History, Governance, Economy ecc... of the dinasty? --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Oh boy, you guys are killing me! I had to do this for Song Dynasty and its sub articles, and that took me about 2 months of solid work! Sheesh, this one is going to have to be longer than I thought. Alright kiddos, hold on to your bootstraps, this is going to be a LONG ride.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: On second thought, let me see what I can do to reduce the article's length now to a more acceptable level. Then I'll decide if it still needs to break off into sub-articles.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Drop me a line at my talk page when you're done. --Dweller (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Update --> I have just reduced the article's size from 102 KB to 96 KB! I hope that 96 KB is acceptable for this article's size and scope.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overall size is less important than readable prose; current readable prose is 66KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok; this article is 66 KB of readable prose, while WP:SIZE says this about 60 KB of readable prose --> "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" <-- The Ming Dynasty was an almost 300 year period of Chinese history; I think it's justifiable to keep all the information that is already here. I think cutting any more of it will hurt the clarity of the article (I've already removed most of the questionable fluff). Plus, everything is carefully divided into tons of easily-digestible sub-sections, so that each important topic is addressed in a compact fashion.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't see a pressing need to split the article. Even if "Government" or "Society" were split out, the summary would be fairly long for completeness. I think galleries are frowned upon, though. Gimmetrow 09:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Definitely drop the gallery. I also suspect that many of the images have been included to be ornamentation, rather than to illustrate the text. There is a difference. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You got it; I deleted the gallery at the end, replaced two images that were merely decorative and did not reflect the content of the nearby text, and salvaged one image from the gallery in context of the Science and Technology section with an image citation about the encyclopedist Song Yingxing's writing on the ceramics industry.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well done on the reduction, but I think you can do more. The History section would be sufficient for an FA quality article - History of the Ming Dynasty. You could then summarise the key issues here.
    • Comment In the infobox, under population:

    - 1393 est. 72,700,000

    - 1400 est. 65,000,000¹

    the text details 100,000 people being purged in about that period (if I read it right) but a drop of nearly 7 million implies either there's a dispute about the figures or there was some catastrophe. Either way, it can't be left without explanation. I also notice that while the 1400 and 1600 figures are cited, the 1393 and 1644 are not.

    • Response: Brook talks about population figures and how government census figures in the Ming cannot be trusted due to widespread and massive avoidance of tax registration; as well as local administrators not reporting faithful population figures to the central government so they could get away with shaving money off the top of the revenues for themselves. If you want I can get the Brook citations for these; do you want them?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky. Infoboxes are not really the place to have contentious issues discussed. I'd plump for listing all, with a footnote referring the reader to a place (in this article or elsewhere) where the figures are all referenced and the controversy explained. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another infobox issue: "Ming Dynasty still kept the rule on Southern China until 1662 which is seen as the Southern Ming." Horrible English. --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha! That is horrible English; I just changed that sentence. As to population figures, I guess it's about time that I busted out the good ole Brook volume again. I think I should be as bold as to give population analysis its own section at the end, since clearing that issue up might entail a great deal of explanation.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query "these strict laws encouraged many Chinese merchants to simply engage in widespread illegal trade and smuggling" - would removing those words improve the sentence?--Kiyarrllston 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly would; I got rid of the two words you struck out here, and the sentence is now crisper and devoid of excessive wording. Good suggestion, Dwarf Kirlston. That's a very unusual name you have there; how did you come up with it and what prompted you to choose that user name?--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of size of History section

    I have been musing on this for a few days. Above, I expressed concerns about the overall length of this article and suggested that a major pruning of the History section would help. After further thought, I have deeper concerns. Basically, the History dominates the article far too disproportionately - taking up roughly 50% of the space of this article. Yes, it's important. But it can't be as important as all other aspects of the Dynasty put together (if you get my drift). Furthermore, the impact is to subsume the most important developments and changes with a morass of interesting, but nonetheless less crucial detail.

    I therefore urge the article's editors to dump out the contents verbatim to a new History of the Ming Dynasty (or similarly named) article, add a {{main}} template here and then hack down the essentials.

    I'm not prepared to oppose on this basis, but it does concern me greatly. Very interested to know what other reviewers think. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see what you mean, Dweller, and I'd like to see what others have to say.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pericles and I are discussing / working on this on his talk page and elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, with the new population analysis section I've created at the end, I think the content other than the history section content now balances out the proportions of the article so that half is now located outside the history section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. I have an update for the article: I just added a new section, "Population: an analysis", which covers some of the concerns expressed above ^ about population figures.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Why "Ming Dynasty" and not "Ming dynasty"? There's a policy somewhere about unnecessary capitalizations. indopug (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Two reasons; for one, we're not just talking about some familial dynasty here, we're talking about the name of an entire country and place. Would you spell the USA as the United states of america? Would you spell Great Britain as Great britain? No. Second reason: even if I were to change that here, that would mean changing it for every single Chinese dynasty article on wikipedia (let's be consistent here). Different authors of Chinese history use either lower case or upper case, so you could argue either way from scholarly sources on this issue.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles has all dynasty articles capitalized, and says to do so in the instructions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The lead section is too long, & could still do with some summarizing. Consider cutting phrases such as while some assert the population could actually have been as large as, which belong in the body of the article rather than the lead. Again, this sentence sounds a bit awkward & should be trimmed: The Ming Dynasty, ... ruled over the Empire of the Great Ming ... as China was then known.

    Para 2 is fine, but para 3 is rather long-winded. For example, what exactly is meant by Rural cultural trends became characteristically more commercialized and urbanized? This & the following 2 sentences could be more pithily expressed.

    The word silver occurs no fewer than four times in the last paragraph: it must be possible to eliminate some of this!

    I don't mean to sound too negative about what is in other respects a well-researched & meticulously written article. My comments simply reflect my conviction that the lead section, which is supposed to crystallize the essence of any article, should be crisp & focussed. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ResponseOk, I followed some of your suggestions, including that of the first paragraph and third paragraph, but I fail to see how saying the word "silver" in four different occasions is a bad thing when the word is needed to complete a simple statement. This is done for sake of clarity and to show the reader what is to be found in the article; I have to disagree that this introduction is excessively long. I've seen much, much worse.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a huge improvement. I've made a few further revisions of the lead section, which you can revert or keep as you see fit. Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the edits are just fine, you certainly have a way with words and ability to minimize; something I seriously need to work on (in general, not just with this article).--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing ... Some of the section headings strike me as a bit verbose for an encyclopedia: they'd be fine in a newspaper or magazine, but seem slightly out of place here. I'm thinking of headings such as Hongwu's vision, commercialization, and reversing his policies and Dependence on merchants, an open market, and silver: they're too much like summaries. But I suppose these things are a matter of taste—just thought I'd mention it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought someone might bring that up; trouble is, are there better titles you can suggest that would still capture the essence of what's being described in these sections? Believe it or not, those section titles used to be even longer! Lol. I try.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just shortened one of the titles you mentioned, so that it now reads Dependence on Merchants, an open market, and silver. There's one down, more to go?--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your kind words. BTW I see that the second sentence has now been reverted to ... while some assert it was as large as 200 million. This is just the sort of detail that shouldn't be in a lead section. All the details are in the Population section: in the lead it's quite sufficient to say a population of 160 to 200 million people.
    Incidentally, the section title Population: an analysis sounds a little bit pretentious, & suggests possible OR. Why not simply Population?
    As for the the other titles, where does one start? If I were writing the article I'd choose shorter ones—but then we all have our preferences & prejudices. To my mind some of the titles just strike the wrong note for an encyclopedia article. The titles don't really need to "capture the essence of what's being described": they're just headings, for heaven's sake! Reign of the Yongle Emperor is fine (though since reigning is what emperors do rather a lot of, Yongle Emperor on its own would be enough). But Hongwu's vision, commercialization, and reversing his policies strikes me as too long & even a tad clumsy: why not simply Hongwu Emperor? One final example: Breaking the mold: Wang Yangming's Confucianism. Breaking the mold ought to go: it sounds journalistic—trying just a little too hard to catch the reader's attention.
    These are just a few pointers: hope they help! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've suggested, I've shortened a few more titles to appropriate length. As to the statement about population in the introduction, that was replaced by user Balthazarduju, so take it up with him if you think it is even worth it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope: I've just gone ahead & changed it back ... I took the opportunity to make a few other minor changes in the lead. All in all the article is looking pretty impressive: well done! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Contrasting the current Ming Dynasty article with the Three Kingdoms article makes the existence of the "In Popular" culture section stand out. Do you think the article could possibly treat this topic?
    What do you think of a historiography section? - How the study of the Ming Dynasty has progressed certainly seems a worthwhile topic. "Historiography of China"?
    Do I note a disagreement between the Beijing article and the Ming Dynasty article? from the Beijing article "Beijing or Peking (北京) literally means "northern capital" [...] element meaning "capital" (jing or king, 京) —" and from the Ming Dynasty article: "there were also two large areas that belonged to no province, but were metropolitan areas (jing) attached to Nanjing and Beijing" -There must be an error, - does jing mean metropolitan area or capital? either one article is wrong or the other, right?
    I look forward to continuing commenting on this FAC.
    Do you know why there isn't there an article on the "Grand Secretariat"?
    I note a truly large amount of parenthesis. I find them distasteful, and that flow can generally be improved by either removing useless information (25% of useless information is extremely useless) or by integrating it, since 75% of useless information is marginally useful. Parenthesis are obviously good for translations - but, for example "100,000 shengyuan ('government students', the lowest tier of graduates)" can be changed to "100,000 shengyuan ('government students'), the lowest tier of graduates" - don't you think?
    --Kiyarrllston 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response
    1) The Three Kingdoms article has a "In popular culture" section because the era has been heavily popularized by the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as well as several video game series and now John Woo's upcoming film about the Battle of Red Cliffs. There is simply nothing in comparison to popular culture focused on the Ming Dynasty, spare a multitude of costume dramas by CCTV in China. If you bring up material that you think is useful to the article and a new "In popular culture" section, then I would be more than glad to add this new section. However, if I do, it's not going to be long, considering the current length of this article.
    2) Yes, a look at the progress of historiography would be a worthy subject to add, especially with the History of Ming (or Ming Shi). I tried to incorporate this a bit with the population section at the end of the article.
    3) No, the Beijing article is not false and neither is the information I gathered from Hucker's journal in this article; jing does mean capital and in the sense of the wider metropolitan area, it simply means the larger area around the capital cities that do not belong to an official province.
    4) I'm not sure why there isn't an article on the Grand Secretariat; if I had more sources to treat the subject well, I would begin the article myself. In the meantime, browse through Chancellor of China; that article has some useful information.
    5) Lol, I'll see what I can do about the excessive parenthesis.
    Yours truly,--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: A very fine piece of work you got there. But I think the section "Institutional trends" is quite confusing, especially the paragraph

    The Hongwu Emperor abolished the Secretariat, the Censorate, and the Chief Military Commission and personally took charge of the Six Ministries and the Five Military Commissions. Thus a whole level of administration was cut out and only partially rebuilt by subsequent rulers. The Grand Secretariat was reinstalled, but without employing grand counselors, or chancellors. The ministries, headed by a minister and run by directors remained under direct control of the emperor until the end of the Ming.

    It's confusing because the Secretariat (an institute?) was abolished but then the Grand Secretariat (a post?) was reinstalled later. And what's their relationship? Also shouldn't there be at least a sentence that briefly describes the Six Ministries, rather then leave it till the next subsection?
    As I understand it, Hongwu Emperor abolished the Chancellor (cheng xiang, the head of all the Six Ministries) and then set up a consulting institute in 1382, which had half a dozen secretaries/consultants (dai xue shi) working in it. The head of those secretaries (Grand Secretariat?) acted as the Chancellor, but didn't have his power. Zhang Juzheng was one of them. The names of the various posts have to be consistent throughout the article. Josuechan (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Grand Secretariat is an institution; the Grand Secretary is the post. If you have scholarly sources for your claims, I encourage you to edit the article. The information that I used came from Hucker. The Six Ministries are carefully described and detailed in the following sub-section; I see no reason to describe it further.--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reference. I guess my problem was that I didn't know the English names of those institutions and it's much better now. I expanded that section a bit (regarding the Secretariat) and I'll see what I can do about the Grand Secretariat. I read the relevant section of Hucker. But pg. 28 (ref 114) only said that Hongwu abolished the Secretariat, but didn't mention about the Censorate and the Chief Military Commission, no? Also, I think it's a good idea to copy the info about the six ministries to make a new article. Thanks. Josuechan (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome work on the new article, Three Departments and Six Ministries! I might contribute to that article soon as well, but for now my focus is elsewhere and on this article. If you want to incorporate any info stated about the Six Ministries here in the Ming Dynasty article using Hucker (or simply copy the info and place it in your new article) that's fine too.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I created an entry Grand Secretariat out of infomation I gathered from Hucker and elsewhere. If you don't mind, I'm going to add some more context to the relevant section in the Ming article. And yes, the 3 departments article needs a whole lot more of work. Come and help out when you have time. Josuechan (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! I would love to contribute; let me find some worthy journal article sources at JSTOR, since the books that I presently own do not thoroughly describe the Ming political structure.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support undiminishedComment The Notes section doesn't look quite right yet. Some of the sources (Ebrey & Robinson) are laboriously written out in full in each footnote, while most are simply—and in my view correctly—referred to by surname (eg Spence, 27). Looking at the References, it seems that this is because there is more than one book by Robinson & Ebrey. This problem is overcome by writing Robinson (1999) or Robinson (2000), and Ebrey (1999) or Ebrey et al (2006) as the case may be.

    BTW I don't think the entry Ebrey, Walthall, Palais in the Refs is correctly formatted: there should be some first names or initials for the 3 authors. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    PS Why is Timur given in the See Also section, yet no mention made of him in the article? The Ming are mentioned in Timur, but not vice versa. The same applies to Ye Chunji. There may be good reasons for including these links; but the reasons should be made clear within this article—if only in the form of a brief explanation. Otherwise, why on earth would anyone click on the mysterious Ye Chunji? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PPS See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your point about the Ebrey and Robinson references, and I will change those shortly. However, I am a bit puzzled as to why you would ask the question of why links that don't appear in the prose of the article are featured in the "See also" section. According to WP:LAYOUT, links in the "See also" section "should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article." The reason that these links are found at the bottom is because they are high quality links to the Ming Dynasty which are not mentioned in the article, and are there as a guide to help people understand more about the Ming Dynasty without me having to expand this already gigantic article further. Plus, the so-called "mysterious" Ye Chunji has more relevant information on the Ming Dynasty in his tiny article than does the entire and rather large Timur article that readers would have to navigate through simply to find 2 or 3 sentences about China.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you suggested, I just fixed all of the Ebrey and Robinson citations; that was some work! Glad that's over. Thanks for bringing that up; I think the article is 1 KB shorter because of that trimming of citation wording.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can award yourself some sort of barnstar (or perhaps Augean stables-star) for that heroic bit of editing. I hope, at least, that you'll agree the whole thing looks a lot tidier now.
    As for the See also section, look a bit more carefully at the last sentence of WP:LAYOUT#See_also. The point is that Timur & Ye Chunji may well be mysterious to Joe Public (not everyone will know, for instance, that Timur is Tamerlane). Go on, give them a little help! Add a few words telling them why they might find it useful to See also these no doubt worthy & fascinating articles ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS While you're at it, you could indicate next to the See also links that Ye Chunji is a useful source of relevant information—& maybe even consider getting rid of Timur if there's so little material there.
    BTW Are you using a good editor, such as wikEd? I ask because a powerful editor with good search&destroyreplace, perhaps using regex, might have made the citation edits a lot easier! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good advice; I added a little note in the See also section about Ye Chunji and I deleted Timur.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:42, 17 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Jimmy McAleer

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this sports biography for featured article because it is fairly comprehensive, well presented, and includes loads of references. The piece draws on a range of sources, including primary sources. Recently, it benefited from the feedback of several reviewers, and I think it now meets, or approaches, FA standards. I look forward to your comments and recommendations! Thank you, -- twelsht (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Two of three reviewers encouraged me to take this article directly to the FAC, while the third recommended the GAC. I took steps to address the concerns of the third reviewer. First, I added headings to better organize material on McAleer's varied career. Secondly, I expanded a section on his years as a baseball player. Finally, I highlighted a reference to McAleer's initiation of a venerable baseball tradition. In response to other comments, I added material on his early years and personal life, while weaving in more statistical data. I should mention that this article draws heavily on primary sources, including old newspaper articles. It does not rely exclusively on material available online. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think it should be Sports E-Cyclopedia, not Sports Encyclopedia. Also, are these websites the most reliable sources? Some of them look dubious...are there no better sources out there? I imagine there are plenty of books out there on the early years of baseball. Finally, make sure you have author information for your sources when they list it. The Christian Science Monitor article has a byline of the Associated Press.BuddingJournalist 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Good call on the byline for The Christian Science Monitor. I amended the reference to show that it was an AP story. I also corrected the name of the Web site that was inaccurately rendered. Your point about the article's reliance on data from online sources is well taken. I would prefer to stick to print sources. Unfortunately, McAleer has become a relatively obscure figure, even though he was hailed upon his death as an architect of the American League. The early baseball sources I have on hand--Bill James' Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Joel Zoss and John Bowman's Diamonds in the Rough, and Jerrold Casway's Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball--make little or no reference to McAleer. I may be able to weave in material from some of these sources to describe the atmosphere of Dead Ball Era baseball, but they won't help me to describe the career or personality of McAleer himself. That said, one-half of the references are drawn from print media. I refer extensively to an article published in McAleer's hometown paper (The Youngstown Vindicator) that includes an account of his fallout with Johnson that I've never read anywhere else. I also believe that most of the online references are from reliable baseball Web sites. The two links that strike me as questionable are connected to the Sports E-Cyclopedia site. I'll take steps to replace them. Thanks for the feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I am taking steps to replace some of the online references with references to texts. This will take a little time, but it should ease any concerns about the reliability of the source material. -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add thedeadballera site as somewhat questionable as well. The "Jimmy McAleer and the 1912 World Series" article doesn't have the author either. Please make sure to go through all of the sources and add authors where available. BuddingJournalist 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I eliminated all references to the thedeadballera site. These have been replaced with references to Dewey and Acocella's historical overview of U.S. baseball teams. This book includes lots of information on tactics employed by the Spiders' manager--some of which I incorporated into the article. I removed all material drawn from the deadballera site that was not also featured in the book. Finally, I reviewed online and hard copy articles to confirm that bylines (where they exist) have been included in the reference. Thanks for catching these weaknesses and oversights. -- twelsht (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not ready for FA:
    • Article has POV sentences, like:
      • "McAleer's association with the game ended abruptly"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "was surprisingly light on his feet and proved an asset to local baseball organizations"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "the club became closely associated with the sorts of aggressive tactics that damaged the reputation of the National League"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "McAleer's versatility as a player made him a valuable player"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "the beleaguered team was forced to cancel its home games due to poor attendance"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "Unable to build on this solid performance"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "earning a miserable seventh place"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "devastated by the mysterious death of star hitter"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "a memorable game in which McAleer initiated what became a venerable baseball tradition"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "McAleer, who was noted for his shrewdness, may have outwitted himself on this occasion."
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "it also left Boston's players disgruntled and demoralized"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "his deteriorating relationship with the American League's president, Johnson, took a turn for the worse"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "an incongruously cosmopolitan figure"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "cultivating players, officials, and others who became significant figures in major league baseball"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "going so far as to"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
      • "one of the most accomplished players of his era"
        •  Done removed extraneous language
    • Not comprehensive, no Personal life section.
        •  Done the article includes a substantial "Personal life" section
    • References 2 and 26 have formatting problems.
        •  Done addressed
    • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I was surprised by your comment that the article was loaded with POV language. Many of the statements you cited were supported by inline citations. Others were supported by sourced statements that appeared elsewhere in the article. It didn't strike me as extreme, for instance, to suggest that McAleer's career ended "abruptly." McAleer sold his stock in the Red Sox after a dispute with Ban Johnson--an incident that is well documented. I also felt that I was on safe ground when I suggested that McAleer's hiatus from baseball "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season." My reference supports this statement; it also confirms that the Spiders' 1899 season was the worst in the history of major league baseball. Please know that I did not intend to imply a causal relationship between McAleer's absence and the Spiders' poor performance, and I didn't suspect readers would assume that I had.
    That said, the tone of the article could be more encyclopedic. To address your concerns, I took steps to remove all potentially inappropriate language. I even eliminated a SOURCED statement which described McAleer's alma mater as "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards." (This bothered me a little, because the school in question was only technically "public" at the time McAleer was enrolled. It was established through an endowment and had its own board of trustees.) In addition, I created a new section for the material on McAleer's personal life. I regret that this section is rather small. McAleer has not been the subject of a major biography, and he receives only a mention in books and articles dealing with the history of major league baseball. I hope these revisions address your concerns. Thank you for your feedback. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) I feel a need to point out that the opposed reviewer has not responded to repeated invitations to revisit this article. Whether or not the reviewer's concerns were misrepresented (as POV issues), I found them actionable and took steps to address them. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I participated in the peer review of the article, and I disagree with the above assessment of the article:
      • I don't find any of the statements POV. They are statements supported by the references given. WP:NPOV does not require that superlative statements or opinion are avoided entirely, merely that the opinion reflects the majority opinion as expressed by reliable sources. These statements clearly reflect the opinions as given in the reference, and thus clearly show a neutral point of view, or in a few cases are patently obvious (like, for example, "miserable seventh place"... well, seventh place in an eight team league is self-evidently miserable.
      • Also, with regard to comprehensiveness, an article can only be as comprehensive as the existing scholarship. If there is no information on his personal life in reliable sources, this article cannot invent it. The article reliably represents a comprehensive view of existing scholarship on this person. Wikipedia cannot simply invent information where it does not exist.
    • Based on the fact that the article is comprehensive, well-written, neutral, ad scrupulously referenced, this is easily featured quality. I give it my full support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not able to give a full review here at this time, but I'd like to say that phrases like "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season" and "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career" are not POV. They are – as Jayron noted – assessments of the events based on the sources referenced. Adjectives do not automatically produce POV writing. Phrases which can be objectively examined (a team's worst season, for example) are the farthest thing possible from POV. Also: Perhaps it was added after you commented here, but the article does have a "Personal life" section. There's not much in it, since not much information is apparently available. There's only so much we can do about that. – Scartol • Tok 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Yet another thoroughly well-written, well-researched and engaging baseball article. twelsht's objective appears to have been to create a high-quality encyclopedic article (which has certainly been achieved) rather than—as has been bewilderingly suggested—to push a POV. I provided comments earlier on this article (which, as it turned out, didn't prove particularly useful) so I'm not entirely neutral :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but please put en dashes, not hyphens in the scores (1–0). Check through the reliability of the references. No. 21, for example, has no author, and who is the owner of that site. Why should be trust it? Tony (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I appreciate your feedback and support. After reading your comments, I put endashes in the scores and replaced an online reference with a textual reference. I'll take a closer look at all of the references to ensure reliability. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I am in the process of belatedly keeping a promise to copy-edit the article. This is an easy and enjoyable job. The current text has a particularly pleasing style. It is concise, informative, sourced but remains engaging. I think, in part, this is due to judicious selection of incidents and language from sources, that gently interact at the level of human interest, while being anchored in reliable, verifiable material. It is prose of a rare quality that informs without being dry. I support FA status for three reasons: one, it meets the criteria; two, it is a contribution of a standard Wiki can be proud to announce by FA that it accepts; and three, it is an example to all of us who contribute of what we can aim for. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I also enjoyed reading and copy-editing this article. Although I usually find sports articles difficult reading, this one is engaging and well-written; it paints a vivid portrait of JM and his era, and the rowdier world of sports just before the turn of the 20th century. The writing made even me come to care about Mr. McAleer, his choices, triumphs and disappointments. The material is well-illustrated and referenced meticulously; the obituary for McAleer's musical second wife was an especially nice touch. Willow (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom

    [edit]

    Self nomination. This article was rewritten in mid November, and passed a Good Article nomination. The reviewer picked up a few minor points that would improve the article and suggested that I nominate it here. These points have now been addressed. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. The prose are in good order; it is fully referenced; and all the images are free and suitable. PeterSymonds | talk 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <a>*Opppose. I think the article could benefit from a copyedit. Some parts of it seem to be a little POV or melodramatic rather than having a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The prose could also be tightened quite a bit; there are lots of overused phrases, unnecessary summarization, and repetition. Here are some examples of sentences that struck me as particularly wrong, as well as a few other things I noticed.

      • The last paragraph of the lead seems a little less encyclopedic. I would remove the first sentence of that paragraph about tragedy striking again, and remove the parenthetical reference to Prince Henry as Liko (this information is fine in the article but doesn't need to be in the lead).
        • Addressed.
      • I don't like this sentence "However, her time of recuperation at White Lodge at Richmond Park, and at Balmoral, counted for nothing, as on..." Perhaps rewrite as "Victoria again leaned heavily on Beatrice and Alice after the death of Albert on 14 December of typhoid fever." I would then remove the first sentence of the next paragraph about the queen's death being "Beyond the imagination" -- that seems a little melodramatic.
        • Addressed
      • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the devoted companion section is repetitive and should be removed.
        • Addressed.
      • Awkward sentence: "However, regardless of whether either of them had feelings for each other, the death of the Prince Imperial in the Anglo-Zulu War, on June 1, 1879, ended that possibility. " The next sentence makes it obvious that Beatrice had some feelings for him. Perhaps rephrase as "Rumors ended with the death of the Prince Imperial in the Anglo-Zulu War on June 1, 1879."
        • Addressed.
      • Repetitiveness in first 2 sentences of next paragraph about the Grand Duke of Hesse (why is the phrase "put forward" used so many times in this section? Please vary.)
        • Addressed.
      • Need a citation for Victoria's feelings about the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill
        • Addressed.
      • "Although Beatrice's marriage was dealt another blow," - does not make sense; she was not married.
        • Addressed.
      • Awkward construction here: "However, the thought of losing the daughter she had fought so hard to keep for herself was the reason for her reaction"
        • Addressed.
      • This sentence seems unnecessary "The devoted daughter was, if only for a short time, free of her mother" - can it be removed?
        • Addressed.
      • Even if you keep the reference to "Liko" in the lead, this also needs to be explained in the body of the article (per WP:LEAD). I also think that he should not be referred to as his nickname in the article because that is not very formal. See WP:MOSBIO
        • Addressed.
      • This seems very melodramatic - "the happiness she had when he returned far outweighed the sadness of his departure" - can it be rephrased?
        • Addressed.
      • " lovingly fulfilled her promise " -> is lovingly necessary? This seems a bit POV.
      • Why is "Tableau vivant" capitalized?
        • Addressed.
      • This seems to be unnecessary repetition - "As her mother had been the purpose of her existence for so many years, the thought of being without her could not be imagined: she wrote to the principal of the University of Glasgow in March, “...you may imagine what the grief is. I, who had hardly ever been separated from my dear mother, can hardly realise what life will be like without her, who was the centre of everything.” I would rephrase it "As she wrote to the principal of hte University of Glasgow in March, "......""
        • Addressed.
      • "Nevertheless, their relationship was not strained, except during Edward's coronation" -this implies that the relationship was strained during the coronation and that she dropped her book on purpose. Does the article actually mean that the relationship was strained as a result of the book dropping?
        • Addressed.
      • "was an area in which Beatrice excelled in" -> please remove second "in"
        • Addressed.
      • This sentence doesn't make sense "A calm temper and a warm heart, the princess won wide approval when attending royal visits"
        • Addressed.
      • This part of the 2nd paragraph of Assessment section seems to be an unnecessary summary of previous text: "Beatrice's life coincided with the death of her mother's beloved husband and companion, Prince Albert. As Victoria's elder daughters married and left their mother, Beatrice, who had been groomed for the role of her mother's personal companion, became increasingly aware that her position would not allow her to marry. Content with this, Beatrice made the most of her time, and enjoyed the utmost confidence of her royal mother."
        • Addressed.
      • I would remove these 2 sentences: Beatrice had lived through all the major events and upheavals of the Royal family, including the Abdication crisis, involving her great-nephew, King Edward VIII, although her personal views on this event are not recorded.[72] Had she lived three more years, she would have seen the British Empire, of which her mother was the undisputed figurehead, crumble, with Indian independence being declared in August, 1947." She obviously didn't live through ALL the major events and upheavals of the Royal Family as there were plenty before and after her lifetime. Also, by singling out what happened three years after her death, the article ignores other important events in the British Empire/Great Britain that happened after her death. Please remove both of these sentences.
        • Addressed.
      • Full dates in references need to be wikilinked; Reference 77 should have the "th" removed from the dates
        • Addressed.
      • Is regiments.org considered a reliable source?
        • Questionable.

    Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply. I have gone through your comments and changed the article to incorporate your suggestions. As for the regiments.org as a reliable source, I'm sure it is, though I will have to let someone else judge that. Thanks for your constructive criticism! PeterSymonds | talk 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in response, I have requested the League of Copyeditors to review this article. However, if anyone could add any more suggestions while this is an FAC, it would be more appropriate, as I will devote as much time as I can to this nomination. PeterSymonds | talk 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyedited by Finetooth between 11 January and 12 January 2008. PeterSymonds | talk 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your quick work, and sorry it took me so long to check back in. I've stricken the things you've addressed and done a bit of copyedit work myself. Let me know when the copyedit has been done and I will revisit. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I made a few minor changes yesterday, but otherwise this is a well-written and well-cited article. Nice work! Coemgenus 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments

    (1). "Victoria leaned heavily on Beatrice", seems a bit unlikely as she was only 4.

    Oops, I meant after all of the children had married, ie. after 1871. This should now be more clear. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (2) "These mundane duties mirrored the duties performed in succession by Alice, Helena and Louise were soon upgraded by Victoria, who, during a serious illness of 1871, dictated her journal to Beatrice." I don't understand, please re-phrase.

    Addressed. Is this clearer? PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (3) Are Dennison's opinions shared by the other biographers (particularly on family jealousy and the children rebelling because she was bad mother)? If not, they may need toning down or qualifying.

    Addressed. Removed the reference to jealousy; I can't see it mentioned by Duff. Dennison is drawing conclusions based on Primary Sources in the Royal Archives. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (4) The image Image:Princess Beatrice wheelchair.jpg has no source indicated and hence the copyright tag is slightly dubious.

    Addressed; I've removed it. It's bad quality anyway. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (5) "Rarely seen in public after her mother's death" is almost contradicted by "Beatrice continued to appear in public after her mother's death."

    Addressed. Thanks for spotting that; I've rephrased the lead. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (6) "[Alphonso and Ena's marriage] started auspiciously" What about the bomb?

    Addressed. It was mainly attempting to describe their early closeness to eachother, but I've included the bomb problem. It was a bit silly of me to miss it out. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Thanks for the speedy response. DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your valuable input. PeterSymonds | talk 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A well referenced biographical article. One of the finest on wikipedia. LordHarris 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support. A few points:
      • Is the article intended to be in British English or American English? I noticed "favored", which is American, following immediately by "favourite". I personally don't care which you use but I would have thought British English would be the natural choice for the topic.
        • Indeed, addressed. It must've been added during copyedit.
      • I'm not familiar with the infobox you're using, but it has a "Details" link next to the titles that is attempting to link to a section named "Titles". Your section is named slightly differently, so I'd suggest you either drop the link from the infobox or fix the infobox so the link works.
    I see that the fix was to tweak the template so it uses the form of section name you use. That works for you, but may break the use of the template elsewhere. Anyway, that's not a FAC issue, so I'm striking this.
    The projector director made the change. Hopefully there may be some consensus with the British royalty pages. PeterSymonds | talk 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it significant that the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia did not attend the wedding? If it's because they are close relatives, perhaps that could be mentioned -- if they're already mentioned in the thicket of titles I apologize, but it's quite hard to keep track of the names. You mention Gladstone too; as I understand it he left office in July of 1885, though I don't know the date. It wouldn't hurt to mention to the reader that Gladstone was Prime Minister at the time -- I knew who he was, but had to look up the dates of his ministry to be sure, and still don't really know because it could have been Lord Salisbury by the 23rd of July as far as I can tell.
        • Addressed your first point by adding the fact that the CP and CPss of Prussia were her sister and brother-in-law. Addressed your second point by adding some more information to the refnote.
      • her children, who rebelled at school: I think it would be good to get a little more detail on what the rebellion consisted of -- the children's early years aren't covered in much detail, and this is a point that illuminates her relationship with them.
        • Addressed.
    This looks good. There is one point I think could be tweaked: the "She" in the last sentence could refer to either Beatrice or the governess. I assume it's the latter, so perhaps make it "in their mother, and had also" to eliminate the ambiguity.
    Addressed.
    Glad I mentioned this; looks like I'd actually misinterpreted it. Your fix does the job.
      • At the moment, there's no point in the main text where you list her children's names. You say "after the birth of her four children", in the section "Victoria's last years", but don't name them. Then after Victoria's death, Ena and Maurice are named: Ena is named as Beatrice's daughter, but the first mention of Maurice is the image caption, with no description of who he is. Alexander and Leopold aren't named till the end of that section. I know it's a bit pedestrian, but I think the names of her children shouldn't wait till very long after we're aware she has them, though there can be some leeway.
        • Addressed.
      • Alphonso blamed Beatrice . . . and never voluntarily spoke to her again: I clicked through to the article on Ena, which says it was Ena Alphonso never forgave, so I thought I should check: is "Beatrice" an error for "Ena" here?
        • Hmmm, it was definately Beatrice he never spoke to again; I was sure I read it on the DNB. It is strange, because the exact phrase was, "[Alfonso] blamed Beatrice for the transaction of haemophilia to the Spanish royal house, and never voluntarily spoke to her again". However, my source memory fails me! I've therefore changed the sentence for reliability, and will change it back when I find where that quote came from.
      • She was much involved in collecting material for the Carisbrooke Castle museum, which she opened in 1898: how about making this "She had been much involved"; the previous sentences relate to the period after Victoria's death, so I think you need the past perfect tense here.
        • Addressed.
    • *What does the royal family continued to flourish along her brother's line mean?
        • Addressed, small prose change for clarity.
      • the death of her favourite son, Maurice, in war in 1914: presumably should be either "in the war" or "in World War I".
        • Yes, it should. Addressed.
      • but this did change her willingness to cater to her mother's needs: should be "did not change"?
        • Yes, how strange. Addressed.
      • You give the date of the sale of Osborne Cottage as 1913 and 1912, at two different points; which is correct?
        • Addressed; it was definately 1912.
    -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have switched to support above; the two remaining issues are quite minor. Thanks for an interesting article. 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for your valuable contributions. PeterSymonds | talk 17:30, 13 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Suleiman the Magnificent

    [edit]
    previous FAC nomination

    Suleiman has been a GA for some months now as part of an ongoing effort by myself to get it to FA. It has been submitted to peer review, though it didnt get much of a response. I believe the article is well written, broad in its coverage and well sourced, supported by a good number of relavant images. Hopefully any problems can be ironed out here. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Oppose. There are a few WP:MOS things that need to be fixed, and some of the prose is a bit choppy. There are also areas that need to be cited still.

      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations should not be offset from the paragraph unless they are more than 4 lines long.
      • Rather than link to the Great Alfold, I think the (see Ottoman Hungary) should be incorporated into the prose in this sentence
      • Need a nonbreaking space between a number and its qualifier (for example, 25,000 men)
      • The see also link for Ottoman wars in Europe should be at the top of that section instead of the bottom
      • Per WP:DATE, month-day combinations should be wikilinked so that date preferences will work
      • "As Kinross notes"... who is Kinross? Can you at least include a first name here?
      • Can you cite this, please "He also issued a firman, formally denouncing blood libel against the Jews. In doing this, he set a precedent that was followed by emperors after him, including the firman against the Damascus affair." Moved to administrative reforms, with source.
      • "come to their age" -> should be "come of age"
      • Need citations for much of the first paragraph of Hurrem Sultan section -> "breaking with 300 years of Ottoman tradition"; "first former slave to gain legitimacy"; "astonishment of observors"; "breaking another atradition"
      • Need a citation for "Since these were his dying words, Suleiman became convinced of Ibrahim's disloyalty "
      • "Hurrem was aware that should Mustafa succeed he would have his brothers strangled, who were all her sons" -> can this be rephrased so as not to be so awkward? Rephrased to Hurrem was aware that should Mustafa succeed in becoming the Sultan, her own children would be strangled.
      • add wikilink to Anne Bolyen please
      • Does the long quote about Mustafa's demise need to remain as a quote or can it be summarized?

    Karanacs (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the suggestions Karanacs, I've tried to complete most of them. I'm not sure what you mean by suggestions 2 and 3 however. What do you mean by "the (see Ottoman Hungary) should be incorporated into the prose in this sentence" and also what do you mean by a nonbreaking space between number and qualifier? With regard to the large quote on Mustafa, I actually think it serves the article well, to highlight that despite his achievements he could also be an extremely ruthless Sultan, the description of his sons murder seems to highlight this well. If you still disagree perhaps I can shorten it. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, please note that the reviewer is supposed to strike his or her own comments; that ensures that we actually understand each other. I just verified that the changes were good, so it's okay to leave them stricken. Here's the guideline on non-breaking spaces (sorry, I should have included that before). The "(see Ottoman Hungary)" note in the section Conquests in Europe, right after the words "Great Alföld". Generally, we don't include a (see xxxx) in the text of the article; it either appears at the top of the section, in the See Also section, or is incorporated into the paragraph. I agree with you that the story of Mustafa's death definitely should be in the article, but I think you could paraphrase it and not have the direct quote. You're really close - thanks for being so prompt! Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, this is my first FA nomination, not use to convention here. I've added some non-breaking spaces, but wanted to confirm whether I simply add it in all instances where a number preceeds a non numerical character e.g. "In 1541 the...", "In late 1553 or 1554...", "dating from 1526 list 40 societies with over 600 members." etc. Should the spaces in all these examples be filled with the non-breaking code? On the (see Ottoman Hungary) thing, I understand what you mean, I've simply removed the link, if this is a problem let me know. I'll get thinking how to reduce the Mustafa quote also, thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed the quote, paraphrasing the beginning and quoting a few lines from the end. Also, please confirm whether non-breaking code should be applied in cases such as those mentioned above. I ask because from a quick glance at other FA articles, I cannot see consistent usage of this in all number/letter instances. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry it took me a bit to come back. It needs to be used when you have a number and a unit, so in the example sentences you listed only 40 societies and 600 members would need the nonbreaking space. Hope that helps - I know it's confusing. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, ok I undid the hard spaces I added after the years and left the one on the 600 members and 40 societies. If you notice, I also got rid of the see Ottoman Hungary link completely since I found it unnecessary. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (1) Norwich is not listed in the references. (2) "which led to a humiliating night": what do you mean? (3) "An early description of Suleiman was provided by the Venetian envoy Bartolomeo Contarini a few weeks following his accession. Venetians wrote down their descriptions of the new sultan and their predictions of what his reign might mean to Europe." "Venetians" or "The Venetian"? You should go from the general to the specific, not from the individual to the many. Switch the sentences around, if many Venetians wrote about Suleiman, and then use Contarini as your specific example. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the edits and comments. With regard to point one, the sentence with that reference was not added by me, in fact I consider it pretty slap dash with whoever adding it making no effort to integrate it into the prose. Since it was not a major conflict, I have chosen to remove it. On the second point, I elaborated on the treaty and the conflict behind it in a more relavant place i.e. the wars over Hungary, whilst adding more references also. On the third point, I never added that sentence and it seems pretty superflous so I've simply removed that also. Please let me know if these are ok. --A.Garnet (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yes, that's great, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent article, which it's been a great pleasure to read (& make a few edits, mainly for style & links). A couple of comments:
      • For consistency you should use either modern Turkish spelling or English spelling: you can't have both Chelebi (English) and Cihangir (Turkish: in English it would be Jihangir).
      • Number style must be consistent, too: I changed four hundred ships whilst personally leading an army of 100,000 to 400 ships ...; but there may well be other cases.
      • The "historic would" can be a bit annoying: eg he would die in 1566.

    But these are minor points. Obviously a lot of work has gone into making this such a good article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS The list of subjects studied in the medreses reads slightly awkwardly:
    studies in grammar, syntax, logic, metaphysics, philosophy, tropics, stylistics, geometry, astronomy, and astrology.
    This may well have come straight from Kinross's book, but—at the very least—the highlighted terms should be explained. I imagine he was referring to what is usually called rhetoric, as taught by the mediaeval scholastics. The subjects mentioned correspond almost exactly to the trivium & quadrivium. Whether they need to be listed so exhaustively in this context is open to doubt. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the edits Ndsg, they are welcome indeed. I've made a few edits based on your suggestions. I changed Cihangir > Jihangir (since "Suleiman" is itself English, may as well keep it consistent), I changed a few of the "woulds", but I dont see many of them as problematic. With regards to the topics, your right, they were lifted from Kinross, but I've edited out the more complex subjects and left the ones editors are probably more familiar with. I hope these edits are ok. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're more than welcome. The woulds are a matter of taste, I suppose—& in any case the text reads pretty well now.
    I wonder whether Education might deserve a section to itself: it's not really Administration, is it? Anyway, it's your call. Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS It would help if you specified what all those artists & craftsmen mentioned under Cultural Achievements actually did. One important artistic field—calligraphy—is implicit in the magnificent tughra illustrated in the article. Perhaps some mention of miniature painting & work with precious metals etc? Unfortunately the article on Ottoman miniatures is little more than a stub at present. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I elaborated slightly on the work of craftsmen Ndsg, but unfortunately I no longer have access to some of the sources I originally wrote the article with (e.g. Clot, Atil had good sections on the cultural aspects of Suleimans reign). I'll leave a note on WP:Turkey again to see if some editors can bring more sources forward. --A.Garnet (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS What happened to Jihangir? He's mentioned only once, then disappears from the story! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a note of Jihangirs sad fate. --A.Garnet (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In Succession I've changed mutes to eunuchs: is that correct? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the use of mutes since it was a direct quotation (though I think I forgot to close the quote last time round). Thanks again for the help, --A.Garnet (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! I think the article as it now stands is definitely FA material. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS You didn't comment on my suggestion about a new Education section. I've now made 3 subheadings in the admin reforms section: see what you think of the new layout. I won't be offended if you revert them, but I think they improve the navigation & readability of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I do not feel a three paragraph section requires additional sub-headings. I think the section flows well enough to stand on its own. Let me know what you think, --A.Garnet (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Well, I've told you what I think! But I don't want to make a federal case out of it, so do what you prefer. After all, you've done most of the work on this article. But first consider: how quickly would a reader interested in education under Suleiman find the paragraph on education? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well since the section is not that large, and some of the headings are not the best description (for example "Legal code" can basically apply to everything, in "Minorities" there is also discussion of criminal legislation) I will revert to the prior version. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't quite my point. Of course you could find the paragraph on education if you knew it came under Administrative reforms, but that begs the question. How would you find it from the nav box if you were coming fresh to the article for the first time? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinross, the source used for that section, places educational reforms within the context of administration. I dont think it could be placed anywhere else or requires a sub section to guide readers here. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor question regarding the following:

      When, in 1544, Spain declared war on France, Francis asked for help from Suleiman, who sent a fleet headed by Barbarossa. When Barbarossa defeated the Spaniards and managed to retake Naples from them, Suleiman bestowed on him the title of Beyler Bey (Commander of Commanders).

      According to the sources I have, it was Francis who declared war, not the Spanish; and Barbarossa, while indeed attacking Neapolitan cities, never captured Naples itself. I'm curious as to where these details originate. Kirill 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as well since I already picked up on the discrepancy between the two articles. A search in the history shows User:Kaisershatner added the info in 2005 so it will need checking. I'll get working on it. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the dubious information and rewrote the paragraph. Also added a see also to the Italian wars article to clarify. --A.Garnet (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Lead(II) nitrate

    [edit]
    Note: WP:FFA, has been on main page.

    Last year, this article was promoted to FA (see previous FAC). A recent Featured Article Review was not attended well, and resulted in a demotion of the article because concerns were not addressed. Now, with the help of other editors (Tony being very helpful for final smoothing), the article is, in my humble opinion, at least back at its previous FA level. Since, the FAR process can only demote and not promote, I hereby propose the Lead(II) nitrate article for FA again. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Thanks for pointing out opportunities for further improvement. Specifically, would you please be so kind to indicate in which way referencing isn't FA-standard, so that we can actually address the issue? Wim van Dorst (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    In what sense it is not comprehensive? What would you like to see included? Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a few unreferenced paragraphs. The FAR says why the article is not comprehensive. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All sections are well-covered by appropriate references. There were two paragraphs in the Aqueous chemistry section with information that in the field of chemistry is considered basic knowledge. These are now also supported by appropriate references.
    • The insufficient comprehensiveness as pointed out in the FAR was taken already handled by 135 edits to the article, enlarging the article by several topics and a sizable amount of information.
    • If you have additional concerns, feel free to point these out well. If not, I hope you will adjust your vote. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Weak Oppose - I would like to see this more comprehensive, is such possible?-
      "The production process, from lead and nitric acid, is chemically straightforward." being part of "History" section makes me wonder about the details to this - How was production in those times different from our own times?
      lead poisoning is a very large problem (isn't it?) - how does this compound fit into that?
      --Kiyarrllston 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Kiyarr. I have copy-edited the history section to better point out why and how the production process is so straightforward then, as it is today. And yes, lead poisoning is a major problem, that's why the Safety section explicitly indicates Lead poisoning to be the main article on the issue, and why half of the whole safety section is about that topic. The comprehensiveness of the article is well discussed in the FAR. Experts in the field indicate that there just isn't more to tell about this compound. I hope the copy-editing and the explanation here are helpful enough for you? Wim van Dorst (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose - The article is improved in an impressiv manner. Some of the conserns about comprehensiveness is still not met. The weak oppose is because it is a point it not easy to find information about the compound, I can't tell where to find it. But it is produced bags up to 1100 kg of the compound for commercial sale. It have to be more to tell about the production. What countries have highest production/Where is it produced? How is it produced (don't tell me it is made tons of lead nitrate in the lab for commercial sale)? It is to easy just to say it isn't more to tell. The article, like it looks today, it is more a GA than a FA. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no large scale production of lead nitrate. Lead and lead compound producers in China and India typically offer the products in 25kg bags; no serious offers of larger bags can be found. It really is produced in small batches only, using the technology pointed out in the article. I hope the you can agree with me that is is hard to give a reference or hard information about something simply not existing. In my humble opinion, the article well states that the production is small-scale only, and in this aspect is therefore as comprehensive as can be. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • In my humble opinion the article is not comprehensive and does not look FA. With my humble opinion I heartily agree with "It have to be more to tell about the production". --Kiyarrllston 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boldly, I have copy-edited the 'Preparation and production' section to show all information about production. Note that I have not found serious offers of bulk (i.e., 1000 kg bags or larger) lead(II) nitrate, just the obscure Chinese or Indian supplier's hype that they can 'supply any quantity required'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose Now Weak Oppose After all changes, ultimately became Support - I believe that this article does not reach FA standards under attribute 1. IMO, the writing can be improved, and some of the chemistry content is questionable from a technical perspective. There are some minor formatting errors that should be fixed (and as I have edited v. little of wikipedia, I'm not sure how this is done), and sections that seem to add little useful information. There is repeated content, and content that I don't understand - and yes, I am a chemist. Having said that, I think the basic content is OK, but not FA standard. Some specific examples:
    • Initial sentence is "Lead(II) nitrate is the inorganic salt of nitric acid and lead". Firstly, 'inorganic' seems an odd modification for the term 'salt', which is defined in wikipedia as the product from the neutralisation of an acid and a base - but lead isn't a base. It also seems strange to indicate how it can be made in a definition, rather than focusing on what it is. A better start might be "Lead(II) nitrate is an inorganic compound comprising one lead(II) cation for every two nitrate anions".
    • Next sentence is "It is a colourless crystal or white powder and, unlike most other lead(II) salts, is soluble in water". This sentence can be simplified be rearranging it to "... and is soluble in water, unlike most other lead(II) salts", improving the writing. The assertion that it must be solid is also technically incorrect. Maybe "Under standard conditions, it is a colourless crystal or white powder which is soluble in water, unlike most lead(II) salts."
    • According to guidelines, the lead must be a summary of the article body. Therefore details, such as 'standard conditions' need not be repeated here. The by-phrase 'unlike...' is at this place in the sentence for emphasis. For clarity, I have added 'it', although I doubt that it is an improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I still think the emphasis leads to an inelegance of language, but it isn't important enough to be worth debating; however, I still object to the statement as overly broad. Considering further, my problem is the 'is', because it makes it like a definition. What about something like "As a solid, it occurs as a colourless crystal or white powder...", or maybe "It commonly occurs as ...", or "It can be found as ..."? By the way, I agree that the extra 'it' isn't an improvement, and would have no problem with your removing it. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Properties in box at RHS. The unit for the litre is L, and thus the mililitre is mL - not ml as is used here. Solubility box at bottom of section is mis-formatted, as data for 'in alcohol' and 'in methanol' do not align to the corresponding statements in the LH column. Stating that it is 'insoluble' in nitric acid is also too broad, as the extent to which solid lead(II) nitrate would dissolve depends on the concentration of the nitric acid. Data for in 'alcohol' and 'methanol' are surprisingly different, even if we ignore the fact that methanol is an alcohol (as the link provided proves) and assume that 'alcohol' is meant to mean 'ethanol' in this case (1 g per 2500 mL in ethanol but 1 g per 75 mL in methanol is a big difference).
    • Of course the unit for litre it not L: we follow SI units here, where lowercase 'l' is the proper unit. I adjusted the link for the 'alcohol' solvent to better indicate that ethanol is intended, and adjusted the vertical alignment. And yes, it is a big difference. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Neither l nor L are "units", they are symbols for the liter, and both are acceptable according to SI guidelines.[29] That said, I think most people nowadays prefer L to avoid confusion with 1 or with I. --Itub (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am an Australian, and was honestly unaware that l was widely used in Europe - a student using 'l' in place of 'L' would typically be corrected here. Given that, as Itub has noted, both are accepted symbols under SI, I withdraw this objection. However, I still much prefer L, and have noted its use on other wikipedia pages. Perhaps some general consensus for wikipedia would be helpful? For that reason, I have raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals EdChem (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that we remove the information about methane or methanol until a decent source can be found. The Iowa State Uni MSDS actually says "methan", which is truncated and unclear. The solubility difference of methanol v ethanol has my chemical instincts twitching, and the possibility it means methane - a gas at RT - has me even more concerned. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supplementary data page has essentially zero data - why is this included? And anyway, surely some of the thermodynamic data - like enthalpy of formation and molar entropy of the solid - are known.
    • Your point about the supplementary data page not being the FA candidate is well made, but I am still left wondering why the tables include links to pages with no data are provided (like the thermodynamic properties), or where no meaningful data could be provided (like NMR spectral data for something like lead(II) nitrate - I realise you could get a lead-207 spectrum, or maybe a nitrogen-15 spectrum, but is that what this NMR link is meant to mean?). EdChem (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is part of the Wikipedia Way: you include all relevant links. Although the currently nearly empty datapage does not provide extra data yet, in the future, those tables may be full and complete. And those datapages (created by a template) are part of how information is provided on chemical article pages: see wikipedia:Chemical infobox for further details. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • OK. I have some issues about the infobox, but they aren't relevant to a discussion of the FA candidature of the lead(II) nitrate artivcle - so I'll leave comment on this topic on the infobox talk page. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, Aylward and Findlay's SI Chemical Data lists an enthalpy of formation for lead(II) nitrate - would this be an acceptable source for adding the value into the supplementary data? EdChem (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aqueous chemistry section: The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO3)2 solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution. The links in the formula Pb(NO3)2 go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions. The start of the following paragraph is repetitive: "Apart from lead(II) nitrate, lead(II) acetate is the only other common soluble lead compound. Nearly all other lead compounds are insoluble in water, even when coupled with commonly very soluble anions" - the fact that most lead(II) compounds are insoluble is already stated in the lead-in, and the solubility of lead(II) acetate seems of peripheral relevance, unless connected to the importance of lead(II) nitrate for metathesis reactions given there are comparatively few alternatives. Further, lead(II) chloride has an appreciable solubility at RT (unlike the article implies), and the crystal formation characteristics of lead(II) halides seem irrelevant to the aqueous chemistry of lead(II) nitrate - and isn't 'can be beautiful' a judgement, as opposed to a more factual 'have been described as beautiful [ref]'. In the final part of this section, the concentrations of the added hydroxide are irrelevant to the chemistry being discussed, and should be removed - the same chemistry would occur with other concentrations. There should also be no 'surprisingly', as this begs the question of 'to whom?'. Simple statements "Lead(II) nitrate solutions form basic nitrates when hydoxide solutions are added. The mixed salt Pb(NO3)2.Pb(OH)2 predominates to the half-equivalence point, with Pb(NO3)2.5Pb(OH)2 then formed until well past the equivalence point. No simple Pb(OH)2 is formed until the pH exceeds 12." are sufficient.
    • Done as recommended: removed repetitive text, toned down solubility stated, added additional details, removed judgmentalw words, replaced with the objective use of the effect, removed irrelevant numerical data, rm vague words. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Some good changes, but some bits not done: Firstly, as I wrote, "The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO3)2 solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution." This raises two points: (1) I am uncomfortable with neutral species equations such as the one used in this case - they mislead students by obscuring the chemical process occurring. Both this fact, and my point about colour, could be avoided if a net ionic equation were used: Pb2+(aq) + 2I−(aq) → PbI2(s). Has there been discussion about using such equations? If there is already a wiki-consensus, then I'll defer to it, but equations like this one should IMO be discouraged. (2) The statement about the similar reaction on grinding in a motar and pestle - how about adding a comment that the resulting colour is much paler, due to the presence of white solids in the resulting mixture? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) and (2): Done as recommended. There is no consensus on how reactions are written, but your accuracy on this specific one is appreciated. Other context may, however, lead to different outcome, e.g., when the solids are reacting. But that is a beside, better discussed in WP:CHEMS. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I also commented that "The links in the formula Pb(NO3)2 go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions." If there is no lead(II) ion page, I suggest no link at all - having a link to the element page for lead is misleading, as that is not what the formula means. If a lead link is maintained, then shouldn't the nitrate link actually be a nitrogen link and an oxygen link? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are different views (see talkpages/archives of WP:CHEMS) on wikilinking formulas and reactions. My personal view is not to obscure reactions with wikilinks that (as you point out) might even direct you wrongly. So with pleasure, I added this extra adjusted to the same sections. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I have followed advice (below) and boldly made some changes to this section of the article, presenting the chemistry in a way I believe is now accurate. Any comment? EdChem (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crystal structure section asserts "All N–O bond lengths are identical, at 125 picometre", but the bond length is given as 127 pm in the supplementary data.
    • Decrepitation part needs change. Article states "When heated, lead(II) nitrate decomposes to lead(II) oxide, dioxygen and nitrogen dioxide, accompanied by a crackling noise referred to as decrepitation. But, linked wikipedia page for decrepitation states "Decrepitation is the breaking of a substance usually accompanied by the emission of a crackling sound". Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what 'breaking of a substance' means, it isn't clear whether decrepitation is the sound or the 'breaking'.
    • Preparation section: not sure what 'chemically' is doing at the start of "Chemically, the compound can be obtained ...". Later, it is not clear why the low solubility of lead(II) nitrate in nitric acid means that the anhydrous crystal is necessarily obtained, rather than a hydrate.
    • Applications re-states thermal decomposition equation (redundant), and asserts it allows for 'pure' dinitrogen tetroxide, which is a nonsense given its equilibrium with its monomer - an equilibrium stated in the article! Further, NO2 / N2O4 mixtures undergo photochemical processes - such systems, when cooled, produce a blue liquid (dinitrogen trioxide), for example.
    • Also, "Due to the toxic nature of lead(II) nitrate, it has limited industrial application" is questionable as there are plenty of industrial compounds which are much more toxic. Perhaps this means to say that lead toxicity to humans means there is a preference for using alternatives, but that isn't what is actually written.
    I could probably go on, but I hope this provides enough to make the point that FA is not presently justified, and to indicate some areas for improvement, separate from those previously raised. Please note that this is not intended to be critical of those who have worked on the article to date, but that there is room for further improvement. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your contribution, and for making your first ever edits under this user name to place your point of view in this discussion. Feel free to join us at WP:CHEMS if you wish to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia articles about chemical compounds. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I definitely frown upon commenting negatively under a sock puppet account, I have taken your recommendations seriously, and enhanced the article in line with your recommendations, or even as recommended. Most issues you brought forward were, in my humble opinion, not major blocks against FA status, but indeed are appreciated improvement recommendations. Please be invited to add more to wikipedia, per Physchim62, especially here with lifting your Opposition, or otherwise pointing out which issue would otherwise still prevent re-promotion of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wim van Dorst, as I have only one account, and have only just dipped my toe into the wikipedia editing pool, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet account. I started with a chemical topic as I felt that I was on safe ground (knowledge wise). Instead of just jumping in and changing things I consider chemically wrong, I voiced suggestions. Believe me when I say that I am not trying to rain on your parade of pushing this article back to FA status - to me, this article had a variety of small flaws and inaccuracies. It is, in my opinion, getting better; however, I will not remove my 'oppose' just because you want me to; I will do so when I believe that a change in position is warranted. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typically, a new user starts with editing an article in a small way, not by commenting on FA candidates. However, your recommendations were (as pointed out) appreciated. So keep going until convinced of FA-quality yourself. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I guess I did start with a jump into an unusual place - but it was this discussion that moved me from just using Wikipedia to actually editing. FYI, I did feel bitten (or at least nibbled), and that you were trying to force me to remove opposition. I think we are now working well together, so I'm just adding this so you are aware how I felt - whether you choose to give that any thought is your choice, of course. Anyway, I'm now changing to 'weak oppose' as I think it is nearly there, and I'm going to try a bit more boldness. EdChem (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments As prompted by nominator, here are a few comments (beware, I'm far from being an expert in chemistry). I'll maybe add more comments afterwards.
    • Can we have a 3D visualization of the mocule?
    • Why is "probably carcinogenic to humans" in italic?
    • Can we have a picture, for example, of the "precipitate of the bright orange-yellow lead(II) iodide"? That would be nice.
    • The link "lead oxide" needs disambig.
    • Should 27 picometre and 127 picometre be in plural?
    • I think a citation is needed for "Because of this property, lead nitrate is sometimes used in pyrotechnics such as fireworks."
    • You talk about taste in the article, why not put it in the property box?
    • Sometimes you use abbreviations and sometimes not (25kg, 100 gram).
    • Maybe be more specific when saying "in classrooms". Universities?, highschools?, all over the world?
    • Shouldn't "mole/l" be "mol/l"?

    Randomblue (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Randomblue, some good comments. FYI, a 3D visualisation isn't possible as lead(II) nitrate isn't a molecular material - it is ionic, and hence represented by a crystal structure such as the one included in the page. The picometre question really points to the inconsistency of unit usage - these should be pm. But, you're right, if spelled out, they should be pluralised. On the "mole/l", you are correct that the abbreviation "mol" should be used, but this drew another point to my notice - we have g•mol−1 for molar mass but g/cm3 for density - shouldn't we be consistent and use g•cm−3? PS: This is another argument for 'L' not 'l', as it allows for mol•L−1. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional to EdChem's comment:
    • 'probably...' is italic, as it is a formal category as defined by the IARC. It needs standing out, so it either italic or quotes.
    • The picture of PbI2 would go to the article of PbI2, not here.
    • Plurals of units should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. Corrected.
    • Citation is added
    • The format of the Chembox is strictly defined, after due discussion in WP:CHEMS and WP:CHEMBOX. Taste was decided to not be included.
    • Full text should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. 25 kg corrected.
    • Classrooms all over the world, where solubility is being explained, with my personal experience both in high school and in university. It is so striking that is an old-but-goody. I don't how to be more specific than 'classrooms'.
    • Should be mol/l. Corrected. And I implemented the mol/l elsewhere, too, to make units usage consistent. (ps. when used, it should be &middot; (·), not &bull (•).)
    Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support An already very good article has improved significantly. I still don't think the concerns about comprehensiveness are addressable, as there is no evidence that the information requested actually exists in a way that we could use. Some of it may be trade secrets, or be buried in primary sources such as patents or financial reports. As an example, while trying to find more info on production, I found some old patents, but there's no way of using them without risk of OR. For example, there's no way of finding out whether the methods described in the patents are actually used in the present, unless an industry insider tells us... Would anyone call the Coca-Cola article non-comprehensive because it didn't include the secret recipe? ;-) --Itub (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up "Each month, thousands of tonnes of lead nitrate solution are produced and shipped by tank trucks throughout Europe." - from (already a reference) Product catalog; other products. Sidech. Retrieved on 2008-01-0 - ... this seems to speak to a rather great use of this product - I would like this article to be comprehensive in terms of this. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the nominator in regards to this.--Kiyarrllston 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remark on the website had caught my eye too, but it did not give me a reliable impression: world's leading bismuth producer with a production of 1200 tpa stating that a hazardous by-product amounts to tens of thousands of tonnes per year? Therefore I personally contacted the responsible marketing manager of Sidech, asking for more details, both on the production process (if there is one) and on the amounts mentioned on the website. As this website is the only one I could find suggesting anything else than 25kg bags, I thought it worthwhile to follow-up. Didn't get an answer to my email yet, but will act on its outcome. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Thanks as ever to Wim for his perseverance (and expertise) in getting to the bottom of industrial chemical matters. To put this supplier's claims into perspective, I have found one statistic (Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.): in 1974, the U.S. consumption of lead compounds (excluding pigments and gasoline additives) was 642 tonnes. It's an old statistic, to be sure, but it doesn't really fit well with "thousands of tonnes per month" of lead nitrate being shipped across Europe: if anything, consumption of lead compounds has dropped over the last thirty years, not risen! Physchim62 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree the article have been greatly improved, it is a lot of work done there. According to this site "Sinosale" it is possible to order "woven bags , 25kgs , 1000kgs , 1100kgs net each or according to the user¡¯s requirements ." I don't know how serious this site is, since they also sell caps and stuff, and I have not tried to order. It is some minor issues:
    • The article doesn't tell whether it occours naturally or not.
    • Use for pyrotechnics should be mentioned under applications.
    Another exempel of an article that is good written, but don't meet the FA criterias because it is not enough available reliable sources, is Ununoctium. This article could be compared to that one, but I'm pretty sure it is even more difficult to get good sources at the other article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sinosale website is exactly one of the abovementioned Indian and Chinese chemicals supplier where things on offer are not necessarily realistic. One shouldn't be surprised to learn that filling a 1000 kg bag is actually being done by emptying forty 25kg bags into it.
    • Both edit recommendations are now included in the text
    • The Ununoction article is interesting, but that one isn't at FAC. I agree it will be hard to improve that article to FA level. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • PS. No feedback from Sidech yet. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Follow up Wim van Dorst, another query: When talking about the lead halides, the article states "these crystals appear suddenly, when the solutions dip below the recrystallisation temperature". Recrystallisation temperature seems wrong to me - it is a term I have only seen used in relation to metals and alloys, not cases like this. Would you please provide further comment, or consider a change to something like "... suddenly, requiring only a nucleation site once the temperature of the solution has fallen sufficiently for the solution to be supersaturated"? EdChem (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please check formatting on crystal structure and complexation headings - they display in a way that seems out of place on my browser, given the location of the image of the srystal structure. EdChem (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks. Following all of the work that has been done, I am now comfortable with the content of the article, and am changing my position to Support. I have modified the start of my initial comment to reflect this fact. EdChem (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. The article has good information; however, the prose does not stand out as "brilliant." Also, the article is somewhat on the short side, with several short paragraphs. Perhaps the lead could use some inline citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you would be so kind as to point out which prose isn't up to your expectation of brilliance, then the remark would be addressable. The article is indeed smaller than the current trend to make article well over 50k. Since the subject is a small subject, the size of the article is intentional. And according to wikipedia standards, a lead text does not have citations, unless the subject is controversional. The intention of the lead is to give a summary of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Copy-edited the lead again, to be a good summary of the article, which has changed since the beginning of this FAC. Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Much improved since the FAR. My support will have to be a weak one as I know nothing of the chemistry. On the History and Safety issues, it seems to meet 1B. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak support if the following are improved:
    • referencing information in the infobox like names, solubilities, densities, crystalline structure
    • add thermodinamical data to infobox: including enthalpy of formation
    • melting point in the infobox reads "470 °C (Decomposes above 290 °C)" at least a note describing what id decomposes it into, and how was the 470 found out (maybe under high pressure?)
    • sabout production:add selling price, and how much of the lead consumption goes through the nitrate; also explain why is it advantageous to synthesize and distribute lead through the nitrate as opposed to other compounds (solubility in water and price?)
    • article has ONLY 1 picture! surely there can be more pictures added, such as in the complexation section, or in the toxicity one
    • aqueous chemistry and appication sections are under-refferenced
    • external links section is a bit long for the length of the article

    Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't say I do agree with you when it comes to referencing in the infobox. It's not added in the FA about different elements. I can't say I see the point of giving up a price for the compound, since it can go up and down. The price is interesting for some elements (gold and platinum f.ex). When it comes to meltingpoint for the compound, I strongly agree it have to fixed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • so how do I know that for example, the names aren't just made up? the comment about the price was more because of a comment in the history section(something like the total workdwide production of lead is x tonnes, implyinig that everything goes through lead nitrate. and I didn't ask for a specific price, but for a very orientative one - more like the order of magnitude)Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nergaal, Grrahnbahr, Thanks for the support and improvement recommendations. Your points: Referencing in the chemical infobox is not standard, and it would definitely mess up the layout. But it is a nice idea, that we should discuss in the WP:CHEMS (the defining wikiproject). Most items, such as the names that you mention, are explicitly referenced in the text body. --- The thermodynamic information (and similar advanced information) is by definition of the chembox part of a secondary datapage. And EdChem added that info a week ago. --- Pictures are a nice addition: the article has two, btw. Other encyclopedic pictures I haven't found, and simply for illustration is not correct (see WP:Images, section 5.1). --- Also the length of a particular section is in itself not negative, is it? I moved several of these links to their proper places are references. --- And I added a good reference (Thanks dr Walker) to the aqueous chem section. --- Pricing is typical for laboratory chemicals: 100 to 1000 dollar per container (100-2500 g) and variations thereof (simply googled that). This isn't a commodity product with a global market, so I agree with Grahnbahr that adding this kind of info to this article is not helpful. --- The melting information is indeed doubtful, although often published. Old publications indicate only decomposition about 470 °C (often copied into the 'melting point field') and recent references also show decomposition (sometimes 'flash point') at 290 °C. I made the article show no melting point, and a range of decomposition at 290-470. So I think all you requested points have been implemented or otherwise addressed. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Since the reaction with iodide is discussed more or less extensively and the reaction is visually attractive, perhaps a picture such as [30] would be nice to have (of course, a free version would have to be found). However, I don't see this as a requirement. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (contributor) I think the article covers the material as comprehensively as is possible from normal library sources. I have searched several databases of millions of articles, and found only a handful of relevant ones (which have been included). Regarding length, this is a narrow topic, rather like Jordanhill railway station, so it should be short and sweet! Walkerma (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Chiffchaff

    [edit]
    • Opposenow Support but not far off. Could do with some inexpert copyediting. As an example, I found this sentence near the top of the article, where only the last word is wikilinked... "The spring adult of the western nominate subspecies collybita has brown-washed dull green upperparts, off-white underparts becoming yellowish on the flanks, and a short whitish supercilium" I'd suggest wikilinking or better explaining all of the words I've bolded. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     DoneI've linked nominate, primary projection and several others now, Jimfbleak (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than that which you've fixed, I'm having trouble finding what I had trouble with, so either it's fixed, or I imagined it, so switched to support. --Dweller (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to get a range map, lack the skills myself. I thought the spectrogram illustrated the differences between the subspecies' calls - I'll leave for now, remove if generally felt to be unhelpful. I don't know how to do graphs from non-numerically generated analogue data, any pointers please? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure advanced sound analysis programs could generate them but those cost money, need to be learned etc. I guess it wasn't to smart of me to suggest that you go through all that trouble. I apologize. Nevertheless I still don't see the merits of including it despite it being a nice trivial knowledge. The problem is I fail to see too many people in need or interest of such information. That is my opinion, I would ask you to not remove it unless your fellow WP:BIRD wikipedians would want to see it removed. If it isn't hurting anyone why bother stressing over it? Thanks, 206.248.183.187 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done range map added, hopefully it will be replaced by one more competently made. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Nearly there very very close but a couple of grammar thingies:
    primary projection - need to link or explain.  Done - actually already linked on first occurrence, explained too now

    confusion species - agh. sounds...funny. I know what you mean but it is an unnatural construction to me ears. How about changing The most likely confusion species are the... to "Species most likely to be confused (with the chiffchaff) are the "  Done - rephrased
    but has a very plain face and green in the wings - could lose the 'very' I think  Done

    Other than that I think it's pretty well there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Nearly, nearly there Comments – Another good bird article from Jimfbleak. However, I have a couple of points I’d like to see addressed:
    • Could you split up the first sentence in the lead; it seems a bit run-onish.
    • I sense some POV at the end of the first paragraph of the lead (never thought I’d say that about bird biology :)); “while the male does little more” just sounds weird and judgmental to me.
    • Not necessary if you like it as is, but I’d rearrange the first three sections so that they are 1. Taxonomy 2. Description and 3. Distribution; this would follow other bird FAs and also introduce reader to the different subspecies before they are mentioned in the other two paragraphs.
    • Could you put the abbreviations for genus and species before each subspecies name?
    • In Distribution, is there a word missing from “is not dependent on for trees.”?
    • Do any of the subspecies/former subspecies have unique articles which are not linked to in the article?
    • Breeding second paragraph, why do northern Chiffchaffs only have time to raise one brood (weather?)?
    • You mention a cultural reference in the lead that does not make the article proper.

    Other than this, I think that the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)  Done all above fixed[reply]

    Thanks for making my changes. However, just a few more comments before support. First, though not necessary, I'd move the picture of the Chiffchaff in the Taxonomy down to the Behavior section, as there are no pictures there and its current placement causes a lot of white space on my screen. Also, keeping in mind that this is a songbird and therefore generally isn't the most historically popular bird in the world, are there any cultural references out there? I noticed you deleted the stamp reference, but if it is mentioned in a poem or something that info could work its way back into the article (maybe in the Status section if it is renamed Relationship with Humans.) Also, I noticed that MPF suggested deleting all imperial units and I would just like to comment that I would be vehemently opposed to doing so, seeing how Joe American reading this article (myself included) cannot picture the metric units mean when reading them. And, as you pointed out, they are in all other bird FAs. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Image moved. I can't find any cultural refs for Chiffchaff - it's a small woodland bird, not a familiar garden/farm bird like the Wren, Blackbird or Barn Swallow, and there's nothing in Cocker (the best source for birds that occur in the UK), nothing I could find on the net. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Great job with this article. I supported above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
    • Map - I'll do an improved version sometime soon.
    Thanks
    Working on it, should be done later today unless anything else intervenes - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished breeding range, just got to fill in winter range now. Found this interesting short paper while looking for up-to-date info on Sweden (to see if the range gap between collybita and abietinus has filled in yet): pdf file, might be worth citing in the article - MPF (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Map done and added - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a better pic of the nominate race that can be put in the taxobox?
    Unfortunately not (Not on commons or anywhere esle I can find
    • Subspecies could do with a bit more detail on identification/differentiation.
    I've done a bit more wrt P. c. abietinus, I'll go through again - I don't want to get too bogged down in fine detail (I've got masses of data on description, esp for the ex-subspecies).  Done, expanded all of them esp voice
    • Minor trivia about depiction on stamp could be deleted or at least moved to bottom of page; it is one of the least important factoids on the page and doesn't deserve pride of place as the first referenced item at the top of the page.
     Done Deleted
    • I don't think Goshawk (2nd paragraph) is a significant predator, if it is, it needs a ref; this sentence also duplicates the Predation section lower down the page.
     Done I've changed changed it to the more general "hawk", since it is likely (but I can't source it) that small accipiters other than Sparrowhawk will take the species.
    • Excessive repetition of article title: it isn't necessary to repeat the name of the species ("the Chiffchaff is ...") every second sentence throughout the page. Use indefinite article ("it is ...") more.
     Done I've chopped to about one per para
    • Cut imperial conversions, they're not necessary for a science topic and only clutter up the page and make it hard to read the measurements.
    I'm a bit wary about this, since I've had other bird GA/FA reviewers insisting they are in. Can you point me to the relevant MoS guidance to take them out? Also see R-c Sparrow's comment above
    WP:Mosnum#Conversions - "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Metric units are the international global standard, and as such it is reasonable to assume that everyone is familiar with them, including people in the USA where the it is taught in all schools and extensively (almost universally) used in US science publications. Anyone who isn't familiar with them must clearly have made a conscious effort to reject them. Sorry, but I really don't think the comment above is enough! I don't see the relevance of imperial units to this article at all; nor do I see why the vast majority should be inconvenienced to satisfy the pov of a small minority who reject global standards which are very easily learnt. We don't carry creationist pov in science topics; I don't see why we should carry imperialist pov, either. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst, as a Brit, I sympathise with this view, I'm not sure that there is a consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units even within the Bird Porject as required by the MoS guidance above Jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'd hope to achieve by raising the matter; I find the bracketed conversions very significantly affect readability. Is there a way they could be added less obtrusively, such as footnotes at the bottom of the page? - MPF (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, they don't bother me at all. This is the first time I can recall the argument to remove them on bio pages. Maybe nice to get some other input here. I'm happy to go with consensus, whatever that is.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that Wikiproject birds is a more appropriate forum for this debate than FAC; I'm just following the guidelines as I perceive they currently stand, and I don't see consensus at the project at present. If you intend to oppose the FA on this issue, that's unfortunate, but there is little I can do about it. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jimfbleak that another page would be more appropriate to debate this than a FAC, but let me just say first that in American schools we are taught metric units and the basics of conversion, but we never really use them outside of school. Our scales are in pounds, our height is measured in feet, and we judge miles per hour and per gallon, not kilometers. Wikipedia's goal is to communicate encyclopedic information clearly to as many people as possible, and I think that myself and the majority of the 301 million Americans would relate to imperial units much better than metric, which some, particularly older ones who were not taught it in school, may not even recognize. As for the vast majority being inconvenienced by the inclusion of imperial, I believe that, going by the top 5 English speaking nations, there are 301 million Americans to a combined 115 million Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and Canadians. And to mimic Casliber, I just don't see how the conversions affect readability. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "301 million Americans" - none of them within the range of the species under discussion. That is an awful imposition to demand of a topic of no relevance to them. And you're forgetting 1,000 million Indians, 300 million Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, 300 million Africans, and something like 500-1,000 million other eastern Asian people who use English as a second language, all of them exclusively metric users, and most of them within the range of the species at hand. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you suggesting that because this bird is not normally found in America, Americans do not need to be able to understand the article? And how are a few parentheses an "awful imposition"? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all! You're doing down the intelligence and comprehension of your countrymen there. As already mentioned, U.S. scientific publications all use metric measures exclusively; you won't find imperial measures in e.g. The Auk. And also as mentioned, it is reasonable to expect everyone to be familiar with global standards; if anyone isn't, then learn them, they're an essential part of common knowledge (and were specifically designed to be very easy to learn and use, so no excuses there!). What you are saying is more comparable to e.g. if I insisted that all U.S.-related topics on wikipedia must carry British English spellings in parenthesis after the U.S. spellings, just because a few British people may not understand (or, more accurately, may not wish to understand) U.S. spellings. And we don't do that.
    As to the location of this discussion, yes, it would be better on the project page. Shall I copy or move it all across there? Or anyone else, feel free to do so. - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved discussion for continuation to here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps one should use conversion templates and hope that the future wikimedia software will interpret templates to show per user taste / setting. Shyamal (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spellcheck: needs checking over to BrE (per wp:engvar), e.g. "vocalisations" and "vocalizations" appear in successive paragraphs.
     Done
     Done
    I disagree - etymology clearly belongs as a subheading of taxonomy (i.e. how things are named), though it is ok as a separate subheading. Also note FA criterion 2(b) concerning Hierarchy of headings, where groups of related material are grouped together. Anyway, that's how all other biological FAs have ended up cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    London congestion charge

    [edit]


    Nominated: I am nominating this article on which several editors have worked on recently to bring it back up to FA standard. I believe it is comprehensive, well written and fully referenced. Regan123 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm counting 3 dead links. The Lead needs to kick off with the significance rather than price and time details. But, on first read I like it.--Docg 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - Thanks for the comment. Can't do anything about the red links at the moment - is this part of the FA criteria? What we have done is explain briefly what they mean where an article doesn't yet exist. Regan123 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK.  Doing... Regan123 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)  Done All links fixed. --Regan123 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that there is anything particularly requiring a reference in the lead that isn't ref'd in the main article. What are thinking is controversial in there that requires a reference? Regan123 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just a suggestion after seeing many FAs. It is sometimes seen that if the lead is not referenced that the article is not reffed enough but then there are many FAs without references at the start. Simply south (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been beaten to death at WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section. There is no absolute requirement for citations in the lead, except in some exceptional circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, though I'd like to see something done about the "failing to meet predictions" line - either cited or removed. Will (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Regan123 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, then. Will (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Regan123 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional support—on the understanding that the overlinking will be addressed (MOS breach): words such as "Christmas", "buses", "taxis", "police officer", "public transport"—why not link every single word in the article? We do speak English, and don't want the high-value links diluted by ugly splotches of blue. Tony (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. I've delinked Christmas as I can see that one, but as these are specifically excluded vehicles, I would suggest that those links should remain as they are defined things within the regulations around the scheme. I know we've been keen to keep the links down to one for each item. Certainly if it is a deal breaker, then they will go, but I just want to be sure it is vital - I feel they are of some worth. Regan123 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Links work on the basis of someone reading one article sees a reference to something and think "hey, it would be useful for me to know more about that" - thus links to bog standard items are always superflous. If the link were to Buses in London or or Metropolitan Police Service, that would be fine - but a link to bus or taxi or any generic item not specific the the topic should be removed.--Docg 12:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I'll see if there is a specific link otherwise I will remove them. Thanks for the feedback, Regan123 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I've removed some general links and changed the piped link for others. Is there anything else you can see? Regan123 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Regan123 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional support Good article, generally well written and covering a complicated topic thoroughly:
    • Suggest that the redlinks should be taken out until there's something on the other end.
    • It definitely needs a map showing the original zone and the expanded zone.
    • The first sentences of the Income and costs section could use some work as they are confusing. The sentence in the bracket seems to be trying to provide too much information in one hit and does not seem to offer any figures that may actually be compared usefully with the net income - what is the net income for TfL from other sources?
    • Some comment on the implications of the 30-year bond issue on TfL's future finances might be interesting, for example:
      • What happens if the charge income is too low to service the interest?
      • What happens if the charge is abolished?
    --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Joseph Johnson (publisher)

    [edit]

    This article is about an important eighteenth-century publisher. WillowW and I have been working on it for a few months now. I'm pretty sure we've tracked down all of the reliable sources that have anything significant to say about Johnson and we think that the article meets the FA criteria. We look forward to hearing the thoughtful comments of the reviewers. Awadewit | talk 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • First para, the sentence "His publications, which, in the words of his principal biographer emphasized "innovation and experimentation" and "the exotic rather than the domestic", covered a wide variety of genres and a broad spectrum of opinions on important issues." sent me into a spin. Something wrong with the commas there - one too many, or one too few, or just too much for one sentence to cope with.
    • I agree that there's nothing technically wrong with them, but a set of em/en dashes might be useful to help the reader break down which items are grouped together: His publications – which, in the words of his principal biographer, emphasized "innovation and experimentation" and "the exotic rather than the domestic" – covered a wide variety of genres and a broad spectrum of opinions on important issues. ? (Note I would add another comma after "biographer".) – Scartol • Tok 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the comma I thought was missing Scartol, the one after "biographer". To me, and at first glance, the comma after "which," looks like the start of a parenthetical, so I was looking for the closing comma...and it didn't come. It's understandable, certainly, but not as readily so as it could be. Although Awadewit's already changed it anyway. Carre (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Formative friendships", the quotation ""had already acquired the character which he retained during life,—that of a man of great integrity, and encourager of literary men as far as his means extended, and an excellent judge of their productions"": the comma and emdash together like that looks odd; is that a typo, or is it in the source?
    • <wince> dashes, sorry... spaced emdashes in "Informative texts" and also "Medical and scientific publications" - deliberate, or just missed em?
    • Probably not actionable, but the tables at the end don't line up at the top for me. Looks a little odd, that's all.

    That's all for now. Carre (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I did a peer review of this dealie. Awadewit and Willow have been working on it for some time now – what more can I say? I expect there will come a time when they can just give proof of a certain number of edits to an article and it will automatically pass FA. =) Seriously, though, this article is well-written, comprehensive, etc etc. Wikipedia is lucky to have them on board. – Scartol • Tok 12:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks muchly for the support and the compliment thingy, Scartol! ;) But I'm worried that we'll have to start editing anonymously so that our articles get judged impartially; we shouldn't be deprived of honest critique that might improve the article. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what the peer review is for. Oh, you mean from other people. Yeah, okay. – Scartol • Tok 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support The quotes really help to illuminate the article. If I knew more, or were a living opponent of Johnson's, perhaps I would raise issues with certain interpretations of publisher Joseph Johnson's life but as a general reader it was a joy and an education. I have only two comments:

    • An early nineteenth-century biography states that "Mr. Johnson was now so well known, and had been so highly respected, that on this unfortunate occasion, his friends with one accord met, and contributed to enable him to begin business again". It looks like you quoted a complete sentence, so then shouldn't the period go inside the quotes? Or is it actually a sentence fragment.
    • The quote by Maria Edgeworth in the Legacy section could be dated, and maybe the circumstances of it described or some such description.

    Not a request, but I'm selfishly hoping that after the Analytical Review reaches FA that you two might work on the Anti-Jacobin Review, which seems interesting. Anyways, great article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I should note that I haven't read the entire article, but I still have a few comments.
    • I made one edit earlier here, but i am a little puzzled as to why it's Samuel Galton's and not just Samuel Galton? Also what Samuel Galton are we talking about? The link is to a disambiguation page.
    • In the 1760's he seems to be quite successful on his own, but still decides to start a partnership with John Payne. Why?
    • Johnson lost authors after the trial and published only 80 books in 1799, the lowest number of his career - 80 books is the lowest number of his career but he averaged around 20 to 30 new books per year. Somethings not right?
    • That is right. As it explains in "Publishing statistics", about half of Johnson's output was pamphlets and many were reprints, meaning they were not new. He would also have published books that were not new. So, in 1799, he published 80 books, but not all of those would have been new. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wait, I get it. Unfortunately the sources are not as precise as we could wish. I have made the first sentence vaguer (a noticeable decline in business) and added "according to Chard" in front of the "Publishing statistics" section so that it is clear that the material is from his/her work. Awadewit | talk 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense.....Of course if I wanted to be picky, I could say that it seems doubtful that he published 80 new books in his first year of publishing, and therefore it is still wrong that the 80 books in 1799 was the lowest of his career. But that is probably being too picky. --Peter Andersen (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say he published 80 new books in his first year of publishing? Awadewit | talk 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of course happy to Support (Also good luck with Analytical Review)--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I might take a look at it tomorrow, although I am hesitant to step into that can of worms/hornet's nest (or whatever is a good English expression)--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your reluctance, but the more calm discussions that are going on there, the better. You don't have to enter the already on-going dispute, you can just register your own opinion regarding the article. Awadewit | talk 23:07, 13 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Treehouse of Horror (series)

    [edit]
    previous FAC withdrawn

    I feel that the article meets the current FAC criteria. It is fully sourced and has improved quite a bit since the last nom. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the point of this to make THOH a featured topic? Ribbet32 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran2 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Let's just discuss one WP:FAC at a time, topic drive discussions can take place at the relevant WikiProject or topic drive pages. As for that potential idea, it's nice for this topic and could work, but I agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs) that this is probably something that is a long ways off. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support. Very well sourced, well-written. Just one thing, you might want to create a disambiguation page for Treehouse of Horror (moving Treehouse of Horror to Treehouse of Horror (episode)), and add the relevant see also links and such to that page, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of this article and the other articles. Would be easier for those not familiar with Wikipedia navigation. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm unsure whether it is "very well sourced. Ref 53 led me to a glitzy, tiny black-background lewdly formatted commercial-soaked site where the reviewer, one Dan Iverson, has written things such as: "Plus this sketch was too outright with its satire of the war in Iraq. We understand the purpose of satirizing the state of the war, but they wrote it so heavy-handed that it was like they were ...". The prose is amateurish, it appears to be very opinionated (do we really trust his judgement that the satire was "outright", whatever that means?), and the statement in the WP article this is used to back up—well, it's that the standard of the later episodes declined. I'm not sure I believe it from this reference. 1c Tony (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • IGN is a very useful site and is known for their reviews. Just because this one happens to be poorly written is not our fault. The reason it is used as a source is because of this quote: "Unfortunately like the past few years, this Treehouse episode isn't up to the quality that was started so many years back - if you need proof, just look at the sketches that we compiled on our list of the Top 10 Segments from The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror." -- Scorpion0422 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejoinder: well, you assert that it's "very useful", but the quality of the prose does detract from its credibility. It's that and the fact it contains several highly opinionated, possibly contentious statements that are neither referenced (I guess I wouldn't expect that), nor supported by example or a more detailed argument. My problem is that by using a dodgy source, even one that is "known for their reviews" (among whom, I wonder), WP can be endorsing what might turn out to be falsehoods, or assumptions that are later overturned. It's a slippery slope. All I'm asking is that you re-examine your references to ensure that they are worth inserting and do reliably support the apposite statements. Tony (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did google searches of several different reliable sources, and I can't find anything other than reviews of individual episodes that say that specific episode is no good, but nothing that mentions the decline of the entire group. I think the quality decline should be noted as most fans will tell you that the last 9 are nowhere near as good as the first 9. IGN is a reliable source and it's reviews are used on several FAs, and it's really not our fault that this particular review happens to not be perfectly written. It's still a reliable source, and the decline in quality really isn't just the POV of one reviewer. -- Scorpion0422 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- "Considered non-canon, they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show and completely abandon any pretense of being realistic." -- Forgive me if I missed something, but it appears that this info is only stated in the Lead/Intro, and not later in the article. Though this may seem obvious to Simpsons fans, is there a source backing this up? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Comment Looks good. 1a seem to be the only issue.

    • "There are currently 18" isn't as of 2007 better?  Done
    • "category, but it ultimately lost." why ultimately?
      • because ultimately lost sounds better.
    • "four parts: an opening and Halloween-themed version of the credits as well as three segments" what is the diffrence between a part and a segments.
      • I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
        • Why is the opening a "part" while the other three are "segments"? Buc (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The opening is not described as a part. They are just described as parts for that segment, because it is important to explain that there are four completely distinct parts to the episodes.
    • "The wraparounds were abandoned after a few years because eventually, the amount of airtime for an episode was lessened and there was not enough room for them." Awkward wording. Don't like the use of abandoned, eventually, lessened and room.  Done
    • Traits might be a better section title than Traditions
      • The producers on the commentary refer to them as traditions, so that's the word the article uses.
        • Need to say this then. Buc (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, not really, a trait is more of a characteristic of something, while as a tradition is a conscious effort to bring something back every year, so I think tradition fits better.
    • "opens with a special introductory segment" why special? also now it's a segment but before it was a part.
    • "Scary names" why a quotation marks and isn't "Credits" a better title.
      • No, because they are referred to as "scary names" by the producers and the reason it is in quotations is because it is a rather loose description (very few are actually scary) and itindicates that it is not the official name.
    • ""Treehouse of Horror V" is considered the best episode by several critics" needs ref.
      • Further on down the sentence, there are several specific examples, all of which have citations.
    • The bit about the IGN list seem a bit redundent. All it's saying is there was a top ten and this is what it was.
    • Over linking of the individual episodes thoughout I think.
      • They are linked so as to help remind people what episode it each example is talking about. All of them are similarily titled and it would be difficult for non-fans to know specifically what episode is being described, so if people say "which one is Treehouse of Horror VI?", there is a link right there and they don't have to search the article.
    • In the Awards section. Put the stuff about awards they've won before the stuff about nominations.
      • The Emmys go first, because they are the most major award for television programs.
    • Also in the Awards section lose the stuff about them not winning. Clearly if it's saying they were only nominated they didn't win it.  Done
    • "However, the award went to an episode of Pinky & The Brain." nothing to do with the Treehouse of Horror series.
      • It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • A better when to information people of related info is through links to other articles. In this case this link would work.

    Support - I looked over it, and it's very well written and referenced. Good job! xihix(talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments. Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes are needed. I'm a little concerned with the sourcing of the DVD commentaries; are there transcripts available online? A fair use rationale is needed for each image, each time it is used in each article. I'm a little concerned with two screenshot images (the top one and the one of Bart and Lisa in the treehouse), as they seem to be decoration. From the Fair use page for acceptable images, Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. However, they don't seem to fit that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very encyclopedic and informative :) --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - It's about time! (SUDUSER)85 14:08, 17 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    1988 Atlantic hurricane season

    [edit]
    Dead links have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    all the external links work, it was the first thing i did. I couldnt work out how to mark them as working. Seddon69 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its cookie issue. I haven't written code for this case, its going to be a while since I'm re-engineering the file formats. —Dispenser (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, thanks for letting us know, Dispenser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edited mostly by User:Good kitty, I'm nominating this article for featured article because i believe it meets all featured article criteria. It is well sourced with over 60 sources, is a stable article, has articles for all storms in the season including track maps for all named storms and satellite imagery for all storms. Seddon69 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article needs non-breaking units. Some more prose for the ACE section might be good (there's some blank space). Given that there's a link to the NHC preliminary reports on the bottom, I don't think you need a link to each one in each section. Also, the rolling lists should perhaps be avoided, as I got a comment on it. Overall, it looks good, so I'll give it a conditional support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you need metric units. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I'd like to see added would be the inclusion of the NHC forecast verification, which, as shown here, were the lowest back to 1970 and were lower than the subsequent 7 years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should that be put in with the season summary? Seddon69 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you make a season summary, that'd be a good place for it, yea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And more info on TD15. Other than that, almost support just a couple more things. Juliancolton (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO Tropical Depression 15 doesnt need it because:
    a) It was only a tropical depression so nothing much really happened anyway.
    b) It was only active for a day so it didnt have much time to do anything.
    c) It was in the middle of the ocean, didnt make landfall and as far as i can find out it didnt affect any ships Seddon69 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comments. Overall, the writing appears to be very good. I have some concerns with the layout, however.

      • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. There is some information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. For example, the dates of the hurricane season and the fact that the first storm developed before that should be included in the article body.
      • All of the images are currently right-aligned. Could some of them be moved to the left to vary things up a bit?
      • Why are there external links in each section? These should either be relegated to an external links area at the bottom of the article or (preferably) be left on the main article for each hurricane and not be included in this article.
      • The storm names section needs work. Is it really necessary to duplicate the list of names that were used? Instead, could the section list only the unused names? Also, the retirement subsection is too small to be a section of its own. It should be added into the Names section.
      • The ACE section shuould be fleshed out more. There is information in the ACE article that talks about this season being above normal, and that is not mentioned in the article. Also, the source needs to be fixed. You should not be linking to a wikipedia talk page.

    Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have been acceptable in previous hurricane season FAC's so would a similar season summary suffice?
      • The images that are in the infoboxes are pretty much the same in all previous FAC's that have been hurricane articles due to it being part of the template and the only major exception being the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which is pretty much a season of its own class, but this season does not really warrant that in my opinion. If its absolutely necessary then i suppose images used in some of the main articles could be used with the respective storms or possibly one in the season summary section proposed above.
      • With the external links, i agree, they can all be removed from the storm sections. A link to the NHC archives will be put at the bottom in place of these links.
      • With regards to the ACE section, the source for the data is from the preliminary reports (now called tropical cyclone reports) so i shall create a link to there as done in other season FAC's. I will also add any extra information i can find. Including the statement about it being above average.
      • The names are there as a complete list as this is how they are found in all publications of this list and there are people interested in the names for a season and its better having the list as a whole rather than people having to try and piece it together. Seddon69 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea of a season summary as the first section. You could then incorporate the Storm names section into that (with the full list of names, as they wouldn't have been mentioned already). That would take care of several of my concerns all at once! Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the idea of removing the storm names section. We have that format for every tropical cyclone season article, and I don't like the idea of changing this one. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's nearly there, but needs cleaning up before promotion.

    • Opening sentence: "The 1988 Atlantic hurricane season was a moderately active season that proved both costly and deadly, with fifteen tropical cyclones directly affecting land." Remove the intensifier "both" and, ironically, it's stronger. "With" is a poor connector: try ", in which 15 tropical ...". Better?
    • My US dictionary says although is better in formal contexts.
    • You know that you don't have to autoformat now? It would look cleaner if you just used US date formats (nice and uncluttered normal text). Then we can be sure that they're all consistent for the 99% of readers who don't have autoformatting. In fact, MOSNUM explicitly mentions not using autoforamatting for ranges (you have "August 8 — August 10", and this is better as "August 8–10". There are others, too, and the en dash must be spaced if the dysfunctional autoformatting is retained.
    • MOS says no hyphen after "-ly".
    • Hyphen can't be an interrupter: see MOS on dashes.
    • "35 mph (55 km/h), Pressure unknown"—why P? Tony (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numerals are preferred by MOS if > nine, unless an "exception". I see "300", but "nineteen" etc, and "destroyed 6 bridges", ouch. Please be consistent.

    These are just samples; please engage someone else to sift through it. Tony (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • lead has been corrected.
    • although used instead of though.
    • Current format adjusted in template to include space. and the capital "P" is used in all hurricane articles including those gone through FAC and is also part of the template.
    • hypehn after "-ly" removed.
    • Hyphen used as interrupter removed
    • Numericals edited so that >9 in numerical form <9 in written form
    Seddon69 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "done" checkmarks to someone else's commentary isn't helpful; this practice requires me to take the time to step back through the diffs and see if the reviewer marked these items done, or if the nominator thinks they're done. Done is "done" when the reviewer strikes or indicates satisfaction. Please don't edit reviewer's comments; replies can be threaded and indented after another editor's remarks, leaving the reviewer's commentary intact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one hyphen after "-ly" was removed; I see another. Has it been properly audited throughout, as I suggested? "less-favorable conditions"—no hyphen. "until it began organizing near 55° W on 19 August." Is "organising" a technical term? If not, it's vague. "thirty" but "160"—where's the boundary between naming and numerals? See MOS. "There were no reports of damage or casualties caused by the storm." In the context, get rid of the last four words, yes? Not happy yet. Tony (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentI believe that this article is now of a standard that it should become FA. The following points that have been brought up but which havn't been dealt with are as follows.

    • More Information on TD15. - The reason this has not been changed is that in 1988 tropical depressions were not covered in great detail in any reports and there is no database for best track information about tropical depressions before 1989.
    • Names section - I believe that the list should remain there for several reasons. Firstly it has never been a problem in previous FAC's that are season articles. Secondly, i feel that the list should remain as a whole as this is how it found in various sources.
    • Left align pictures The images are part of the infobox template, this is something which is standard with season articles including nearly all which have passed FAC. One edit included an image in the season summary but i felt that it did not lie in the text well.

    The following things have been done to this article:

    • Forecast verification included in the season summary.
    • Article lead section now complies with WP:LEAD as the additional information has been included in the season summary.
    • External links in each section have been removed.
    • ACE section has been expanded and sourced.
    • The article has been audited by myself more throughly than previous attempt. It is awaiting copyeditting from the LoC but i feel that it might not be necessary any longer.
    • An additional timeline has also been added to the article.

    If there are still minor problems i would be happy to deal with them. I feel this article meets the requirements of FAC and that there is little that needs to be done now for this to pass other than for people to comfirm my feelings that this article is ready. Seddon69 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Two items stand out at me.

    • The first paragraph in the Tropical Storm Kieth section has no inline references - is it referenced by items in the following paragraph?
    • The other is the source for the ACE rating data is a simple direct external link, this should be changed to a footnote to be consistent with the rest of the article.

    Once these are addressed - I Support'  — master sonT - C 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These 2 issues have been dealt with. Seddon69 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good - Support  — master sonT - C 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I copy-edited the lead and wasn't thrilled with the writing. And ... "Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts like Dr. William M. Gray, and his associates at Colorado State University." Um ... unsure why Gray is foregrounded like this; I'm sure that other h experts might be a little miffed by the favouritism. Am I on the wrong track? PS no comma after "Gray". There are quite a few unnecessary commas throughout. Slight overuse of semicolons. Tony (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to mentioning Gray, he was the scientist who founded pre-season tropical cyclone predictions, and at this time was the only person at this time to author such predictions. He is also the professor heading the department at CSU and has been since the 70's and for these reasons why he is specifically named in this article. However i can try and write a more friendlier version if you require. With regards to the changes you made to the currency in the lead, this will result in confusion as this could be in reference to various currencies, all of which use the dollar in this area but all with different values. The biggest 2 being mexico and the usa, both of which use the $ sign. This is the reasoning for the use of the USD in the lead. I feel its wrong to think that people will assume you are referring to USD. Seddon69 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as nominator This article has now received a second copyedit by an LoC member to remove the aforementioned comma's. I think this article is now at a terrific standard and anything more to be done to the article is so small that the editor who sees the error should be able to do it him/herself without too much time being devoted to it. Seddon69 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A small comment (for the moment, I'm reading and re-reading the article): I see different forms for numbers throughout the article (there's "15" in the lead, and "fourteen" spelled out later for example). This needs to be consistent. CloudNine (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I was aware of that but i left it unchanged for the reasoning that throughout the article i have applied the following rule:
    • 0-9 are all in written form
    • numbers greater than 10 are written numerically except in the following cases: In storm names as the written form is the actual name of the storm, in the season summary section because you have six to fourteen in this section and so i wanted to maintain continuity as much as possible. I felt it was better to use the written form of fourteen as it resulted in fewer anomalies than changing all the 0-9's in this section to digit form. Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All of the problems have been adressed, and it is very good. Juliancolton (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    USS Illinois (BB-65)

    [edit]

    previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)

    With Special permission from Deupty FAC Director SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), this article is being reinstated to the FAC que after the previous nom was closed without any chance for comments on the newly uploaded version of this page. This newer version of the article has addressed some of the previous complaints raised regarding the article's length and content. Comments and suggestions are welcome for this newer version, as are any questions you may have regarding this nom. This is a self nomination, in its current form about 80% of the articles content was written by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First let me start off by saying excellent additions!!!This is more in line with an FA-quality article. It still isn't there, but you've clearly done your homework...speaking of doing your homework, I assume your exams are over? Enough chit-chat, let's get to the meat of the article (I'm not going to hit everything, but I will try to give at least one example of each...realize that you need to check the entire article for these problems).

    :#Excessive wordiness/passive voice/improper number conversions (mind you these are the opening sentences in the body): "The passage of the Second Vison Act in 1939 had cleared the way for construction of the four South Dakota-class fast battleships and the first two Iowa class battleships (those with the hull numbers BB-61 and BB-62).[1] The latter four battleships of the class, those designated with the (hull numbers BB-63, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66) were not cleared for construction until 1940,.[1] and at the time the two battleships with h Hull numbers BB-65 and BB-66 were intended to be originally slated as the first ships of the Montana-class, a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber 16-inch (40cm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns." How did the Second Vison Act "clear" anything? What was the Second Vison Act? Was something else stopping it? These kinds of problems can and should be avoided.

    1. "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
    2. Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
    3. Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
    4. References need some work. You need to include all pertinent information: author, publisher, title, date of publication, date of access (for websites only, not books), page numbers, etc. These all need to be within Wikipedia standards (proper italics, wikified dates for ALL citations, etc).
    5. 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 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61&nbsp;cl.[?]
    6. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 lb.
    7. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
    8. Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    In short, it isn't ready yet. I have no intention of nitpicking and showing every possible problem. Please read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more information.

    I hope that helps in fixing up the article! — BQZip01 — talk 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Don't take criticism of an article so personally. I know I've been somewhat guilty of that in the past too, but try to detach yourself from a piece of work you don't even own.
    2. As a courtesy to you and the other editors, I am reposting what you put on my talk page with regards to the article. Please post such answers here in the future. This is your responsibility, not mine. I have tried to keep your comments as intact as possible while removing extraneous comments not applicable to this FAC. If I misworded something or misquoted, it is entirely by accident.
    • The following stems from a conversation between TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and BQZip01 (talk · contribs) begining on BQZip01's rfa page and extending across both our talk pages. In its original format it was intended to be critical of BQZip01's response to myself (or lack there-of), and was intended as an "if x, then y" argument on the latter's rfa page. Although not a part of this FAC originally, I will concede a point in BQZip01's favor with regards to these comments and there relevancy here, as these to shed light into my mental state regarding this FAC.

    I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel?...And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 — talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
    "...and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made." (your words, not mine) Up until now, you have not posted such a reaction other than something like "I have updated the article." This "addresses" none of my objections in and of itself. These comments do. Please continue to do so in the future and feel free to put them directly after each point I made to clearly show the progress. You have done this with other editors' comments. I do not understand why this is such and issue with mine. — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. It is also possibly inaccurate. It keeps describing the item as a " hulk". It is not clear that it was ever afloat. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? Albatross2147 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Her sister is an Featured Article, and all five of the never laid down Montana class battleships have their own articles. If Danfs has an entry for the ship then it meets minimum standards for being here on Wikipedia. A lot of the article is based on the information leading up to creation and the events surrounding her early construction work; this is common. If you see inaccuracies, add {{cn}} tags to the stuff that needs cited and I will see to it that the material gets cited. The article does make references to the ship being a hulk, I must admit that I am not aware of any distinction made between hulk and floating; if this is incorrect for the article and its context, it will be taken out forthwith. The other FA-class articles all use She over it, even the incompletd Kentucky; I see no reason why this one should be any different. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What on earth does ...a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns. mean" I know the US military are notorious for own goals but this seems to be taking the precautionary principle too far. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Battleships in any nations fleet were usually armored to withstand guns of their own size. Of the ships using 16-inch guns during WWII (the North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa, and Montana classes) the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were only armoured to withstand the 16"/45 calibur guns, while the Iowa class was designed only to resist the original 2,240 lb shells originally developed for the 16"/50 and thus were inedequetly armored against the "super heavy" 2,700 lb shells they actually used during the war (it is for this reason that some people consider the Iowa class to be battlecruisers and not battleships). Montana would have been the first U.S. battleship to feature an improved armor belt intended to protect Montana and her sisters from her their own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (and by extension, the 2,700 lb ammunition used in those guns). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Despite TomStar81's loving attention to the article over the past few weeks to the point where it is well written and has high clarity I can't see why the subject matter would merit a seperate article let alone an FA. In most histories of the USN the partially completed keel and frame (it was never a completed hull even) would merit at best a para but more likely a footnote. As someone else here observed there is not enough to say about this ship that never was to merit an FA. For mine the article should be merged with other unfinished vessels in the class or an overall class article.Albatross2147 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection this article so bad not even the slinkyies hoes in hoe town get close to it. - bad organization - doesn't look comprehensive - and really does not look FA quality - (this comment is actionable - action being would be "improving article to FA quality")--Keerllston 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sustained -- you make your point as good as the others, but a few suggestion would go a long way toward helping me bring this article up to FA status. I already know about the spelling and the grammar problems, and those are beyond my ability fix becuase my spelling sucks. Unless I log on through the university systems on their computers I have no accsess to mozilla or the spellchecker within it. I think the article is comprehensive; I have stated before that this is part of series on the topic and (ideally) should be read along with Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, I am very concerned about this. Are you saying you want us to give this article featured status even though you know it has spelling errors? Surely you can't be serious. What school do you attend where a simple dictionary is not available? Go through and check each word if you need to/ Please don't come to an FAC and waste time the time of fellow editors for simple things like spelling. That is not what an FAC is intended to be. As a further suggestion, cut & paste into Microsoft Word and hit "F7"; it'll do a grammar and spelling check. It isn't the best, but it will help. — BQZip01 — talk 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done that before, and even then I do not get all of the spelling and grammar errors. What I am saying is that the spelling is beyond my ability to correct, not that I think spelling can be overlooked on an FAC because it can't. If push comes to shove I will petition the leauge of copyeditors to review the article and correct the spelling. On a similar note I am glad to see you came back. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose some questions, firstly the prose is inconsistent in tense making it difficult to follow whether the ship was built or not, along with swapping between names USS Montana and USS Illinois, according to linked articles Montana was designated BB-67. Part of this confusion in prose stems from having a separate section on Armament when the vessel wasnt completed. Armament should covered in the various designs, without the detailed sections about the design bofor & oerlikons guns Gnangarra 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Strike see below Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Dwarf Kirlston comments also indicate that the article layout is disorganized so maybe looking at chronologically would assist that. Discuss Montana class design including armament, then discuss Iowa class the armament particulars of that, this is a significant factor in the choice of the BB-65 and BB-66 order and moving of USS Montana from BB-65 to BB-67. With Montana while its was designated as BB-65 the sources(that I could read) indicated that the order for the ship was dropped in priority for 2 extra Iowa class after the events at Midway. IMHO (without access to source 3,4,5 which appear to also cover this information) the focus on USS Illinois being called USS Montana is inconsistent with sources as it was only BB-65 designation that they have in common. Source 3 the link has died so you'll need to re-establish. Gnangarra 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeIt seemed quite well written and researched, but I just don't think it is notable enough to make the grade. There are lots of ships that did get built and have a real history, why on earth put so much work into this white elephant? Excalibur (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its part of a plan to create a featured list for the Iowa class of battleships, to do that requires that the articles be FA-class. Of the six battleships in the Iowa class Illinois is by far the hardest to write for because the battleship was never consider for any sort of post life rebuild. I do believe that given the chance I can make this work, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered nominating it. Notability requirements for an incomplete ship should not be brought up here; the article has been here for years and no one has every complained about its notability at SHIPS, MILHIST, or any other project; nor for that matter has anyone every filed a notability based afd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to nitpick, but you mean Featured Topic instead of featured list. And, the requirements for such only require a majority of the articles in the topic to be featured, but all FA-class is a good goal for such an endeavor. -MBK004 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Yeah, what'd I say? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Featured list and all the articles had to be FA-class. Need some coffee? -MBK004 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sleep actually, working 22 hours days to pass school is extremely taxing on the brain and other associated mental facilities. Aside from the lack of sleep I am happy to be back. BTW, I am working on tweaking the article to address some of these concerns, so everyone keep your eyes open. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new version has been put up in an effort to address some of the FAC complaints received here. Comments on this new version are welcome, as are any other comments or questions you may have. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Although I thought the older versions were adequate, I must say that you've done wonders for the article. As always, I've also corrected your "horrible" spelling above. :) -MBK004 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support after the more recent rewrite, I've also done some copy editting when reviewing. Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • withdrawing support for this article as it changed since supported this. IMHO this FAC should be closed as unsuccessful while its regrettable given the efforts of the contributors the issues arent going to be immediately addressable. Gnangarra 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. An article with so many English problems should not be an FA. My English is not very good but I can see problems in the lead. For example, change "this gained an eight" to "this gained her an eight" and "where as" is used wrongly. Also, the reference after "at the time of cancellation" should be after a comma or full stop. What happened to the new version with more info? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information is still there; the armament sections were not well recieved with the community and this nessicitated a rewrite of the article to deal with the objections. As for the sp&g objections, I will try to address the issues to the best of my limited spelling ability. BTW, thank you for coming back; I apreciate your comments on this FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection continued despite changes - calling a section Fate both seems that it will descibe in detain the fate of more than just a bell seems to imply a fatalistic universe -bad tone.--Keerllston 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed that section title to Scrapping also removed a duplicated sentence in that section. Gnangarra —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's usual to have a section called background but I object - a possible solution is the splitting up of that section into more useful sections -section called "context"/"similar battleships" and a section called "construction" instead - maybe one called planning as well - currently very bad organization.--Keerllston 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the following scheme then:
      • Design
      • Development
      • Scrapping
      • Notes
      • References
      • External Links
    • Do you think that would help the orginization any? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any scheme would be better than just "Background" and "Scrapping" as content headings - (background to what? -the scrapping???). -
      Your scheme sounds good - If I might propose - 1st heading:Background/Context/*in terms of pre-WWII/in terms of novelty of Battleship design/in terms of costs of war that never mattered in actual battle -2nd: US Government/Command/Ordering -3rd:Design -Construction and Funding -4th:Scrapping
      --Keerllston 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My 2c based on what I've read in the sources the sections 1 thru 3 are very intertwined, though I'd think 1/Background & Design - which covers the issues of treaty restrictions, Panamax design compromises and the first use of the formula in battleship designs. 2/Construction - This covers the ordering/reordering(inc priority to Aircraft carriers, anti aircraft platforms after Midway/Coral Sea), building costs wleding vs rivet/weld 3/Scrapping - as is. This only my thoughts as to Dwarfs suggestion, it doesnt change my support for the articles promotion. Gnangarra 11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the organization has substancially improved, as a result I Strike-through my objection. - I believe comprehensibility could also be improved (per proposal above)- I will probably re-review later on.--Keerllston 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—I tried to address multiple issues on this page, but it may need more tweaking by an experienced editor. I'm a little dubious about the Voodoo World reference, as it gives no sources for the data and it doesn't look like a professional site. Is there a cross-reference that could be used?—RJH (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked the voodoo site information very carefully before using it here, the information is reliable (by which I mean that it agrees with other books/web sites). I will double cite that for you if it will make you feel better. Thanks you for your copy-editting help as well, I apreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found your additional citations, they were from a book I own. The part about her being the 5th of the six authorized battleships could prabably be cited several times over, the Naval Vessel Register and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships would support this claim as well via stated dates. I beleive the spring book from the Naval board could also be used to cite the information if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I got a new PC for christmas, so my contributions here may decrease somewhat shile I get everything back up to speed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I got my PC more or less set up, so barring any unforseen incidents I should be free to surf the net at will. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With the exception of a few missing codecs needed for playing certain video files (namely, those I pirate from my pc games) I am now 100% done with setting up and installing the computer. There is one small matter though that should be wieghed with this: my previously saved websites (including a butload of sites from which I draw information for articles here) have yet to be located and readded to my favorites folder, therefore requests for information regarding certain aspects of this article (or any other article I have actively contributed to since 2004) will likely be met with a slow response. PS: Happy New Year, all! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the use of female pronouns to describe the ship moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65). Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment on the pronoun (note sp) move (censorship?) - Raul's comments are allowed to stand - those of others get moved. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hardly censorship, I had been arguing for that from the moment it was put there. Have a look at the talk page and at the link at the bottom to where the conversation is continuing. Don't try and slur the character of Raul please, it is unbecoming. Woody (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSupport The conversions and numbers need to be properly formatted per WP:MOSNUM and whatever else. The one that stuck out at me was 16-in. Should it not be expanded to inches? You need   between numbers and units. 2700 lb jumps out at me. The same goes for "5"/54 (12.7 cm)". I think the " should be expanded as some readers might not understand it.
    • Other than that, count me as a support. I think the other objections are mainly questioning the notability which is a non-issue in my eyes. It is well-written and comprehensive as far as I can see. Well done. Woody (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced three instances of stand alone measurements with US and Metric measurments, and reconfigured all instances inches to in to match the mm measurements in the articles, I also removed the " you commented on. I did not see anything governing the use of non-breaking spaces with regards to percentages or monetary values, and thus left those measurements alone. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (continued from above, not a separate oppose) I have stated my opposition to this article in the past, but many of my original problems seem to have been either taken care of in the article or changed. I am disappointed that my comments were not addressed on this page and request that they be done here in the future (any format for a response, including comments after each problem, are acceptable and appropriate).

    I am also disappointed in the hostile and threatening manner I have been treated with regards to this review, but I too have been known to get edgy in FACs, so I'm willing to overlook this with no malice towards said editor.

    Seeing others' interest in this subject (especially Raul's), I think it is appropriate to re-re-re-clarify my objections and specify any additional problems that have occurred as a result of edits after my second initial review (<user mutters as he re-reads:> "second initial review"...<user shakes head>...only in Wikipedia...<user continues typing>).

    For the sake of crystal clarity, I will state each general problem here and then cite all specific examples below:

    General
    1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
      • (a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
       Not done This article is not well-written because it is not of a professional standard.
      • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
       Done
      • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
       Done
       Done
      • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
       Done Note that this does not apply to edits made to satisfy FAC requests.
    2. It follows the style guidelines, including:
      • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
      The lead is 3 paragraphs while the body is 7 paragraphs. With an article this short, the lead could be shorter.
      • (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
       Not done Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links.
      • (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[4] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
       Done
    3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
       Done
    4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
       Not done I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.

    This will be done working from the top down, getting into the technical aspects, and then diving into the overall layout (and realize this is being done as a courtesy, not because I feel it is a requirement). It should also be noted, that I this is not my first comprehensive review. Note that any incredulity on my part is for dramatic effect only to emphasize the problem and more clearly define the issue.

    So, without further ado:

    Prose issues
    Lead
    • "This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and to increase the number of anti-aircraft guns." How on earth does changing an order make a ship faster? How can an order "allow" it to do so. Before the order was it not permitted to go as fast? Are there some speed limit signs I missed the last time I was on the high seas? How does an order give something an ability? How does it increase a number guns? Rephrase accordingly. Violation of 1a.
    The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rearrange the sentence to read "Adherance to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 without a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor and that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana."
    • "The cost was the loss of her additional armor..." She actually "lost" nothing except on paper. Orders change all the time. It's like saying I wanted a car with a 5 lite engine, but at the last minute, I got one with 4 liters. I "lost" nothing. Your word choice is inappropriate here. In short, comparing the two classes is appropriate, but this phrasing isn't. Violation of 1a.
    Rephrased per your suggestion.
    • "Her construction was canceled in August 1945..." Who cancelled it? Congress? The President? The Navy? The War Department? This is the danger of using passive voice. It doesn't directly state what happened. Try "In August 1945 Congress cancelled..." Violation of 1a.
    • "but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up." Amazingly nonspecific. The hull "remained" where? Was it just the hull? The picture provided does not seem to indicate it was merely the hull that was left behind. "broken up"? Is that a technical term? It makes it sound as if it just fell apart due to pressure or deterioration. In reality, it was disassembled by workmen and sold for scrap, right? Violation of 1a.
    I assume the Navy cancelled the battleship; usually official reports stipulate when second ro third parties alter or cancel USN construction orders. Since assupmtion is the mother of all screwups I will look into tracking that down for you.
    • "Because Illinois was only 22% complete at the time she was not considered for any significant rebuild programs" Why? cost I assume? political pressure to spend money elsewhere? Too much work to do? Not enough time? why not enough time/money? Caught in a post-wartime drawdown? etc. Violation of 1a.
    • "while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." What does this have to do with the USS Illinois? (I know contrast later, but it doesn't need to be in the lead). Did you really just use the word "floated" in an article about a Navy ship? A bit informal of an informal word choice there, but I must admit excellent use of a pun (this ship did "float" while the Illinois didn't). Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:LEAD and WP:PEACOCK
    I hadn't put those two words togather, but now that you mention it is a great pun. Perhaps "proposed" would be a better word. In any case that sentence was deleted from the introduction.
    • "Like her sister ship USS Kentucky (BB-66), Illinois was still under construction at the end of World War II. Her construction was canceled in August 1945, but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up...while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." Serious overuse of the pronoun "her". Please vary your usage at least a little bit (not related in any way to this discussion). You don't need "sister ship" in the paragraph twice. Violation of 1a.
    Out of the lead in its entirety.
    Design
    • "BB-65 began life in mid-1930s as the USS Montana, the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships. " She isn't "alive" at all. Please remove colorful language. What is a "dreadnought" battleship? Perfect time for a wikilink if I ever saw one. Violation of 1a.
    Reworded and wikilinked
    • "She would have fielded three more 16 in (406.4 mm) guns than those mounted aboard the Iowa-class, a more powerful secondary battery of 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts,[1] an increase in armor that was to enable Montana to withstand the effects of the 16 in (406.4 mm) caliber guns and the 2,700 lb (1,224.7 kg) ammunition she and her Iowa-class sisters were to carry." Again, the difference in ships is specifically limited to theoretical differences between classes of ships and would be more appropriate in the class articles. It just isn't needed here, IMHO.
    noted, but not addressed. Its not that I do not want to adress this, its just that we see things differently on this point, and I prefer to see it here for ths sake of comprehensiveness, IMHO it helps the article by making it well written.
    • "The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal, which would have enabled Montana to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without the need to move around the tip of South America.[2]" See previous for more info. By linking USS Illinois and BB-65, it seems to me you have exclusively eliminated the USS Montana. There is no need to include such information here. Is "move" the right word? You mean "sail"? This sentence is very long. Please shorten or break into two sentences.'Violation of 1a.
    changed moved to sail per your suggestion and broke up the sentence per your suggestion.
    • "By 1942 the United States Navy shifted its building focus from battleships to aircraft carriers after the successes of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway." Add commas for readability, but excellent sentence otherwise. Violation of 1a.
    My apologies, I thought they were already in the article. This has been adressed.
    • " As a result the construction of the U.S. fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers had been given the highest priority for completion in the U.S. shipyards." Again, passive voice. Who gave the carriers highest priority?Violation of 1a.
    The USN; citation provided.
    • "The Essex-class carriers were proving vital to the war effort by allowing the Allies to gain and maintain air supremacy in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, and were rapidly becoming the principle striking arm of the United States in the ongoing effort to defeat the Empire of Japan." Wikilinks needed for "Empire of Japan" Again, poor use of the word allow. They aren't merely permitting something, they are "enabling". As for the "striking arm", I think the Army, Marines, and Air Force might disagree on their role being stated this way, though battleship use was certainly down with the advent of carrier operations. Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:PEACOCK
    Good point.
    • "It was for this reason that the United States accepted certain shortcomings in the armor for their North Carolina-class battleships, South Dakota-class battleships, and Iowa-class battleships in favor of their additional speed, which enabled these battleship classes to steam at a comparable speed with the Essex-class and provide the carriers with the maximum amount of anti-aircraft protection.[5]" "It was for this reason" = wordiness. Try "Accordingly". "certain" shortcomings? why not just "shortcomings? Again a long sentence that could be reduced in wordiness. Violation of 1a.
    Addressed.
    • No mention of Iowa-class specifications in its design section. Why? Violation of 1a.
    I felt the development section to be a better place for that information. I can move it if you wish.
    Development
    • "She would now be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships.[8][6]" VERY poor verb choice. "would now be"? how about "was designated"? or something similar Violation of 1a.
    Removed it altogather.
    • "Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost $125 million and take roughly 30 to 40 months to complete." $125 million in what country? what timeframe? $125 million adjusted for 2007? 1930? 1945? Why "roughly"? how rough? A little informal. Do you mean "approximately"? Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:$
    Ours, of course. This figure needs to be taken with a grain a salt, but by adjusting 125 million on the consumer price index the total price comes to approximately 1.8 billion in 2008 dollars.
    • "Her keel was laid down at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 15 January 1945." "laid down" should be "laid". Do we really need "Philadelphia" twice? Perhaps PNP in P,P? or simply eliminate the second usage altogether. That's what Wikilinks are for, IMHO. Violation of 1a.
    Linked to both and added an in for good measure.
    • "Like Kentucky, Illinois differed from her earlier sisters in that her design called for an all-welded construction, which would have saved weight and increased strength over a combination riveted/welded hull of the type used on the four completed Iowa-class ships." Note wordinessViolation of 1a.
    Noted and adressed.
    • "Engineers considered retaining the original Montana-class-type armor for added torpedo and naval mine protection (the newer scheme would have improved Illinois’ armor protection by as much as 20%);[11] however, this was rejected due to time constraints and Illinois was being built along the regular with an Iowa-class hull design.[12]" 20% more what? Strength? coverage? protection from shockwaves? corrosion? Split into two sentences and remove parenthesis.Violation of 1a.
    The way I interpret this is protection from torpedoes, naval mines, and her own intended ammunition of 16"/50 heavy shells. This is touched on in the parent class article, but the Iowa class armour scheme was somewhat inadaquet for the battleship class. I can add to that info to the article if it would make you feel better.
    • "Funding for the battleship was provided in part by "King Neptune", a hereford swine who was auctioned across the state of Illinois as a fund raiser, and was ultimately responsible for raising $19 million in war bonds[13] (equivalent to about $200 million in 2007 adjusted dollars).[14]" Violation of 1a.
    Got it.
    • "Illinois construction was canceled and then scrapped after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[8][6]" "scrapped" implies the ship was sold for scrap metal, but she wasn't. What is the difference here between the two verbs? Why was it cancelled after the atmoic bombings? Violation of 1a.
    Ostensably nothing, but I will check be sure.
    • "She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 12 August 1945,[10][15] but her incomplete hull (at the time 22% finished) was retained along with her sister Kentucky until 1958 when both incomplete ships were broken up. She was scrapped in her dry dock on the builder's ways starting in September 1958.[16] Although her sister ship Kentucky (BB-66) was considered for a rebuild to make her into a guided missile battleship (BBG)—by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system—at the time of her cancellation, Kentucky was 73.1% complete with construction halted at the first deck.[12][17] By contrast, the Illinois was only 22% complete and thus was not afforded the same option." So was the Kentucky sold for scrap or completed? I'm confused.
    Ive scrapped nearly all of the section since it was confusing. Kentucky was not completed.
    • "...an Associated Press report article published in 1983 seemed to indicate that the bell was donated to the NROTC unit at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article published in 1983.[19] According to the AP, the bell previously resided in a Washington museum until finding its new home with the Fighting Illini football team in 1982;[19] since then, the bell has is traditionally been rung by NROTC members in a cumulative manner when the football team scores a touchdown or goal.[18]" In a cumulative manner? What the heck does that mean? Violation of 1a.
    Cumulative meaning they start from zero and stop when they hit the number of points the team currently has on the board.
    Technical problems
    • References still missing needed information (like access dates for websites). Violation of 2. Specifically WP:CITE
    • There should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between all numbers and their units of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61&nbsp;cl.[?] Violation of 2. Specifically [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
    I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
    Please see User:BQZip01/FA Tips for exactly how to fix this. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Units of measurement|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)]]
    Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 16 in. Violation of 2. Specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)
    Question:do the conversion templates support this layout scheme? If they don't I will go back and replace such instances by hand.
    Layout problems
    • Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links. Ergo, it is not "substantial" This is actionable through an expansion of the material. (See the next item for more information) Violation of 3b.
    • I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. After all, we have stubs that are certainly comprehensive, given the body of knowledge, but have no business being a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs and incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article and this page be converted to a re-direct. As a stand-alone article, I feel it fails this requirement. Violation of 4.
    Again, I can not adress that issue here becuase it is a differnce of opinion between us and what constitutes an FA. Nonetheless, I thank you for the specific examples provided, and will continue to work on addressing the issues present to the best of my knowlage. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please understand this is not necessarily exhaustive and I reserve the right to add more to it. In short, I don't feel this meets the standards of an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Left unanswered comments for now until all points have been addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I believe that User:BQZip01 has now opposed this FAC twice (here and the first oppose). Only one should count and one should probably be struck for clarity. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Second instance annotated accordingly. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support While the article is short I believe it meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, although it does need date accessed for web refs. I made two minor edits to the article reading it for this FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I think most of the people do not support this nomination because tha article is too short, but in my opinion, even if it's short, it meets all criteria for FA. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. The rigourous FAC process has improved this article, making it worthy of the little brass star. I would create a stub article to fix the red link in the "Design" section, but other than that I give this article a thumbs-up. Coemgenus 15:08, 16 January 2008 (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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

    Italian War of 1542–1546

    [edit]

    This is the result of my first attempt at producing a real article in more than a year; it's slightly shorter than its daughter FA, but I think the narrative presentation is a bit tighter here. The article has been through a MILHIST peer review and A-Class review. Any and all comments will be very appreciated! Kirill 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments. I would like to congratulate Kirill on all the excellent work he has put in on this tricky subject. This is a very accurate article (I have carefully fact-checked it), but I have a few reservations about the rather distant way in which the material is presented. Much of the information is "named" rather than elucidated, if I can put it that way. There is a heavy dependence on links to provide background information that might better be placed in the text: this applies particularly to named individuals and to geography. The result sometimes verges on the inaccessible, in my opinion.
    • Take, for example, the following passage, which I will use to show what I mean but which also contains an example of what I would consider good encyclopedic writing:
    The French immediately launched a two-front offensive against Charles. In the north, the Duke of Orléans attacked Luxembourg, briefly capturing the city; in the south, a larger army under the Dauphin and Claude d'Annebault unsuccessfully besieged Perpignan. Francis himself was meanwhile dealing with a revolt in La Rochelle. ¶ By this point, relations between Francis and Henry VIII had collapsed. Henry—already angered by the French refusal to pay the various pensions, which were owed to him under the terms of past treaties—was now faced with the potential of French interference in Scotland, where he was entangled in the midst of his "Rough Wooing".
    • We are never told the strategic importance of Luxembourg or Perpignan, nor specifically where they are (Perpignan is an interesting case because one would normally assume that it was French, so explanation is needed). This is the first mention of the Dauphin: the term is not explained, and it cannot be assumed that the reader knows that the Dauphin is the oldest son of the king of France and is called Henri (or Henry). We are told that Francis is dealing with a revolt in La Rochelle but not what about or how that relates to the overall situation. We are told that Henry VIII is entangled in the midst of the "Rough Wooing" but no other information is given about what that is. On the other hand, the pension issue is given a phrase of explanation which puts us nicely in the picture: I much prefer articles to help me unobtrusively in that way rather than expecting me to look everything up.
    • On the naming of individuals, I think a greater fullness and consistency would help. We are given the full titles of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, but then we have the "Earl of Hertford" or the "Earl of Hereford" (that last one bothers me: are they the same guy?). I favour the full name and title or role at first mention: Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford; Ferrante Gonzaga, Viceroy of Sicily—that sort of thing. This will give the readers more of a chance to get their bearings. On the other hand, I do not believe we should go overboard and enumerate whether people are 1st, 2nd earls, or what have you: history books rarely do this—we have those numbers in article titles only to distinguish an article on one earl of so and so from another earl of the same title.
    • Similarly, with geography: it would be nice to have more markers for places. One has to peer at the map to discover that Vitry is Vitry-le-François: the link only goes to a Vitry disambiguation page; it is somewehat the same with Villefranche, whose link goes to a confusing disambiguation page, though with some difficulty I think I identified it on the right of the illustration at the top of the page: a phrase of explanation would have saved me the search time and eye strain.
      • Fixed Villefranche. Vitry is not, in fact, Vitry-le-François (which was the city as rebuilt by Francis after the war); I'll see if I can find the original name, but I'm fairly certain we don't have an article on the old one anyways. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following are some places where I feel a phrase or note of explanation would help:

    • who faced a rebellion in the Low Countries. Why? What was the situation?
      • This is perhaps a personal minimalism in my writing style, but I don't think that trying to discuss—even in an over-simplified manner—the complex relationship between Charles and his Burgundian subjects is really within the scope of this article. The matter is tangential to the war itself, in any case. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charles came to terms with Francis by the Treaty of Crépy in late 1544, but the death of the Duke of Orléans made the treaty moot less than a year afterwards.. This is explained later, but in the lead it is inscrutable, because we have been told neither who the Duke of Orléans is nor that the treaty depended on his proposed marriage.
    • The war arose from the Truce of Nice at the end of the Italian War of 1535–38. But peace arises from a truce, not a war: we need a hint as to why the truce did not hold. (Clearly, it lasted four years before the next war started.)
    • "Rough wooing". A word of explanation is required to show why the French were an issue; the article never tells the reader that Mary, Queen of Scots's mother was French and a protegée of Francis, for example.
    • "Treaty of Madrid". The reader needs to know the background here: the fact that Francis had been imprisoned by Charles and railroaded into this treaty may explain his unwillingness to ratify it. A mention of that background might help a reader grasp the personal history between the two men.
      • I don't know; is it really helpful to go into more detail regarding the entire history between the two? I can certainly add some details about the circumstances, but the meat of the matter—the entire chain of conflicting territorial claims between the two—would require quite a bit of text to cover in any comprehensible manner. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • promised not to declare war. Why did Francis promise not to declare war while Charles was fighting in north Africa?
    • Francis himself was meanwhile dealing with a revolt in La Rochelle. Further to what I said about this above, it might be worth a sentence or two of context: for example, the revolt may have been planned for when Francis would be distracted by the war; it was about increased taxes that related to his need for money for the war; it took place in a spot with a long history of English involvement and therefore was vulnerable to an English intervention.
      • Added an explanation of the cause of the revolt; but its eruption just as the war began was mostly incidental (except in the overall sense that Francis's constant wars necessitated tax reform, which seems too far-reaching of a point to explore in great detail here). Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enghien: worth mentioning that he was a Bourbon and a prince of the blood, with a brief mention of the significance of that? His title in the article disguises him slightly.
      • I'm not sure that it's worth mentioning, considering his status as such played no role in the war beyond the typical presence of the high nobility in command posts. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice, Savoy, Piedmont: The article says that Nice is an imperial city. What does that mean? Were Savoy and Piedmont separate or one polity?
    • Ceresole: what is the strategic context? It seems to be mentioned out of the blue.
    • Serravalle: Where is it precisely? Neither the disambiguation page nor the battle article tells me.
      • I don't know, actually. There are at least a half dozen cities in Piedmont and Lombardy by that name, but the only sources that mention the battle don't indicate which of them is meant; all I've been able to determine, at this point, is that the battle was fought at a place called "Serravalle". Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wilhelm of Cleves now openly joined the war and invaded Brabant, and fighting began in Artois and Hainaut.[23] Antoine de Bourbon had captured Lillers in April; by June, d'Annebault had taken Landrecies as well.[24] Francis inexplicably halted his own advance near Rheims; in the meantime, Charles attacked the Duchy of Julich and captured Düren. Very dense, in my opinion: er, who? where? One assumes that the duchy of Julich is something to do with Wilhelm of Cleves, since he is given a combined title higher up the page. I got lost here. And who is Antoine de Bourbon (I know, but someone might wonder)?
    • St Dizier: what is the significance of this town? It says that Charles was prevented from crossing the Marne at Jalons, but a look at the map shows that he would have been on the west of the Marne at St Dizier. The map appears to show that he was following the Marne (to meet up with Henry before moving on Paris?). The article seems to chide Francis for not doing much to stop Charles, but strategically was he doing the right thing by staying back? (Looks it to me, but this is original thought, I admit.) The comment that the French response was "nearly non-existent" seems to clash with the fact that the French prevented Charles crossing the Marne at Jalons.
      • I've tried to clarify this a bit—Charles couldn't move along the far bank of the river due to the French position—but I'm not sure if that's at all apparent from the text. The sources I've used here (Knecht, in particular) don't really consider passive garrisons to be a "response"; but I've reworded that anyways. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charles had meanwhile reached an understanding with the princes at the Diet of Speyer, and the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg agreed to join his invasion of France. What was the basis of the understanding, given Charles's religious differences with the rulers of Saxony and Hesse? What did he concede?
      • As with the rebellions in the Low Countries, I don't really think this article is the best place to go into the details of Charles's religious policies in Germany. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "massive": Henry's army is described as massive—and it was by English standards—but Francis's army is described as 70, 000, and that isn't decribed as massive. (Later we are told that Henry's army was outnumbered.)
      • Hence the "in his various armies" aspect; Francis never managed to assemble his available manpower into a single body. I'm not sure how best to clarify this. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The treaty had been promoted at the French court by the Queen and the Duchess of Étampes. We need a little more, I feel. Who is this duchess and why is she important (I know, but not all readers will)? Why does the queen want peace: presumably because she is Charles's sister, which we have not been told.
    • The Dauphin's army descended on Montreuil, forcing Norfolk to raise the siege. When was this?
    • An army of more than 30,000 men was assembled in Normandy, and a fleet of some 400 vessels prepared at Le Havre. Why? Were they intending to invade with troops or to use the troops to attack the English in France (or both)? What was the strategy? I lost track of the tactics here. Was the idea for a Scottish invasion in the north and a French one in the south, as with Harald Hardråde and William the Conqueror? (Not a bad idea, either.)
    • the Emperor would relinquish his claim to the Duchy of Burgundy and the King of France would do the same for the Kingdom of Naples, as well as renouncing his claims as suzerain of Flanders and Artois. This is the first we've heard of these dimensions to the war. Is Charles's claim to Burgundy the reason why he attacks Francis in that part of France?
      • See my comment above regarding the details of the territorial claims; I'm not sure how much of this needs to be rehashed in each of the war articles in this series. Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's it for now. Some more bits and pieces tomorrow. qp10qp (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken the liberty of interleaving my responses with your comments. Thank you very much for the review; it's rare for me to encounter someone who knows enough of this period to comment in such detail! Kirill 04:01, 22 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    David Lovering

    [edit]

    Drummer of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Probably the trickiest article on a Pixies member to write (as there's not much written about him), but I feel I've written a comprehensive biography. I'm in the process of sourcing a free image. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Support After a read I found no errors or omissions. Other than an unusually small number of citations (20) I can foresee no possible objections/complaints/requests/queries. It is not unbelievably eloquently written but its writing quality is satisfactory of FACr.--Keerllston 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (from the lead)"However, after the band's breakup, Lovering received fewer critical accolades for his musical output." - Is this supposed to imply that he wasn't any good? how many constitutes "fewer"? or even "a few"?--Keerllston 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It means Lovering received less attention and acclaim from critics after he left the Pixies, which is a fair statement to say given all the sources I've found. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had understood what was meant
            your comment makes me wonder whether it is OR
            What I referred to was the not very good phrasing, perhaps I was unclear.
            My issue with the sentence can be explained in two ways:
            First: Why "However"? However is for a relationship of objection, in this case to the previous comment that he was important musically to the band Pixies
            Second: I don't believe the contrast between the number of positive reviews prior to the number of reviews post a useful one, let alone one important enough to be in the lead, I doubt it's even in the body, not referenced, possibly OR.
            --Kiyarrllston 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment: Move to support in light of recent work. A fine article. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This a very strange sentence: Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • [As an alt-music project member etc] I'm leaning towards support here, though some points need to be clarfied yet:
    • "Fuck or Fight" - How soon after the tour end was the hiatus?
    • I haven't got a specific length of time for this (sources state "soon after") unfortunately.
    • During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica - So what.
    • I've removed it; it's a shame most of the information specific to Lovering in his Pixies days is mostly trivia.
    • Re "loudQUIETloud", I got the impression he was on more than alcohol ;-)
    • Same. but I've not found anything more on that. I've skimmed through loudQUIETloud again, and found this: "In deference to the wishes of the his bandmates, David has vowed to curtail his substance abuse". I would put that in the article, but "substance abuse" isn't specific. Perhaps keep it in quotes or something?
    Quotes would be fine. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frank Black vs Black Francis (might not be obvious that its the same person to a casual reader.
    • I think I've clarified this (on the first mention of Frank Black, I've stated who he is). Could you perhaps point out a particular example?
    These are easily resolved; I'm amazed that you could get an article on a late 1980s drummer (no offence to drummers, I'm one myself) to this level. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's quite surprising that I'm able to take Joey Santiago and David Lovering to FA status.
    • Neutral - I'm striking my oppose because the article has been improved. I still think that it would be better structured if the Magic section were incorporated into the rest of the article. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. The article seems fairly comprehensive. The prose is okay; not great, but I don't have a lot of suggestions for improvement. My main objection is that there are not specific citations after each quotation. Drop me a note when you've fixed that and I'll take another look and revisit my recommendation.
      • Need a citation directly after each quotation. I added several citation needed tags
        • They're cited to the next citation, which is a common occurence in academia and in many of the featured articles I've seen (and written).
      • Need publisher information for book by Frank and Ganz
        • Added.
      • I think you should incorporate the information in the Magic performance section into current section 1.3 (The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects). I would also then remove the overall Biography heading and move the sub-headings up a level.
        • I'm not sure this is the best method of organization; his style of magic isn't directly related to the story of his life. I'd prefer to keep the current arrangement, as it reads better and is more consistent with the other band member articles
          • I think it would fit better in the other section because:
    Although the earlier section calls him the "Scientific phenomentalist", it doesn't really explain why until the later section.
    In earlier biography sections the article mentions some of his musical influences; for magic this is relegated to the separate section, which is not completely consistent.
    Although the earlier section speaks about the fact that he is part of the Unholy Three and opened for Frank Black, the details of that is left to the later section, which makes the article seem to skip around to me.

    Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh, no its not. It would be preferrable, but not obligatory. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FA guideline #3 says otherwise; I really am having a difficult time finding any current FA that does not have an image. NSR77 TC 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having difficulty myself, but I read it as 'where appropriate'. Maybe we should take up a thread on the WIAFA talk, rather than hash it out here. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I've posted a request for relicensing to [31], [32] and [33]. Hopefully at least one person will put their photo under a free license. CloudNine (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my request is particularly difficult. CloudNine seems to have a handle on it. NSR77 TC 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now supplied a free image, thanks to [34] on flickr. CloudNine (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I now support this article. I have no other objections. Good work! NSR77 TC 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • There needs to be more discussion about his musical style and influences. It seems to me that a "Musical style" section is kind of a glaring omission here—was it intentional? Is there a dearth of sources/info pertaining to his style? I realize that his influences are covered to an extent in his biography, but all seems very sparse—considering the relevance of his style to the article.
    • I attempted to write a "Musical Style" section, but there are virtually no sources on his style (unlike more famous drummers), just several quotes that say how he interacted with the rest of the Pixies. At the end of the day, he's just not been written about as much as the rest of the band. CloudNine (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor issue - You should think about separating the "associated acts" with commas rather than breaks. I realize that this is contrary to other Pixies articles, but Lovering has so many associated acts that it really is too much to list using breaks. This should be changed; but it's up to you whether or not you want to change this format on other Pixies articles.

    Grim (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. I reviewed this article at Peer Review, where I already found it to be well-written and comprehensive. Since then, CloudNine has had to do few changes. I am confident that it meets Featured Article criteria as best as is possible given the notability of the subject of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note; what is the correct spelling, it's listed two different ways:
    • Lovering reinvented himself as "The Scientific Phenomanalist", ...
    • Fixed. An oversight on my part.
    • Comments
      • The lead could use a short summary of his biography.
      • "Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet." "Although" is an odd connector here. Not too fond of the ill-defined "conventional childhood".
        • Grim's copyedit removed the clause (which I'm sure I had done before) and the connective.
      • "back to their place" What place?
        • As above, Grim's
      • "began rehearsing throughout 1985 and 1986" Conflict between began and throughout.
        • Fixed.
      • "Towards the end of 1990s," Do we not know the exact date? Or at least the year this happened?
        • I'll try and look for a date, (but does "I became interested in magic six or seven years ago" mean his visit to the magic convention?) but an exact date is not given in the source I looked at.
      • "I had to learn how to do it" Cite quotations.
        • Fixed.
      • "as he felt he "couldn't top the Pixies"" "As" is a poor connector. How does this relate to the rest of the sentence?
        • Fixed by Grim's copyedit.
      • "this whole tour careered into this drunken" So I imagine this is either a typo by the source or Black misspoke. Since we don't really know, I think the best way to resolve this is to just editorially insert "[careened]".
        • I think it's right actually. "To career" means to "move ahead, especially in an uncontrolled way", whereas "to careen" means to "rock from side to side".
      • Stylistic suggestion. Instead of introducing quotations with "He added/he commented:/He later explained:/etc." before the quotation (which is choppy and interrupts the flow of the prose), try putting the identifiers in the middle. E.g. "It was all caught on film," said Black. "But they re-edited this..." Much more natural, in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
    • Support - I just gave this article a heavy copyedit. If anyone has a problem with any of my changes please let me know. I had to remove a bit information that wasn't totally relevant or encyclopedic. However, I now believe that this article is pretty close to "distribution quality". Hopefully this copyedit will lead Karanacs to reconsider her opposition. Grim (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note (since this featured article candidacy hasn't been added to for a while) that this nomination has received three supports and one weak support, with no opposes. CloudNine (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support. I'm concerned about the prose. Examples:
      • Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood: what does this actually mean? I'd be dubious even without "mostly", but with the qualification I think it has very little meaning left. Do you mean, for example, that he grew up in a middle-class suburb? Or that he had a stable family environment? I think it would be better to drop this sentence and put in some directly factual statement of whatever can be said about his childhood.
        • Removed. I'm looking for more verifiable information on Lovering's early years.
    OK. Would be good if you can find more, but if you can't, you can't. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • His favorite band during during this time was Rush. According to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush. The line about Rush being his favourite band seems a bit gossip-magazine, until the end of the sentence, when we realize why it's relevant. How about restructuring these sentences like this: He learned to play drums during his teenage years, and joined the high school marching band; according to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush, who were his favorite band.
        • I've rephrased it as you suggested. Thanks!
    OK. I made one more tiny tweak. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • after graduating from Wentworth: can you supply the year he graduated?
        • Done.
      • Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point and was initially not keen on their material, but after playing along to several of the band's songs, he agreed to join the Pixies: This reads a little oddly. The actual sequence is presumably: (1) he is persuaded to attend the audition; (2) he plays along with some of their songs; (3) he is not keen on their material; (4) they offer him the job; (5) he considers and accepts. The current version names 3, 2 and 5, in that order. Assuming I'm right about what really happened, how about this rewrite: Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point, but attended the audition, playing along to several of the Pixies' songs. He was initially not keen on the material, but when Black and Santiago asked him to join the band, Lovering agreed.
        • I think Karanacs' copyedit has made this clearer. What do you think?
    It's a bit better. I'm not going to withhold support for this, but I do still think it sounds a bit strange to say he disliked the material and then listened to it. Up to you if you want to tweak it some more; as I say I expect to support regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the impression the three Pixies played the material to him (which, upon writing this, I realise I should add to the article), he then played along, and then he joined.
    Hopefully it's much clearer now.
    Yes, that does it. Thanks for bearing with me on this one. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article The Purple Tape says there were seventeen songs on the demo tape, not eighteen; is that correct?
        • Clarified in The Purple Tape. Some day I'll probably merge it with Come On Pilgrim and improve it.
    OK; all I cared about for now was that it was correct here, and it looks like it is. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is probably obvious to you (since you know the Pixies so well) but it's not to me: what is Lovering's contribution to the band's songwriting in general? You mention that he co-wrote "Levitate Me"; did he ever write anything else for the Pixies?
        • It doesn't appear he wrote anything else (not even "Make Believe"); should I clarify this in the "Levitate Me" sentence?
    Yes, please; that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified.
    Struck above; but perhaps you could expand it to "(his only major writing contribution to any Pixies song)", just to completely clear? Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "steady and accurate style": it doesn't appear that this is sourced by the footnote later in the paragraph. Can you confirm? I do think you need to find a source for this: it's a subjective opinion on his drumming. You don't need to find a reviewer or critic who uses those exact words, just someone who decribes his drumming in terms sufficiently similar to those words.
        • I've found a choice quote for his drumming style, so I've replaced it with the exact words. (Is the quote sufficiently similar to the original description of his style to keep the original though?)
    I think so -- you now have somebody cited for a description of his style so I think the similarities are close enough. More sources would be good for this sort of thing but what you have is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I've replaced it with the previous description.
      • the relationship between the band members became strained: is anything known about Lovering's relationships with the rest of the band, in particular? Bands split for a lot of different reasons; often there is one particular personality clash, but sometimes everyone in the band gets sick of everyone else. Can anything more specific be said? And is there anything specific about Lovering?
        • The only specific details I have to do with Francis and Deal, Lovering isn't talked about much with regards to band relationships.
    Was it Francis and Deal's relationship only that was the issue? Or were there other problems? If Francis and Deal are the main issue I suggest you mention their names at the top of the paragraph rather than the end; not doing so gives the initial impression that it was everyone in the band.
    I get the impression from reading my sources that it was the whole band, but only the tension between Francis and Deal is really talked about. I'll try rephrasing it soon.
    Given what you say, I think the current phrasing is OK -- it does accurately describe the situation. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After the final date of the Doolittle "Fuck or Fight" tour: Can you supply the date here? Doesn't have to be down to the day, just the month would do.
        • Done.
      • During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica. I think "during this time" means "during the hiatus", but I think the hiatus needs to be given dates. Naming the end of the tour supplies one date; the 1990 "reconvene" date is the other end of the hiatus. So was Lovering in Jamaica that whole time? Or just for a short vacation? Did he travel there to relax?
        • I've removed the Jamaica sentence. I'm in the process of finding some dates for the hiatus.
    Good enough for me to strike; dates are a bonus if you can find them. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After the band reconvened in 1990, Lovering moved to Los Angeles and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde. I think this might be better as "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles but remained a band member, and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde". This still isn't quite right, though. Are you mentioning his move to LA just because it happened, or also because it might indicate a separation from the band? If the latter, then we do need to connect it with something like a "but", as my suggested rewrite does; if the former, then I think it should be in a separate sentence, to avoid implying a connection. I think "contributed to" is also a poor choice of verb: it implies that he really only showed up to do a bit of drumming, but someone else really did the album. If he was a full member and those are albums by the Pixies, then you need something more like "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles that year, but remained a band member. The Pixies released two more albums, Bossanova in 1990 and Trompe le Monde in 1991, and <number of> singles, including Velouria in <year>. The B-side to Velouria was Make Believe, a song about Lovering's admitted "obsession" with American singer-songwriter Debbie Gibson; Lovering wrote "Make Believe" and sang lead vocals for it." This needs some more copy-editing but I think it's the right direction. I am assuming from the article that Lovering wrote "Make Believe", by the way; is that correct?
        • Most of the band moved to LA. I supposed that piece does need rephrasing.
          • Clarified, and made much simpler. How does it look now?
    That's definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lovering moved from band to band, drumming with Tanya Donelly's band on Lovesongs for Underdogs (1997) and Boston band Eeenie Meenie. until opportunities for new work dried up. Opportunities began to dry up, and Lovering gave up the drums and moved into a rented house that banned drumming. Some debris there from previous copy-editing that needs to be cleaned up. That "(1997)" is a little clumsy, but dates are definitely a good idea; any dates you can add to any of the events in this paragraph would be helpful.
        • Karanacs' copyedit of the paragraph has resolved this. I've also clarified a date here; I don't think Eeenie Meenie was a major project of his.
      • one track of The Martinis's The Smitten Sessions: Is that punctuation correct (Martinis's)?
        • Fixed to be consistent with the other Pixies articles.
      • In the reunion para, I don't think you can use "bottoming out" twice; I'd suggest taking out the first quote and finding a synonym, such as saying he was depressed or whatever is accurate. The phrase is too strong to bear repetition in that way.
        • Well spotted, and not intended. Replaced the first instance with "feeling depressed".
      • Why is the Magic Performance section separated from the section titled "The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects"? Wouldn't they fit naturally together?
        • I'll probably merge them soon, since at least two editors have suggested this.
          • Merged.
    Looks much better; there's a tense issue I just noticed though: you have "resided" but "performs" -- I'd think the past tense is right, since they're not still together (are they?). Also, the link to The Unholy Three is not to what you want. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've fixed both those issues now.

    -- Mike Christie (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've switched to support, above; there's one point outstanding but I don't think it's necessary for FAC. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for the review. Your comments have really helped to improve the article. CloudNine (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Jim Bowie

    [edit]

    This article about a legendary American frontiersman is currently a Good Article. It is comprehensive, well cited, and well-written. There has been much speculation about Bowie's life and the facts are often mixed with legend. I've attempted to address the various stories about his life and death in as neutral a manner as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick google is showing me photographs of the subject that should be pd. Might be nice additions.--Docg 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the photos that appear on a Google search are variations on the same one that is currently used in the infobox. Bowie was only known to have sat for one portrait, and this is it. There are other images that show Bowie portrayed in various movies, but I didn't think any of those were notable enough to include in the article. Open to a mind change on that, though.... Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments—Weak support; the writing is much improved. Please "fix the." final punctuation in "The Alamo" section where quotes start within a WP sentence; and I see at least one caption with a final period closing what is just a nominal group rather than a full sentence (Lopez). Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • MOS: hyphenate "19th-century" when a double adjective.
    • "the then-vice governor"—remove the hyphen.
    • Why you'd want to spell out "nineteen/th" but use numerals here ("his father owned 8 slaves, 7 horses, 11 head of cattle, and 1 stud horse") is beyond me. Better to spell out single-digits; I see "30" later. See MOS.
    • How do you "gift" a servant? Were they slaves?
    • Audit for ungainly repetitions, e.g., "... many British knife manufacturers were producing Bowie knives, shipping many of them ..."
    • Uncomfortable merging of two different ideas in this sentence: "The design of the knife continued to evolve, and it is generally agreed to have a blade 8.25 inches (21.0 cm) long and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) wide, with a curved point."
    • "700,000 acres (2,834 km²)"—No, hectares please.
    • "most of it in land with questionable titles"——>"most of it in land of questionable title".
    • I hope that Hopewell (1994) is an authoritative text; it dominates your citations list. Ensure that there's consistently a space after "pp.".

    These are very random samples of why at least an hour by a good copy-editor is necessary. Tony (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    THANK YOU for your comments. I've implemented all of your suggestions. I assume that the servants mentioned were slaves, but it was not specifically stated. Hopewell is the definitive biography. Several other biographies have been produced for children, but no (or few) other scholarly works focus specifically on Bowie. Karanacs (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A nicely structured and well-written article. I do have a question mark over this sentence though: "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to help keep the peace, primarily by chasing Indians". Makes it sound like a game of tag. How does "chasing Indians" help keep the peace? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments. I rewrote the sentence to be "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to keep the peace and protect the colonists from attacks by hostile Indians." I think you are right and this makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I left messages on the talk pages of User:Mike Christie, User:Casliber and User:Dweller asking them to take a look at the article, as I've reviewed several of Mike's (and hoped he could return the favor) and I've seen that Casliber and Dweller review a lot of articles. I am by no means asking them to support the article, I'd just like more eyes on it so that we can figure out what else could be improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Dweller
    • Q. If only one person escaped from the Alamo, how could there be eyewitnesses (plural) to the moving the bed story?
    • The article is sparsely illustrated. I dislike illustrations inserted purely for aesthetics but as there are so few (1!) of the subject, you can easily justify including some pictures of some of the major personalities referred to substantially in the text.
    • I second the suggestion made above by Tony that this gets a thorough copyedit by someone not previously associated with the article. I noticed lots of irritating niggles that detract from an otherwise excellent article. I'd rather give a thorough review once this has been done. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one man deserted from the Alamo. While all of the defenders died, the Mexican army spared the women and children and two slaves. I've added a sentence that specifically mentions that. I've also added two images of others important in the Alamo fight (William B. Travis and Santa Anna). I've also put in a request to have User:BQZip01 help with copyediting and am waiting to hear from him. Thanks for your time. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments prose is fair and I'm wading though. The Early Years has a bit of 'and then X happenedd, and then Y, and then Z...', which is I guess dependent on the information known and maybe cannot be helped. But any descriptors of episodes you can add would be appreciated (eg extent of his fathers' injuries, or fact that reading and writing was unusual at the time. Census literacy figures may be good. More later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was perplexed by 'gifted' too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    further establishing his reputation - as a what? Also if he already had a reputation, needs a different verb here. 'boosting' or somthing similar but less colloquial. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anglo colonists - I wouldn't use this like this. Bit colloquial - 'English-speaking'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anglo colonists" is the term that is used in most of the histories of the period. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    rumblings, - tad colloquial - 'rumours of unrest'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support. A fine, detailed article. I have a few questions and suggestions; not many of these are necessary for me to support.

    • Bowie and his brother Rezin enlisted in the Louisiana militia in late 1814. The War of 1812 ended on 24 December that year…: does "that year" mean 1814? I think it must, and reading the rest of the sentence clarifies the sequence. However, because of the date in the name of the war, this is a slightly disconcerting thing to read. (I know nothing about the war of 1812 and couldn't have told you if it lasted till 1814 or not.) If you can find a rephrasing that reads less oddly, that would be handy.
      • I'm a bit puzzled by this too, on further investigation. Although the Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814, ending the War of 1812, it appears that Jackson didn't immediately get to hear the news, as he was still fighting in January 1815: "Unaware of the peace, Jackson's forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in late 1814 to defend against a large-scale British invasion. Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans on 8 January, with over 2,000 British casualties and fewer than 100 American losses. It was hailed as a great victory, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me, sorry, I had changed it to reduce repetition from 1814 but now realise it added ambiguity. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewritten those sentences again and I think they make a lot more sense now. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • he joined the Long expedition in an effort to free Texas from Spanish oversight. I'd suggest making this "he joined the Long expedition, an effort to free Texas from Spanish rule". I'd eliminate "in" because it's not Bowie's effort, it's the expedition's effort -- Bowie just joined the effort. I don't like "oversight" as it implies that the state already had some form of independence, and there was merely some notional oversight, rather than actual Spanish rule.
    I've fixed this to be "the Long expedition, an effort to liberate Texas from Spanish rule." Karanacs (talk)
    • There are a couple of places where a map would be handy for those not familiar with the local geography. None are necessary for FA, though, so I've posted those suggestions at the article talk page. Struck to make sure this is not interpreted as part of an oppose; we can continue this on the article talk page.
    • The story of his partnership with Lafite is remarkable. You make it clear that the law allowed for the refund of half the price of the slaves. However, the whole scheme seems so transparently fraudulent that I'd like the article to more directly affirm that the whole thing was completely above-board, if it was. Did the state actually know all the facts, including Lafite's involvement? Was everything Bowie did legal? If so, I think we need to be left in no doubt about it -- especially given that Bowie was comfortable skirting the law on other occasions.
      • The sources don't make it clear what the state officials knew, but I doubt that Lafitte's involvement would have been publicly known at that time. The state laws don't appear to have addressed the possibility that a slave smuggler would inform on himself; I doubt the legislature would have intended this to happen, but this wouldn't be the first LA law to have giant loopholes in it. (My favorite-until recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol if you were under 21 but legal to sell it anyone over 18). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a pity the sources don't say more about that. It would be nice to clarify if you ever find a source.
    • If the cause of Cecilia Wells' death is known, I think it would be good to include it.
    • When he marries Ursula, you quote an amount in pesos shortly followed by an amount in dollars. I don't know how these are related, and I think that most readers will not. You may not be able to find anything like an exact exchange rate, but for this context I think it would be enough if you could say something like: "$223,000…many times more than the dowry contract required" or "not quite enough for the dowry" or whatever. (I'm guessing the former is more likely to be true.) If you can get an exchange rate, I'd suggest quoting the approximate dollar value of the pesos.
    • Is "Anglo" used in the historical works? It is a current colloquialism and I wondered if it was the standard term.
    • If I understand the sequence correctly, Bowie, while a Mexican citizen and married to the daughter of a Mexican government official, ambushes a Mexican army, and then returns to San Antonio where he is not in any trouble for his actions. Am I missing something? Why wouldn't his ambush have annoyed the Mexican government? Did they not know who he was?
      • Mexico had no idea what to do with those pesky colonists and tried to ignore them until 1835. There were very few Mexican troops in the state, and they primarily tried to fend off Indian attacks. I'm not sure how to clarify this better in the article—do you have any suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the sources, I was able to add a paragraph just before this that details that Mexico was actually in the midst of a little civil war at the time, and the commander Bowie defeated was on the losing side. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • the Convention of 1833, which formally requested independent statehood in Mexico: I am unclear on the meaning of "in" here. Does it mean that the independence would have still been within a Mexican federation? Or that the convention was held in Mexico?
    • the San Felipe-Nacogdoches area of Texas: you wouldn't think of those two towns today as being in the same area, assuming you're talking about the current San Felipe, Texas. Back then, would this have meant "south eastern Texas"?
      • Tt would have meant the areas that included most of the Anglo land grants.
    I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed this. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Does Hopewell give any details about how we know about Bonham's resolution in favour of holding the Alamo? If it happens that the document itself survives, I think that would be interesting to mention. If it's just an eyewitness report, no need to add anything.
    • The story of the line in the sand: I am baffled by this: "After its initial publication, this account was confirmed by several other eyewitnesses, but the story can only be authenticated by the word of the reporter": if there are other eyewitnesses, then surely the reporter is not the only person who can authenticate it?
    I am striking this; I see you've clarified it in the article.

    That's everything. A very interesting article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments.
    I've struck one more point and am now happy to support; I have done so above. I still think the use of "authenticate" is a little odd; I'd just reduce that sentence to "…as Rose admitted to embellishing other articles…" but that's your choice. Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Stories of his frontier spirit made him one of the most colorful folk heroes of Texas history." needs to be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.
    I rephrased this sentence so that it actually makes sense now. The supporting evidence for the folk hero/legend part is in the Legacy section. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see what was meant now. Much better phrasing. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "(USA)" isn't necessary after Kentucky. Click the link to Kentucky if you don't know about it...
    It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable enough. I did say weak oppose... — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "His father had been injured..." should be was injured. Keep an eye out for "had + verb"
    Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...I see your point there. No worries, my bad. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Although all of the Bowie children learned to read and write in English, Bowie and his elder brother Rezin could also read, write, and speak Spanish and French fluently.[6] The children were also taught how to survive on the frontier, as well as how to fish and run a farm and plantation. Bowie became proficient with pistol, rifle, and knife.[7] He had a reputation for fearlessness, and as a boy one of his Indian friends taught him how to rope alligators.[8]" Be careful here. I realize you are talking about Jim Bowie, but everyone mentioned in the paragraph is a Bowie as well. Stick with "Jim" for this paragraph to limit ambiguity.
    "Shortly before Bowie's father died in 1818 or 1819, he gave Bowie and his brother Rezin each ten servants..." should be "their father."
    Fixed. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bowie became famous as a result of a feud..." How famous? presumably the people involved in the land disputes knew of him and took him all the way to the Supreme Court? How about "nationally famous"? "Internationally famous"?
    Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "...nationally famous Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" now has a competitor I suppose. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "widow's weeds" what the heck are these?
    That is the type of clothing that widows wore in those days. It's not a common term today (because specific mourning clothing is not that common anymore), but a Google search still turns up 15,000 uses of the term [35]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a footnote or a stub article as to what they actually are? — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've wikilinked the term to the article Mourning, which discusses widow's weeds. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More links of The Battle of Alamo to "Alamo" would be appropriate; at least one in the paragraphs about the Alamo.
    First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    good 'nuff — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, from the semi-automated peer review program...
    The only dates that aren't wikilinked are the accessdates in the references, primarily because there is still argument on what the template is supposed to do. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go ahead an link those appropriately anyway, but I won't hold up the nomination for this. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked them. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    I readily admit that some of the sections do have a lot of these terms, primarily because nothing is known for certain about parts of Bowie's life, and it's hard to be more specific. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair explanation. History about people's pasts is often murky. I just wanted you to be aware of it. It seems reasonably addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, these are simple fixes and should be easy to change. Once addressed/changed you have my complete support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my support, but please address the ambiguity concerns. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Józef Piłsudski

    [edit]

    Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't the previous votes valid as cast, unless altered by the voters? Nihil novi (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I count: 26 support, 7 opposed. Nihil novi (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything posted prior to the restart is gone (out of consideration) unless the person reposts it. Raul654 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to what? That they are good questions, or that, yes, "Big Brother" wants to shovel the previous discussion down the memory hole? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard procedure is that if the nomination does not succeed the issue is shelved and the time is given to resolve whatever prevented the article from being promoted. Similarly to how failed RfA candidates have to wait rather than run an RfA after RfA until they like the result same tradition is making a perfect sense for FA-noms. Several edit wars took place during the nomination and the edit wars were not over some specific phrasing, reference or an inclusion of sourced opinion but, for example, removals of whole sections diligently written by editors was attempted and various spurious reasons were cited for that. The effort to dismiss and disparage the editors who voiced their concerns reached a new height and the insistence that the article is great and those who oppose do so for the personal, POV or other bad-faithed reasons were repeatedly invoked at multiple pages. I don't see what is the point of the unprecedented immediate rerun of the nomination that exposed the article's being unready for an FA without first addressing those issues. The last nom drew plenty of bad blood. As if this was not enough and we need an urgent rehash of this dramatic process. --Irpen 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The vote was nearly 4:1 in favor of the Featured-Article nomination. Apart from a few constructive criticisms, the bulk of the nay comments consisted of vociferous but uninformed carping and accusations which were convincingly rebutted by the nominator. Nihil novi (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not matter how much votes of support or oppose it have, what is matter - article improvement and that presented problems on FAC should be solved.M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree with the decision to rerun the nomination. It is not a vote, so the numbers don't matter. All that matters is the reasons for support or objection. And the responses to objections or comments. I agree with Nihil Novi to the extent that it will be better if the objections and responses are stated simply and plainly. Follow-up discussions or editing discussions are probably better placed on the article talk page, so that the wood here can be seen for the trees. qp10qp (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The better choice was to give more time for improvement article and only then current problems there solved renominate again. Currently not mush is done in order to solve them, and we have quite far from consensus that info should be kept which not. Indeed, we can stuck in process of restart over and over again, not good IMO. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no problems with restarting the nomination, the article has changed much during the last one, primarily due to extensive copyediting. The article is much better now than it was a month ago when the nom was submitted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nomination should be restarted as the article has been improved since the last nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: A malincuore, there are too short sections, such Relations or Names. Weak Support: now it's OK, but the last section can be enlarged --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
    Unfortunately "google hits" are not all that some make them out to be. "Malincuore" is Italian, and literally means "heartache" and more loosely, disappointing. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a translation of mal au cœur. Are the two expressions related, and if so, how? Turgidson (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. As before. But now much more whole-heartedly. Due to tremendous response, the article is much improved, including all sorts of details—big and small, nuts and bolts and all—taken care of. I say, enough carping criticism (constructive or otherwise)—let's give it a thumbs up, and appreciate a job well done. Turgidson (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support One of the best articles on Wikipedia, in large part due to unusual interest of different sides, which positively contributed to the contents. Tymek (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree with Piotrus that the article is much better now than it was last month. I believe this is largely due to very specific concerns brought up dealing with a variety of issues, not ...because of vociferous and uninformed carping and accusations... (let's not start up with that rhetoric again). I also believe the article will be much better in another month or so when some final tweaking and improvements can be concluded. Maybe it will be done in two weeks, maybe two months. This is why I also agree with Irpen, that there is no need for an urgent rehash of the nomination. No need to rush into it. I also hope when the proper time comes to re-nominate the article, that every editor voting will come up with an explanation for their vote. Previously, this seemed to be somewhat lacking. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am always happy to address or join in ongoing discussions about what could be further improved; alas, I am not aware of any outstanding unadressed issues still at large. I am sure that as with any article on wiki discussions will continue for ever, but do note that a Featured article is not a "final" or "perfect" one - just one fulfilling the FA-requirements, which I sincerely believe this article does.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Still possible to see that it was not written by a Martian. Beginning with the lead: the statement that Pilsudski was responsible for Poland's independence. Referenced now, but still worded as though his responsibility were universally acknowledged. Quoting Orlando Figes: "But suddenly with the Versailles Treaty it (Poland) found itself with a guarantee of independence and a great deal of new territory given to it by the victorious Western powers as a buffer between Germany and Russia". No credit given to Pilsudski. The US Department of State, not surprisingly, gives credit to Woodrow Wilson - no mention of Pilsudski. [36] The statement needs to be reworded as an attribution. And we have established that he is controversial - that belongs in the lead too, but it will take a while to work out the wording and the references. Flora Lewis described his regime as "ultimately disastrous" . [37]. Yo, people, he put a prime minister in jail (Wincenty Witos) - not currently mentioned. Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. How many square miles of territory did he acquire by military means that were not sanctioned by Versailles and are not part of Poland now? Etc, etc. This will take some time. Novickas (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have a point that the article can be added to or reworded, but those links don't provide usable sources (a US state department website and a newspaper article). Lets break what you say down into objections and try to respond:
    • considered largely responsible for: what about conflating two sentences to "a major influence on"? This doesn't contradict your Figes quote (though nor does the present wording, in my opinion, which just comes at it from another angle). Could you give the full ref for the Figes, so that one may check what he says about Pilsudski? qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Figes ref is from A People's Tragedy: Russian Revolution 1891-1924, 1996, ISBN 0-7126-7327-X, page 697. On the same page: " as soon as Poland gained its independence it began to strut around with imperial pretensions of its own. Marshal Pilsudski, the head of the Polish state and army, talked of restoring 'historic Poland' which had once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. He promised to reclaim her eastern borderlands...As the Germans withdrew from the east, Polish troops marched into the borderlands..." Hope this suffices. More on request, but later. Novickas (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this all that Figes mentions of Piłsudski? For the record, snippet (read: useless) view is all that Google offers for that publication, so verification requires printed copy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, verification isn't a worry to me (I know the book). I just wanted to see if Figes says anything to contradict the article's point about Pilsudski's importance to the independence of Poland. Neither quote does that: the original quote merely says what was agreed at Versailles (the article covers that), and this one merely says what happened after the independence. qp10qp (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Witos's imprisonment could be mentioned; just add it in. However, the article makes it clear that Pilsudski was a dictator and anti-parliamentary. Those who think that this article paints Pilsudski as a hero might look again at its content (it records that Pilsudski was sometimes thought to be a hero, but that is a different matter). I disliked Pilsudski after reading this article and did not admire him; the article did not strike me as glorifying him. qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion: it is quite clear that he was opposed by the normal democratic bodies—for example, here: From 1926 to 1930, Piłsudski relied chiefly on propaganda to weaken the influence of opposition leaders.[18] The culmination of his dictatorial and supralegal policies came in 1930 with the imprisonment and trial of certain political opponents on the eve of the 1930 Polish legislative elections, and with the 1934 establishment of a prison for political prisoners at Bereza Kartuska (today Biaroza),[18] where some prisoners were brutally mistreated. I don't see how the anti-democratic and dictatorial behaviour of Pilsudski could be made plainer without the article becoming biased in the opposite direction. One instinctively sides with those on the receiving end.qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the note on him being controversial to the lead a few hours ago. As I have explained to you before, many factors contributed to Polish independence, and depending on context, various ones will be emphasized. I am not suprised that publication on Versailles notes Versailles, or that one on Polish-American relations mentions Wilson. But this article is about Piłsudski, and details on what contributed to Poland's independence belong in another article(s) - not in the lead of P. article. George Washington "was a central, critical figure in the founding of the United States" - surely he was not alone, but you don't find in the lead an extensive discussion of other founding fathers or international politics. The article does not claim that "Piłsudski alone was responsible for Poland's independence", instead, like GW article, it qualifies his role with "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence". This seems perfectly appropriate and is well-referenced.
    • Newspapers are not the best of references. Lewis quote is not clear, she may as well mean ("Pilsudski... established an authoritarian regime... eventually disastrous") that Second Polish Republic ended in disaster after Nazi invasion in 1939. We have better criticism in legacy, including the well referenced claim that Piłsudski "inevitably drawn both intense loyalty and intense vilification" - which, amusingly, we can see well in our discussions here :)
    • Witos imprisonment - part of the Brest trial controversy - is discussed in the article in its context and linked, the list of who was arrested and sentenced (or not) does not belong in P. article but in the relevant subarticle (eleven important politicians were tried, quite a few more were arrested and briefly imprisoned alongside Witos, including Wojciech Korfanty, another Polish PM ... so what? This is article about Piłsudski, not about the Brest trial).
    • Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists - I am pretty sure that Dmowski and endecja - mentioned many times throughout the article - are not characterized as minority extremists, and many other factions opposed to him are mentioned (socialists, communists)...
    • As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. Also: "Piłsudski's regime marked a period of much-needed national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities, which formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population" and "Mainstream organizations of ethnic minorities similarly expressed their support for his policies of ethnic tolerance, though he was criticized, similarly to the communists, by Jewish (BUND), Ukrainian, German and Lithuanian extremists". Methinks the Ukrainians, Germans, and Lithuanians would disagree with this. As for the Jewish minority, read this from the Simon Wiesenthal foundation: "In 1926 Marshal Jozef Pilsudski seized power with the help of the army. He had no anti - Jewish tendencies and refrained from using antisemitism as an instrument for furthering political and socioeconomic policies. At first, Pilsudski promised to improve the situation of the Jews but little was accomplished in practice although the general atmosphere with regard to the Jews showed improvement." [38]. Not as strong a statement as is currently written. But doesn't this all belong on the article talk page, and doesn't it all indicate serious disagreement? Also pls remove the word "dream" from the article. Novickas (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help to note you have not addressed my or Qp10qp's replies above. Can we assume you are satisfied with our arguments? P.
    • Sorry, not satisfied and not done. If it goes ahead and becomes an FA, so be it; I won't have time in the upcoming days to address it further, but will continue to keep an eye on it - pls bear in mind that I don't like edit warring, so my lack of that does not constitute an endorsement. Novickas (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you address our replies, so we know which of them do you find unsatisfactory, and why? P.
    • The Allies cared much less about ethnic boundaries than about balance of power. They did not want to see their traditional ally Russia weakened, but of course they coated this in more "politically correct" arguments. This should be mentioned in most publications (scholarly, not newspapers) that analyzes the issue in depth, instead of just mentioning this in passing. That said, we can just shorten this by leaving rationales in the Międzymorze article - but selectively added those that support one's POV and leaving others out is a 'no-no'. PS. And certainly ethnic boundaries were the last thing on Allied minds during the PSW; it was the balance of power which made them request P. help Whites against the Bolsheviks - even through the Whites were much less willing to recognize independence of any former Russisan Empire minorities. It was the balance of power and desire for strong Germany and Russia that kept England in the anti-Polish camp (read on Lloyd George), and French desire for weak Germany that countered it (and resulted in the Allies not doing anything for or against Poland). American Wilson, the idealist might have cared about non-realpolitk concepts like ethnic boundaries, but by the time of the PSW he was already trampled by the US isolationism, and USA expressed no interest in Międzymorze.
    • Regarding analysis of the statements made by various factions after his death, this is referenced with a scholarly publication dedicated to analyzing those. Feel free to provide a scholarly reference to the contrary.
    • As for the Jewish minority, read the current references. I believe the article is neutral with regards to that issue.
    • Does this belong on the talk page? Perhaps, but why do you post it here? The FAC time, as evident, attracts comments from many editors who are otherwise not active in the article. We try our best to address them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Novickas has a point about that paragraph. It's easy to fix, so lets take it to the talk page. On the other hand, this afternoon I was comparing the part of the article from the retirement to the end with a number of books written by non-Polish historians, and I found that to be the only paragraph that didn't stand up. qp10qp (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph about relations with the nationalist minorities and the Jews. I have added some material, referenced from Leslie, which balances the largely positive tone of the paragraph. I hope this addresses Novickas's objection on that point. qp10qp (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Novickas makes this objection: As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. - But I don't see the difference between what you say and what is in the article: they wanted the existing balance of power, not an expansion of Poland. I am willing to address your objections, but this seems very minor and in my opinion does not merit a change to the wording. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see it in every article too :D...
    Previously Alleged non-NPOV - what are possible solutions? I previously proposed in order to achieve NPOV a section on (Józef Piłsudski's) "Political views", more recently I proposed a section on historiography, previously there was a section on criticism, "Public Image" is another name for a name for such a section.
    I believe Piłsudski is a hero of Poland as it's "liberator" - - that he was a great man in the eyes of many does not diminish that he was also a "fascist" in the eyes of others.
    What do you think, Piotrus? Please note that these might be good suggestions even outside of being solutions to a non-NPOV but rather to improve comprehensibility and organization.
    --Kiyarrllston 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that the picture that Piotrus has given us may be as close as we will get to "Piłsudski's political views." I don't think he ever published a synthesis of his views; he was a pragmatist; and he tended to keep his cards close to the vest—the result of decades of clandestine work, dogged by secret-police spies and enemies of every political stripe. Even politicians in modern western democracies tend to be duplicitous. Don't expect complete declarations of political views from a man in his circumstances in that period. Nihil novi (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain may have some issues, but- what's FA quality anyways? - way more attention is paid to this than to less controversial articles, this article is far above in quality. Good work, Piotrus.--Kiyarrllston 11:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My 1986 Encyclopedia Americana lists him as "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," Polish diacritics and all. Nihil novi (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica lists him as "Józef (Klemens) Piłsudski," likewise with the Polish diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Norman Davies, God's Playground (1982), calls him "Józef Piłsudski," with diacritics.
    Richard M. Watt, Bitter Glory (1979), calls him "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," with diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, thanks, sorry for not noticing Nominator's answer in the previous FAC.--Kiyarrllston 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Piłsudski is a central figure in a period of Polish history that could be termed "the Age of Piłsudski." This article does a unique job of bringing together the salient information on the man and the age. Nihil novi (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you cut it down to a 50 KB summary of his life and that period of history, and move the less important details to subarticles? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you concerned about limited space, or about limited attention spans? The ADHD-readers' version is already in the article's lead. Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly I'm concerned about the extremely high load time of 110 KB articles on dial-up connections, especially when trying to edit them. 10-20 seconds to load the article for editing...1 minute to load each preview...10-20 seconds to save...it kind of discourages dial-up users from contributing. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate these technical aspects, and your bringing them to our attention. On the other hand, Piłsudski was a complex man living and acting in a complex time, and so has inevitably stirred controversy. I fear that far-reaching paring-down of the article might lead to misleading oversimplifications. Nihil novi (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Content wouldn't be deleted, just copied to one or more subarticles and then summarized in the main article, with links to the subarticles. Surely a reasonably comprehensive summary of Józef Piłsudski could be given in less than 100 KB. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions: 1) Is there any actual requirement (not recommendation) in respect to article sizes? 2) I know that there is an occasional practice of splitting someone's life into separate articles, but this is remarkably arbitrary and ghastly. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that people who worked on the article have more familiarity with what can and cannot be split into smaller articles? (In other words: Surely, one could develop some articles from this one, but should they be developed along arbitrary lines just because the text is too big?) Dahn (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a strict requirement, but it is a guideline per Wikipedia:Article size. The "Biography" section is 82 KB, more than enough for an article of its own. One option is to copy-and-paste the biography section into a new article, Biography of Józef Piłsudski, link to that article at the top of Józef Piłsudski#Biography, and then summarize Biography of Józef Piłsudski at Józef Piłsudski#Biography. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be nitpicking, but I fail to see how an article about someone's biography could be separated from the article on the person - the two terms are synonymous (I know stuff like that was done in the past, but I for one have always thought of it as a bad idea). In any case, it is better for an article to say more than for editors to bicker over what is "essential" (you will note that two or three FAC applications of this article have prolonged themselves over precisely the "essential" issues to have in the article). One could move and develop elsewhere the various parts that come in addition to biographical data (even if that would arguably not be a significant reduction). Plus, there are currently many FAs who go way over the limit, and this was deemed (and, to my eyes, was) the best solution.
    When a subject is complex, the article itself will have to be complex. Especially since this length was achieved after a shaky compromise, meaning that creating other articles could only lead users to contention and the article back to the drawing board for eternity. Dahn (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could call the new branch Life of Józef Piłsudski if you wanted. The main Józef Piłsudski article covers not only his life, but his legacy and family, so there's already a separatoin between his life and his legacy. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biography" and "life" are themselves synonymous to each other in this context, so it would not make much sense. Yes, bio and legacy are separated, but they are so in the article. For the rest, an article about a person is about that person's life and something else - the solution would be to turn that something else into an article, instead of making two about what is mainly the same thing. I could see separate ones on "Legacy" or "Family", but to have one on "Life" (or, alternatively, ones on, respectively, "Childhood", "Adolescence" etc.) looks like the worst solution possible. And let me add that the solution implied is to a non-existing problem (per my previous arguments). The concern here is not to cut down articles, but to create prose that is not sectioned abruptly according to arbitrary criteria. Dahn (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ←I've been thinking about it some more, and perhaps a better solution would be to create articles based on the existing section breaks. For example, we could have an article on the Authoritarian rule of Józef Piłsudski, which would be a more logical division. That would allow more room for future expansion of the specific topic of his authoritarian rule, with a shorter summary of the topic in the main article. Surely a decent summary can be created for each of the long sections, something between the coverage that the lead section gives and what the subarticle would give. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly a direction to look into, and it does look feasible. The problem in this case may be more subtle however: editors seem to have different ideas about what is essential, especially in respect to that part of the article; though I have not looked into it, it would seem that the recent expansions have attempted to cover all of what is essential in all takes on the matter, which means that they may not agree on what needs to be summarized, and that what we see before us at the moment actually is the summary. I for one see no technical problem with the length - meaning that a subarticle may actually be an even larger version of the section, and that the section is as small as it could ever get.
    I should specify I took no part in authoring any section of the text - I'm just a bystander who has expressed mild objections to an earlier version of the article. At the moment, I am neither opposed nor supportive, because I think that the article needs some more work before reaching FA level (format problems and not just are still quite visible). I'm not sure it is not actually up to FA requirements, but I would still be polishing it if I would have a better grasp of the subject 9and, yes, part of that polish will involve condensing some parts of the text). Dahn (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I certainly agree that subarticles should be created, 1) I don't think that length is a problem - we have many other FAs of similar length, it there is no policy or FA requirement of shorter length; in other words, it's just a personal preference which shouldn't constitute an objection 2) based on my experience with subarticle of Polish-Soviet War - ex. Polish-Soviet War in 1919 - which where split exactly to address such FA lenght objection, I can see that such articles are rarely read or edited, and hence somewhat useless. 3) The large size of the article is also a result of higher than average density of citations and variety of references. Surely you don't recommend we cut down on those? 4) Finally, in any case, splitting of sections would entitle rewritting the entire article, which would require hours more of work, new voting, rereading it by various editors who voted and so on - which I don't think is necessary. That said, I do support creation of more subarticles, and I do think that new content should be added to them, not to the current article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a guideline about article size: Wikipedia:Article size. A 100 KB article crushes a dial-up connection, which doesn't do much for encouraging contribution. It's possible to have shorter articles that are still well-referenced. Unfortunately, previous FACs have not paid much attention to this issue.
    If detailed information is split off into subarticles, and those articles are in turn rarely read, doesn't that indicate that few people are interested in reading that information anyway? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect to the Third World inhabitants, most of readers and contributors of English Wikipedia use broadband. Perhaps we could have a 'dial up' Wikipedia with tiny articles, but I prefer to have comprehensive, multimedia articles to small stubs. In any case, if an editor wants a tiny summary, this is what lead is for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not talking about small stubs. I'm talking about the exact same information, perhaps more comprehensive, split into different articles with a condensed version left behind. Still, I see your point: dial-up is dying out. Thus, I'm changing to "Weak oppose". —Remember the dot (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor suggestion partly sparked by the above comments: it would seem that the google book URLs in the text would in themselves, if placed together, amount to an entire paragraph. Now, as far as i could tell, they follow precise and complete bibliographic references, which means that they are redundant. The links themselves would not necessarily be visible to all users, and the viewable text, if I understood correctly, is not made available indefinitely - the viewable pages in one book can change with time, or google books may prevent the same users from revisiting them over and over. (In addition, they drag the text editing window to the right, which can get really annoying.) Is it possible to have them removed, or do they serve some other, not immediately apparent, purpose? Dahn (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Google books are not very editor friendly, but they allow a user to view the selected page ASAP. True, they tend to rot - but on some random basis (I know some that have been stable for two years). As useful, they should stay - but certainly, as a very long urls they may take 1kb or more. If we cared more about technical aspects than writing good articles, we could remove them - but I'd hope our care is in the other direction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, but my full point is that the references accompanying them are already exact (down to page numbers), meaning that the technical aspect is covered without them having to stick around. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a link to online page is helpful. Remember: Wikipedia is not paper. We can afford extensive and hyperlinked bibliographical information - just as paper publications often skip ISBN (which we link to online book search engines), or hyperlinks on authors or titles of notable books (for obvious reasons).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As the last time--Molobo (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I remmember correctly both my history teachers at primary and high school mentioned that politicaly the march of the First Cadre Company into the area of Cracow in 1914 was a spectacular failure, citizens barred their doors and windows instead of showing support for Piłsudski's legioners - I have heard that event may have influenced Piłsudski's authortarian belifs. In my opinion This article should mention that event and it's possible future implications. Mieciu K (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urbankowaski discusses this and argues that it was not a big failure, more of an average welcome with fewer volunteers than Piłsudski expected, but no 'empty streets' or 'barred doors'. IIRC he noted that such accounts were propagated by enemies of Piłsudski and the Legions, although there are confusing (contradictory) accounts of those events. If you have a ref that states that this even influenced Piłsudski, feel free to add it - although considering the lenght of the article, perhaps the FCC article would a better place for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the beginning of World War I, when Polish Legions cavalry officers attempted to pay a courtesy call at Oblęgorek, that singer of the national epos, Henryk Sienkiewicz, kept them at arm's length. Many people were lukewarm toward the Legions, and recruiting officers found slim pickings. Which, if anything, only underlines the farsightedness and determination of Piłsudski and his men. Nihil novi (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008 (UTC)

    • Comment. Now that we near the end of this debate concerning the placing of the Pilsudski article as a FA candidate, I would like to again make a few comments. First, it was never my intention to prevent this article from attaining FA status, but only that a balanced and coherent encyclopedic article would be presented to our readers on English Wikipedia. Along the way, I also came to the conclusion that in the future, when and if I cast a vote in such debates, I will never personally use "per so and so" as the explanation of my position, but will explain my vote based on the subject matter, and my knowledge of it. To do otherwise would be suggesting that I didn't have my own opinion, or that I didn't have a clue about the actual subject matter at hand, or that I was just too lazy to give my own explanation. It seems odd to me that many of the earlier votes of "support" have retained their position without making any contributions or changes to the article. And not even acknowledging the many improvements and changes that have come about since the last survey. The least one could do is acknowledge is that the opposition votes catalyzed these changes to occur. I hope everyone has recently re-read through the article. I have. Granted, that has not been easy considering its length, tenditious style, and the spiderweb of "references" that one has to wade through. That was always one of my greatest objections to the article as it stands, because it gives it a ludicrous quality, and there is nothing ludicrous about this great man who did so much for Poland.

    Also as I stated previously, one of my biggest problems with the article was its frequent incoherency, resulting from edits by individuals with a poor grasp of English, and its attempt to portray a controversial figure in a cult of personality POV type of format. The continual reversion of sourced edits (by very established historians, e.g., Norman Davies, Timothy Snyder, and others), with comment like "it's offensive" and the like, was another reason that I objected. This activity soon began to also violate WP:OWN as time went on. Someone would make a useful edit only to have it reverted by one or two of the same people. Why because they personally didn't like it. They decided that their job was to "forge" this article according to their POV, and history and the facts be damned. As these "offensive" arguments became stronger and the reasons for their reversion became less tenable, the solution by these parties was to sweep these issues under the carpet and obscure the information by allowing it to stay in links to the footnotes, rather than allowing it to be part of the article proper (with a few other manoevers). This fact should be strongly considered in deciding what to do with this new proposal, and that the former information be reinstated. Personally I like Pilsudski, and have stated so in the past. Naturally, I take issue with the fact that he was a dictator, and an opponent of democracy. He was a fish swimming in the pond of totalitarianism, which was in vogue in that period of European history. He wasn't alone, nor was he as big a fish as some here would have liked him to be. Just the same, he did the best that he could under the circumstances, and with what he had to work with. As user: Halibutt stated (with sourced information and links) and so did Davies, Pilsudski considered himself Lithuanian. This fact has been fought "tooth and nail", more because of the argument WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, than a true refutation of this fact. Let it stay on the record here. Same with his establishment of a concentration camp, or Pilsudski referring to "Poles as a Nation of Morons", or Dmowski and Co. considering him an "alien in their midst". Relevant, factual information, that didn't fit in with the one-side portrayal that was being censored.The article could still be vastly improved, given a little more time. Is the article now better and less biased than before? Yes! Can it still be improved and made better with a little more time? Of course it could. So then, why do we have this unusual push, push, push? The article is not about to be deleted, WP is not about to cease to exist. I'm hoping that whoever feels the need for this extraordinary push to make this an FA article, is not fearful that their own questionable edits might not pass the test of time and analysis. The biggest "red flag", is this continual rush to make this an FA, with a new survey every couple of weeks. Since the debate started, this article has been vastly improved. Let the work continue. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on comment: As others have pointed out, there was not necessarily an incompatibility, for persons such as Piłsudski, between considering oneself a Pole and a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanian." So there really is no need to harp on his having been a "Lithuanian." The assassinated first president of Poland, Gabriel Narutowicz, was a "Pole," if only ex officio; his brother Stanisław Narutowicz was a member of the State Council of Lithuania and a signer of the Lithuanian Act of Independence of February 16, 1918. Similarly, in Galicia, Stanisław Szeptycki was a Polish general, while his brother Andrey Sheptytsky was a Ukrainian Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
    What Piłsudski has been quoted as saying of Poles ("morons"), any politican has thought at times of his constituency, so it is superfluous to use such a quotation, out of context, to gratuitously insult all Poles.
    Dmowski's opinion of Piłsudski hardly seems germane. Probably a critical, if not scatological, comment of Piłsudski's could be cited regarding Dmowski. Again, par for the course, with politicians. Nihil novi (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment on comment: So why this constant dawdle, dawdle, dawdle? Our esteemed colleague's skill in filibuster would do honor to a United States Senator.
    Our colleague's style of argument reminds me of that of George Bernard Shaw, of whom a critic remarked that seldom has a writer used so many words to convey so little substance. Nihil novi (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nihil, who decides if someone is a Pole, and that if another person is a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Lithuanian" (but is still actually a Pole)? Is there also such a thing as a Lithuanian, and also a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Pole"? I'm assuming that your exclamation marks are trying to state that your belief is that these type of Lithuanians deserve a special designation. Is there not a similar designation for such "Poles"? Or are Poles simply Poles, and the others, like Pilsudski who were Lithuanians, at best Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanians?"
    Whereas granted, Fujimoro is a Peruvian (ex officio of course), the history lesson regarding the Narutavicius brothers and the Sheptytsky brothers was unecessary, unless it was for the benefit of others. The bottom line regarding your examples is that we have two families, one Lithuanian and the other Ukrainian who were polonized, as was Pilsudski. And for the record no one is attempting to argue that Pilsudski was not the dictator of Poland, just as previously no one was arguing that Jogaila was not the King of Poland (lot's of the same faces from that debate are here at this one). But his ethnicity, or descent, if you prefer, remains important information and belongs in the article. And not as a footnote. If you insist on more examples let's take J. Dzierzon. On the basis of some quote or letter, the article on WP insists that he is a Pole. I'm not disagreeing that if that is true, then the article is correct. Yet, although we find that Pilsudski stated that he was a Lithuanian on many occasions, "poof," that argument doesn't count here. Why? To really understand Pilsudski, you have to see how his heritage played an enormous part in his psychological make up, and his role on the stage of world history. Incidentally, I'm sure you're aware that Pilsudski's mother was disinterred from Lithuania (Jedrzejewicz mentions in his biography of JP, that the Lithuanian government was very gracious and helpful in granting her son's wish to bring her remains to Vilnius). user: Halibutt stated in the archives of Pilsudski's talk page (archive 2003-2006 sec. 13). "Imagine the faces of Dmowski's nationalists when Pilsudski stated he's Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm...BTW his Polish "Lithuanianess" (sic) was one of many serious problems the nationalists had with Pilsudski and many of them hated him for that". A very pithy analysis of the facts, from Hali, and it should be incorporated into the article (Davies' referenced information regarding this was rv'd, because it was "offensive"). I don't think Davies is offensive but I think some of his works fall into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, when they fall short of the expectations and POV of some people. Assuming of course that there is no ojection to a balanced, neutral, and unbiased article.
    Now to the question of the "Poles being a nation of morons". That is not my opinion. That is Pilsudski's (although Prokonsul Piotrus corrected it to him calling them "idiots"). When Davies brought that into the Dmowski-Pilsudski quarrel it was to illustrate the intensity of the antagonism between the two. Not out of context or gratuitously, BTW. Ditto when Davies stated that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It too was to emphasize the feud between them. Pilsudski's opinion of Dmowski and vice-versa are very germane and relevant in this article.
    After reading your comments on my comments, I have a better understanding of your user name, Nihil novi. Regarding my U.S. Senatorial run, you could also consider a run for the Sejm. Lastly, since you have a penchant for Latin, consider....."ex nihilo nihil fit." p.s. I don't have a problem with Shaw. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my previous comments. Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't blame you for not wanting to respond. These are thorny issues that are better handled at the article, not here. And the rest truly, is "Nothing New". Dr. Dan (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to respond to. Like a squid, you conceal the paucity of your argument with a great effusion of ink. Nihil novi (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, now, be nice! Don't compare me to a squid. I don't want Ieoth to have to tag you. I didn't compare you to a crayfish swimming backward and hiding under a rock, just because you couldn't answer my objections. Try to be civil and more pleasant. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a simile is a comparison, not an equation, and I'd appreciate you not invoking my name again in a threatening manner with regards to Digwuren case enforcement. Thanks. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There are some article standardisation issues in References and Further reading sections (current revision 183596548):
    1. op. cit. — there are many versions of formatting and writing of op. cit.: cursive and non-cursive, with space between these words and without space (op. cit./op.cit.), with periods and without (op. cit./op cit).
    2. Further reading section — no periods at the end of some sentences.
    3. There are also some minor differences in referencing style, for example ISBN written with and without dashes (-); sometimes there is comma (,), sometimes semicolon (;) before ISBN. Visor (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point.
    In editing this article, when I've encountered non-English-standard punctuation, I've tried to correct it.
    Poles are often unaware that they use different standards than most Anglophones. In numbers, for example, they use commas for decimals, and periods where Anglophones use commas (thus, "5.280,03" rather than "5,280.03").
    Similarly, Poles italicize article titles and use quotes on book titles—again, the exact reverse of what Anglophones generally do.
    The "op. cit." situation is thus but the tip of the iceberg.
    "Op. cit." is the abbreviation of the Latin "opere citato"—"in the work [previously] cited." Since it comes from a foreign language (Latin), in English it is generally italicized. And since "op. cit." is an abbreviation, it comes with periods. And since these are two words, there should be a space between them.Nihil novi (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected the "Further reading" section as far as I could. In some items, information was unclear or missing. Poles, for example, frequently list the place of publication but not the publisher, or vice versa. Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A side note: Bibliographies in Polish publications often abbreviate authors' first names, even when the authors don't do so on their title pages. Some years ago, a Polish historian expressed surprise on learning that "B. Tuchman," author of The Guns of August, was a woman (Barbara Tuchman). Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is about a dictator - you have to expect protracted discussion. Some particular points. His attitude towards minorities is currently described as favorable, but Timothy Snyder mentions public corporal punishment of Ukrainians [40] ordered by Pilsudski. Other questionable wordings, some of which are easy to fix - "considered responsible for regaining Poland's independence" - just change to considered by many. A coin featuring his "rugged profile". Conflicts "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - passive tense. The use of the word "dream" to describe plans that much of the rest of the world saw as imperialism - the Polish government felt it necessary to defend itself against this charge in an "appeal to the world" [41]. The Locarno treaties as appeasement - not a universally accepted interpretation. He and some historians perceived them as such. Villified is not a neutral word. There were constitutional crises in 1990s Poland that involved widespread fears of a renewed Pilsudksi-like presidential role [42] - no mention. Some issues have been addressed and the article has been improved thereby, but more remain. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article mentions (just as Snyder writes) that OUN attacks led to repressions and deterioration of the relations between Ukrainian minority and Polish government.
      • As currently stated: "Piłsudski's regime began a period of national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities". This implies that the ongoing problems stemming from post-WWI territorial changes - Ukrainians seeking independence and upset about Galicia, Germans upset about the Danzig corridor, etc - went away for some unspecified period of time. Most authors treat the entire interwar period as turbulent. See Ilya Prizel, Aviel Roshvald, Roy Leslie, etc - some of these authors' viewpoints are discussed at the talk page.
        • Any author who goes into this at depth will notice that the situation fluctuated; Piłsudski tried to improve the situation but failed, and the deterioration accelerated after his death. In any case, this is simply not a major issue in an article about him. Second Polish Republic had many failings, and not a single one of them (nor any of its achievements) should be given undue weight there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not aware of any source that argues Piłsudski was not responsible for Poland regaining independence. Granted, his activity was only one of the resulting factors, but the article doesn't claim he was solely responsible for it - so I see no contradiction here.
      • As currently stated: "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence in 1918". This statement is single-factorial. Yes, some people see it that way, but an encyclopedia is not in the business of attributing major historic developments to a single person. For an encyclopedic version see Britannica [43] - it's a one-page summary, not too burdensome to read. Note the sentences "The chances of Polish independence increased radically in 1917 when the United States entered the war and two revolutions shook Russia....The Inter-Allied conference (June 1918) endorsed Polish independence, thus crowning the efforts of Dmowski, who had promoted the Polish cause in the West since 1915."
    • Rugged - fixed. "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - string not found. Dream - fixed.
    • Locarno - extensively discussed before; the article makes it clear it was Piłsudski's POV to see them as such.
      • As currently phrased: "Piłsudski was disappointed by the French and British policy of appeasement evident in those countries' signing of the Locarno Treaties." This is not a universally-acknowledged interpretation of the treaties - you could say this about the Munich Agreement, but not here.
    • Some minor 1990s crises in Polish politics which made somebody compare the situation to P. times (60 years after his death and without an article on either en or pl wiki) don't seem relevant here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • These crises and their relation to Pilduski are mentioned in the New York Times [44] , by the National Defense University [45] ("This is of immense importance because of Poland's experience with the defense council during the Pilsudski and 1980-81 martial law eras") and in these books [46], [47]. I would submit that the creation of a post-Soviet constitution is not minor, and that there was much more discussion of these issues in PL-language sources.
    Are you sure the problem is with DSL? I have DSL, too, and no problem editing this article. Nihil novi (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While the article is truly impressive and well written, References and Further reading sections fails WP:FACR 2(c): _consistently formatted_ inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing. I've also noticed some issues:
    • Two the same references written in different ways:
      • 2. Marian Marek Drozdowski, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
      • 8. & 142. Zbigniew Wojcik, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
    • Int. link to Watt, not to Watt, Richard: 144. Watt, Richard (1979). [...]
    • No locations in references—for example, let's take two first references: no location for Plach, 2006 (Warsaw) and Drozdowski, 1995 (Athens, Ohio).
    • Wrong ISBN for Dziewanowski (1969). (Fixed)
    • No standardisation for locations in Ref section, sometimes written in Polish, sometimes in English language (Warsaw/Warszawa).
    • No standardisation for url retrieve date (Retrieved on/retrieved on/Last accessed on/last accessed on).
    • No standardisation for author (or editor), written in different ways: last, first and first last.
    • No standardisation for dashes in dates (hyphen/en dash).
    • Some names are red links, some are no links. What decides about that? Visor (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All known issues mentioned by me above has been resolved. Now, I Support for FA, per Piotrus; well written and well referenced article. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for fixing those issues. All comments are appreciated, but comments followed by fixes are doubly so :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and this is the whole point being made by many, including myself, that the article needs lots more "fixing". Like you I want this article to become a FA. Virtually everyone currently supporting this nomination was satisfied with it long before so many "fixes" were implemented. Simply put, the article needs plenty more fixing. This unusual and relentless attempt to make this a FA every few weeks, is becoming more of a game, than a serious desire to reach a consensus. Isn't better to create an article that it is the best that Wikipedia can offer to its readers? Until then, I vote Oppose. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, Piotrus, I think the biography is fine. And, you and Nihil novi have contributed significantly to the articles related to Poland. Let me ask a question: Why are Dr. Dan and M.K against the article? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read my comment above and archived thread and oh, you also should read others comments as well, in order to find out who are unsatisfied of certain issues... M.K. (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masterpiece, to be clear, I am not against this article. My position regarding this article's strengths and weaknesses have been presented by me in detail on the talk pages. If you have the time (and I do mean time) you can get a very good idea of everyone's position on the archived talkpage, as well as this one. A FA on Wikipedia is purported to be the best type of article that the project can produce. This article is constantly improving, and I look forward to casting a "Support" vote when it truly reaches that point. Soon I hope. Few will remember edits on the talk page like, "He was the greatest Pole of all time and my great grandfather was proud to serve under him in the Polish Victory War of 1920 against Russia. Now this is why this article was delisted". Colonel Mustard, 29 May 2006. Or, "How I long for the day when his spirit finds another body - Oh Marshal Pilsudski We People of Poland love you". Anonymous, 31 Oct 2004
    This puts a little of my objection in a nutshell, it once was a highly nationalistic POV'd boring piece of hero worship, pushing a cult of personality. Thankfully, it is less and less so. Without this relentless renomination of the article to become a FA and need to rush it before further improvements are made, it will be just fine. And for the record, the "many votes" it attracts seemed to have a more or less "ethnic component", than a contributory one. Finally this continual "fixing" of the article, whenever an objection is presented (rather than by a dialogue) is most troubling, because it is not a WP:OWN article, and needs a more balanced and neutral perspective. Hope that helps with your query. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Masterpiece2000 asked about objections to the article, and you discuss irrelevant "edits on the talk page." Why this exercise in misdirection? Nihil novi (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should stay away from this discussion. I don't have great knowledge about Polish history. I will do research before casting my vote. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    M2000, please take a good look at the talk pages (one archived) too. Might be very enlightening. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Dr. Dan, I studied the arguments on the talk page of Piłsudski. I have decided to stay away from this discussion. My vote is Abstain! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Exmoor

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. It has undergone major revisions, particularly copyediting and providing suitable citations, during and after its GA promotion. It has been a collaborative effort by several editors, including members of the Somerset WikiProject and we will monitor the nomination and respond to comments.— Rod talk 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Moni3 I recently rewrote an article on a national park in the US, so I took a look at your article. I don't know if some issues are language and culture related - terms that are British that I don't get - but I have some suggestions:

    •  Done In the lead, one of your sentences starts with 71%. Can you either spell out the number or rephrase the sentence so it does not start with a numeral?
    •  Done In the first sentence, the linked "national park" is not capitalized, but in the second sentence, the unlinked term is (as well as in the first sentence under "Government and politics"). Can you make it consistent?
    •  Done The second paragraph under "Geology" has no citations. Neither does the second paragraph after "Rivers" (even if you have to cite a map).
    •  Done Under "Coastline" I read this sentence: "The Exmoor Coastal Heaths have been recognised as a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the diversity of species present." but I can't tell species of what - plants? animals? both?
    •  Done In "Climate" you state that December is the dullest month. I don't know what that means other than it's not very exciting. Can you restate that in terms relevant to climate?
    •  Done Can you add a slight detail explaining to the poor folk not in the UK what a grade I listed building means?
    •  Done There is a sentence about Holwell Castle, but it doesn't explain its significance in the history of the region. Can you expand that?
    •  Done Underneath that is a paragraph about the Simonsbath house, and a sentence about the Anchor herd of ponies. The sentences about the ponies seems out of place in the paragraph about the house. What is an Anchor herd and why is it important? (The sentence is repeated under "Fauna", too.)
    •  DoneWhy is "Chains" red linked in "Ecology"?
    •  Done There is a one-sentence paragraph about deer in "Fauna".
    •  DoneWhy are the birds that you named extinct? What happened to them?
    • In "The Beast of Exmoor" the following sentences: "The Beast of Exmoor is a cryptozoological cat (see phantom cat) that is reported to roam Exmoor. Although there have been numerous eye witness sightings..." need citations. Who has reported it? Newspapers? Can you provide cited stories? The same with the eye witness sightings. Do park personnel confirm or deny its existence? What's the official word from the park on a mythical creature?
    •  Done This sentence in "Government and politics" is very difficult to understand: From 1954 local government was the responsibility of the county councils and, since 1997, by the Exmoor National Park Authority, however responsibility for the social and economic well-being of the local community remains with the district and county councils. Can you simplify it or break it into two sentences?
    •  Done The last sentence in "Government and politics" is a one-sentence paragraph. I don't know what SSSI's are, either. Can you clarify that?
    •  Done There is a one-sentence paragraph in "Sport". Can you expand it to describe the history of hunting in the park? What was hunted and for how long?
    •  DoneThe last paragraph in "Places of interest" has no citations. What is a "sea of snowdrops"?
    •  Done You can probably consolidate "Sport", "Places of interest", and "Cultural settings" into one "Activities" heading with those subheadings. Although I would suggest merging the information about the cultural settings into the "Places of interest" section. That way you won't have such a small section by itself. Are there park-sponsored activities, like hikes, lectures, etc. that are led by park personnel for educational purposes?
    • Is there a map of the park you can provide as a visual?

    I thought it was an interesting article - enough to make me want to go see it. Good luck on it! --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Initial response to Comments by Moni3 Thanks for your comments, I do forget that some UK terms are not universally recognised. I have addressed some of the points as indicated above. SSSI & listed buildings are defined in the links but I have added short summaries within the article. I will need a little more time to address some of the areas below:
    •  Done citations for paras in Geology & Rivers sections + "Places of interest" & "sea of snowdrops"?
    I think I've clarified the snowdrops.PamD (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Chains (geological site) is an area - I will do a stub
    •  Done Birds no longer found - I will research/ask for expert help
    • "The Beast of Exmoor" - I will research/ask for expert help
    • Map - beyond my skills, but I will ask for help, but I am worried about achieving this in the FAC timescale

    I hope that we will be able to meet these outstadning concerns & thank you for helping to improve the article.— Rod talk 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up response With the exception of the map I hope we have now metyour outstanding concerns - although I'm having problems finding definitive statements about the "Beast of Exmoor", perhaps we should remove these?— Rod talk 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks much better, for sure. The National Park system websites here in the US offer maps as pdf files. Are there no maps available online for British National Parks?
    I would very much like to support the article. My only issue left is the section still about Holwell Castle. I can't tell if the castle was built to protect the forest. It rather seems as if the sentence is disconnected with the rest of the information about the sheep, wool, and royal forest. If there's no real connection between the sheep and royal forest with the castle, consider splitting it into its own paragraph and adding a couple sentences to describe the caste - we Americans tend to think castles look like Cinderella lives in it...as well, can you state who stated it "probably" was intended to guard the junction? Now it sounds like you're speculating. It sounds much better when you can cite an individual or agency who has done the speculating. --Moni3 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Thanks for your comments. I have expanded the information on Holwell Castle with multiple references, into it's own paragraph - I don't think Cinderella would enjoy it, basically only grassy mounds are left! There is a map here which is included in the "Further Reading". As I understand the copyright laws.. in the US if it has been paid for by taxpayers it is put into the public domain. Here in the UK the use of maps is licenced (with hefty fees) by the Ordnance Survey, therefore I've asked a wikipedia editor who has created maps for local articles in the past to see if a map could be made for use on the article however this takes time.— Rod talk 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - did the GA review, and helped out a little when it hit a setback. Great work since then, great article, compliant with FAC criteria. Good job! Rt. 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (was Comment) - overall quite good, but some relatively minor changes are needed. I was bold and made some minor copyedits myself (feel free to revert if I introduced any errors), but these are ones I was not sure of:
      •  Done(Lead) "The three largest settlements are Lynton and Lynmouth, Porlock and Dulverton, which..." I count four (and four separate wikilinks). If two somehow count as one settlement, please clarify this. If this is an error or vandalism, please fix it.
    • Lynton & Lynmouth are at the top & bottom of the same cliff.
      •  Done(Geology) "They are largely of Devonian age (to which this area gave its name as it was first studied and described here) to early Carboniferous periods." Two problems here. First I think the phrase in parentheis is awkward - do geologists study ages or rocks? How about a new second sentence something like "The name Devonian comes from Devon as rocks of that age were first studied and described here"? Second, taking out the parenthesis shows the awkwardness of the remaining parts of the sentence: "They are largely of Devonian age to early Carboniferous periods." I think this is indicating the range of geologic ages represented here? Perhaps this would be better as "They are largely from the Devonian and early Carboniferous periods (the name Devonian comes from Devon, as rocks of that age were first studied and described here)."?
      •  DoneAlso, why is the sentence "Some moors are covered by a variety of grasses and sedges, while others are dominated by heather." in Geology when there is a Flora section? If the underlying rocks influence grass vs heather, say so explicitly. Otherwise, please move it or make clearer why it is in this section (However, most of the rock cannnot be seen as it is covered by moors...).
      •  Done(Coastline) Can you somehow indicate that Great Hangman is still in (or just on the border of) Exmoor?
      •  Done(Climate) Is it just "Exmoor" or "the Exmoor"? (in at least one other place too)
    • I've found & removed two occurrences of this. The others are "the Exmoor X" or because of the context of the sentence seem appropriate.
      •  Done(History) "It is also likely that extraction and smelting of mineral ores to make tools, weapons, containers and ornaments in bronze and then iron started in the late late neolithic and into the bronze and iron ages.[22]" Is "late late neolithic" a typo? Could you say "very late neolithic" instead? This sentence is a bit awkward - since the bronze and iron ages are mentioned, could the metals themselves be removed, i.e. something like "It is also likely that extraction and smelting of mineral ores to make metal tools, weapons, containers and ornaments started in the very late neolithic, and continued into the bronze and iron ages.[22]"
      •  DoneThe Sheep farming paragraph goes from the Middle Ages to the 17th Century and a warden. The next paragraph, on Holwell Castle, is 11th and 12th centuries, then the paragraph after it is back to the warden and 17th Century. Could Holwell Castle be moved one paragraph earlier (swap it with sheep farming)?
      •  Done(Ecology) " North Exmoor covers 29,666 acres (12,005 ha) and includes the Dunkery Beacon and the Holnicote and Horner Water Nature Conservation Review sites, and the Chains Geological Conservation Review site. The site is nationally important for..." Which of three sites (my guess is North Exmoor is meant, perhaps just repeat that)(or is it the Chains)?
      •  DoneSince not everyone knows these bird species, perhaps modify "The heaths have strong breeding populations of [birds, including] Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra) and Stonechat (Saxicola torquata)."
      • (Beast of Exmoor) "Although there have been numerous eyewitness sightings, many scientists believe it to be purely mythical. " needs a reference and it would help if one or two of the scientitsts in question could be identified by name (otherwise "many scientists believe" seems to be weasel words).
    • This is difficult & it is hard to pin down any specifics - I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to support this but the local folklaw is so strong I think it deserves to be included.
      •  Done(Sport and Recreation) and (Places of Interest) both mention the Coleridge Way in too much repetitive detail - give the details in one place, mention the name but not too much else in the other place. Similar complaint for the Tarr Steps (from History).
    • I hope this helps - if these are addressed, I will gladly support. I have also inquired about a map of the park itself. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - thanks for these comments and the edits you made. With the exception of the "Beast of Exmoor" I believe they have now been addressed. I would appreciate any help with the Beast section as I'm finding it very difficult to find anything definitive.— Rod talk 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support. Glad to help - hope my edits were OK. Here are a couple of ideas re the Beast of Exmoor sentence - if a book has a quote that says something like that, you could just quote it and attribute the author. Or you could say something like "For example, the official Exmoor National Park website lists the beast under "Traditions, Folklore, and legends" [48]. Another option would be to quote a newspaper or magazine article on the beast. Another example, the BBC Science & Nature website calls Exmoor a "rugged and charismatic National Park, smothered with heather and offering plenty of walking options. It is also home to a range of wildlife, including ponies and the famous-yet-elusive beast of Exmoor. Allegedly." [49] Any sort of attribution to a reliable source showing that most are skeptical would be less weaselly than the current wording. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response - thanks I've changed it as you suggested.— Rod talk 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to help - I just made a few copyedits to restore a few things that got pruned a bit too much and make a few minor fixes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: No issues here that I can see. A really comprehensive and beautifully written article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Archie Jackson

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because ... it is a well written and comprehensive article that meets the featured article criteria. The article has had a thorough copy-edit, is fully referenced with inline citations and a wide range of appropriate images given the lifetime of the subject.

    Jackson became ill and died at the peak of his career while still very young. This being the case, there is the temptation to lean towards hagiography when writing about him. I think we have managed to avoid this. Having said that, it is true that some observers at the time thought he was a better batsman than his contemporary Don Bradman and it is interesting, if not quite encyclopaedic to speculate on what might have been. Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support by Dweller

    *Comment "He died at the age of 23, the youngest Australian Test cricketer to do so." is awkward English and a rather contrived and minor statistic for the Lead anyway. Why not run on the previous sentence with "and died aged just 23." or similar? --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    I've now read the entire article and have a few issues. I'll fix some and bring one or two back here. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first grade" needs to be wikilinked.
      •  Done
    • "Jackson and McDonald" - any connection to Jackson's family?
      •  Done No connection, this is specifically stated in Frith. I have included a note to this effect, but will consider adding to the main body of the article if others feel strongly about this.
    • first reference to the Victoria team needs to be wikilinked.
      •  Done

    More to follow --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have changed "Jackson and McDonald" to "Jackson & McDonald" to agree with the source material. Keep the suggestions coming! -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Of course it was, now moved as part of a rewrite of the paragraph.
    •  Done Now rewritten. Let me know if this still reads like causation.
    • Jackson "was limp". Odd choice of wording. Is that a quote? If so, quote marks please. Otherwise, perhaps "felt faint" or similar?

    --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "limp" is the word used by Frith. I think it describes more than just faintness, but implies physical weakness as well. Will think on a suitable word.
    • I think I have a quote from Hunter Hendry I can use that may be better than quoting Frith. It doesn't use the word "limp" but does describe Jackson's appearance and condition from a eyewitness viewpoint. Currenty otherwise occupied but will get to it later today -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jackson made no verbal reply, but hit the first ball from Larwood..." verbal reply is curious, but I understand what you mean, but how about "Jackson made no reply, but responded by hitting..." In the second half of the sentence, was this the first ball of the session, or some overs later when Larwood eventually bowled? If the former, word it "Jackson made no reply but responded by hitting the next ball..." --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I was trying to say that the shot was his reply to Bradman, but you are right, "verbal reply" sounds a little tautological. Your version is a big improvement and I have used it.

    I'm done now. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, this is an excellent article and I'll be happy to support when we're done with the above. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I have them all now. Thanks for the comments. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments—Needs further scrutiny for MOS and 1a, but this is much better written than previous Austr. cricket articles. Nice work overall, but I can't yet support.
      • Caption: "The 1930 Australian touring team. Jackson is second from the left in the back row"—Full sentence at end; needs final period. MOS breach right at the start: read about en dashes.
      •  Done Space now added either side on en dash between birth and death details. A search did not find any others.
      • Lead spoilt by: "Ignoring medical advice, Jackson returned to cricket with a local team but his health continued to deteriorate and died aged just 23." His health died? "at the age of just" would be nicer. "... ; however, his health ..."
      •  Done Reworded along the lines of your suggestion, a big improvement
      • "Prior to"—a pet hate of mine; "before"?
      •  Done All replaced, and I can't blame the copy-editor for those. I use 'prior to' to mean 'before' all the time and never considered it much before. Once again, 'before' is much better
      • "he had success"? Probably need to reword for more specific meaning.
      •  Done Added details on success, giving a specific score is clearer than "he made runs against..."
      • Clumsy: "His Test and first-class career coincided with the early playing years of Don Bradman, to whom he was often compared, some observers rating Jackson as the better batsman before they toured with the 1930 Australian team." --> "His Test and first-class career coincided with the early playing years of Don Bradman, to whom he was often compared; some observers rated Jackson as the better batsman before they toured with the 1930 Australian team." But still, the observers rated before the tour, or referred retrospectively to that period? (I'm too lazy to look at your references.) And does "they" refer to the observers? No, but needs to be clear. Tony (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done reworded, but it is late here and I will have another look after I have had a sleep. Won't mark it off yet. Re-read it again, I think it is sufficiently clear now, but further suggestions are welcome. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments and suggestions; they have been very useful and have improved the article significantly. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for attending to those random examples, but I see little evidence that the text as a whole has been improved. I took a sample half-way down; the first sentence I saw was this: "Jackson was included for the 1930 tour squad, a relatively inexperienced team with only four players returning to England from the tour four years prior." Should that be "included in"? "Prior" is a dreadful way of ending a sentence. A little later, "Illness to Ponsford"—very odd preposition. It needs a word-nerd to go through the whole article properly. Someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Locate by searching the edit history page of similar articles—see edit summaries for people who did the copy-editing grunt work. Tony (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have re-written the sentence you mention above. It was a recently added sentence, included in response to Dweller's concerns. I am aware this will not lead you to support this article. I will see about getting someone to take a look at it as suggested. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\talk 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments a very good read and quite tragic really. Some things I noticed...
      • Team mate or Teammate?
      •  Done, neither, "team-mate"; adopted from usage at Sid Barnes, the most recent cricket FA.
      • Cigarette card caption could be made more friendly!
      •  Done, hopefully a little friendlier.
      • Debut with or without an accent?
      •  Done. Settled on début with an accent. This is used in Sid Barnes, the most recent cricket FA. "debut" is still used in the infobox and in the notes section where it is included in the title of a source. Does this need a general discussion as an MOS issue?
      • Not wishing to be too nit-picky but isn't one stone 6.4kg when correctly rounded?
      •  Done 6.35029318 kg to be exact. :-) Fixed now.
      • "...daring declarations..." this needs explanation really.
      •  Done, I think. Please let me know what you think
      • "The tour was a financial success, but exhausting." a little odd for me. Financially successful to Jackson or everyone? Exhausting for Jackson or everyone?
      •  Done. with a quotation. Frith says "...most of them were exhausted." but the quote sums up Jackson's feelings about the tour, despite his success.
      • Ref [23] (Roebuck) is missing an en-dash separator.
      •  Done, nbsp instead of ndash. Serves me right for editing at 1.00 in the morning
    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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Wormshill

    [edit]

    Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Edgar Allan Poe

    [edit]

    previous FAC: Archive 1 | Archive 2

    Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentsSupport Looks pretty good. Here are some initial comments:
    • and is considered part of the American Romantic Movement. what part specifically did he play in the American Romantic movement?
    • Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. scrap this whole part, and just do a much better paragraph about his legacy.
    • As Poe began his literary career, he would soon be forced to constantly make humiliating pleas for money and other assistance for the rest of his life. Reads awkward.
    • On May 16, 1836, he had a second marriage in Richmond with Virginia Clemm, this time in public. Maybe rephrase it? It wasn't a second marriage, but a second ceremony (perhaps?) and done publicly because ___.
    • The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym was published and widely reviewed in 1838. How about quoting some of the reviews, particularly interesting and revealing ones? Maybe one review that was helpful and one that wasn't? Also maybe this should be a section? Also describe that this is his only complete novel, his first novel, and did it earn money? how many copies were first printed? was it a dud, did it have a following? elaboration here would be great.
    • Also in 1839, the collection Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque was published in two volumes, though he made little money off of it and it received mixed reviews. so his novel is widely reviewed, and his collection has mixed reviews. Perhaps you could illustrate a little better how they were received by critics?
    • Maybe: mention if he was best known for his collections and never really took off as a novelist. Also, you don't mention his first novel in the lede.
    • Meaning in literature, he said in his criticism, should be an undercurrent just beneath the surface; works with obvious meanings cease to be art. This sentence could be rephrased to read easier.
    • Poe was one of the first American authors of the 19th century to become more popular in Europe. more popular in Europe than previous American authors? or than in his own country?
    • Even so, Poe has not received only praise. maybe instead characterize introductory-like the criticism leveled at him? because there is praise, and then there is everything else.
    • Friedman's initial interest in cryptography came from reading "The Gold-Bug" as a child - interest he later put to use in deciphering Japan's PURPLE code during World War II. an em-dash or an en-dash may be appropriate here. See WP:DASH.
    • In Boston, a plaque hangs near the building where Poe was born once stood. maybe rephrase to... a plaque hangs nearby the grounds where a building once stood in which Poe was born... or something.
    • Though the name has changed and it is now known as The Horse You Came In On, local lore insists that a ghost they call "Edgar" haunts the rooms above. this could read easier.

    I don't know Poe well, or really at all, so I enjoyed reading this, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with the subject can do a review on the accuracy of this article. Very well-written IMHO.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put in my support for this excellent article on Poe.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Support I continue to believe that this excellent article can achieve FA status with just a bit more work:
    • Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. - This lead paragraph needs to explain Poe's legacy more specifically.
    • Many of his works are generally considered part of the dark romanticism genre, a literary reaction to transcendentalism,[76] which Poe strongly disliked. - Can you explain this a bit more, say in a sentence or two?
    • I think that the "Physics and cosmology" section is best included under "Literary style and themes".
    • I still think this should be moved as the section does not explain a legacy Poe had in this area. If he did have an influence, the section should explain it. However, I tend to think that some sort of "Scientific theories" section under "Literary style and themes" would be better since the editor has rightly identified this as an important topic in Poe's works. Awadewit | talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced that Eureka "anticipated" the Big Bang theory (I looked at the source the article cites and I don't think it supports such a statement). I think the wording has to be more precise there.
    • The first few sentences of "Literary theory" can be condensed.
    • I would move the "Poe toaster" section to the "Museum" section and rename that section. The Poe toaster, as part of Poe fan culture, seems closer to museums, etc. than to Poe's "Legacy" (current location). Currently, the "Legacy" section feels a bit disparate.

    I look forward to supporting this article very soon! Awadewit | talk 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Today is Poe's 199th birthday. You know what would make a great birthday present for him? Promoting this article to featured. :) Thanks for all the support folks! I tried to take care of as many of your suggestions as possible. I didn't respond here because I was afraid I would get defensive or put my foot in my mouth. So, don't think I was ignoring any of you. Anyway, happy birthday, Eddy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Metallica

    [edit]

    This article has been completely rewritten in the past month and previously looked like this. It has had two peer reviews, 1 & 2, which proved helpful and several users have looked at the article. I believe FA is the next step and will be here to deal with or comment on any concerns. Thankyou. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I added one sample to help the reader understand the change in musical direction with the 1991 album and combined the samples, looks better now. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, much better. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Nice work. But, shouldn't all the references be listed in the "References" section instead of only referred to in the "notes" section? No big deal, though. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is done, AFAIK the references section usually goes under the "notes" (although I'm fine with it either way). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Include a pic of Hetfield, all other members have their pictures. The lead is ordered weird - first para is band-members (OK). Second para starts with a mention a 1991 album then goes back to a 1986 album (weird), then talks about their releases and "big four", and ends with the Napster controversy. The third para talks about their sales, while the fourth is about style. I think a much more straightforward and clear approach would be to model it based on the Radiohead lead, i.e. 1st para members then paras 2 and 3 going strictly chronologically about their history (notable album releases and corresponding style, their response, and also Napster). Also include a fourth para with the "big four" statement, sales figures and a quote from a critic about their impact. indopug (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested a picture of Hetfield from flickr, might take a few days for the user to respond. Very good point with the lead, I've done my best here. I left the first paragraph alone, i incorporated the style paragraph in chronological order with the band's releases for two paragraphs, and the fourth paragraph is sales, influence, big four etc. Better? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. indopug (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image has a watermark and i highly doubt the user owns copyright. I requested a better picture. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't use one image for each album, since this is against Wikipedia's fair use policy - please read WP:FU. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • While there's different philosophies on how much to cite (if anything at all) in the lead section, you might want to cite any numerical figures there.
    • Any idea when James and Lars saw Cliff Burton play for the first time? Exact date is not necessary; the month and year would be fine.
    Added the Fall of 1982
    • Any chart placings or sales figures available for the first few albums should be included.
    Don't know how i missed this, added Billboard 200 positions for Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning
    • "Metallica embraced the mainstream music world with the debut music video for the song 'One'" sounds too POV, and I'm not sure if it's backed up by a source. Just keep it factual and straightforward: simply say Metallica made its first music video.
    Changed to 'Metallica released its debut music video for the song "One"'
    • "Metallica (also known as 'The Black Album') was remixed three times, release was stalled for almost a year, cost $1 million, and ended three marriages." is a rather awkward sentence.
    Moved the mention of release being stalled to the next sentence
    • Instead of using the Load cover, why not scan a picture of the band from the inside of the booklet to demonstrate their new look? Also, a soundclip from either of the Load-era albums would be appropriate here.
    I Don't own Load and there doesn't seem to be anything on the net
    • Mentioning the Black Album's diamond status in the Garage Days Revisited paragraph doesn't quite work. More appropriate in the Black Album paragraph, or simply cut and pasted to that article.
    Removed
    • Can you give a more specific timeframe as to when Newsted left the band, or possibly instead mention when his depature was announced?
    January 17, 2001
    • "Hetfield searched for volunteers at the last minute to replace Ulrich — Slayer drummer Dave Lombardo, and Slipknot drummer Joey Jordison volunteered". Rephrase.
    Split into two sentences
    • As time goes by, the use of exact dates in the "Ninth studio album" section will be less necessary. Start trying to determine now if you need to write full dates in certain places.
    I removed two dates and shortened two. Information about pre-production and recording i want to keep until the album is released.
    • I'm still not convinced there needs to be a separate section devoted to the feud with Dave Mustaine. After all, I've heard other people say crap Metallica (I know Slayer has). Compare that section to how the Napster debacle is treated in the article, which is a far more notable feud. Work what you can into the band history section, and move everything else into the Mustaine, Hetfield, Ulrich, and Some Kind of Monster articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the third paragraph to Some Kind of Monster. Removed Hetfield's opinion on Mustaine, how Mustaine didn't want to be kicked out from the band, gold and platinum record mention completely from the article. Moved a paragraph showing Mustaine's disliking to Hammett to the Early Years section, also included "The Four Horsemen" and "Mechanix", and how Mustaine believes Hammett ripped him off playing his leads. I actually thinks it's better without the section so thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Legacy for now

    • Legacy section needs to be underlinked - korn, thrash metal, tribute album.
    Done
    • Why link "big four" when it only goes to the thrash metal article?
    Removed
    • one of the "big four" of thrash metal, with Slayer, Anthrax, and Megadeth. - add "along".
    Done
    • can "old Metallica" be "earlier metallica" without the quotes?
    Changed to early Metallica releases
    • I think the entire "best album/song ever" mentions can be removed. Album accolades are generally missing in other bands' articles.
    I see no reason to remove them
    • Aren't there peer praise instead of from mainly not-very-popular bands? God Forbid, Adema, Ill Nino, Avenged Sevenfold--who?
    Will look for Machine Head/Slayer/Megadeth/Anthrax quotes
    Try Alice in Chains too. indopug (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Godsmack, Trivium, and Machine Head. Will continue looking. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is walk of fame (1999) after MTV icon (2003)?
    Switched
    • Include some sweeping quotes from RS, AMG etc on their influence.
    Will do so
    Added
    LOL, Simon & Schuster are the publishers not the writers. indopug (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i just managed to change it after almost dying of laughter myself. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • do all those tribute albums need to be mentioned? Why is the kerrang tribute so detailed?
    No, and because it shows which bands were influenced by Metallica
    You misunderstand; I meant remove "Metal Militia: A Tribute to Metallica, "Say Your Prayers, Little One": The String Quartet Tribute to Metallica, A Metal Tribute to Metallica, and Tribute to the Four Horsemen." What do those names add to the article? indopug (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed

    indopug (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, will fix the remaining things up in an hour or two. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

    [edit]

    I'm respectfully nominating this article about a friendly fire incident in Iraq for featured article. The article has been through a peer review [50] and A-class review [51] with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Support - I don't have to time to read the article fully right now (will do it on the weekend probably) but a quick glance shows no list of who was actually on the helicopters, just a general description. Is it possible (and is it a good idea), to include a list or lists (perhaps in the style of the one here), giving names and roles of those on board each aircraft? I think this would be a very interesting addition. Either way, I will take some time to review the article properly in a few days when I am less busy. It looks really good though on first glance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to support this excellent article which presents a confusing and controversial subject in an intelligent and coherent way. It is a very, very nice piece. Just to note, my support is not conditional on the presence of the list of those killed. Although there are no guidelines indicating that such lists are inappropriate I know that some editors believe they are unencyclopedic. My personal belief is that they are interesting, informative and excatly the kind of relevant information which Wikipedia's lack of space restrictions can include, but if it is decided not to include it, my Support remains. I have only one small nitpick and one query, neither of which should hold up this FAC. In the "actions taken" section it says "and indeed in Richardson's case, his letter of admonishment had already been removed from his record." but it isn't at all clear when it was removed - was it immediately removed or was it removed before the right to appeal was established? This needs clarifying. The query is that it appears that those US personnel killed in the incident were all awarded purple hearts. Is it standard to award this medal in a non-combat situation like this or was it via a special motion of government (as it was with the USS Stark in 1987)? Once again, congratulations, an excellent piece of work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your comments on the article. I'm afraid the sources don't give more information on when Richardson's LoAd was removed exactly. Perhaps I should remove that sentence since it raises more questions than it answers. The Purple Heart issue is one of the many details of this subject that I had a hard time deciding whether to include or not. I decided not to include it because I thought that it was too America-centric since it applied to a U.S. military decoration. Some of the victim's family members fought hard to get Purple Hearts awarded to the military victims, while other family members stayed out of that particular debate. After one year of lobbying, the U.S. military caved-in and awarded the Purple Hearts just before the one year anniversary of the incident. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - not entirely unbiased as I was one of the editors who passed this following an A-Class review. I personally like close focus on slightly obscure incidents as I think it plays to a major Wikipedia strength. Oh, and one slight grumble, "U.S." ---> "US" for consistency with the other acronyms and abbreviations in this article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support extremely thorough. -Ed! (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Western Chalukya architecture

    [edit]

    previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)

    This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The picture arrangement looks fine to me but I know from experience this may not be the case on all screens when a page is so well illustrated? Anyone having any problems? I would still like to see a more rounded concluding section - appreciation of the style today etc. Its a very good page, and I'm ready to support. It just needs winding up - it seems to conclude mid-stream.Giano (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Wikipedia, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?[reply]

    The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital.[5] The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height.[5] The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.

    I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22

    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?
    As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.
    This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC [52] Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit [53] is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Wikipedia is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prosing comment: how about this version of the paragraph? Hmmm. I do understand User:Fowler&fowler's frustration with the prose, even though I don't see any "errors", as such (unless we're seriously going to quarrel about en- and em-dashes). The skilled copyeditors have presumably eradicated those, as well as pleasingly widened the vocabulary.
    However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:
    "The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital.[5] Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls [5] and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar,[6] by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.
    The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."
    Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal
    You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I have ever encountered such distasteful behaviour againast another editor on a FAC before, as that exhibited to Dinesh by you. I am very surprised no one in authority has stepped in to rebuke you. Giano (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry this is my view [54]. It is impossible to edit with such hostility coming from you. I'll leave it to the FA director to decide what he wants to do with the page. Good evening. Giano (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Wikipedia as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain let me remind everyone that FA status is basically meaningless and that the FA program is basically just an imaginary carrot to improve articles. While I agree that this is ridiculous, and that this should be otherwise and that this would be better served by Peer Review, I am perfectly willing to let this go - if this article does not obtain FA status it is not a great tragedy, if this article obtains FA status it is not a great tragedy.--Kiyarrllston 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - The more I look at the article, the more I'm falling in love with it. Kudos to Dinesh for putting this article together. Yes, the prose can do with some improvement, but the merits of the article clearly overwhelm any concerns about the prose. It is a shame that graceless behaviour of a lone editor has seemingly shifted the focus from what a lovely article it is and how much effort has gone into it to what he'd have us believe is the end of the world ("clunky prose"). Sarvagnya 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 2

    I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding so eloquently, Random Replicator.
    You might disagree that the FA status is basically meaningless - You might disagree that FA status is similar to the carrot for you to chase - but are these matters of opinion or of fact?
    The hard work, your hard work, is not valued by the worth of FA status.
    Fowler has clearly show[n] that there are issues with the FA process.
    --Kiyarrllston 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is it a fact, in that it is not meaningless to me. But you are most correct; there is weaknesses in this system.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Definitely a well written article, however, I would have ideally like to have seen more information on the impact of WCa on the architectural styles of future Kannada dynasties. I know some mention of this is made in the "Evolution" section, but if additional information is available, I'd like to see that incorporated into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support My request was addressed...I really like the "Appreciation" section...I think it adds color to WCa and gives perspective to their accomplishments. Good job. AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DK Reply Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to add this info anyway along with a section requested by Giano. Yes, their influence pervaded right into Hoysala, Kakatiya (from Andhra Pradesh) and even later Vijayanagara style, though the impact is mostly seen in the first two. But because the number of Hoysala monuments of Karnataka outnumber the Kakatiya monuments (in Andhra Pradesh) by a magnitute, most of the scholarly discussions pertain to Chalukya-Hoysala art forms. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support A nice page now with a good conclusion. Its a page for "grown ups" with a good attention span. It is never going to be over easy to follow because of the quantity of similar sounding (to western ears) and unfamiliar names and places. I have studied the page and made a few alterations but it will always be a page one has to read and think about, if one takes the time to do the then one will be a lot wiser. To simplify it would be tantamount to committing a crime so much information would be lost. When he has finished this Dinesh ought to consider writing An introduction to Western Chalukya architecture. He has done a great job here and should be congratulated. Giano (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To user:Giano_II and user:Dineshkannambadi: I notice that my emblematic example (up top), "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." has been changed to "This artificial source of light adds "mystery" to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." That's an improvement? How are the quotes supposed to help us? Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Will make the change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the actual quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Regarding the "mystery" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no, that "mystry" in your quote is theological usage, going back to late medieval English and obsolete now. It means "mystical significance" as I remember it. (I don't have OED/Webster's access right this minute, but I'll provide more info later.) Beautiful passage though—the kind of writing (late 19th century?) that no art historian today would be caught dead writing (sadly for art history). Notice too that the author uses "small oil lamp," not "source of artificial light," which in the early 21-century usually refers to electric light. You know guys (and I mean this collegially and not as a personal attack), you've made a hash of the paraphrasing. Why not serve up the entire quote? It is beautifully written. It evokes the ambiance in a way nothing in the entire article does. Maybe leave out the bit about "wrapt up in his religious fervor" (subst. with ...), but keep the rest of the quote in. It is very evocative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is OED: I. Theological uses. 1. Mystical presence or nature; mystical significance. in (also through) his mystery: in or by its mystical presence or nature. in (a) mystery: mystically, symbolically; with hidden or mystical significance. Obs. Examples: 1542 Plowman's Tale in Wks. G. Chaucer f. cxxvi, Hys fleshe and blode through hys mystrye Is there, in the forme of brede. 1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. cxviij, Whiche place..is to be vnderstande in a mistery [L. mystice]. a1616 R. FIELD Of Church (1628) III. App. 205 The crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament.
    I wouldn't change the spelling of "mystry" and let the reader figure it out (if they desire) by looking up a dicitionary. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - The article is in a great shape now with beautiful pictures adding value to the article. Almost all of the concerns raised above were addressed which prompt me to support the article. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ridicuously strong oppose at a closer look, the article actually has ONLY 10 distinct references. this is completely unacceptable for an FA article, especially one of this size.Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Your comment is very unclear and vague. Nor sure what you mean by "Ridicuously". Not sure what you mean by "article of this size". Please clarify how many more distinct references you expect. There are more than 10 references, each one from a well known historian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Umm, how is the fact that there are only 10 "distinct" references "completely unacceptable" for an FA article? How many references are you expecting to see? There's actually 15 distinct references. And anyway, how does an article with, say, 21 references qualify for FA over an article wtih 20 references based solely on the # of references? Please elucidate upon your "ridiculously strong opposition". AreJay (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - Amply referenced with excellent images. With the multitude of copyedits and the way all the concerns have been addressed by

    Dineshkannambadi, I don't see a reason why this cannot be a FA. -- Naveen (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – related to the number of references, but nothing to worry about. Can you please look into using the "name=" parameter to <ref></ref>? For example, in the current version, refs 51 & 52 are identical, as are 54 & 55, 40, 71 and 76. There are more, no doubt. Thanks. Carre (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply Sure I will look into it. Sometimes, the same reference holds good for multiple statements cited from the same page in the source material. So there may be nothing wrong as such. So I have to club citations, thats all. will do.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - A well referenced, interesting article. The type of English it is written in is irrelevant, as long as it has some semblance of proper grammar, which this article does.Bakaman 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong comment - I find it amusing how opinions on this FAC are either "strong support" or "strong oppose", and nothing in between. Only on Wikipedia would the subject of "Western Chalukya architecture" divide public opinion so severely. indopug (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    William Gibson

    [edit]

    Following a successful good article nomination, a fruitful peer review, and encouragement from experienced featured article commentators, I am nominating this article for featured article status. I feel it is thoroughly referenced, strikingly illustrated and exhaustive of its subject, thereby representing the encyclopedia's finest work. Skomorokh incite 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Congratulations to the editors for patiently assembling a very fine biography that incorporates contributions from far and wide. In my opinion as someone who added a few minor edits, the article traverses the minefield of what some call cyberspace—with both respect for the subject and his fans, and with the criticism (an understatement from some points of view) that their work attracts. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Well done overall, well-written, comprehensive, well-sourced, good use of free-use images. The only thing I'd say is that for a newcomer to the article, the Lead/Intro is a bit long, no need to go into that much detail. The lede could do without the two quotes in the fourth paragraph, and without the amount of detail in the second paragraph. But these are not sticking points, overall very well done. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for your kind comments; I'm going to leave the lede for now as it has been historically troublesome to get right and it isn't a sticking point for you, but if another reviewer objects I'll try and reform it somewhat. Regards, Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the fixing of small stuff All my issues with this article are MOS stuff (and pointing this out is the subject of a current FAC controversy) but otherwise it is an extremely well-written, well-organized, biography of Gibson.
    • I think according to MOS your opening sentence William Ford Gibson, born March 17, 1948 (1948-03-17) (age 59), in Conway, South Carolina is an American-Canadian[15] writer should actually be:William Ford Gibson (born March 17, 1948) is an American-Canadian writer... Let the Infobox take care of the rest, current age/ place of birth.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of recognition, The Literary Encyclopedia identifies Gibson as "one of North America's most highly acclaimed science fiction writers." for incomplete sentences punctuation should be outside the quotes, See WP:PUNC.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feted by The Guardian in 1999 as "probably the most important novelist of the past two decades," his thought has been cited as an influence on science fiction authors, in academia, cyberculture, and technology. same here with the punctuation.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He appeared, during the Summer of Love of 1967, in a CBC newsreel item about hippie subculture in Yorkville, Toronto,[26][27] for which he was paid $500 - the equivalent of 20 weeks rent—which financed his later travels. i believe an em-dash or an en-dash is needed here.. see WP:DASH.
    • Tom Maddox has commented that Gibson "grew up in an America as disturbing and surreal as anything J. G. Ballard ever dreamed."[23] same here with the punctuation.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gibson met Sterling at a science fiction convention in Denver, Colorado in the Autumn of 1981, where he read "Burning Chrome"—the first cyberspace short story—to an audience of four people, and later stated that Sterling "completely got it." same here with the punctuation
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In October 1982 Gibson traveled to Austin, Texas for ArmadilloCon, at which he appeared with Shirley, Sterling and Shiner on a panel called "Behind the Mirrorshades: A Look at Punk SF", where Shiner noted "the sense of a movement solidified." same here with the punctuation.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lawrence Person, writing in his "Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto" (1998) identified the novel as "the archetypal cyberpunk work,"[42] and in 2005, Time magazine included... same here where the comma should be outside of the quotes.
     Done Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • by The Literary Encyclopedia You should use the author's name, so John Doe in The Literary Encyclopedia, because I believe those encyclopedic entries are authored. MOS also states that this should be done, specifying the author of the quotation for a publication. But with the Literary Encyclopedia it would actually be nice to know.
    I have left the author's name out of the lede out of a desire to keep that short; he was already explicitly mentioned in the text twice and now twice further. Is attribution in the references sufficient for the quote in the lede or does that definitely need attributing in the body? I feel it's almost undue weight to mention the author so much. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention Rapatzikou three times now in the text and that's fine. So it's now obvious that Rapatzikou is a scholar of Gibson as well as the author of the Literary Encyclopedia article.
    See the split discussion; the article is not ultimately intended as a list, and is consistent with genre naming conventions. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see. That's fine.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So thanks for writing this. I've already put Neuromancer on my to read list.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your diligent response, and for editing the article yourself. I haven't touched the WP:DASH business as it seems other editors have strong feelings on the matters, but I've tried to address most of your other concerns. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't myself know WP:DASH yet and just point it out really.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I went through the article and fact-checked most of it. I have only read one of his books (guess which one) but I found that a lot has been written about him. Although long, this article is easy to read and does a good job profiling his professional life. Reference 69's ("Speeches by WG and BS at the National Academy of Sciences") link is dead. maclean 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Ref fixed, thanks for your effort. Skomorokh incite 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So...excuse my ignorance, but what exactly happens now that the concerns have been addressed? Does the article pass immediately by default, only after a certain period of time, only if no-one else opposes within a certain length of time, or when the director says so? If there's anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. Skomorokh incite 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The FA director periodically goes through everything on FAC and promotes some, archives others, and leaves the rest for more comments. Articles may be left for more comments if the director feels consensus has not been reached, or because not enough people have commented, or the article has only been on FAC a short time, or because there are unaddressed significant objections and the nominator is in the process of fixing them. I believe Raul is planning a round of promotions and archiving tomorrow evening (he often does them on Sunday evenings). Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Meant to lend my support earlier. I peer-reviewed awhile ago and I was impressed with how well done the article was then. It's only improved since. Great work, Skomorokh! --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Stretford

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because ... I believe that that it meets all of the FA criteria and it is the most comprehensive encyclopedia article about this town to be found anywhere. Stretford was an agricultural village that during the 19th-century industrial revolution grew to become the home of the world's first and largest industrial park, still one of the largest industrial estates in Europe today. Dirty, grimy industrial places don't always get a fair shout, so I've tried to do justice to the place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. The article has been steadily improving since it became a GA in July 2007 and has undergone significant change within the past month, widening the scope of the article and improving its quality. I think it fulfils the criteria. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support like the use of word materiel, don't like the fact that it states the current make up of the government - perhaps could be served better by a section "recent politics" or "recent events" - but this is a systemwide issue for city articles, Queries: should the article really have an external link linking to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000? I note that culture and sports are under different headings, and Demographics and Religion are also not within the same heading, it's different than in the Russia article currently FAC - could you comment on this? In addition, I feel that it could use improvements in term of the writing style. - example: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy" - better would be "[While] Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy" or, more concise and to the point: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy". - The first sentence should actually summarize the topic. Thanks for reading this comment, I am very amenable to expound on anything I have said in this comment, and discuss anything at all, feel free to contact me.--Kiyarrllston 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason religion and demography are not under a single section - and why sports and culture are also different secitions - is to comply with WP:UKCITIES, a guideline drawn up by members of WikiProject UK geography to aid writing about settlements in the UK. They are guidelines rather than inflexible rules and it would be easy to integrate the sports section under culture. I don't think there's any need to merge demography and religion as both are fairly well developed and have little overlap as they now stand. Nev1 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a slight copyedit to the Economysection along the lines you suggested. As for the link to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000, I don't know the history, but every UK city article sems to have the same link to that set of mapping tools. Even though I'd agree that there isn't presently an awful to say about Stretford's culture I'd prefer to keep it separate from the Sport section if possible. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments This article is looking good but a few questions/comments before I can support:
     Done. Just an oversight, no reason why the link wasn't there before. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that Thomas de Trafford probably owned Trafford Park in 1847, but Stretford was just an agricultural village then, and had seen many de Traffords come and go over the centuries. Certainly I've come across no evidence that Sir Thomas had any significant impact on Stretford anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Manchester Ship Canal is mentioned in both general history & also in transport history - is there a particular reason?
     Done. On reflection, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the transport history section, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Stretford Local Board of Health really assume responsibility for all "local government of the area" as is implied?
    • That's what the source says. I quote: "Local Government had previously been under the jurisdiction of the parish vestry ... as urban growth took a hold they quickly became outmoded and were replaced. Stretford Local Board was created in 1867 and took over the role of governing the following year." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the sentence "The Trafford Metropolitan Borough local government area called Stretford is divided into the wards of Clifford, Longford, Gorse Hill, and Stretford." a little confusing because of 2 occurrences of Stretford.
     Done. I've tried to elaborate on that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the units square miles & km² be wikilinked in the geography section?
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the earthwork Nico Ditch was an administrative boundary should it be in geography or governance (or even history)?
    Nico Ditch is only probably an administrative boundary, it's not certain, so I don't think it should go into the governance section. It could however go into either the history or geography section as there is some overlap in this case. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 paragraphs in demography are not cited. I presume ref 46 applies but this might need to be made explicit.
     Done. Citations added. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the economy section we read about Stretford Metrolink tram station but the transport history section makes no mention of the modern tram system, although I see there is a later transport section
     Done. I've added a bit explaining that the pre-existing railway line was converted to the Metrolink in 1992. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manchester Airport's claim to being the largest airport outside London might need a citation?
     Done. I changed the claim from largest to busiest, and added a citation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In education "higher proportion than average of pupils" is unclear - is this the average for Manchester, England or what?
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the one or two sentence paragraphs in culture be combined in some way?
    • The books cited in the references should have the year of publication & publisher + ISBN if possible.
    The bibliography at the end has ISBNs and publication dates etc, all books used in the notes section appear in the bibliography. The article uses a variation of Harvard referencing. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think most of these can be fairly easily dealt with and then I will be able to support.— Rod talk 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All seem to have been appropriately dealt with so now changed to support.— Rod talk 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pdf sources need labelling
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The most southerly part of Stretford lies within the flood plain of the River Mersey, and has historically been prone to flooding" - aren't all areas in flood plains historically prone to flooding?
     Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "filled with disinfectant to disinfect any coins" - repetition
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "formally unveiled in 1923, by the Earl of Derby" - does he have an article to link to?
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the late 19th and the early part of the 20th century" - "early part of" is redundant
     Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an overuse of "with" as an additive link
      • Can't the Culture and cultural references section just be called Culture?
      • "Currently all 12 of the councillors" - this may become outdated
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many instances of "located" are redundant
     Done. All but two removed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Very substantial improvement has taken place since then" - is the "very" necessary?
     Done. No, it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Captions shouldn't have fullstops if not complete sentences.
     Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this part of MOS or other guidelines? It would look odd indeed and I'd rather be sure. Failing that the portal is linked in the county navigation template. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Link to portal removed. Not really needed anyway, as it's already in the county navigation template immediately below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Analytical Review

    [edit]

    Peer review by BillDeanCarter and Mike Christie


    I hope I will be forgiven for having two FAC nominations running simultaneously, but I believe that I can handle the workload and since the two articles are related, I felt that perhaps reviewers who read the Joseph Johnson (publisher) article might be interested in reading this article as well, which is about a journal he published. I initially thought there would not be enough material to write an FA-level article on this journal, but I believe I have ferreted out enough to make a comprehensive article. To forestall a question I know will be asked - there is indeed more information on Mary Wollstonecraft's role as a reviewer than on the other reviewers. WillowW started this article as a lovely gesture of friendship towards me and I have expanded it; we have worked together in the spirit of Johnson's own journal. It was sort of wikipedia-like itself. :) Awadewit | talk 08:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I was impressed with this at peer review and I think Awadewit has done a fine job at cleaning up the nitpicks I found at PR. I just have one punctuation question:
      • It was, what scholar Nathaniel Teich called, -- shouldn't that be either "It was what" or "It was, as"? Or recast it?
        • It was, what scholar Nathaniel Teich called, "the most important radical review adopting the encyclopedic format for the attempted universal coverage of published works" - I believe this is correct because the "main sentence" is "It was...the most important radical review...". To distinguish the main sentence from the subordinate clause, I have added the commas. I believe we would use "as" if there were an "it" at the end of the clause. Would it sound better this way: It was, according to scholar Nathaniel Teich, "the most important radical review..."? Awadewit | talk 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would sound better, to my ears at least. Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose—Problems in the writing. Here are random samples from the lead. Please don't fix just these.

    • Our readers shouldn't have to hit the link to "Republic of Letters" to find out what on earth the context is. Please note the MOS rule on capitalisation.
    • "Republic of Letters" is adequately explained in the article itself and the most authoritative book on the topic, Goodman's Republic of Letters, capitalizes Republic of Letters. I checked this myself because I had originally had the phrase in lowercase and someone asked about it. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What your so-called authoritative book says is irrelevant; WP has its own style, and that is to use lower case for titles. See MOS. The item may well be explained further down, but it's irritating to our readers to be faced with a major, defining element that they are not familiar with. Bad writing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not poor writing - not everything can be fully explained in the lead. What were these radical political ideas published in the periodical? What was the French revolution? None of that is explained either. We have to draw lines. The lines are appropriate. Also, Wikipedia relies on scholars - scholars capitalize "Republic of Letters". Let's not dismiss their work so cavalierly, shall we? Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the MOS says: Proper names of institutions (for example, the University of Sydney, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitalization. As I understand it, the Republic of Letters is a conceptual institution, which has been formalized in the public imagination over time, like The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – only serious. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Therefore, I consider the current capitalization correct. And while I don't think it's a case of "bad writing" (I can show you some bad writing if you want to visit my classroom, heh), I would support the inclusion of a short phrase explaining the RoL in the lead. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would rather remove it than explain it, actually. If you notice, there are only two sentences about this specific topic in the entire article itself. I added this phrase only because I thought it was helpful to one set of readers. Trying to explain the RoL in a phrase is near impossible and it is not worth the space in the lead. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So remove it. The article to which the link leads does little to disabuse the reader as to what exactly is meant by the term in this context. In fact, it provides no fewer than FIVE shades of meaning:
    1. Republic of Letters is a phrase describing the phenomenon of increased correspondence in the form of letters exchanged between the influential philosophers and other thinkers during the Age of Enlightenment.
    2. It is commonly used to denote a notion of an imaginary space where free thinking people could exchange ideas.
    3. The Republic of Letters began as a network of private correspondence and ...
    4. evolved into the more complex and institutionalised system of newspapers and academic journals.
    5. An Internet-related definition that is clearly not the meaning.
            • So why don't you disabuse us as to what our readers are expected to make of it. This is scholastic pretentiousness at its worst. And while we're talking of pretentiousness, the third sentence in the article starts "Perhaps most importantly,..."; this is an inappropriate tone for a supposedly objective, NPOV text. Specifically, don't allow the writer's opinion of relative importance ("perhaps, [in my opinion]") to intrude, and don't waste our time with a phrase that is equivocal and seems to cast the preceding opening as less important. Tony (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will wait for consensus on the RoL. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am less inclined to remove the "perhaps less importantly" because a peer reviewer specifically asked for something like this (to make the AR's role clearer) and because we have a source later in the article that states The journal was, according to scholar Nathaniel Teich, "the most important radical review adopting the encyclopedic format for the attempted universal coverage of published works". - Again, let us see what others think. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stalling and deflecting won't change anything, and you show a complete misunderstanding of the role of a lead: it needs to stand by itself. Whether things are explained later has no bearing on the need to be plain and clear. This continued refusal to engage with the review process is one reason the article has not improved, and is still not sufficiently well-written to satisfay Criterion 1a. But I suspect that this is all a personalised strategy on your part. Tony (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My desktop dict. says of gadfly—a figurative an annoying person, esp. one who provokes others into action by criticism. Should we all have to look it up? The AR wasn't a person, either.
    • According to the OED, this is "With allusion to "gad" and can refer to things. I didn't think this was such a strange word - no need to be snippy about it. Shall I use one of your favorite phrases? "Don't we all know the English language"? Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care what it's in allusion to, it's too abstruse for the non-specialist reader. My first dictionary didn't confirm that it's the right word; you may have a dictionary that does, but it's beside the point—gad and gadfly are unusual words that our readers can't be expected to know. More explicit wording is required. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but people figure out words mostly by the context within which they are used, which is how the OED is pulled together as well I believe. I like being exposed to words like gadfly even though I admit I don't know the word. You can always link to wiktionary.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm responsible for "gadfly", unfortunately; I can defend it only by saying that, in my present circle of friends and even among my fellow working-students at the horse-farm, everyone knows what it means. If you've read Socrates' Apology, the word plays a big role there, too. If you'd like to replace it, that's fine, although you may have difficulty finding a better substitute. Willow (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with teaching people words. This one can be seen to be used as either definition 4 in the OED or metaphorically. This is not a problem. It is a lovely word and I see no reason to dumb down our vocabulary for this article. The wikitionary link will help readers. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is something wrong with scholastic pretention. Rather than stooping to "teach" our readers new words, it would be preferable to write in plain, familiar (and correct) English throughout. Tony (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard of it. And I don't even work on a horse-farm. qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously this is a bit of grey area; many of my high-school students would consider words like "nemesis" and "reactionary" to be scholastic pretension – but surely none of us would want those stricken from the lead, right? I suppose the question is: For what grade level should Wikipedia aim? Journalists, I once heard, write for a audience with a fourth-grade reading level; hopefully we all agree that we should aim higher. I always quote the rap group Channel Live to my students: "I reveal the truth so I'm somethin' like a revelator / if it's over your head, get your [butt] on the elevator!"
    I wasn't familiar with the concept of the gadfly before I read this article, but then clicking my way to new concepts is actually one of the things I love most about Wikipedia; it may be that explaining things in the page too much might be a form of spoiling the reader. Or maybe not. As always, a balance must be reached; I'd put "gadfly" on the "let the reader explore" side of the ying-yang. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While the journal had relatively low circulation numbers for its day, it still influenced popular opinion"—I think there are two separate redundant words.
    • While the journal had low circulation numbers for its day, it influenced popular opinion means something different from While the journal had relatively low circulation numbers for its day, it still influenced popular opinion. I don't think I need to explain the difference. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that "relatively" and "for its day" are nearly identical, I can see a shade of meaning which distinguishes them. The numbers are presumably relative to something other than historical era, yes? The inclusion of "still" strikes me as completely different and necessary, insofar as most readers (I believe) share the assumption that publications with small distribution numbers don't have much influence. (Compare Z Magazine to Newsweek.) Therefore a contrasting adverb is useful here. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • London—do we really need a blue splotch for this little-known location? "Eighteenth century"—linking that is over the top; please delink or show why it's useful to the reader, as required by MOS.
    • I am really tired of all this back and forth with the MOS. Half of the time reviewers insist these be linked and half the time they don't. I am taking them out for you. However, please be aware that other people are just as insistent that they be added, so calling them "splotches" is not very helpful to editors such as myself who do try hard to adhere to the MOS. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess, I'm in favor of linking them once. Wikipedia is for everyone, not merely well-educated Anglo-Americans who might not need to follow links. A young Masai or someone in Ulan Bator may indeed have little idea of what London's really like; similarly, many people may have only the vaguest conception of the 18th century, and may wish to learn more. Linking does no harm and may do some good, don't you agree? In my opinion, we should not be parochial when writing articles, as we have seen from my own "gadfly" example above. Willow (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have relinked both. I have often thought that linking "eighteenth century", in particular, is helpful because it is clear to me from teaching eighteenth-century literature that college students, at least, have no real notion of eighteenth-century history. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't even realize (because I'm a fool, probably) there were pages on each century until recently; Place names obviously must be judiciously linked (we dropped a number of them in Emma Goldman – on Awadewit's advice, I might add – because there were too many other links (which, in my opinion, isn't the case here)). I feel that such links are generally useful because they make access to additional relevant context much easier. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Organized into separate departments, each with its own reviewing head,"—Unsure of the best location for "reviewing". What is a "reviewing head"?
    • Reviewing what? If you're referring to "the writing of reviews", stretching that to naming the departments "reviewing departments" run by "reviewing heads" is misleading. I don't want to have to seek clarification in the lead. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're acting as if the reader hasn't read the rest of the lead. The first sentence is Part of the Republic of Letters, it was a gadfly publication, which offered readers summaries and analyses of the many new publications issued at the end of the eighteenth century and the rest of the sentence you are quoting is Organized into separate departments, each with its own reviewing head, the Analytical Review focused on politics, philosophy, natural history, and literature. It is not so unclear as you say. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's not a standard phrase so far as I know, I think it's a fairly intuitive one. Would it be more clear to say: "...each with its own editor in charge of reviewing [list of most common review targets]"? I'm big into that compromise stuff whenever possible. (And I've often found that suggestions for alternatives are very useful to me when someone reviews my writing.) – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To promote a disinterested air, its reviewers were anonymous, signing their work with pseudonymous initials. Nevertheless, the journal recruited several prominent writers, such as the poet William Cowper, the moralist William Enfield, the physician John Aikin, and the polemicist Mary Wollstonecraft." There's a conflict between anonymity vs named, and ?little-known vs prominent. Problem of logic.
    • Perhaps you should read the rest of the article, where all of this becomes clearer. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft used the initials "M", "W", and "T" but no one knew they were her's. Also, these writers were prominent, but readers did not always know that. Again, only so much can be explained in the lead, but I feel this is clear. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't want to have to read the rest of the article to understand the lead. That is basic. The lead is meant to be a smooth introduction to the rest of the article, around the other way. This is the result of a basic misunderstanding of the function of the lead: certainly it is not to confuse or beg questions or require a dictionary or recourse to linked articles. If you can't mention something in the lead without briefly glossing it so that it's all understandable as a stand-alone piece, take out that point. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To gain a fresh perspective on this sentence, I read the lead to several people off-wiki to see if they understood this point - people more critical of logic than you - and they did, so I am comfortable with this. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my mind, there's a connection between the ability of a journal to attract renowned editors and the probability of promoting the editors. Thus, while I stumbled a bit on this sentence my first time through, it made sense when I thought about it, and I feel that it's logically coherent as is. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Analytical Review suspended publication in December 1798 after the deaths of Christie and Wollstonecraft in 1796 and 1797, respectively; the conviction of Johnson for seditious libel in 1798; and the retirement of other contributing editors."—Why is "respectively" used? Can the semicolons be changed to commas? Tony (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, do not use "respectively" to highlight. It is specifically to link A with C and B with D in a clause. Take it OUT. The clauses are not at all long (they're not clauses, actually, but merely nominal groups in a list). Semicolons are unnecessarily bold boundaries and do not help the reader.
    • I believe that Awadewit meant to say "clarify" instead of "highlight". The word "respectively" clarifies that Christie (A) died in 1796 (C) and Wollstonecraft (B) died in 1797 (D). I'm also guilty for using the semicolons, since I believed them to be helpful for the reader to parse the list of factors contributing to AR's demise. However, I've just now re-worded it to eliminate "respectively" and to render the semicolons into commas. Hoping that this is helpful and an improvement, Willow (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a representative list of the problems with the article, I am frankly unimpressed. Furthermore, I have no way of fixing what you view as the problems because I cannot read your mind. Please take the time to read the article carefully and point out the problems or even fix some of them yourself. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, you know very well that you shouldn't be reviewing an article until you have read all of it. As for being told what to do, it seems to me that you have been barking out orders yourself. As always, some of your points are valid; but your aggressive tone is producing reactance. A friendlier approach would be more effective, I'm sure. qp10qp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony take a step back and consider that this is a volunteer project. Awadewit and Willow didn't have to write this article and it is already amongst Wikipedia's best content. This should be a helpful review to try and improve the article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really very disappointed in how this perfectly good article has been dismissed because of minor MOS issues based mostly on personal taste. There comes a point when such things are merely subjective. I see no reason why some of the points highlighted above are crucial or even stand in the way of this article becoming featured. The catty behavior is also quite unnecessary and goes against the underlying reason why people list their articles here: to seek helpful and thoughtful feedback so as to improve the article to its full potential. María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to judge for myself the quality of the content without being brow-beaten by your view; I happen to disagree. Whether this is voluntary or paid is totally irrelevant; a gold star is being sought for substandard work. I've pointed out a number of significant problems just in the lead, to have almost all spurned for no good reason—at least none that has been stated. I don't waste my time here analysing text to have my efforts rebutted, presumably for the sake of doing so by a contrarion and defensive nominator. Nor do I take kindly to the "fix it yourself" line that has been taken just above. So now we're in a position of continuous conflict during this process. I certainly won't be helping to improve the text, but I will be criticising—every day. At the moment, I'm waiting for the contrarion's reasons thus far. Tony (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me appeal to everyone to be serene and to focus on improving the article for everyone's benefit. To be sure, it is wise and efficient to be forthright in one's criticisms, and everyone has a right to their opinion, but we should focus on the material points of improvement, not immaterial labels ("contrarian") or dismissive comments ("unimpressed"). We should master ourselves before trying to master one other, no? ;) It may indeed require long patient discussion among ourselves to reach consensus, but we should make that time; I hold out hope that every concern can be addressed with a sweet, tranquil tone and inexorable logic. :) Willow (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, I see no reason for you to adopt the hostile attitude that you have since the beginning of the FAC. I am always willing to work with people to improve articles, but your attitude makes it very difficult to do so. You have now announced that you are going to be "criticising" the article every day and you "won't be helping to improve the text". Please try to work with us to improve the article. Also, I might point out that your imperious tone and somewhat hysterical "strong oppose" do not help your case. If you seriously believe that this article should not become an FA because of the problems with its prose, you are not going to convince anyone else of that with your rhetoric. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you assert. My hostility was not from "the beginning of the FAC", but started after your first, belligerent response. Tony (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I certainly won't be helping to improve the text, but I will be criticising—every day." Tony, my 16 year old on his worst days manages to be more mature than this. By coming into this FAR with elbows flying, you've made Tony1 the issue instead of the quality of the article. I'm sure you can contribute significantly to this article if you calm down, provide a detailed critique and engage in reasoned discussion and rational argument. Awadewit has done this for me in the past and we're still "speaking." :) Simmaren (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And you call your accusation civil? Why don't you mind your own business? Tony (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without trying to sound sycophantic, I echo the earlier calls for civility on all sides. Statements like "What your so-called authoritative book says is irrelevant" strike me as more appropriate to a FARK flame war than a Wikipedia review. As an English teacher, I believe positive feedback must be mixed with constructive criticism; neither alone is sufficient to help writing improve. </rant> – Scartol • Tok 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. After reading the article in full, I believe it is well written, comprehensive and holds up to the rest of Awadewit's canon. The only question I have is in regards to the meaty paragraph on Wollstonecraft's contributions to AR. Was she the most notable or prolific contributor? I understand the importance of her work, but I'm not sure if her colleagues are given their due weight in the article -- unless, of course, she was more notable and/or prolific in comparison. Just a minor quibble. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, MW was not the most notable contributor. She may have been the most prolific contributor, but I cannot verify that fact. It just happens to be that the most scholarship is written about her role as a reviewer. I would have written more about the other reviewers if I could have found it. If it is out there, it is buried deep in obscurity. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thorough, well-written, neutral, stylistically smooth, and filled with good images. What more can I say? (Well, apart from the small things I've fixed while reading and some others I might splash up on the talk page but which – as pathetically minor issues of punctuation and wording – don't have much of a place here.) – Scartol • Tok 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there any more on Christie's role? He pops up to found it (for reasons unknown), organises it a little and then dies. Also, I'd personally find it interesting to have something on the attempts to identify the contributors by their "initials" and how they were confirmed. Did the reviewers admit to reviewing but not reveal their pseudonyms? Did some reveal the letters they used after publication was suspended? Are they identified by their writing styles? Are there any unidentified reviewers? Yomanganitalk 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christie was in France during the early part of the French revolution (some weird business dealings). However, it is hard to get a handle on precisely why he went there from the sources I read - was it only for business, for example? Many British radicals went to be a part of the revolution. Christie died abroad (I forget where at the moment). If he seems largely absent, I think that is because he was. I sometimes wonder if he sent JJ material to publish, but I have no evidence for that.
    • Mary Wollstonecraft, on whom I have the most information, has been identified only through her initials and her writing style. That is, taking together evidence such as "M" and "W" and what scholars identify as her style (although that is a lot more nebulous that you might think), a list of probable reviews has been created (although this list is disputed). "T" was added later, using her style. There is a lot of detail on this in the Wollstonecraft articles that I did not include in the article because I thought the average reader would not be interested in it - it is pretty dry stuff and requires something of a detailed knowledge of MW's other works.
    • There are probably unidentified reviewers, but I didn't see any discussion of them. When scholars discuss the AR, they either discuss it in terms of the known reviewers or in terms of the text of the reviews themselves and ignore the authors.
    • I'm sorry that I can't give you more satisfactory answers than these. It is only recently that scholarship has even been done on eighteenth-century periodicals and there is not much material to work with. This is one reason I was hesitant to bring this article to FAC at all. Awadewit | talk 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about this. Despite you and Tony hacking chunks off each other up above (and you could both give that a rest), there's not much wrong with the writing. No matter how shiny it is we can always polish, but I'm more concerned with criterion 1(b). Is it comprehensive? The answers you've given to my questions suggest that there is more that could be added to the article. Just placing Christie in France helps, and we don't seem to be any closer to knowing how the reviewers apart from MW have been identified, despite which they are confidently listed as contributors (you don't have to give the boring details, but a brief explanation would, for me at least, make the article more interesting). It's a more engaging read than Johnson but it doesn't feel comprehensive at the moment. Perhaps that is partly because there aren't the sources; I've had articles where all we know is not a lot - I've even taken one of them through FAC because I knew it was as comprehensive as it could with the available sources. If you can tell me that's the case here, I'll support. Yomanganitalk 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the information about Christie in the "Organization and reviewers" section. Would you like me to add more about how MW was identified? Unfortunately, I do not know how the other reviewers were identified - my sources do not say. I clearly cannot say that I have read everything on the AR, but I have read everything that I could find and that the reference librarians at my university could find on the topic. Unfortunately, not much is known about the day-to-day workings of this journal. That is as far as I can go. Awadewit | talk 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I can't expect you to read books that you don't know exist, that really would be unreasonable. You might put a word or two on the identification of MW ("identified only through her initials and her writing style") as that also gives us a clue as to how the others may have been identified, but it doesn't require anything more detailed. Yomanganitalk 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article is well-organized and generally well-written, is heavily footnoted to reliable sources, and uses good images. It is interesting. The article ties in nicely with the recent series of articles on Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestly, and Anna Laetitia Barbauld on which Awadewit has been working. It is written at an appropriate level of detail, provides excellent context and background information, and includes interesting tidbits (for example, that the theological reviewer was an ordained Catholic priest). I've left a number of detailed comments and questions on the article "Talk" page to which responses have been made. Simmaren (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do of course support but I have a couple of questions.
    • Her reviews, of which there are over 200 and which have been identified by her initials and her writing style, are probably signed by the initials "M", "W", or "T" and are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. - First we seem to know have positively identified her by her initials but next we only maybe know what the initials are. Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction?
    • This is an artifact of the hurried FAC revision process. What do you think of: Her reviews, of which there are probably over 200 and which have been identified using her initials and writing style, are more than likely signed by the letters "M", "W", or "T" and are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. I'm not sure this is much better. Awadewit | talk 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's probably not much better because it still has the same inherent problem of identified vs. more than likely. I don't really have an opinion on which is better, or a new suggestion, so I will trust you to make the right decision.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the better solution is to break it up into two sentences. New version: Scholars have speculated that her reviews are signed by the letters "M", "W", or "T", corresponding roughly to her initials, in large part because they have identified her writing style in these pieces. Her reviews, which number over 200, are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. Awadewit | talk 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is anything known about who the typical reader was? Was it only read by a small group of people interested in politics and literature or was it read by a diverse group (of most likely the upper echelons) of society? Also was it only published in London or all over Britain?
    • I could speculate for you personally about readership based on my own knowledge of the period, but I have no sources to offer that could serve as the basis for information for the article. The journal was published in London and like most journals was probably circulated via provincial libraries, but I can't point to a source that says that was definitely the case. Sorry. Eighteenth-century periodical research is quite frustrating, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Peter Andersen (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Well written, extensively sourced, nicely illustrated, and meets all of the FAC criteria in my opinion. Having read the current version of the article and the entire FAC discussion above, I miss "gadfly". I think it interesting that an article which is partly about how anonymous reviewers were identified by their writing style is itself being forced to remove such delightful words and phrases in the name of style. To my thinking, prose that "is engaging, even brilliant" (see 1a) allows or even calls for such interesting words and phrases, and stretches the reader's knowledge a bit in the process. Your mileage may vary. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The article has improved since I last read it in peer review. I see that the part about the Analytical Review's participation in the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century has been elaborated upon. I have a question: Is this article a unique compilation of information on the Analytical Review? I've noticed over time how a lot of Wikipedia's featured articles are actually important original works despite their use of reliable sources, just because they do very well and comprehensively what hasn't been done very well and comprehensively before in one place, which is a tribute to the FAC process.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to say how unique this article is, because most of the sources I drew on discuss the Analytical Review in a much wider context. For example, Keen discusses it in the context of 1790s literature (I think you would really like his book, by the way). In many ways, those books are better, because you get a broader picture of the period and its literature; however, Keen has 200 pages and we have just a few kB to work with. Yet, this page brings together a lot of disparate details, if that is what you mean. I don't think that any of the sources I looked at contain all of the details mentioned in this article. Awadewit | talk 20:19, 20 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Ununoctium

    [edit]

    I have worked for some time to this article and spent a lot of time finding everything is known in the research literature about this element. The article is a GA, and I believe it is well written, well formatted, well referenced, and broad enough for the FA criterias. The article has also passed through a peer review recently. Any comments, thoughts, suggestions would be welcome. Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I think the article contains some speculation presented as fact. For example:
    •  Done "Ununoctium, like all noble gases except helium, has a "full" (eight electron) valence (outermost) electron shell (also called closed shell), thus making it a highly unreactive element". If there have only been 3 atoms ever synthesised, and the t½ < 1 ms, how could it be known to be highly unreactive. Expected, yes, but not known.
    •  Done Sentence about bond length, compared with radon dimer, can be read as saying an actual sample of Uuo2 has been studied, whereas results are from theoretical investigations.
    Also, the compounds and use section needs correction of grammar and expression:
    •  Done "No compounds of ununoctium have been synthesized yet, and if the ionization energy will be high enough, ..." - maybe "is found to be high enough"?
    •  Done "For the fluorinated compounds UuoF2 and UuoF4 an increase in stability of the +2 and +4 oxidation states it was calculated, which is ..." - maybe "has been calculated", or maybe even 'predicted', as neither compound has actually been made.
    •  Done "Unlike the other noble gases, ununoctium was predicted to electronegative enough to form a bond with chlorine (Uuo-Cl)" - maybe "is predicted to be sufficiently electronegative to"
    Other concerning parts:
    •  Done The statement "Moreover, it has been calculated that ununoctium exhibits electron affinity." seems strange to me. Electron affinity is the energy change for the one-electron oxidation of the 1- anion of an element - so every element has an electron affinity. Is this saying it is expected to have a positive EA, or a negative EA, or ...?
    • negative electron affinity would be the same thing as saying that it does not have/exhibit electron affinity (but it repulses it). so from a scientific point of view, having "positive electron affinity" is slightly redundant. nevertheless, I agree that it is more clear with the psoitive adjective in frontNergaal (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The statement "Ununoctium is a noble gas because all its electrons are in a closed shell." is also problematic - it is expected to be condensed at RT, and not liquid. Maybe "belongs to group 18 as all ... shell" and then a comment about the group often being referred to as the noble gases, but recognising this may change if a non-gaseous element is added. I'm also uncomfortable with all electrons in a "closed shell" - just because it has 7s27p6, for example, doesn't mean that there is no 7d sub-shell, and thus that shell 7 is closed.EdChem (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost support. The article is much improved since I reviewed it for GA, and I'm happy to see that the predicted properties now refer to the scientific literature rather than to websites that don't say where they got their data.
        •  Done My only concern is that the wording could be improved in some places, such as in the properties section (I took the liberty to try to improve the first paragraph a bit, I hope it helped). I noticed some superlatives and expressions that don't sound appropriate to an encyclopedic article, such as "enormous" and "it is difficult to argue". I then noticed that these are the same expressions used by the source (J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 3493). I suggest either rewording to a more sober tone, or attributing the wording explicitly to the author of the paper that is referenced. I prefer the former.
        •  Done I would also remove the "reputedly" from the lead; if the new discovery is ever retracted or a heavier element is recognized, we can amend the article, but I see no need to use such a "defensive" language.
        •  Done The discovery section says that there was a single detected event of the synthesis of an atom of this element, yet later it says that the decay of three atoms was detected. On first reading this sounds confusing, I don't know if it could be made clearer in some way. I'm assuming it means that at least two more atoms were made but only detected after they decayed?
        •  Done Finally, I noticed that the figure in the infobox has the wrong number of neutrons; it has the number corresponding to the isotope that was retracted, not the one that was discovered later. --Itub (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure how to solve this problem since I did not create the image. Anyways, it is possible that 293 would be one of the more stable isotope, and therefore might not be such a big problem. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose for now.
        •  Done The lead doesn't summarize the article. There is nothing about compounds or decay, for example.
        • Rewrote the intro. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Multiple first use of units are unlinked. E.g. "g·mol−1" and "cm−3". There is also some overlinking of units, such as "K", "kJ·mol−1" and "kJ/mol" (one form should be used).
        • The Phase entry in the infobox has some extraneous square brackets at the end.
        •  Done The discussion of the element's "half-life" and "decay" should first clearly explain that this element is radiactive and perhaps add a little about why this is so. I don't think the image caption is sufficient.
        •  Done This jargon needs to be explained: "closed valence shell", "p-block element", "energetic destabilization and radial expansion of its occupied 7p3/2 spinor shell", "positive electron affinity", "quantum electrodynamical", "+2 and +4 oxidation states", many parts of the third paragraph in the "Compounds and uses" section, &c.
        •  Done The non-existant category needs to be established or removed.
        Sorry.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent article with great citations and an astonishing amount of information considering how little is known about this element. Not to mention the fact that only 3 atoms of it have ever been created. Also, I modified the picture to reflect the fact that the only currently synthesized isotope has 176 neutrons. (see comment on the image's commons page .) Thingg⊕⊗ 19:02, 18 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Vampire

    [edit]

    Hi everyone! I bring you with great joy the former featured article (Old nom - here) vampire, which I've been working on with Casliber since September (The first article in our series of upcoming collaborations). Here's what we had to work with ([55]) and over 1000 edits, a RFC, a few months and nearly 200 citations later, we're finally here! :) I'll let the article do the talking, but I definitely think that this article is FA worthy: It's basically 100% cited, comprehensive, well-written, well illustrated, complies with MOS and is very interesting. If you're worried about size (Which could be the only issue here) let me assure you we pondered this issue for a long time. We split off as much as we could to some of the already existing sub-articles, but we weren't fond of the idea of splitting our hard FA-level work off into a "dump" article where anybody could put any trivial piece of information they wanted - hardly worth the effort and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that either. So enough of my talking, please go ahead and read the article. We put months into it and I hope you enjoy it enough to support it at this FAC. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - As nominator! :) Spawn Man Review Me! 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as contributor of over 500 edits. It has had a look over by several folk experienced in copyediting, and is fully sourced with published book refs. All images were published over 75 years ago (and hence copyright expired). There is a well-organized hierarchy of headings/subheadings. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't checked the text yet, but there is a problem with Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif. The tag on the image says it is a Fair Use image. The article on Une Semaine de Bonté says the image comes from a Victorian-era book. It seems that this image is copyright-expired (since it's from long before 1932), but the tag needs to be changed to conform to this, or a Fair Use rationale needs to be provided for this illustration. There are other illustrations on this page which aren't in the public domain, but they all have correct licensing. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice catch Firs, I hadn't noticed that. The article's copyright has obviously expired, so I should just replace the current image tags with a free use license riight? Oh, and which other images aren't in the public domain - I thought we had all free use ones? And if we don't, should we just replace them with free use images instead? (I'm not extremely well-versed in detailed licensing sorry) *Gulp* :) Spawn Man (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the other image tags look fine: they've got proper licenses and tags. It seems like a no-brainer that Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif is in the public domain (since it's an image from the Victorian era), so I think you should replace it with a public domain tag. If you don't want to do that, your other option is to provide a Fair Use rationale for the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Grrr! I can't find the correct tag - The author only died in the 1970s, hardly 75 years ago. Can someone with knowledge of licensing please fix this? I tried fixing the tag, but it changed when I placed it down, so I can't find the right one... Spawn Man (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks a bunch Firs! :) I swear I pasted that tag and it just wasn't it! Spawn Man (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. :) You were using {{PD-old}} instead of {{PD-US}}. I don't think you'll have any objections over this image, but I'm willing to investigate if you do. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was great fun to read! Bravo to all involved. I have some questions, observations, starting with Etymology:
      • The Slavic word might, like its possible cognate that means "bat" (Czech netopýr, Slovak netopier, Polish nietoperz, Russian нетопырь / netopyr' - a species of bat), contain a Proto-Indo-European root for "to fly". I had to read this sentence twice to understand what it was saying.
      • "The first recorded use of the Old Russian form Упирь (Upir') is commonly believed to be in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD)." In which calendar is 6555 the same as 1047 AD?
      • Moravian vampires only attacked victims while naked Naked vampires or naked victims?
    • In Decription
      • This tradition persisted in regard to modern Greek folklore... I'm not sure what "in regard to" means here. Does it just mean "in Greek folklore"?
      • In similar Chinese narratives... this is a theme encountered Is the "theme" in this case, the need to count every grain? Perhaps "motif" is a better fit?
      • I infer from the link to Mara (folklore) that and pressing on people in their sleep. means "causing nightmares". I would have expected this to mean something more akin to Incubus (demon). Maybe just add "causing nightmares" at the end of the sentence? The Mara article doesn't have the explanation in the lead, and some readers won't think to click on "Pressing".
        • I thought mara was more closely connected to Night terrors where the victim would experience both pressing and nightmares at the same time. Cas is more referenced in the psychological side of vampires, so hopefully he'll be able to answer that genre of questions here. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apotropaics, that is, mundane or sacred items able to ward off revenants, such as garlic,[39] or holy water... As worded, this could be saying that garlic and holy water are revenants. Perhaps dashes or parentheses to make the appositive clearer?
      • The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; in Europe... I think given the structure that it's a bit confusing not to mention the region of the wild rose and hawthorn belief.
      • slavic is sometimes l.c. Is this correct?
      • Ancient Babylonia had tales of the mythical , such as the Lilitu,[60] synonymous with Lilith and her daughters the Lilu from Hebrew demonology who were derived from their Babylonian counterparts. Is something missing here?
      • Graves were often opened five or seven years after burial to check for vampirism, before being washed and reburied. It's corpses that were washed, not graves, right? Maybe "corpses were often exhumed"?
      • It appears to me that vampire antecedents in India are discussed twice. Both in Vampire#India and Vampire#Asia.
      • Is a non-bylined "Ananova" story a reliable enough source for the rather remarkable claim that vampire hunters raided the tomb of Milosevic?
      • The innate sexuality of bloodsucking can be seen in its intrinsic connection with cannibalism and folkloric one with incubus-like behaviour. Is something missing from this sentence?
      • Although the vampire bat's bit is usually not harmful to a person It's bit? You mean it's ecological niche?
      • initial flying shapeshifted form was originally described is confusing to me.
        • (I removed 'initial as there was only one literary dracula, but the gist is the flying form what he changed into - I could make it less ambiguous but it would use alot more letters. Do you think we still need to do it?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had the impression that vampires were immortal. Is that just an Anne Rice-ism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHenry (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object. Is this article about hematophagy or vampires? Just because a certain mythological being was said to drink blood does not make it relevant to an article about vampires. For example, I fail to see what the Ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet has to do with vampires, besides the fact that she drank blood (which is certainly not exclusive to vampires). Unless you have a good source explicitly connecting Sekhmet to vampire legends, I would suggest reducing the section about Sekhmet from 2 paragraphs to 1 sentence explaining that Sekhmet is an example of an ancient mythological being that drank blood and thus maybe, possibly, (though quite unlikely) could have been a precursor to later vampire legends. In fact, the entire section on Ancient beliefs should probably be reduced to one or two paragraphs, as the relevance of these ancient myths to later vampire legends is speculative at best (and not especially interesting). Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. Yes, now that you mention it, the Sekmhet legend does seem a bit un-needed in the long run - I'll put it into the main Sekmhet article and remove it altogether from this article. However, I am not thankful for comments such as "...speculative at best (and not especially interesting)...". I, and many others, have spent many many hours working on this article since September and saying something as cruel as that is not very nice. Comment but do not critisize please. I think we can all take constructive critisism, but that's just being mean. We've put long hours into this article and it is very unthoughtful for you to come and say that. Now, I agree the Sekmhet paragraph can go (And probably some parts of india), but I'm afraid that vampire mythology did indeed begin with demons and the like in ancient greece, mesopotamia and the like and I'm not prepared to compromise that because it would be effectively cutting out half of the vampire's history. It is not reasonable to cut the whole thing down to just two paragraphs when there's so much actually relevant material there. Have you actually read the article? I'll try and fix what I can, but I would like if you could see that side of the coin too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object because of size. Notwithstanding your assurances to the contrary, I find excessive size to be a major problem for many FACs/FAs. Readers who are looking for a general introduction to vampires (which is the point of an encyclopedia article on vampires) will be overwhelmed by this >10,000-word article. Using Dr pda's prose size tool, the prose here is twice the recommended maximum of 32k. It is not as though vampires are so important or complicated compared to other encyclopedia articles that they need this much space. WP:SS would be a great benefit to this article. And a sidenote: subarticles are not just "dumps" - they are useful to highlight what information is the most important in the main article, and also have the potential to become featured topics if well-developed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but vampires are pretty complex. I didn't realise their history went back so far when we began and to bring a fully complete article, not just "Vampires suck blood and can't go in sunlight" (Which is not the case in many cultures), it is necessary to write all of that down. As I said above, I'll try and see what we can cut down. I'll get back to you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Updating - the folklore section went in by far the greatest detail and total page size is down to 83 kb. This computer I am typing on does not have anything by which I can estimate word count - if someone could keep us updated it'd be very helpful. CJ you're right about subarticles as I reckon with some rearranging the vampire folklore could be a goer soon too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Due to us trying to fix the article for the opposers above, it's in a bit of a bad shape at the moment, so please refrain from making any judgements - good or bad - until this period of unstability is over. Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gimmetrow; the article's size is in compliance with WP:SIZE. Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding the size issue; I propose the most important points from Mesopotamia & Ancient Greece section to be incorporated as a second paragraph to the Ancient beliefs section with the removed content transfered to Vampire folklore. The same regarding the Non-European beliefs section; summarized in 2-3 paragraphs. I know cutting down is hard but with all the information going to a different article it should be easier on you guys. I also oppose the name Vampire folklore and highly recommend it renamed to Vampire folklore by region. "Vampire folklore" is essentially 80% of what this article discusses so having a second article named that blurs the difference between the 2 articles. If Vampire folklore was to remain named that way I would expect to see sections 2.1 and Etymology in there as well because to me that information is part of Vampire folklore as well. I feel if organized correctly Vampire folklore would be a second FA regarding this topic for you guys. Thanks. 76.10.141.221 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :::Thanks for that, I was thinking along those lines too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Update - the page size is now 73kb. The Ancient Beliefs Section has been summarised, and theoretical origins trimmed a bit and more esoteric material removed. The beings listed in World Beliefs are listed in vampire encyclopedias etc. so are more central to the article than the anceint beliefs and I think keeping them is good in keeping a world-view on the subject - I didn't want it to become too listy either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: It might be a bit wordy, but most things on Wikipedia are a bit wordy. But I support wholeheartedly because I was reading through the article and thought "this should be a featured article," I went to the discussion page, and voila! Good job, those who've contributed. Lawofone (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Overall this is an excellent article. I think some of the prose could be tightened—it is overly verbose in some areas. I did a little copyediting and I saw that User:Awadawit is in the process of doing a little more. You might read over it one more time with an eye for tightening the individual sentences. Once sentence gave me pause: The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; when I read this I wanted to know which region wil rose and hawthorn were said to harm vampires. Some of the content in the Ancient Beliefs section also made me wonder whether it was really necessary. I'd almost rather a See Also section with links to some of those beings that aren't really vampires than have a whole section about them, but as I'm not that familiar with the topic that could be a really dumb thing to do. Karanacs (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support This article has improved markedly since I last read it. I think that the cuts, while painful for the editors, are to the benefit of the article. It is now much easier to read all of the way through the article without stopping. We want readers to receive a thorough education - we don't just want them to skip to the end or stop in the middle!
    • I agree with Karanacs that one more go around with a copy editor to reduce wordiness would benefit the article enormously. I did just a little. I would suggest asking someone who has not worked on the article - who has spent hours staring at these sentences. :)
    • The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first appearance of word vampire in English from 1734, in a travelogue entitled Travels of Three English Gentlemen which was published in the Harleian Miscellany in 1745.[3][4] Many mentions of the subject had been made in German literature. - There needs to be a transition between these two sentences.
    • Several theories of the word's origin exist. - This sentence is sitting in the middle of the paragraph - it seems oddly placed. It is also not entirely clear whether it refers to the English word vampire or the word in all languages.
    • (Note that many of these languages have also borrowed forms such as "vampir/wampir" subsequently from the West). - So how much less likely does this make the theory put forward that English derived its term from German which derived its from these languages, etc.?
    • This apparently strange name has been cited as an example of surviving paganism and/or of the use of nicknames as personal names. - Is it "and" or "or"?
    • However, in 1982, Swedish Slavicist Anders Sjöberg suggested that "Upir' likhyi" was in fact an Old Russian transcription and/or translation of the name of Öpir Ofeigr - Is it "and" or "or"?
    • In most cases, vampires are revenants of evil beings, suicide victims, or witches, but they can also be created by a malevolent spirit possessing a corpse or by being bitten by a vampire itself. - This sentence just bugs me. I kept trying to find a way to word it better, but I couldn't. There must be one. All of the "be's" and "by's" are just no good.
    • I wonder if something more interesting could be done with the captions, per WP:CAPTIONS. I have become a fan of interesting captions. (It is one place to put interesting details that had to be removed from the text.)
    • As stories of vampires spread throughout the globe to the Americas and elsewhere, so did the varied and sometimes bizarre descriptions of them: Mexican vampires had a bare skull instead of a head,[26] Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with their noses and from the victim's ears. - As the editors of this page are aware, I am against labeling one kind of vampire any more bizarre than another, particularly when that leads to a European/New World distinction. I think it has the appearance of POV. I will obviously not make this a condition of supporting the page, but I would encourage them to reconsider this wording.
    • From these various legends, works of literature such as Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the influences of historical figures such as Gilles de Rais, Elizabeth Bathory, and Vlad Ţepeş, the vampire developed into the modern stereotype. - This is just the tiniest bit unclear - at this point in the article, the reader does not know who these historical figures are or what their influences might have been. That needs to be made clearer.
    • During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants; even government officials were compelled into the hunting and staking of vampires. - Are we sure they were "compelled"? It is possible the government officials could have been the ringleaders. :) Instill fear in the populace and all of that.
    • I am not sure what the purpose of the Voltaire quote is. I don't think it adds much to the article, unfortunately.
    • I see we have switched from "World beliefs" to "Non-European beliefs" as a heading. I'm afraid that I don't think this is an improvement. As the "Asia" section is just as long as the Europe section, I'm not sure why we are setting up this polarization of West and non-West. What about establishing a section of "Vampire beliefs" and puting "Ancient", "Europe", "Africa", "The Americas", "Asia", and "Modern" under it, making less of a Western/non-Western distinction?

    The editors have done phenomenal work on this article and I look forward to supporting it very soon. :} Awadewit | talk 23:03, 18 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    I Don't Remember

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because we've been around the block a few times with this article. It reached GA possibly a little prematurely a few months back, and was then delisted. It failed it's next GAN, but finally bounced back in November and passed GA. We've just been through an exhaustively thorough Peer Review process and believe the article now meets the Featured Article criteria. As a wikiproject (WP:FING), this is our first Featured Article submission for a song (we have several Featured articles and lists about the band, discography, albums and awards, but this is kind of new territory for us). rm 'w avu 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse this nomination! Just a note, this article has been the source of some ArbCom related DRAMA (don't ask if you don't know...) - but try and keep that out of your mind when reviewing :) It's a much better article now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I did one of the peer reviews on this article, and all of my suggestions were enacted. It is a quality article about a song, and is comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced and clearly within WIAFA standards... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I can't say I'm the most neutral onlooker who will offer input, but I think the changes the article has undergone since the new year speak for themselves. As it stands, the article is exhaustive and concisely expressed. I'm not sure any more could be asked of it. Seegoon (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2008 (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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

    Andean Condor

    [edit]

    Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because: it's another New World Vulture article, which is comparable in quality to the other New World Vulture FAs (California Condor, Turkey Vulture and American Black Vulture). heyjude. 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as a minor contributor. All my concerns were raised before the FAC and answered. The article is comprehensive, well-cited, easy to read, and decorated with a number of good images. Good job, Jude. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support now. Comment. Relationship with humans is badly organised, jumping between cultural importance, then to status and conservation, before jumping back to cultural representations. Perhaps it would be best to reorganise and perhaps split into two subsections, importance in culture and status and conservation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. I've split it into two subsections, as you suggested. heyjude. 12:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A read through found a few additional problems (some I fixed myself)
    • It's status as near threatened is cited three times, once in the taxobox, once in the intro, and once in the status section. Surely once is enough. Done
    • The generic term Vultur is directly taken from the Latin vultur or voltur, which means "vulture" and is a word originally used in the works of Livy and Virgil. Does it particularly matter when the word was first used and by whom? Surely it is sufficient to state that it was Latin. Done
    • the Andean Condor is undoubtedly larger in wingspan undoubtedly can probably go. Done
    • The birds flap their wings on rising from the ground, but after attaining a moderate elevation they seem to sail on the air. Seem to sail on the air? Better to describe what they actually do than what they seem to do, surely?  Done
    • The Andean Condor is a scavenger, feeding mainly on carrion. Since no mention is made of any other food other than carrion, is the mainly needed?
    They also raid other birds' nests to eat the eggs. heyjude. 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was first placed on the Endangered Species list in 1973.[41] Is that the United States Endangered Species List? If so it should say so. It might be helpful to explain how the listing varies from IUCN listing, and whether it really matters. Done
    • The condors are kept in aviaries for three months prior to release to allow them to acclimatize. Acclimatize to what exactly? The sentences in this section are kind of choppy and could benefit from a little more context. What exactly does sattelite tracking achieve, for example? Also, is any education being done to improve public perception/behaviour?  Done
    This article is close, I look forward to supporting it soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as a minor contributor. I tweaked a bit prior to coming here. looks good.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Well-written and informative, as were the other vulture articles. Coemgenus 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A fine article, but in need of polishing for style. I have edited a dash and some Greek etymology myself. Among the work that needs to be done:
    • ...which ranges from 274-310 cm (9-10 ft). According to WP:MOS: such hyphens should be changed to en dashes (throughout the article, including in all bibliographic details); then these particular dashes should be replaced with to, for grammar; and a hard space (&nbsp;) should be inserted between the number and the unit; this should also be done throughout the article, including all cases like this: "pp. 23–37" (pp.&nbsp;23–37).
    • The beak is hooked, and designed to tear rotting meat. Designed? I don't think so! Try this: The beak is hooked, and adapted for tearing rotting meat. There are several infelicities like that. For example, I am also not happy about this: has the unusual habit of urohidrosis, in which it urinates or defecates on its legs... . We know that birds don't urinate, strictly speaking. Try this this instead: has the unusual habit of urohidrosis: its cloaca empties onto its legs... . Still an ugly image, but at least accurate now! More of this tidying needs to be done. Get an additional skilled copyeditor in to run through the article with a new broom.
    • Generally, the citations need to be tidied. Apart from what I raise above, there are all sorts of inconsistencies. In formatting of dates, for example. Again, have someone who knows how to fix such things efficiently go through it with a fine-tooth comb.
    When all this is fixed, the article will be ready for promotion, I think. I'd help if I could, but I have no time: except to answer specific questions of style at my talkpage, if you'd like that.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I thought this passed ages ago! Jimfbleak (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'll probably make some minor changes to the prose, but nothing major here. I also wish we could find a decent image (without bars and closeup) that shows the whole bird, which would be good for the taxobox. But there doesn't seem to be any better alternatives available, either in Commons or Flickr. Good work, and good luck! VanTucky 01:21, 20 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Altrincham

    [edit]

    I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it conforms with WP:UKCITIES and I think it is a well developed article with plenty of references and meets the criteria of FAC. Any constructive criticism is welcome, thanks. Nev1 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example:
      • "There are a total of 5 Grade II Listed Churches in Altrincham" - spell out 5, "a total of" is redundant
      • "lower than the 21.3% all of Trafford" - missing an "in"
      • "including the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall" - hyphen needed
      • "All of these churches have been Listed Buildings since 1985" - redundant "of"
      • "There is currently one synagogue" - "currently" is redundant
      • Some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some more:
        • "Since 1290 Altrincham was a Free Borough, a self governing township"
        • "a population of around 67,000" - "around" isn't needed, it's indicated by the 0s
        • "Running through Broadheath in Altrincham is a Roman road that links the Roman fortress of Chester (Deva) and the fort of York (Eboracum)" - comma needed either after Broadheath or Altrincham
        • "and is one of only six Grade I Listed Buildings in Trafford" - is the "only" needed?
        • The economy section needs info other than stats, such as on local industries. Epbr123 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are a few examples of several reference superscripts running one after the other (eg the demography stats). If you run them all together, separated by <br />•, it looks a whole lot neater without losing any information. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight for time. Mr Stephen 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've obviously not made it clear - sorry. See Intelligent design for an example of it in use. In markup it's
    <ref name=stats>{{cite web ...}}<br />•{{cite web ...}}</ref>
    and then <ref name=stats/> as required. Mr Stephen 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I get the idea now, thanks. Nev1 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion. All requirements here have been filled out. I've used this page as a template for other projects before, and as for the comprehensiveness... — Rudget speak.work 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Oppose A few issues with the Sport section, which tends towards recentism. In addition to the two wins of what is now the Conference, which in the present day would earn Football League status, the football club is primarily noted for FA Cup "giant-killings" in the 1970s and 80s, beating several Football League teams and achieving draws against top division teams Everton and Spurs. The town's two previous ice hockey teams (Trafford Metros and Altrincham Aces) are not mentioned, nor is the Devonshire Road rink which for a number of years was the feature of Altrincham best known by those from other places in the region. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey no one's perfect, I don't follow football or ice hockey. If you've got material to add, with sources, go right ahead, you certainly seem to know your stuff. Is the old ice rink notable though? I agree it was well known in Altrincham, but it has been superceded. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more material about the football club. I'd say the old rink deserves a mention as it was the only rink in the county. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now rewritten the part about ice hockey, rendering my opposition redundant. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to oppose, since, like similar articles with ?similar authors, the prose needs careful copy-editing throughout. Do I need to provide examples, or are you willing to engage others from related articles in the field to sift through it? Tony (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Clearly a Good article (and officially designated as such), I have a few concerns with the article. Namely:
      • Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section possibly needs a rethink. I had a blast myself at the first paragraph, but the second seems disproportionatly large, and the third is a lone sentence. I know Altrincham to be one of the more glamorous (I am from Oldham!) or at least desirable towns in Greater Manchester, and a hub for upper-middle-classes and large detached homes - I would expect something about this in the lead (if a source can be found).
      • "completion of the Altrincham section of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776" - was it actually called the Altrincham section or was it the opening of the canal upto Altrincham? Also, according to a source I have, this part of the canal was opened in 1775 not 1776 (which is when the entirity of the canal was opened). I would also consider changing the word "prosperity" with "Further economic development"' in the lead about this.
      • Although not a barrier to FA as such, some of the images appear a little banal and don't seem to do the text justice. All of these are images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons licence that may allow them on Wikipedia/Wikicommons. There are even some intersting ones from the early 1900s. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 have been sorted out, one needs to have a new source found because the original is 404 (that's why a chached link was used). What should be done about the images of England links, are they unacceptable? Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the Images of England links (I think), that just leaves the missing page at the council web site. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Many of the sources have no identifiable publisher, examples:

    • Anon. The History of Hale One Act Festival. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
    • Anon. The Club Theatre History. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.

    See WP:CITE/ES and please complete all sources to include article title and publisher, last accessdate on all websources, and author and publication date when available (it's not necessary to list "anon"). Did reviewers check reliability of sources, considering publishers aren't listed? Also, a google cache is not a reliable source, and that needs to be replaced. This source, for example:

    has an author and publication date that are not listed in the footnote, and it is used more than once (please see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Continuing to oppose until the MOS breaches are fixed. There are prose glitches, too. For example: I've fixed the first two units; the others need to be reversed. Minus sign or en dash in geog. coordinates. Read about final periods in captions, and "Words as words" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics. MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". 4 --> four. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "There is a low proportion of non-white people; 95.4% of residents were recorded as white."—are both clauses necessary? "The largest minority group was recorded as Jewish, at 2.8% of the population."—Remove "recorded as"? "Altrincham's 15.5% level of employment"—"rate of unemployment. "early 20th-century"—another hyphen required, as elsewhere in the article. Theatres "formed" or "constructed"? Unsure whether you're referring to buildings or groups of people. MOS proscribes curly quotes. "Precint" misspelling in ref section. Ref 84 specify the author. Mixed title and sentence case for titles in ref section. WP prefers sentence case, but not mandatory (should be consistent, though). Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As of now, the units part of the MOS is "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". That was what the MOS said for quite some time, certainly during this article's development, but there was a brief period recently when it said something else. So miles are perfectly acceptable from a WP point of view, and they are the units used on the local government web site covering Altrincham. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WHO IS STRIKING OUT MY COMMENTS? Tony (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC and undo any edits made to another editor's posts. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone it. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would love this to be an FA, but still have some challenges which I think need to be met before I could support this, namely:
      • There is a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Could this be expanded or amalgamated somehow?
      • In Geography there is nothing about the built environment or urban structure of Altrincham. Subsquently, this section appears a little thin.
      • In Demography could something be found about the social class of Altrincham, and some commentary about Altrincham's demography, historically?
      • Present day is my largest worry. I believe material in this section could, and should, be merged into other sections. Certainly stuff about retail would be suited to Economy, whilst material about dwellings would be well placed in Geography or Demography. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The one sentence paragraph in the lead has been expanded; more has been added to the demography section, including the change of social classes over the last 70 years; and the entire Present day section was moved under Economy as this seemed most appropriate (there wasn't really much on dwellings). Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support is the only option I have in that case then! I would like to see a high quality image in the infobox at some point down the line (and I'll try to help with that), but other than that, this seems as FA as any other article I've seen. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I think all the units are now in the Imperial (metric) form, allowable by the MOS (and overwhelmingly used by the sources). I've been through the references and all now contain the date where given on the source. I can't see any abuses of the dash or the minus sign. Unless I've missed or forgotten something (sing!), it's compliant. I think the style issues have been addressed. Looks clear to go to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Ok, since I am going through a similar process now I thought I'd stop by. Have picked up a few uncontroversial (I hope) edits already but had the following thoughts:

    • Lead - "a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade" - I see this comes from the History section but it's a bold statement and a bit ambiguous in this formulation. As it stands it might refer to all "communities" in England or the local area - which is it? Also isn't agriculture part of trade? If other communities were based around agriculture, how did they prosper without trade? or are you suggesting those communities were only concerned with subsistence living? If Altrincham was a trailblazer in the area for a trading economy, this needs to be more forcefully stated and cited.
    • History - "became very desirable...for rich businessmen to live" probably needs a cite. It may be that it is taken from the demographic/census stats later in the article but saying "very desirable" is a loaded statement that implies house prices rising (in today's parlance) or some evidence of folk clamoring to get in on the action.
      •  Done "Rich businessmen" can be a bit relative, so changed so that it refers to the middle classes.
    • History - At least part of the area still seems to have been industrial around the time of WWII. Given its proximity to Manchester and the number of industrial buildings it may have been a target of Luftwaffe bombing raids. Is there anything you can add about bomb sites, damage or anti-aircraft defences? The history section drops off in the 1930s, perhaps something else happened in the last 70-80 years?
    • Geography - "United Utilities obtains the town's drinking water from the Lake District". This sounds interesting and unusual. Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? I have not read the full report cited but it would appear this is ripe for expansion.
    • Geography - What is the topography of the area? Is it flat or undulating? Is the town perched on a hill? I see that Bowden used to be downland. How does Altrincham's layout pay homage to its topography. Medieval settlements are rarely formed without reference to the lie of the land.
    • Economy - "In 1801 there were four cotton mills in Altincham, part of its textile industry, although that had vanished by the mid-19th century." Presumably this was due to the nationwide decline of the industry and not a localised failing? If so, it's not clear here. Also, when were the mills actually closed? Were they demolished or did they simply adapt to new industries? Are they now trendy apartments? The use of "vanishing" is dramatic and suggests rapid decline but it is unclear how mass employers such as these disappeared off the map.
      •  Done Given some context.
    • Economy - "stockbroker belt". Is this a term which actually used in the source? As the wiki stockbroker belt suggests this is more readily a London or Home Counties concept. It might be used incorrectly by the local populace however and as a compromise I'd suggest a "dormitory town for wealthy commuters". At the same time "sylvan opulence" is a rather grand phrase and not of universal understanding. Is this a cited term or can we tone it down?
    • Economy - "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline" - what kind of decline? Is crime rife so shoppers are staying away? Are other areas more desirable for shopping? and, if so, why? Also, what part of the town has declined - the whole of it? Presumably you mean the retail districts as that is the general context but it could conceivably the residential areas that have suffered and dragged the town with them. I think it needs clarifying.
      •  Done Rephrased, the resaon was already there (competition from other places) but perhaps wasn't well phrased.
    • Economy - "The average gross weekly income of households...was £653.." How does that compare with the national average? or the average for Greater Manchester? Non-UK readers won't have a point of reference. If Altrincham is bathing in "sylvan opulence" we need to see evidence.
      •  Done Figures given for the North West from statistics.gov.uk, figures for England are sadly unavailable. However, I'm not really comfortable with the term "sylvan opulence" being used in the article.
    • Landmarks and attractions - "beauty spot" is not an international term of art and, as an assessment of aesthetic quality, comes across as subjective without citations. Perhaps lose the loaded introduction and just say that "On the outskirts of town are the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall and its 250 acre deer park..."
      •  Done Disposed of as suggested.

    That's all I could see and are really just suggestions/pointers. There may be technical MOS breaches but I'm not the best person to pick those up. Will take another look in a few days and vote then. Best of luck. Dick G (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment: I think these are very good points. Regarding stockbroker belt specifically - I added this bite of info, and it is quoted word-for-word I'm afraid. I don't see any harm in paraphrasing this however if we need to better the context. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Sumatran Rhinoceros

    [edit]

    Using the lessons learned doing Javan Rhinoceros I'm comfortable that this article is at FA or quite close. I had more and better sources for this rhinoceros, and hopefully the greater detail in this article reflects that. Before nominating I also used the checklist at User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review which I recommend as a resource for anyone working toward FA content on Wikipedia. As always, I look forward to your feedback and help in improving any remaining weak spots. JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review was deleted as it was still a work in progress. My apologies for linking before it was ready. For those curious, it was a simple checklist of copy editing and MOS-type tips. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComments I just read through the article and, IMO, it is beautifully written with some great sounds and decent images. It is very informative and I did not see any gaping holes. However, I do have a few issues with the article that I would like to see addressed before I support it.
    • In the last sentence of the lead, “even worse conditions than in the wild” just sounds strange to me. Could you rephrase?
    • Conditions was just the wrong word. Changed to "decline". Is that good?
    • In the subspecies D.s. lasiotis, did the words lasiotis come from Greek, Latin, or what?
    • Greek. Fixed.
    • In the first paragraph of Diet, could you rework the sentence discussing the variety of plants it eats? The “, over 100 different species,” doesn’t seem to flow for me.
    • Rewrote into something more direct.
    • While on the topic of plants, is there a specific one that it eats more than the other 100?
    • There are a handful identified as common plants. There's no single plant that makes up the bulk of its diet or anything like that, but I listed the common species.
    • In the second paragraph of Reproduction, it mentions how rhinos bump each other in the heads and genitals. Do they use the same body part to bump the identical part in the other rhino or does one rhino hitting the others head with its side count? Could you clarify?
    • Clarified.
    • In “In Captivity,” the article mentions that the longest surviving captive rhino lived for over 32 years. However, earlier the article says a flat 33. Which is it?
    • She lived 32 years and 8 months in captivity. Fixed.
    • Is there any discussion on how the small and fragmented population could lead to problems in genetic diversity down the road?
    • For the majority of the sections, there is only a single reference at the end of each paragraph. Does this mean that every bit of info in each paragraph came from that source, or is the article (IMO) undercited?

    Obviously, the biggest of these is the one about references. Other than a few minor problems and the possibility of being undercited, the article looks absolutely fantastic and is definitely one of Wikipedia’s best works. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your insightful comments Rufous. I'll research answers to these question this afternoon, but want to begin a discussion about citations now. I wrote it this way because I tend to think that some articles end up being cited beyond what's necessary. So what I did in most cases was take the most detailed/recent source on a topic and use it as the citation for that section. So, for example, with the paragraph on wallowing (second paragraph in behavior) there was a quite detailed paper written in 2001 on the subject. Rather than attach multiple references about wallowing, I used this comprehensive paper, as I think this will be of more benefit to any researcher wishing to build off my work. In areas where there are conflicting theses, such as in evolution, I presented the conflicting sources. But when there's general agreement, I used the most current, detailed scholarship as my reference; every paragraph is informed by having read all the works in the references. That said, I'm happy to add references to specific sections that you believe need additional support (such as communication, which I'll do this afternoon!), but I'd be somewhat reluctant to add citations on non-controversial sections. If we feel it's necessary, I can certainly add citations almost indefinitely; I have all the papers readily available. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added more references. Please let me know of any additional sections you think are weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking at my comments. I am about to support, but let me go through the article one more time to check up on what else I think needs refs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I went through the article and put 8 cite needed tags. They may be treated in the refs at the end of the paragraph, but I'd like to see them put there too. If you address these, then I'll happily change to support. Great job on this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added citations. Though I don't write with many citations in the middle of paragraphs I'm happy to supply them when asked. Thanks for the review, Rufous! --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you for writing this article. Out of curiosity, whats next? Another rhino (black or Indian?)? Oh, and I supported at the beginning of my comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I agree, it's quite good. I made lots of little changes (mainly linking), and added one citation-needed, which is probably included in the footnote later in the paragraph, but it's enough later and it's a distinctive enough claim that it should probably have its own. I agree with Rufous-crowned Sparrow that there could be more references, even if in some cases it is the same source being repeated a few times. Other concerns:
    • What in particular convinced the Joshua Brookes in 1828 that this belonged to a different genus than Rhinoceros?
    • Just the differences between the Sumatran Rhinoceros and the others in Rhinoceros (genus). Fixed.
    • Since you give three phylogenetic trees in the text, it's strange that only two are illustrated. I know that that may have been a spatial concern, but especially since it seems favored by the more recent data, I think it should be diagrammed as well.
    • Responded below. Let me know what you think.
    • In "Distribution and habitat," it says they are found in six areas, but only names five (presumably one is missing from Sumatra).
    • It seems strange to me to have unfree sounds as external links in the main part of the text. I'm not sure what can be done about this, short of not having them, which would be a shame. Is this done in other articles?
    • Responded below.
    • I wonder if you could discuss more about parasites. You mention that wallowing helps mitigate ectoparasites, but I wonder if you could be more specific about what plagues them. Also, I happened to know that there is at least one endoparasite (Gyrostigma sumatrensis) reported to affect them.
    • I think I found a paper on their parasites in the wild at some point. I will add a little bit more on this topic. Okay, turns out there's only one gyrostigma report in Sumatran Rhinoceros and it hasn't been seen since the 1800s. Their epidemiology is little studied, but I added what is known -- a recent paper about a population (the entire population of the Sumatran Rhino Conservation Center mentioned below, sadly!) succumbing to surra. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was surprised that I couldn't find an article on the zoo in Hamburg, considering at that date it must have been one of the earlier zoos in Europe and of some significance to get such an unusual species. The only zoo I could find in Hamburg in the German Wikipedia is the Tierpark Hagenbeck, which was founded that early as a more conventional zoo (according to the German Wikipedia), is that what was meant?
    • Hmm, that is odd. I did some googling and found "The Gardens of the Zoological Society of Hamburg" mentioned in the 1911 EB here. Founded in 1863 it seems. I'm curious what must have happened to it, as it's clearly a different zoo than the Tierpark. Actually, looks like the English article might just have a mistake. If you look at de:Tierpark Hagenbeck it says it was founded in 1863. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been debating how to deal with the various conservation organizations related to all the different rhinos. Whether or not to write small articles about these organizations or not. I wrote one about International Rhino Foundation but it was quite difficult to write something reasonably complete. I'd also like to do one on the Rhino Resource Center which is an amazing online resource that's made this research project possible for me. --JayHenry (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall, the article seems thorough and well-written and I think it would meet featured status once some of these concerns are addressed. Rigadoun (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks to you too, Rigadoun, for these keen observations. As with Rufous above I need some time to research some of these points.
    • I can respond about the phylogenetic trees. I used a template called {{clade}} which only allows two branches from each node. The third hypothesis is that there are three branches which can't be created by the template at this time. It'd probably be best to remove until I can figure out how to do it manually or until the template supports three branches.
    • As for the sounds, I know it's unconventional to have external links in a box like that, but describing the sounds seemed so inadequate to me, compared to simply hearing them. I could move the external links into a reference, or into the external link section, but I consider this to be very significantly less useful than having them accompanying their explanatory text. WP:EL allows for exceptions, and I think this is a good example of an exception that's very valuable to our readers.
    • Now, off to do some reading to address your and Rufous's good points. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. My concerns were addressed. I agree it's better to keep in the sounds, as they are really interesting and unlikely to be available as free media. The L.A. Times article seems to have moved or otherwise be unavailable, but as that was a convenience link for something that should be in paper it's okay. It's a pity about the phylogenetic trees, but I agree it's better to take them all out than to include only the two currently less-favored, and it's not really essential to understanding the phylogeny. The other concerns were addressed, and the section on epidemiology is a good addition. Good work. Rigadoun (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
      • Can convert template be used wherever possible. This should ensure consistency in conversion across units and also address MoS issues
      • The article would need more citations. In some cases, I see that citations for sentences in a whole paragraph are provided only at the end of the paragraph. I am afraid, individual sentences in the article may have to be cited to appropriate page numbers of the cited books or journals. This will ensure that people don't question the authenticity of sentences like: The Sumatran Rhinoceros is the most vocal of the rhinoceros species which now has a fact tag attached to it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your comments Amar. I was unaware of {{convert}}. I will use it, where appropriate, in the future. Thanks for adding it to the article! I just made a round of edits adding lots more sourcing. If there are specific claims or sections you'd like to see additional citation for, please let me know. I'm happy to do this to any sections where you feel the sourcing is weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have followed up with Amar here and at his talk page. Have added citations wherever they've been requested (I also offer you my personal word that I didn't just make it up...) Unfortunately his request for the convert template prevents me from addressing Tony's request for abbreviated units. For the record, my preference is with Tony. I also don't like using templates in the text of articles. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    It should not, however, be considered anti-social... - gah! makes it sound like a criminal...not sure what to replace it with (antisocial is one word anyway) but the words can probably be deleted without losing any meaning.
    Especially to someone with a medical background ;) Agreed and fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    also communicates through marking soil with its feet, twisting saplings into patterns, and excrement - here you have verb/verb/noun in the 3 last bits. Better make the last a verb. :)
    Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ''of London, who published a paper about the rhino. - last 2 words looks repetitive but chopping them makes it too abrupt. Can we slot in the year Banks wrote the paper and thus allow the removal of the 2 words?
    Clarified this section. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    and it may therefore be indeterminate which group diverged first - 'unclear' better word here?
    Works for me. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    female who lived for 32 years and 8 months in European zoos - which zoos? more than one? a little ambiguous as is. If you can add specific zoo(s) all the better.
    Clarified this. A female named "Begum" captured in Chittagong in 1868, brought to London in 1872, survived until 1900. Btw, did you see that in getting to the bottom of these early specimens I wrote two DYKs: Zoological Garden of Hamburg and Tierpark Hagenbeck... --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :While the number of rhinos in Ujung Kulon has remained relatively stable - not clear to me which species this refers to - J or S.
    Javan. I forget that not everybody read 40 papers about Sumatran Rhinos last month. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking ok - tweak the above and we should be over the line. Another issue is one of repetition of nouns (which can be tricky to avoid). I've gotten rid of a few. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking in Cas. I've been busier this Holiday than I thought (probably should have waited until January to nom.) Might not be able to get to these until next week, but I agree with all your points. --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Support: Can you fix the formatting and hyphen in refs 12 and 26? And first names spelt out and initialised variously. In the main text, please consider abbreviating main units after first occurrence (you're allowed to do this now; it's inconsistently applied at the moment. I want to see this promoted, but it needs work on the writing first. Here are just a few examples at random from the top. Please arrange for someone unfamiliar with text to sift through it in detail.

    • MOS: no hyphen after "-ly".
    • Can you avoid repeating "Sumatran Rhino/ceros" quite so many times in the lead? "The species", "individuals", otherwise recasting ("Their numbers are difficult to determine ...".
    • Metric conversions, please. (miles ...)
    • Remove OF: "outside of". Don't even use it in speech. Horrid habit.
    • "who published a paper about the rhino"—"on".
    • " However, it was not until 1814 that the Sumatran Rhinoceros was named by Johann Fischer von Waldheim, a German scientist and director of Moscow's Museum of Natural History." So how many other people named it before Fischer did?
    • "The scientific name Dicerorhinus sumatrensis comes from"—"is from".
    • False comparison: "the record time in captivity is a female who lived for 32 years and 8 months"—a female cannot be a record time.
    • "Two thick folds of skin circle the body"—encircle might be nicer?
    • ".4–.6 in"—MOS breach: leading zeros required.
    • "it climbs mountains easily and can comfortably traverse steep slopes and riverbanks"—not "can" for one of the two in this list ... just "and comfortably traverses"? Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Tony. I will definitely work on these fixes. I'll go look for a copy editor right now too. I think the whole article needs to repeat "Sumatran Rhino" a little less, so I'll take a stab at this myself. Like I said, might be next week, because I haven't had much time this weekend on my computer. My apologies for nominating when I was going to be on vacation. Next week at the latest. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, María and I both have given it a once over. I checked for units again, think I got it right this time. Trimmed a lot of redundancy (had been using "in captivity in zoos" and a couple other really bad constructions). Smoothed out a bunch of other sentences too. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed those references. I might eventually strip my text of cite templates and convert templates and such as I'm growing to like them less and less. Need to ponder. If I do this, I'll certainly convert units the way you suggest. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I was asked by the nominator to give the article a copy-edit, and although I'm not familiar at all with the biology of the subject matter and cannot help in that regard, I believe I smoothed out some of the repetition and awkward phrasing. I also addressed various points brought up by Tony and Casliber above. I don't have many detailed comments, I'm afraid, because I believe the article is comprehensive for the most part, but there are several things that could use clarification to really make this article excellent.
    • I'm also interested in a little more information about the record holding female in captivity.
    • The first paragraph in the "Taxonomy" section seems unnecessarily rushed; what was done with the shot animal? Was it put on display? When was Banks' paper written? What was the reception, if any?
    • After being shot it was sketched and described, as mentioned in the article. What they actually did with the specimen doesn't appear to be known. Clarified when it was written (same year). --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2004 deaths of rhinos from surra is mentioned in the "Behavior" section, but only mentioned in passing (as "a disease outbreak") in the "Captivity" section. In the first section, it is not detailed where it took place, and in the second section the disease itself is not named. It would be nice to have all of the information in one place rather than separated by four other sections.

    I'm definitely leaning towards support, but I'll wait until vacation is over and more time can be spent sprucing the article up. Good luck! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Comments Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I too would like to see this article promoted; however, in spite of María's superb copy-edit, the article has some significant problems of terminology (and perhaps of organization). For example:[reply]

    • In the lead paragraph, the horns are referred to as the "front" and "back" horns; the names used in the literature are "nasal" (for front) and "frontal" (for back).
      • I had deliberately avoided this usage because, to the common reader, "frontal" suggests "in front" and this will be confusing to readers approaching this from a non-technical background. Would you object to "posterior" and "anterior" which is also used in the literature but would not be confusing to non-zoological readers? --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let me first say that I'm traveling and supposedly on vacation (and likely to get into trouble if keep getting back on Wikipedia. :)). So, I won't make more comments after this these. I trust that you will make appropriate changes.
    Sure, "anterior" and "posterior" are fine. Please note though that the 1911 Britannica "rhinoceros" article uses "nasal" and "frontal." True, "frontal" can be confusing, but given the name of the beast, "rhino"+"keras", "nasal" is apt (and it doesn't hurt the average reader to learn a thing or two). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I adapted this to use the Mammalian Species terminology. I think I kept it clear enough for the non-technical reader too. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised too that the standard reference on the topic, the Mammalian Species account Sumatran rhinoceros, is not even cited, let alone used in the writing.
      • I didn't use the Mammalian species source because of its extreme age and obsolescence -- nearly four decades old, with observation of a single dying specimen in a cement pit in the Copenhagen Zoo. I'm certainly aware of it (Mammalian Species was among the first sources I used in Indian Rhinoceros#Footnotes where the species was already well-documented and it was 1984). I can certainly add it here as a supporting reference. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that the Mammalian Species account for the Sumatran rhino is 35 years old, but I wasn't aware that it is based on "observation of a single dying specimen." Mammalian Species accounts are summaries of existing literature, which in this case goes back more than a hundred years and is evident from the bibliography. It certainly should be updated, (for example in the genetics) but I would imagine it's an important reference. As you know, Groves (one of the co-authors) made important contributions to the species taxonomy. Fowler&fowler«Talk 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added it in multiple places as a supporting reference. By "...single dying specimen" I meant that the authors had observed only it; not that their paper was based only off their own observations. I am aware it includes a literature summary, but surely you can understand my reservations about citing any of these sections that are based off 19th century sources and no direct observations. The Mammalian Species account is very out of date and comically wrong a couple of times (8 month gestation) and I'm reluctant to use it any more than I've done. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence reads, "The Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) is a member of the family Rhinocerotidae and one of five extant rhinoceroses." It's hard to imagine that a similar article on the Sumatran tiger would begin with, "The Sumatran tiger is a member of the family Panthera tigris and one of five extant tigers." (Best not to use lower-case "rhinoceroses" to mean "species of rhinoceros.")
    • The animal most certainly doesn't have any "fur" (see the Mammalian Species account).
      • Does "fur" have some precise meaning in zoology of which I am unaware? I'm willing to call it a "hairy coat" but I thought these were synonyms (my dictionary actually defines fur as "the hairy coat of a mammal").
    Well, "fur" is not a synonym for non-human animal hair (as the Wikipedia article Fur seems to imply.) In biology, "fur" is sometimes used for "underfur" or "ground hair," and could be applied to deer, hyenas, lemurs, or monkeys (in addition to the usual fur-bearing animals), but I've never seen it used for the hair of rhinos or elephants. In an encyclopedia (I would imagine) there would be even less reason to use "fur." Here is Encarta: "Hair, collective term for slender, threadlike outgrowths of the epidermis of mammals, forming a characteristic body covering. No animals other than mammals have true hair, and all mammals have hair. Even such apparently hairless mammals as the rhinoceros, elephant, and armadillo have hairs around the snout, at the tip of the tail, and behind each scale, respectively. (Whales and manatees have hair only in the embryonic state.) When the individual hairs are fine and closely spaced, the coat of hair is called fur; when soft, kinked, and matted together, the coat is called wool. Coarse, stiff hairs are called bristles. When bristles are also pointed, as in the hedgehog and porcupine, they are called spines or quills." And here is OED (fur): "The short, fine, soft hair of certain animals (as the sable, ermine, beaver, otter, bear, etc.) growing thick upon the skin, and distinguished from the ordinary hair, which is longer and coarser. Formerly also, the wool of sheep." and here's Webster's unabridged (fur), which is somewhat ambiguous "the fine soft thick hairy covering or coat of a mammal usually consisting of a double coating of hair that includes a layer of comparatively short soft curly barbed hairs next to the skin protected by longer smoother stiffer hairs that grow up through these." (I think by "a mammal," they don't mean "all mammals," but it's not clear.) And here's good old Darwin: (DARWIN Anim. & Pl. I. i. 46) "All the cats are covered with short stiff hair instead of fur." (See the Mammalian Species accounts for Andean Mountain Cat, Jaguarundi ..., all have "hair," "pelage," or "coat," not "fur." The Mammalian Species "Sumatran rhino" article says, "The hair, long and shaggy, almost fleecy in the young after the neonate stage (Ullrich, 1955; Krumbiegel, 1960), is still fine and copious, reddish brown in young adults, but with age becomes sparse, bristly (almost like hedgehog spines) and black (Thomas, 1901; Hubback, 1939)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "hair" and a more specific description to avoid any potential ambiguity. I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that one could make a fur coat out of a Sumatran Rhino. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, the capitalization of "rhinoceros" in "Sumatran Rhinoceros" is contrary to the convention for common names in zoology. Common (or vernacular) names of mammals are never capitalized. Thus, it is "Asiatic lion," "Thompson's gazelle," or "common mongoose." See my post Secondary and Tertiary Sources and Capitalization. Capitalization of mammalian common names on Wikipeida survives in large part due to the intransigence of one editor, UtherSRG, who appears to be generalizing the convention of ornithology (and even there in field guides) to mammals and reptiles. I don't know what the MOS has to say about this, but if it supports capitalization of mammalian names, it too will need to be corrected eventually.

    I don't have time right now to read through the article, but (based on what I have seen in the lead and in random sentences here and there) I feel that the terminology and organization should be made consistent with the Mammalian Species account (updated, of course, wherever it needs to be; the MS account is from 1972). The article should then be copyedited again by someone not familiar with it. I would recommend user:Finetooth, if she/he has the time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • As for organization... can I confess some frustration here? This is my fourth animal FAC and this is literally the 11th structure that has been requested for these articles. As with capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to accept whatever. The only thing I cannot do is write articles that simultaneously use 11 different organization hierarchies. I am reluctant for this to deviate from the structure in Javan Rhinoceros. Parallel structure is a requirement for Featured Topics, which is the eventual goal.
    :) I understand your frustration, but I'm curious, what ten other structures have other people asked for? Mammalian Species is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, which also publishes the Journal of Mammalogy and MSW3 ... Anyway, since this is the last time I'll be weighing in, let me just say that your organization is not bad, but perhaps "diet" and "reproduction" shouldn't be a part of "behavior." (i.e. they should be independent sections. See the Jaguarundi article mentioned above.)
        • I hope I don't seem combative. I'm tired from travelling but very open to discussion of all these points. Thanks for the recommendation of User:Finetooth. I had been working with User:Andplus to copy edit, but he seems to have quit after User:!! got hit with the banhammer and I've been hoping to make some new talented copyediting friends. I'm genuinely happy to have your feedback and look forward to improving this article and adapting your suggestions across other rhino articles. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. (I am traveling myself!) Well, since I likely won't comment again in this FAC, I've changed my "oppose" to a "comment." All the best. I hope this article does become an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. I just remembered somewhere (early on) in the lead, "largest" was used when only two things (horns) were being compared. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for structure and capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to continue these discussions as I can see you are informed on this subject matter. But perhaps we should do so at WikiProject Mammals rather than the FAC? For structure and capitalization I am using standards that are widely accepted in Mammal FAs, and fall outside of the Featured Article criteria at any rate. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, for now. On the whole, the article is very good! However, I saw numerous problems in the section on evolution. Some I went ahead and fixed but others require checking references; those I have noted in the text, in inline comments that can be removed once the problems are fixed. I stopped reading there. --Una Smith (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments Una. I was able to respond to all your points but one: it's not known if the female rejects a calf before becoming pregnant again in the wild and this is just because of the extreme difficulty in observation. Indian Rhinoceroses do not necessarily reject an older calf when a younger is born, so even inferences can't be drawn. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the "seems like extremely bad management" that's really not a Sumatran Rhino specific comment, but rather a comment about whether or not it's appropriate to put species which such wide natural ranges in ex situ conservation situations at all. Ecology is a consequence of millions of years of evolution, rather than an animal's personal preference for pretty scenery. Whenever you take them from their ecological niche there are consequences big and small, predictable and not, but this is widely known and hardly controversial, so no point, in my opinion, going into the larger ex situ issue here. I feel that the estrus question is technical enough that the estimated weaning age and birth interval address it sufficiently. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Support Overall, quite impressive, but there are a few things that could still stand to be addressed:
      • The references could use some proofreading. Just in the first column, there's a ref. without a year (15) and a journal article without a journal (17). There's also some inconsistency of formatting including italization of journal names and use of year or year and month for reference dates.
      • Since sumatrensis was not originally placed in Dicerorhinus, "Fisher, 1814" should be in parentheses in the taxobox.
      • Under Evolution, terminology of epoch subdivisions need to be standardized. Early/Late is preferable used than Lower/Upper.
      • The first sentence of the last paragraph under Evolution needs some work. It should probably mention that morphology was the original basis of a postulated relationship to the Wooly Rhino. The only clear reference to morphologic hypotheses in the paragraph is the one contradictory study by Cerdeno. In the same sentence, "similar" may not be what you're looking for. "Closely related" would probably be more to the point.
      • Finally (although it may be a big one), if possible I'd really like to see the genus split off to its own stub. There are plenty of fossil species at least tentatively referred to Dicerorhinus. It wouldn't need to be much. Nyctereutes (Raccoon Dog) would be a good model to use. A quick statement of what the genus is plus a dump of fossil species from the Paleobiology Database should be adequate. --Helioseus (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for your comments Helioseus. I started a stub at Dicerorhinus and made your fixes as suggested. I have to stop using those citation templates... they seemed so convenient at first but I've realized they're more trouble than they're worth. I'll go through someday and convert out of them.
    Looks good (I've changed to support above) and happy to help. I've gone ahead and made a couple of quick changes to the taxobox to account for the genus stub. One really minor change that could still be made would be to link the genus somewhere in the text, wherever you think is most appropriate. Let me know if you decide to work on either of the African rhinos. Both genera have fossil species, but they're much easier to deal with (only one or two each, all thoughtfully reviewed in the past couple years). As for the templates, I've started to move away from them myself. They seem to be a much better idea in theory than in practice. --Helioseus (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the link where I first mention the naming of the genus. I am planning on doing the African Rhinos in the not-too-distant future; probably will do Indian Rhino as my next unicorn though. I'd also like to get the family-level article at Rhinoceros into good shape. For Rhinocerotidae I think it'd be essential to have a good overview of the fossil species. At the moment I'm not even sure whose systematics are in place on the rhinoceros article. --JayHenry (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Las Meninas

    [edit]

    Co-nom with Johnbod. 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez. The article was significantly improved in the last few weeks from work and fact checking by JNW and Amanda. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, when I noticed that this was at peer review, I was going to say that I would support this at fac since every thought I had was already covered, however, it is already at fac, so here I am to support. dv dv dv d 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - outstanding. Two minor comments though. I sympathise with your "too many to refer to" approach in cite 2, but I suggest that additionally, you include a notable instance from a leading Velazquez scholar. Second, to aid 'navigation' of the image, a 'map' of the type that can be seen (here) would be a useful addition to the prose, guiding the newcomer through the cast list of the painting. I, for example, struggled to identify the older looking woman in the background, wondering if she's a maid of honour or not. I guess I'm not the only thicko that comes to this site, so others may also struggle. Anyway, congrats on a great piece of work. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points - can anyone help with a version of the painting with numbers on for the key? I think big white numbers should work, so it can be shown small. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First try posted at Talk:Las_Meninas#Key_by_numbers for discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done now up, and snapshop point now changed Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was a nice addition, thanks, but I have'nt been able to track down a copy of the film yet. Looking forward though as the stills I found look very well. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Amazing work. "Some look out of the canvas at us" I'm not particularly fond of first person plural in an encyclopedia. Why not just "the viewer" here? Viewer is used elsewhere in the article. Also, is Las Meninas the name given to the painting by Velázquez himself, or is it a title acquired somewhere else? Rest of the article looks great though. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Called "La Familia" in early inventories, which is in the article. Las Meninas I think dates from early C19 (used by Ford 18?48), but, no, not the original name. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have provided more background on title. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded as "the viewer". Thanks for your comments. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with comments. This is an excellent article and I'm so happy that Johnbod and Ceoil have taken it on - Las Meninias is a very important painting. I did an extensive peer review of this article, so I know how hard they have been working and this article has improved quite a bit. It read so much more smoothly this time around. I just have a few comments:
    • Caption: Her left cheek was largely repainted following fire damage in 1734. - Her cheek was repainted in 1734 or it was damaged in 1734 or both? It is unclear - it is only clear later in the article, but I read the caption first.
    • The painting has been cut down on both the left and right sides. - When? Why? What was cut off?
    Presumably no one knows, as is usually the case. From Lopez-Rey I think - Anyone? This was very often done, and very rarely documented, to large paintings, usually to make them fit a frame or a room. It could have been done at the time of painting, or after the fire. It can presumably be seen because the surface is fully painted to the edge of the remaining canvas, which is presumably nailed behind the stretcher (wooden framework), whereas normally an unpainted border is left for this. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will check further on this, from Lopez-Rey. JNW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus far I can not find specific explanation as to how much of the painting was cropped, nor when or why. The mention in Lopez-Rey seems rather matter-of-fact, though, which implies that whatever trimming was done, presumably after the fire, there was little damage to the composition. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't know when or why, but there is speculation, perhaps that speculation can be added and labeled as such. Awadewit | talk 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But it seems that the matter is presented in the catalogue raisonné without speculation as to why or when. JNW (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then, I suppose we should say for unknown reasons at an unknown time, eh? Awadewit | talk 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An elaboration on the lack of documentation has been added to the footnote. JNW (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examination under infra-red has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti or alterations to the figures as he worked; for example, at first his own head inclined to his right, rather than his left. - Still doesn't fit - belongs in a section on painting process or something
    I've moved the cutting-down bit up to join this, including it in the same Lopez-Rey ref, which I think is how it first was - but could someone with Lopez-Rey to hand please confirm. These are pieces of basic cataloguing information and belong here.
    • Despite certain spatial ambiguities, this is the painter's most thoroughly rendered architectural space. - Paragraphs shouldn't start with "this" - best to say "this [noun]".
     Done Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Large quotes should be cut down and paraphrased. We are an encyclopedia. :)
    • "Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us ... representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form." - I think this needs to be explained - like much of Foucault, it is not very clear.
    • The "Ovid" paragraph of "Las Meninas as culmination of themes in Velázquez" could make its main point a bit clearer. It was not entirely clear to me why it was a "culmination of a Velazquez theme".
    I've bolstered with a critical quote here - the theme itself is much too long to precis here, but the article quoted from is online.
    • Footnotes 4, 26, 43, 50 are missing journal issue number and page numbers
    • Foucault's book needs the translator's name in the bibliography

    An excellent article - when I studied this painting as an undergraduate, the main points my professor mentioned were the mirror bit, the position of the spectator, and the play with perspective (in both senses of the word). Thus, I can say with some sort of certainty (!) that we have some sort of comprehensiveness (like all the hedging?). The article is well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated. Nice work all. Awadewit | talk 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak oppose. Support. Looks great! I'll change to support when a few things have been addressed. Some of these are for accord with WP:MOS:
    • Centuries should be identified with figures: "17th century". They should not have a hyphen, unless used attributively: "In 17th-century Spain"; but "Spain in the 17th century". ("Nineteenth" is misspelt a couple of times anyway.)
    • General spelling and related matters: repetitions "in in", "the the"; "The righthand wall" > "The wall to the right"; accent missing from "Velázquez" at least once (should also perhaps be checked and silently regularised in references); "betrothaled" > "betrothed to"; check original source with the title with "Barbey D'aurevilly" in it; or silently correct to "Barbey d'Aurevilly" or "Barbey D'Aurevilly" – whichever is the proper form according to WP standards.
    • Variety of English: Since the article uses mainly British forms and spelling ("honour", not "honor"), this should be consistent: "center" > "centre"; "traveled" > "travelled".
    • Form of punctuation marks: The article uses straight apostrophes and single quote marks as prescribed at WP:MOS, with some exceptions that need to be fixed (always overriding form given in citations): "Philip’s", "wife’s", "artists’", "Velázquez’s", "‘Las Meninas’", "Sussman’s".
    • Similarly for double quote marks: “great discontinuities” > "great discontinuities"; “Enslaved sovereign: aesthetics of power in Foucault, Velazquez and Ovid” > "...".
    • Silently correct nested quote marks in citations so that single quotes occur inside double quote marks. Such purely typographical amendment is standard.
    • Check that all capitalisation in citations reflects WP standards.
    • Where single and double quotes are adjacent (as they are more than once here), interpose a hard space, using &nbsp;.
    • Apply hard spaces in all page references: "pp.&nbsp;56–68".
    • Dashes at the level of sentence punctuation (as opposed to ranges like "1599–1660") are regularly unspaced em dashes in this article. Fix the exceptions: two occurrences of spaced hyphens; one of a spaced em dash; one irregular em dash followed by a space.
    • A point of usage: "while others interact between themselves" > "while others interact among themselves".
    • As I introduced this usage, would you please explain your reason for the change? The "use between for two" and "among for more than two" rule is generally not accepted, if that is what you are thinking of. (Think: Among three points on a line.) Awadewit | talk 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure I'll explain, Awadewit. I am well aware that the old pedantic prescription "between for two, among for more" is not sufficient. One source reports that Samuel Johnson promoted it, but did not adhere to it himself. On the other hand, some modern sources lean over backwards to permit "between" as promiscuously as possible. Several of these current authorities cite OED, but not with much acumen:

    V. 19. In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two. In OE. and ME. it was so extended in sense 1, in which among is now considered better. It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually, among expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely: we should not say ‘the space lying among the three points,’ or ‘a treaty among three powers,’ or ‘the choice lies among the three candidates in the select list,’ or ‘to insert a needle among the closed petals of a flower.’

    Two facts are relevant here, I think:
    1. Neither the case you cite concerning the three points (similar to one of OED's, yes?) nor OED's cases resemble the present case closely. In none of them is there the same "free-form mutuality" as we find in "while others interact between [or among] themselves". Would you, after all, say: "The five continued to chatter between themselves"?
    2. Well, perhaps you would say that, rather than "The five continued to chatter among themselves". But consider this: no one with a sound grasp of English would censure this "among" variant; but some with a sound grasp of English would censure the "between" variant. This consideration applies equally to the case we are dealing with.
    My reasoning was like that, and still is. Why use a form that some judge catachrestic, when you can use a form that hardly anyone will object to? I presume you would not advise anyone to write "give it to whomever wants it" (though many do write that), for the very same reason. This, despite Shakespeare's and KJV's ways with subject whom, and related common uses of whomever.
    :)
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there also an AE/BE distinction here? Awadewit | talk 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It hardly matters now, since Tony has independently fixed between to among. American–British difference? It would only be slight. This article is written in British anyway. I remind you of the last sentence of Sense and Sensibility, which perhaps shows something of the canonic distinction (though not as acutely focused for our purposes as we could wish):

    Between Barton and Delaford there was that constant communication which strong family affection would naturally dictate; and among the merits and the happiness of Elinor and Marianne, let it not be ranked as the least considerable, that, though sisters, and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands.

    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fascinating historical point, but of course using Austen, who wrote 200 years ago doesn't demonstrate modern usage. The title of that very same novel illustrates the problem beautifully. What Austen meant by "sensibility" and what we mean by "sensibility" are two very different concepts. Awadewit | talk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
    It was just a pretty aside, Awadewit. I note that that you have countered the points I have made with nothing at all. But let's leave the topic behind, since the thing has now been superseded anyway. If we must continue this nice chat, let's do it at my talk page so we don't clutter things here.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have just a few more things to add when these have been fixed.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See below; I think these points have all been addressed, but perhaps you could kindly check. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that perhaps the mention of Picasso's paintings needs to be a little more detailed. The text implies (like most texts I've seen on this topic) that Picasso actually painted 58 versions of Las Meninas; but in fact many of those 58 paintings depict single characters from the original painting: see [57], for example. I think the sentence has to be reworded accordingly. Also, the picture of Picasso's painting is not low-resolution - I'm not an expert on these matters at all, but one of the license plates says "that the use of low-resolution images of works of art.. qualifies as fair use", and I thought I should mention it. Finally, if you want to use a picture of a Picasso version of Las Meninas, perhaps using a less known one would pay off: the one currently used (the grey one) is very frequently reproduced, and is perhaps somewhat misleading. Jashiin (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Text added to. I'm not sure myself how correct it is to refer to his style in 1957 as "cubist". Anyone? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say "cubist" is definitely incorrect; simply "late style" would fit, but I guess its too vague (but it looks good! :). Perhaps simply stating that Picasso did 58 paintings, without the "in his [whatever] style" bit, would be sufficient. Jashiin (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (Jashiin again): Another detail that may need clarification: the cross of Santiago. My Taschen album (text by Norbert Wolf; I can provide publisher info if you need it) states that Palomino's words are "a legend, of course", but the cross was indeed added later. I don't think that a small Taschen artbook is a very reliable source for a FA; but if the cross was added later (i.e. if you can find a reference for that in one of the books used to create the article), I think it should be mentioned. The way it is now, the text implies that the only fact known about the cross is that Palomino thought it was added later. Also, Palomino is named Palamino in one of the captions and in a reference; it seems to me that this is simply a typo, but I'm not sure, so I won't correct it. Jashiin (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The cross is universally accepted as having been added later; whether it was added by the king is the stuff of legend. I will provide cite. Thanks. JNW (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Took care of misspelling, too. JNW (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage in the main text does explain that he only joined the order three years after the painting was finished (and a year before his death). Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Noetica): I said "weak oppose", above. Most of my concerns have now been addressed, and I have spent a few hours on the article myself. I now call on the nominators of this article to fix all remaining formatting in the end matter, to conform to WP:CITE. And also please note this from Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Journal_articles, which is an adjunct to WP:CITE:

    Note that the numbers after the journal title indicate: volume (issue number, optional), page numbers. Do not capitalize every word of the article title, only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash. For an article that is available online, make the article title a link to the online version.

    When these matters have been addressed I'll scan through the article once more. I look forward to being able to convert my opposition to a "strong support".
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Noetica): I have changed my "weak oppose" to "support", above. Not strong support. I have now spent two or three more hours undoing errors, some of which had been introduced in recent days. There are still a couple of glitches with bibliographic details, and I find it regrettable that the nominators show little interest in finding or fixing these. It is, perhaps, unfair to lean on commenters like Tony and me to donate what amounts to a full day's skilled work on the hard details. But we have done it now, and I for one will do no more. Though it is not perfect, the article is now very fine indeed. I wish it had been to hand when I was in Madrid in 2005, and paid homage to Las Meninas at the Prado. I commend the article to editors here, and urge that it be accepted as a featured article without delay.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:21, 4 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    2003 Atlantic hurricane season

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it adheres wells to the featured article criteria. The only potential problems would be regarding MOS, which I admit I am not perfect at, as well as criterion 1a; however, after two others and myself copyedited it, I believe it is well-written. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note; there are WP:MOSNUM issues in the lead (regarding spelling out numbers), and I found basic copyedit errors in the first section of the article. Please have someone else go through the article.
    • Noted hurricane expert Dr. William Gray on April 4 predicted 12 named storms, with 8 reaching hurricane strength of which 3 reaching Category 3 strength.[3]

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Sid Barnes

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a collaborative piece of work by many members of the cricket WikiProject. This is the latest article to be improved in a quest to achieving a Featured Topic on one of the sides Barnes represented, The Invincibles.

    Barnes had a fascinating life, filled with overachievement, controversy and a dash of tragedy. We hope we've done him justice. Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twenty Years review

    The article is a very nice piece on a great of Australian cricket, but i have several issues with it:

    Other than these minor nitpicks, the article is good for FA. Twenty Years 08:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Fully satisfied with the additions, the article is clearly ready for FA. The last 2 para's in stat analysis could prob be merged (Comparing.... and Bradman is....). FA Quality article. Twenty Years 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Hurricanehink review

    Some comments. It seems a little too long, or perhaps the last paragraph could delve a bit more into his personal history. post-war era. - it is uncertain what war it refers to. is best remembered in cricket terms - this is a bit POV, and it would be record if the record was clearly stated (something along the lines of: Barnes and his captain both scored 234 points in X game, setting the world record for Y). While I'm thinking of it, the article needs non-breaking spaces; 2 innings instead of 2 innings. Check the wikilinks, making sure they go where you want them to go. I clicked on Twelfth man and I got a dab page. I'd like better information for each of the images. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much for the constructive review. My collaborators and I have worked on these issues. I'll break them down:

    • "Too long". The article is comfortably within the WP:SIZE guidelines. If you mean it's imbalanced, his playing career is what makes him truly notable and we feel comfortable with the balance.
    • "Post-war". Thanks. Done.
    • "Best remembered". Thanks. Done.
    • Non breaking spaces. Not sure what you think this would add, nor where you think they should be placed.
    • Wikilinks. Good spot. Should all be done.
    • Images. We're comfortable with the captions, which need to be succinct for MOS and are usually referred to in an explanatory manner by the text that they accompany.

    Thanks again. You've helped improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry! I meant I thought the lede was too long. In fact, after reading it again, I think it's fine, since the third paragraph goes into his controversies. Non-breaking spaces are required for FA's, as 2 points looks better than 2
    points, in the event that the number was at the end of a line. Non-breaking spaces should be used for all numbers that are followed by a unit. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All should be done now. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. One last thing - I notice two books do not have ISSN numbers; do they not exist, or were they not found? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (If Dweller doesn't mind me responding). Both were published prior to the introduction of the ISBN and ISSN systems. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I figured it was something like that. Thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All comments above now dealt with. Any more? --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Europa (moon)

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was reccomended for nomination upon achieving GA Serendipodous 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments - looks good but some tweaks'd be helpful getting this one over the line:
    which helped buttress the emerging heliocentric cosmology. - sentence seems to stop abruptly.
    "the surface is probably decoupled from the interior by a subsurface layer of liquid or ductile ice," - can this be rephrased without quotes?
    However, at present it is far from certain that NASA will actually fund this mission, as funding for it is not included in NASA's 2007 budget plan - does this need to be updated to 2008 now?

    Otherwise a very good article and great read. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support— I made a few minor tweaks to the text, but in all other respects the article satisfies FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced and well written and deserves to be featured. The only problem that I can find in the article is lack of inline citations in the infobox. I think it should not be very difficult to add them. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose: complete, but there isn't the bibliography. However, i'll change my vote :)--Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's complete, why are you opposing? This doesn't look like an actionable comment. Pagrashtak 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed most concerns raised; there were a few refs in the infobox I haven't been able to find. Also, it seems a number of ref tags have suddenly become invalid for no apparent reason. Does anyone know why this happened? Serendipodous 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to have fixed the "problem", but knowing how many refs use that particular format, these should be cropping up virtually everywhere now. Serendipodous 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very nice article, as said above needs inline citations, but still fine without. I would only advise possibly moving a image or two from the right side to the left. So many on the right just doesnt seem good to me. But perhaps that's just me.-Mastrchf91- 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you flag the missing citations with [citation needed]? Serendipodous 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment—It's a fine article overall, but I'm not quite ready to support it yet because of the following concerns:
      • The "Orbit" section does not provide an energy source for the internal heating of Europa. It only explains the mechanism of the heat generation. It needs to explain the energy source in terms of changes in the orbits of the Galilean satellites or a slowing of the rotation of Jupiter, whichever is the correct source. (Didn't I raise this before for Io?)
      • What does "put an upper limit on this hypothetical slippage of no faster than once every 12,000 years for the surface relative to its interior" mean? Is the exterior completing a full rotation relative to the interior during that time frame? Or does a "slippage" only occur once every 12,000 years? If the later, then what is the magnitude of the slippage?
      • ...the atmosphere would "fill only about a dozen Houston Astrodomes"... Does this mean in a solid form? Or a gas at STP?
      • I think the article should clarify why Europa does not share the same internal heat source as the Earth: radioactive decay.
      Sorry.—RJH (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I think I answered all these comments (see article). Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that looks good. Thank you. I'm pleased to change my preference to support.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for a fascinating article.--GrahamColmTalk 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose—Lots of good in this article, but the writing needs improvement. Here are examples from just the lead. Please collaborate with someone fresh to the article; try locating them from the edit histories/edit summaries of FAs on similar topics.
    • "shortly thereafter" --> "soon after", or better still, enlighten us as to the year.
    • "Very" is usually very redundant.
    • "composed" twice in two sentences, the second followed wrongly by "from".
    • "Its surface is composed of ice and is one of the smoothest in the Solar System, indicating that it is very young"—the surface is (again, "very") young, or the moon is? Ah, it's clear only in the next sentence (not good).
    • , which, which.
    • "also drives"—remove the first word.
    • "to date"—which date? What will this mean in five years' time? "As of 2007"?
    • "ensures that".
    • " would have specifically targeted"—Spot the redundant word.
    • "Conjecture on extraterrestrial life has ensured a high profile for the moon and led to continued lobbying for future missions."—"has led"; "continued" is not right—"continual"? Tony (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS MOS breaches aplenty, such as "A giant tube worm colony at a Pacific ocean hydrothermal vent." (A caption that is merely a nominal group, not a sentence, and thus doesn't want a period (check others); and the muliplication symbol should be spaced. And I see ellipsis dots wrongly unspaced. Semicolon before "et al."? Hate those semicolons, anyway. "(2006-Jul-13)"—is that an acceptable date format? "19,041-19,048"—MOS breach, en dash required, and SO hard to read: "19,041–48" (better?). Tony (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: if the spaced × is the accepted style, then it should also be applied to the {{e}} template, which is a widely-used template for inserting exponential notation.—RJH (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed all these issues (except one) and MOS breaches. However I think 3×1018 looks better than 3 × 1018. In addition, in this case × is not realy a multiplication symbol. It does not symbolize any real mathemathical operation here. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If not a multiplication, what on earth is it? Spaces must be used, and I've already complained on the talk page of that template, which cannot be used until it's fixed. They don't seem to care. Please do not use it here until it's fixed. Tony (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it would certainly be easy enough to develop a separate template to meet the MoS consensus style, rather than using {{e}}.—RJH (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (ISBN 0521471540) uses spaced × in scientific notation, as does Mathematica. On the other hand, the Springer Style Guide does not. There doesn't seem to be any type of international standard, so I'm not sure why Wikipedia should be enforcing a particular style layout in this case. Perhaps the MoS consensus needs to be reexamined for scientific notation?—RJH (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other style guides are irrelevant: we have our own, and it says—quite rightly, in my view—to space them. I do hope you're arranging for the rest of the article to be copy-edited by someone fresh to it. Tony (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I inserted those spaces. I asked two editors for copy-edit. And I hope this article will be ultimately in FA list. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Storm botnet

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. I've been working on this article since I'd first heard of the subject, and have helped bring it previously to Good Article status, here. I've expanded it further, and feel it's ready to try to bring to the next level now with some help and review. I think the subject and the subject matter have the definite potential for an FA. This is my first FAC, so please let me know what is needed of me, beyond this point. Thank you! I'm aware of the lack of images, but I've been stuck for an idea on how to get free images that represent something more conceptual and 'unseen' as this is. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Just on the images, I dug around a bit more and found some good ones to start out. Thanks again! Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I had the good fortune of just reading this page while ambling about the wiki, and I must say I was very impressed. It was interesting, well written, well sourced, and puts forth the information in an organized fashion. Well done! Sean William @ 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have a few comments.
    • 1.2 billion virus messages have been sent by the botnet - in what period - the reference is from september.
    • up to 5,000,000 compromised systems - high in July 2007 of an estimated 1,500,000 systems How many computers are estimated to be infected?--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. For the 1.2 billion sent, I clarified this was through the approximate time frame of that source's publication.[58] I haven't seen any more recent estimates. For the estimates of the botnet size, the very beginning of the article lead that mentions 50,000,000 maximum was the highest range I had seen in sourcing, so I used that there as a maximum high end; all the experts seem to disagree on this. Some higher, some lower. For the up to 5,000,000 compromised systems, I went with a more general wording that seems more accurate.[59] I qualified Enright's to be his own estimate.[60] Is that better? Lawrence Cohen 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I had a couple of minor comments.
    • The article says on para 3: Used in a variety of criminal activities, Storm worm infected computers contribute system resources to support the overall functioning of the network in a method similar to the operation of distributed computing projects like Folding@home. I think this is ambiguous: this statement implies that bots in Storm run code to solve parallellizable problems such as folding@home. AFAIK, Storm is used for the regular stuff that most botnets are used for... parts of the botnet could even be used for separate activities. I think the sentence should go.
    • Having read most storm-related news articles myself, I think the set of articles about Storm having upto 50 million bots in the net is hyperbole to make people go wow. As the UCSD researcher notes (which you have paraphrased) 200k is the maximum number that are on the internet (and consequently usable for malice). Perhaps this fact should be mentioned upfront in the intro? Railrulez (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ... this article deals with a topic of current interest and is pretty well written. i do have some qualms about the length of the lead, see wp:lead but i hope to help with that soon. i also hope to clean up the Methodology paragraph which seems to repeat allot said earlier or proceeded later. frummer (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Slay Tracks (1933-1969)

    [edit]

    Self nomination I believe that this article, about the debut EP of the indie rock band Pavement, meets all of the featured article criteria. The article is extremely comprehensive given the relatively obscure subject matter, well referenced, and well written. This is the first of the Pavement releases that I hope to bring to GA/FA status. Thanks for all comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Great written article, very interesting. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • , then consisting of only founding
    • during a single four hour session.
    • It was also met with
    • single for $1,000 - [[United States dollar|$]] on first mention
    • Young, though bewildered by the band's sound, also contributed by playing drums - also is redundant
    • R.E.M. (band) has been moved to R.E.M.
    • Malkmus also told Melody Maker - also is redundant because it is the first thing from Melody Maker
    • Reference 34 is a fansite
    • For reference 11 "MUSIC; A Thinking Slacker's - MUSIC should be in lowercase

    Feel free to disagree M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support I still don't believe the information is reliable, more like it was added to the links so fans have something interesting to read. The source of the information seems to come from randoms rather than reliable sources, which read "(thank you to jason, Lawerence KS)(thank you to andrew and max k), and there is a section on rumors which had been sent to the person who created the webpage. Other than that it's a great article, good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - did a minor copy-edit myself [61]. Some issues I still have:

    • beginning with a ZZ Top-inspired jam - this is clearly an opinion that needs to be cited to an individual (i mean, XYZ said that he felt...)
    • is influenced by Chrome, Swell Maps, and The Fall. - again according to whom?
      •  Done
    • move to Box Elder, Montana,[11] is considered an example of Malkmus's "honest, direct, and simplistic" lyrical style - considered by whom. (I think whenever Jovanovic states an opinion, you have not attributed his name to it)
      •  Done
    • The 2nd paragraph of the music section contains 4 uses of the word "influence".
    • Young drummed on "Box Elder" and "Price Yeah!", and much of his playing was improvised; Malkmus played on "Maybe Maybe" and Malkmus and Kannberg both drummed on "She Believes". - I suggest you rewrite that.
      •  Done
    • is a link to discogs allowed in Wikipedia? You could argue that it is advertising for that website. Also, they display album covers etc without permission.
    Indopug (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Excellent research on a really obscure record. Just a few nitpicks:

    • are musicianguide, stormloader and scaruffi reliable? WP:Albums says no I think.
      • Scaruffi is confirmed to be reliable. Stormloader is a fan site, but seems to be reliable as Matador Records poins to it as a reliable Pavement live guide. So far I think I'm the only person who has used Musicianguide, which features band biographies in a manner similar to All Music Guide, but it appears reliable. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the external links are not 100%.
      •  Done

    Apart from that, great job!

    indopug (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Radiohead

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    This article was nominated for FA previously here, but now after much work, I feel it fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for FA consideration. Atlantik (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: As a minor contributor to this article, I've seen some seriously thorough work done on it by the other editors. Easily one of Wikipedia's finest band articles. One thing I noticed from the previous FA nomination was an issue with the word "expressive" being used to describe the vocals. We've still got the word "expressive" in the lead, so perhaps it would be better to lose that adjective rather than run the risk of seeming POV. Otherwise I can't fault it. - Phorque (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Article seems well written and well sourced. No concerns here. ScarianCall me Pat 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well done indeed. Just one comment, there seems to be an extensive number of semicolons, especially in the first part. Removing those might increase the readability. I enjoyed the article though, and give you my full support. KTY! Baldrick90 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is as good as it could ever be.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Good article and good subject. Kallerna (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent article, but I'm not too happy with the last section - "Legacy". First of all, it seems very short for a band who have received a lot of accolades and who have become fairly influential in recent years. Secondly, are we happy with the section title? Is it not a bit early to talk about legacy, given that they haven't split up or died? Finally, a more specific point:
      "When asked in 2001 by MTV, "How do you guys feel about the fact that bands like Travis, Coldplay and Muse are making a career sounding exactly like your records did in 1997?", Yorke replied, "Good luck with Kid A."[4]
    That seems like a bit too much of an in-joke. Can't you find a better quotation, preferably from a book or journal, about their influence? --kingboyk (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually rather like that quotation myself. I think it summarises well how Radiohead made a huge and revolutionary shift in their sound from "Creep" all the way through to OK Computer, Kid A and beyond that few other bands have been brave enough to do in the 1990s and 2000s.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the quote is good and says a lot. It seems so in-character with the band and with Yorke to make a self-deprecating joke like that when asked a serious/probing question about his band's influence and importance. It may not have seemed scholarly/journal material when The Sex Pistols called the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame a "piss stain", but it's sure as hell worthy of mention. - Phorque (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even really a Radiohead fan. I used to be, but I never listen to them anymore. Despite this, I would say that that quote is representative of a good deal of Thom Yorke's attitude along with Radiohead's ideas as a band.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And as for the idea of calling it a 'legacy' section, just because a band's still together and still alive does not mean they can't have a legacy. You wouldn't say, for example, that The Rolling Stones don't have a legacy just because they're still alive, touring and occasionally recording?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The title "Legacy" is quite common for these types of sections in music FAs now. You could alter it to something like "Legacy and influence" if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through the article and fixed these issues. The only issue suggested by the bot that remains to be addressed is that of compressing the article to make use of summary style, which I feel is not applicable for this article. Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I recommend that you run the peerreviewer script yourself a couple of times, to really address all issues? Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Let's go through them then:

    For the record I did not realize that the link [[October]] [[2007]] existed in the In Rainbows section; it is now fixed. Atlantik (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through and further reduced the captions, significantly weakening them, as they now describe only the bare essentials in the alloted few lines.
    I admit that I don't see how this differs from the first cited issue above; perhaps you could explain further.
    • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
    N/A, but others may disagree.
    • The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    Citation #1, title of the news article. Many other instances exist, but are in quotations from bandmembers.
    I, along with other users, have done this before the article was submitted for FA.

    Atlantik (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I've made a few more edits, to deal with the minor issues. Effectively, the major issue that remains is that the article is just a very large text, rambling on about a new album and what they said about it. But it is two minutes for midnight, and I want to close the year on a pleasant note. Everybody all the best for 2008! Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment
    • coproducer or co-producer?
    • PLease check the citations - "In mid-1995, Radiohead toured in support of R.E.M., one of their formative influences and at the time one of the biggest rock bands in the world." - has the worng cite.
    • Check the links using the tool on the top of this page, i think some of them aren't 100%
    • first and thus far only live record - "first and thus far" is redundant.
    • more abstract, fragmented, dada-ist form of songwriting. - that is an opinion,especially Dada-ist, put it in quotes and say who thought it was so.
    • "This success has been variously attributed to hype; to the leaking of the album on the file-sharing network Napster a few months before its release; and to anticipation after OK Computer" - I would suggest removing this altogether because it leaves a negative image of the Kid A in the reader's mind. Wouldn't the fact that it had good music also play a part in the sales?
    Indopug (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed the issues you've brought up and gone through the citations. I only have a problem with your last suggestion-I think that sentence does do a good job of summarizing the reasons behind Kid A's success-while it may seem unflattering at first, I think that to remove it would be somewhat POV. Atlantik (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some external links are still not perfect. Also, I'm very iffy about the dada-ist word; you're basing it on an essay written by some undergrad! (Nevertheless, if you deem it notable, move that citation to the end of the sentence.) But apart from these small concerns, the article is almost as fantastic as its subject is and I am glad to declare my full support. indopug (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Blackbird

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been expanded and improved since GA. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments – I have some points on which the article might be improved:
    – Ilse@ 10:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anything on phylogenetics/evolution - what are its closest relatives within Turdus, also just a little on what lies in Turdidae may be good, but not a deal-breaker.

     Done for genus (that's 65 sp alone)Jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am about 98% sure the introduction to Oz and NZ was by the Acclimatisation society but I don't have a ref. Their 19th century antics are interesting and this is an absolute key article to link to them. I'll see what I can find but can't promise I can prioritise this highly.

    I'm sure you're right, they are the usual suspects, but I can't find a definitive confirmation -thanks for the dates, I couldn't get those myself. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall very good - maybe ask Sabines Sunbird for some help with research papers.

    Yikes! a cite tag in Natural threats cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - was actually referenced by the Gregoire cite, but another ref in the middle of the sentence meant that wasn't clear, so repeated ref. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments: Overall this article looks good. It is well-written and well-cited and has both good and geographically varied pictures of the bird. I gave the article a few tweaks and have just a few suggestions I would like addressed before I support.

    • I would consider moving Taxonomy to becoming the first section per other bird FAs and so that the reader would have some reference before hitting the subspecies references in Description. Done
    • Under distribution, what elevation do the birds go up to?  Done
    • Why was the Newfoundland bird accepted as wild while the Quebec one wasn’t?
    Not known, should I remove Quebec ref?
    No, leave it in, no reason to cut it though elaboration would have been nice Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Taxonomy’s second paragraph, could you clarify what “but not to one or other common black European birds,” means? Maybe rephrase? Done
    • Could you provide scientific names for all species in Taxonomy’s third paragraph? Done
    • When you refer to subspecies in Behavior, maybe you should include genus and species along with the subspecific name (looks weird by itself), ie F.a. rufousus Done

    Other than these, I think that the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good now. I supported above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • "There are about 65 species of medium to large thrushes in the genus Turdus, characterised by rounded heads..." should it say "genus Turdus, which are characterised by..."
      • "Young birds vary in the shade of brown, with darker birds presumably males." the phrasing is a bit awkward. maybe say "Young birds are varying shades of brown; the darker birds are presumably male."?
    -heyjude. 00:02, 7 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Hamlet

    [edit]

    This article is about one of the world's most famous plays. As Shakespeare said, it's just "words, words, words" but—as it's the result of much dedicated work by knowledgeable editors such as Wrad and AndyJones, and with Awadewit providing valuable reviews and copy-tasting—you should find them in a pleasing and coherent order. With the mass of available material, the great difficulty has not been to fill the page, but rather to keep the article to manageable proportions. Enjoy reading the article and I hope that you find things in it that you didn't know :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I'm a big contributor to this article and I think it meets the criteria. I'll be monitoring this page throughout the process to help fix whatever is pointed out that we might have missed. Thanks in advance! Wrad (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I'm also a major contributor to the article and I'm on hand to help out with any issues which arise. Also, in addition to the credits above, I'd add a tribute to the excellent work of DionysosProteus. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - After putting these poor editors through the wringer several times over, I'm happy to support this excellent article. Its research is impeccable, its content is clearly and coherently presented, and its writing is meticulous and brilliant. Users who come to this article will have found a real gem. Awadewit | talk 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I can't think of anything that's been missed. Incredibly thorough, and well-written to boot. If only the rest of our articles on Mr. Shakespeare's works receieved such attention. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Wonderful article, nothing seems to be missed, professional standard of writing and well presented, what more can you ask? Harland1 (t/c) 12:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. As an ex-theatre and twice-over English major, I've read this play more times than I can count and even I learned something after reading this article. It is incredibly and meticulously well written and entirely comprehensive. Even the images are spectacular. This really sets the bar for theatre Featured Articles; I hope other Shakespeare plays *cough*Macbeth*cough* will follow in its footsteps! Fantastic and admirable work by all involved. María (habla conmigo) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Haha. Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare tragedy. I agree. Wrad (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections concerning the play's sources and rhetorical devices informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details. It is beautifully written. Overall, this is an extremely impressive piece. It has my full support. -- twelsht (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Fine article. I thing though - link Elizbethean in the lead and once in the body. And feel free to delink Denmark, Japan and Australia; I thought it was mandatory to link countrieas :) indopug (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • Why is talkies italicised?
    • Most film versions don't have a link to film itself (Oliver's, Hawke's, Gibson's).
    • Why is Denmark not linked in the lead (or later on as well)?
    • It wasn't linked in the lead but was further down. I've reversed this now so the link is on the first mention only.
    • "the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language"- shouldn't these be attributed to somebody (XYZ believes that Hamlet is...)? It is an opinion...
    • "puzzled over this delay" - what does that mean exactly? Was/is 3 hours too long for a play?
    • "Hamlet's sources probably include an..." - so Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's original? Shouldn't that be mentioned before?
    • Interesting point! The prose and the dramatic structure is Shakespeare's, based on plot elements from earlier works. This is mentioned in the lead, and has a whole section devoted to it elsewhere, so it's not buried. As this is not primarily what Hamlet is famous for, on balance, I think the weight and prominence is about right.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the links is not 100% (check the top of this page for checking links).
    Indopug (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Links—Let's not go overboard with links; is Denmark going to deepen the reader's understanding of the article? Is it an obscure place? Tony (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Further comments - Tending toward support but still a few niggles,

    • "and provided a storyline capable of seemingly endless adaptation." - POV. You've extrapolated your own conclusions from the fact that there are many adaptations> It reads more like gushing fan-boyism than encyclopedic.
    • "begin to view Hamlet as confusing and inconsistent" - is that Hamlet or Hamlet? Regardless, I suggest you search for the term "Hamlet" in the article one last time and fix any possible MoS errors.
    • It can apply equally to both but as the focus is mostly on the man it's probably best left as it is. We can add words to explain all this, of course, but I'm not sure that would add much to the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is ELECTRONOVISION written weird? What is it anyway?
    • Link Victorian, West German, Japanese. Delink the 2nd Oedipal.
    • Is it necesary to mention why Gibson and Close were famous? The movies section is a little clutteres as it is.
    • I didn't write that but I guess it adds background and doesn't hurt.--ROGER DAVIES talk
    • FWIW, I'm in favour of keeping this in. It's the kind of thing that makes an article interesting and memorable, because it enables the reader to relate what she is learning about Hamlet to things she may already know about those films, or about that phase of Mel Gibson's career, etc. AndyJones (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As regards to my sources complaint in my previous review, I mentioned Hamlet's sources. My poblem was that as we are reading the Lead, we abruptly come across mention of Hamlet's sources. Not knowing much about the subject, I had no clue what you trying to convey. I suggest something like: "Shakespeare based Hamlet on earlier legends mostly of Indo-European source..." or something to that effect.
    • "the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language" - I'm not saying that these statements aren't cited; it would be better to move those flags back to after the full-stops. What I am saying is these statements are opinions; and they can applied to any of Shakespeare's works, Othello, Macbeth etc. Hence, the prose should read: "Literary critic John Doe believes that Hamlet is 'the greatest exhibition of his powers'." and so on. Even if it is backed by reference, it is an opinion, and the holder of that opinion should be named in the prose itself.
    • Could you make sure the images keep alternating from left to right as far as possible? Also, is there a free pic of Hamlet talking to the skull in his palm; it is the most iconic image of Hamlet for the common man?
    indopug (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Weak oppose.[See my new opinion, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)] A great article, in need of just a little final polishing. I've given the first few sections a light copyediting, and I will do the same to the remainder when I have time, soon. I ask the nominator of the article to attend to two things, which I am not inclined to labour over myself:[reply]

    • Regularity of punctuation in citations (for example, presence or absence of a final full stop; exact position of that full stop); a full check of compliance with WP:CITE.
    • Correct use of the hard space (&nbsp;), as prescribed at WP:MOS for avoiding improper page breaks line breaks. [Sorry!–N]
    (PS: This is not prescribed - MOS says "A spaced slash may be used" - and in any case, if used, introduces additional fiddliness in the form of hard spaces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
     Done Wrad (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Argghhh, I meant line breaks. In fact, Wrad, there is more to do! And things like "pgs." meaning "pages" are an anomaly. Someone has to check these things systematically. :)
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then I guess I'll have to ask you to explain things better. I don't really understand anything you've said in these bullet points. Might as well be gibberish. I'm one of the 99.9% of Wikipedians who don't know much about MoS nitty-gritty :) . Wrad (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrad, let's look at some of the "footnotes" together (not really footnotes, are they? Could equally be called "endnotes"):
    • Saxo and Hansen (1983, 176–25)
    Um, what does the range "176–25" mean?
    • I'm damned if I know either :) could someone with access to Saxo fix this please?
    • Saxo and Hansen (1983, 66–67)
    That's better! The range makes sense here. But then the very next note:
    • Jenkins (1982, 82–5).
    Riiight... seems to be OK. We'd need to remove that full stop, yes? The others didn't have that. And so for all the notes. They need to be consistent, at least. And then, the range is specified differently here. Earlier we had a range like this: 66–67. So this one should be 82–85, for consistency. That needs to be fixed throughout, also.
    • Britton (1995, 207—211)
    That's an em dash; should be an en dash like the others. (See good explanation of their different roles at WP:MOS.)
    The full stop? Why is the range not "249–250", like the preceding example?
    • [...] The New Cambridge series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare's plays (Irace 1998).
    That's a complete sentence from the end of a note. As a sentence, it has a full stop. But look:
    • [... ] The whole conversation between Rozencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet concerning the touring players' departure from the city is at Hamlet "F1" 2.2.324–360
    That's another sentence at the end of a note. Why is there no full stop? To stop or not to stop, that is the question. Suggestion: have a full stop at the end of every note. Quietus make.
    • Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 126–131).
    • Thompson & Taylor (2006a, 74).
    Well? Ampersand ("&") or "and"? Choose, then act! (Let not this FAC now turn awry, / and lose the name of action.)
    See? Not rocket science. Consistency carries a great deal of weight.
    The rest is silence. For now, anyway.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When those things are duly done, and I've had a chance to make adjustments to punctuation and a couple of small matters of style ("en route" > "on the way", for walking to a bedchamber!), I'll be happy to give this article my full endorsement.:– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ("En route" arguably expresses better—by conveying a sense of time and distance—the considerable intervening action. But these are matters of taste and nuance, rather than right or wrong. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Thank you very much for the many hours you spent over the weekend at the Hamlet coalfield chipping away at dashes and spaces :) Is it now cured? Or does Hamlet still contain flaws fatal to your support of its candidacy? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger, thanks for your note at my page. I am not proposing such a thing as "(2006:&nbsp;34)" everywhere. "'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so," as Horatio has it. The hard spaces that we now have in the article are fine. Several editors have been chipping away at it the meantime, with skill and with the best intentions. I am not happy with all of these changes. May I presume to look over the whole thing one last time, and fix just the odd nuance? Of course it can all be altered again later. (I'm sorry: though I appreciate the old-world splendour of "believed written", I'm not sure that it touches the modern neocortex.) Trust me now: I'll get straight onto this, and then sign off on this... beauty of the wikiworld, the paragon of articles.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, 'tis accomplished. I stand by all my edits, except those that are foolish or wrong (all 0.0001% of them). See my new comment, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The formula "believed written" is a nuanced consensus solution to the contentious problem of dating Hamlet. Some editors wanted weasel words like "probably written" or "may have been written": others something much more unambiguous. If you can come up with something equally concise and equally neutral, I'd be pleased to hear it. Incidentally, despite its alleged olde-worlde-charm, the phrase "believed written" still generates 1,600 hits on Google. Parallel constructions - "believed lost", "believed killed" and "believed stolen" - generate 49,000, 46,000, and 15,000 hits respectively. Which suggests the construction is not as disconnected as you may think and further suggests it need not be dumbed down. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see we're back to "probably written". I'll change this to "almost certainly written" to reflect the lengthy discussions on the Hamlet page and at the Shakespeare Wikiproject page about degrees of probability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Almost certainly written" is a better solution. (I know all about "nuanced"! Do what you like with that.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support. This is a remarkably good article. It did need some fresh eyes on it, and it has now benefited from several pairs of those. My own eyes are red with tiredness, so if I have made any SILLY errors as I edited past midnight here in Australia, please fix them. There were errors of punctuation still to fix, and such errors as Tarquinus for Tarquinius, and a few dozen others. You might like to examine them closely before reverting!

    I have no problem with the article as it is now improved. I commend it to editors here, and urge that it be promoted as a featured article without delay.
    – Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support, but there are still issues. Here are a few in the lead.
    • "Hamlet's uncle has stolen not only the throne but taken also Hamlet's mother"—The position of "also" doesn't work. Remove "but taken"?
    • I smell a rat here: "each has lines—and even scenes—missing from the others"—so each has scenes missing from the others? What's the "even" doing?
    • Too sharp a boundary in the semicolon, an opportunity for ellipsis missed, and possible overuse of commas: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge; and it ends, more than three hours later, with the fulfilment of that desire." --> "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends more than three hours later with the fulfilment of that desire.
    • This sentence has become steadily more intricate over the last twenty-four hours (see talk page). I've now recast it as: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with the fulfilment of his desire", which I hope satisfies everyone (though I'd prefer something crunchier, as I dislike the way the symmetry and cadence of the sentence is now lost at the end). --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the four hundred years that have since elapsed, it has been played by the greatest actors—and sometimes actresses—of each successive age". Remove "that have" and "elapsed"; the wording suggests that the whole cast is either male or female.
    And at random before I stopped sampling below the lead:
    • MOS breach. This caption is just a nominal group, not a full sentence, and should have no final period: "A facsimile of Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, which contains the legend of Amleth".
    • Done this, and recast for tidyness where a sentence followed a fragment. (Incidentally, though this is really a discussion for another place, some MoS guidance over points and citations would be useful. Points after footnote fragment are redundant.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was also at this point that critics started to focus on Hamlet's delay as a character trait, rather than a plot device."—"Also" is idle, here. In fact, it's odd to refer to "By the 19th century" as a point. Hamlet's delay cannot be a trait itself; surely it results from a character trait.
    • Caption: "skill.(Artist ..."—missing space.
    • "highly-developed"—MOS breach; read up on hyphens. "Best known" needs a hyphen.
    • MOS: ellipsis dots need spacing (check the original punctuation after "thoughtful").
    • 184–5: my pet hate. It's not mandatory, but a minimum of two closing digits is normal. Should be written into MOS.
    These issues, easily found, suggest the need for another good copy-editor who has the benefit of fresh eyes. Probably 40–60 minutes would make it perfect, and would be an enjoyable task for the right person. Well done, folks; it's going to be a spankingly good FA. Tony (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll probably get around to a close reading of the article later, but for now, could you check to make sure that the links under the External links section comply with WP:EL? Links to blogs, for example, are probably not necessary. BuddingJournalist 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We had a discussion about this earlier, and decided to keep the blog. It has incredibly high-quality, well-written analysis of performances of Hamlet. Since that decision, though, new people have come in. We can change if we want, but I'd like to keep it. The only one I have a bit of a problem with is Hamlet Regained, as it is a personal web site and has an unprofessional tone at times, though it does have many other stronger points. Wrad (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the user seems to be a spammer pure and simple. We can discuss with him if his behaviour becomes a problem. The site looks quite good, but I don't think that link is appropriate, really - in a featured article candidate we should be particularly choosy. I have moved it to Hamlet on screen, though, where it fits better. AndyJones (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • Why is the first sentence of the article a double passive sentence ("believed to have been written")?
    • I wrote this as "believed written" and it has been "corrected" on numerous occasions by drive-by editors to the current form. I'll happily change it back but I doubt the change will survive long. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the subsection headings in "Context and interpretation" adjectives instead of nouns?
    • I noticed it, but I don't consider it a big problem; although it could sound strange, when someone wants to refer to such a subsection ("read about it in the subsection 'Philosophical'"), because it is not a standalone word. – Ilse@ 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because they are types of context or interpretation and therefore ellipse the nouns in the section heading. The sub-sections refer to religious context not religion, philosophical interpretation not philosophy and so forth. I'd probably recast your note as "read about it in the #Philosophical and #Religious contexts subsections :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Hamlet 2000 poster.jpg does not contain information significant for the readers' understanding of the article that cannot be conveyed in words alone, its subject (the film) is not critically discussed in the article so the image is just for decoration, and the source is not mentioned on the image's description page; it fails WP:NFCC policy #8 and #10, and should therefore be removed from this article.
    • Maybe the external links could be written in a consistent format.
    – Ilse@ 10:54, 5 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    1080° Snowboarding

    [edit]

    This article represents many months worth of work, and I think it’s finally ready. The first nomination highlighted many problems, which have now been addressed, and the second nomination was withdrawn by me personally in late November, for lack of paper resources. With the help of several editors, the article now contains two Edge reviews, the CVG review (Computer and Video games magazine), and a retrospective review from Official Nintendo Magazine to balance things up, as well as the manual. Any suggestions or comments would be welcomed.--CM (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's my critique:

    • I'd question the Mobygames in external links. This doesn't provide anything beyond what this article offers, and is quite unreliable, apparently.
     Done
    • Ref 42 is broken; even still, I'm not sure about "FryGuy64" as an author of this link. Are you allowed to use forum names? Even still, how reliable can something be from this person?
     Done new ref
    • Unless I'm missing something, ref 2 and 16 are exactly the same—they should be under the same name.
     Done
    • "one-on-one or single player snowboard racing video game"—"one-on-one" seems too infromal and jargon-like. Isn't multi-player applicable?
     Done but not sure if its an improvement
    • "The game plays by controlling"—nice to know that the game can play itself, please reword.
     Done added a subject
    Another user has changed this, but my point was that you had written "the game plays"—the game does not play anything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from the third-person perspective, and uses a combination" the transition here seems awkward to me.
    um....what transition? I don't really see how the sentence can be be improved. Do you have something in mind?
    Sorry, I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. User:Jay32183's edit is what I wanted relating to this. It is an improvement :) Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So its  Done I guess then.
    • "The game features five playable snowboarders representing four countries and contains eight levels." I'd omit "representing four countries" to make it more concise.
     Done gone
    • A pedantic one maybe: "The game spawned the sequel 1080° Avalanche". I'd reword it. Technically, to spawn means to make an offspring, or to produce. But then this word should be related to the makers and not the game.
    Tried a couple words. I think spurred works. Do you know of anything better?
    • I've said this in the old FAC, but the lead is still too short—especially if it is to become an FA.
    Not sure on this one; its a rather small article (several years old, no story) what do you think I should expound upon within the lead?
    Firstly, one question I want to ask is whether the characters have backstories—or any vestige of a plot to it—apart from their countries; if so, it should be included, and maybe a brief mention in the lead. As for the lead, maybe another sentence on gameplay; maybe another sentence Avalanche (brief). Possibly a mention of sales. Also, "The game features five playable snowboarders and contains eight levels." seems to fit better in the first paragraph. The lead is a trick area, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No back stories, no plot. There isn't even any talking between the characters at any time either. I added in a clause about sales, and Pagrashtak just rewrote the lead. Is it up to snuff?
    • "Each snowboarder has different abilities and is suited for different levels and modes." Please expand on what is meant. Does this mean statistically, or specific skills; if so specifiy, or give an example. Same for this: "Each board also excels in different situations". Do the boards have a particular weight or asymmetry in design to each other? Abilites is too broad to leave unexplained.
    Better now?
    Definitely, yes.
    • "one from Canada, one from United States, one from the United Kingdom, and two from Japan." To refrain from repeating "one from", how about "two from Japan, and one each from Canada, America, and the United Kingdom".
     Done
    • "1080° was the clear leader among snowboarding titles of the era". Firstly, who defines "era" here? What era? Secondly, who said this? "Clear" may seem a bit too POV here, too.
    IGN said this, and I think I made that more clear that more clear in the rewrite
    • "[t]he crouch move alone - which makes for supertight turns - makes this fun to play": I hope the source did actually use these hyphens here. This is not a fault, I'm just making sure.
    Yeah they did
    • "1080°'s sound effects were also critically praised." I'd give a quote here, since this is the only mention of music.
     Done Added some.
    • "it sold fewer copies than its programmers' first game, Wave Race 64, with 1,950,000 units in total with 154,000 in Japan." I'm not totally sure on this, but this may constitute Original synthesis. But as I say, I may be wrong.
     Done Fixed it to be safe

    I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some replies. I'll make more tomorrow.--CM (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another round of replies.--CM (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even More replies; I think it's all completed.--CM (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, are we good?--CM (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: Well-written and comprehensive. You've done a great job for such an old and obscure game. The last reservation I have is that you may want to consider merging some paragraphs in "Development" to improve presentation. You have multiple short paragraphs currently. This is only a suggestion, though. Well done. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support the article is comprehensible, and well-referenced. Seems enough to finally pass. igordebraga ≠ 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional support. Great work on getting the article up to this level. The sentence about music in the development section seems oddly placed, right after the information about the game's release, which to me should be the closing statement of the section. And the word "finally" doesn't make any sense, given that the music was composed before the game's release, not after (as the word "final" would imply). Could you possibly move it up in the section a little bit with the rest of the development info, perhaps to the end of the paragraph above it? I can't see anything else that I'd really change. Green451 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I think it was originally a below-par execution on my part of one of Ashnard's suggestion to merge the paragraphs. "Finally" only implied it was the last idea in the section, but I think both of your suggestions finish off development properly now. Other suggestions?--CM (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to director: Green451 did a couple rounds of suggestions and reviewing of the article for me in May 2007 (similar to an informal peer review/copyedit). I'm not sure how noteworthy this is, but I thought I might mention it.--CM (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was just about to mention it, in fact. If it forces me to recuse from declaring support, so be it, but I will if I can. On a separate note, thanks for fixing that so quickly, Clyde. One more thing I just spotted is that when comparing the All Game Guide review to the CVG review, you say that they "disagreed". I know you're referring to their opinions on the difficulty of the control scheme, but the way it is currently makes it briefly confusing to a first-time reader as if they disagreed on the how good the control scheme was, period, even though they both liked it in the end. Some clarification might be useful here. Green451 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a clause to specify their stance; I think it's more clarified now. Anything else?--CM (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Changing my stance to...

    Support (if my contributions earlier don't invalidate it.) Green451 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    George Jones (RAAF officer)

    [edit]

    I'm self-nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It's been through peer review and A-Class review at the Military History project and is a current A-Class article for that project. Since its promotion I've added further detail but the structure remains unchanged. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This is an outstanding article which provides both a comprehensive biography of Jones and a thoughtful overview of how the RAAF was administered during WW2. The use of references and photographs are also first-rate. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written and well referenced article. I do have a few queries however.
    • "The suggestion even arose that Jones' selection was a mistake, based on the government's employment of a misleading organisation chart that implied he was the RAAF's most senior officer after Bostock, when in fact five others were ranked higher." - Did the government use (or were thought to have used) a misleading chart when making their decision or did the government issue a misleading chart after the decision? That is, was the chart developed prior to or after the decision was made? (I hope that is clear).
    • "His working class origins were also deemed as contributing to his suitability to a Labor government." Was this deemed as such by any one group in particular such as other officers, the public, historians etc.?
    • The possessive of Jones; is it Jones' (as is used consistently throughout the article) or Jones's as I was once told was the preferred rendering?
    • "Along with Bostock, Jones represented the RAAF at the Japanese surrender aboard USS Missouri in September 1945" - Is it worth linking to Surrender of Japan or Japanese Instrument of Surrender?
    These queries are minor and support is given regardless. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Mattinbgn. Good points and hopefully the first two are a little clearer with the minor rewording I've done: 1) the government used an org chart in good faith but got the wrong message from it (as mentioned, this is a suggestion by some observers, including former CAS Richard Williams, but not conclusively proven); 2) I've used "His working class origin has been seen...", i.e. it's an historical view, not necessarily a contemporary one. The possessive I just based on my own understanding of correctness. The link was a good idea and I've used it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is very well-written and appears to be comphrensive. I found a few WP:MOS things that should be fixed, and then I'll support.
      • The article needs the WP:Persondata template
      • Please see WP:DASH; when used to break the flow of a sentence, an mdash should be used unspaced (see last paragraph of lead for example of the issue)
      • Need a non-breaking space between a number and its qualifier or unit (120 patrols)
      • Section headings should not begin with "The"
      • Need a citation for the quote "fallen through a crack in the boards on the deck" . I assume this is covered by the citation after the following sentence, but per WP:CITE, a citation should be placed after each quotation even if that causes duplicate cites. There's a similar issue in the Later life section
      • You might want to put a wikilink for Donald Hardman in the Legacy section

    Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks, Karanacs. I've made changes based on all the points you've mentioned (please check they're what you had in mind) with one qualification: I was/am aware of the general rule about not beginning section headings with an article (definite or indefinite) however I think that if headings use a name that commonly takes an article, i.e. 'the "Morotai Mutiny"' and 'the Interim Air Force', then they should be written that way (like 'The "Short" and "Long" Parliaments' in the Charles I of England article). For that matter I reckon 'the divided command' reads better and is in fact more meaningful than 'divided command' but admittedly that's a little tougher to defend as it was never a name like the others, so I've let that one go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, nice comprehensive article. If only he didn't have such a common surname, I'd stand more chance of finding additional refs for his CBE and DFC. Just one point on the CBE, should that be listed under "Awards" in the infobox? Obviously he doesn't get the postnom for both that and the KBE, but they were made as separate awards. David Underdown (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks David. Another fair point. I've seen this field in the infobox used a number of different ways, and spelling out the post-nominals was simply the most common in my experience, so I do it that way for all my comparable articles. That way made sense to me because if you list every single award (or grade of award) then you'd really need to put the date of each award in and then one might ask why not put all the ranks they attained, not simply their highest, and all of their years and then you could wind up with an infobox longer the than the body of the article. Okay, I exaggerate but the short and sweet style seemed preferable. Of course one could put tables at the end of the article listing every award/year and every rank/year (some do already I think) but again I see this as tending to clutter an article. My opinions, naturally, and open to discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in my ongoing tidying up of London Gazette references (prompted by a websate change which broke most existing refs), I've certainly come across several articles which do list every grade of an order, and include things which don't confer post-noms such as mentions in despatches and foreign decorations (all with dates of award). On the point of comparison with rank, I think there is a slight difference in that it is very rare to skip ranks (though with war time temporary promotion, acting ranks, brevets and so on this is perhaps arguable), whereas the degree at which you are first appointed to the military division of the Order of the British Empire is to some extent at least dependent on your military rank at the time of appointment, so if you do nothing particularly outstanding as a junior officer you can still be directly appointed to the higher grades of the order if you then do something worthy as a more senior officer, whereas being appointed MBE or OBE as a relatively junior officer, and then being appointed CBE or KBE as a more senior officer perhaps shows a more consistent record of achievement. David Underdown (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A very nicely written article, can't see any MOS points. The writing is excellent, concise yet comprehensive and the information it contains is comprehensive as far as I can tell. So support Woody (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

    Zodiac (film)

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that a lot of hard work has gone into it and is ready to be promoted. This is a highly regarded film that came out in 2007 and considered by many film critics to be one of the best of the year. J.D. (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support -- I think there are going to be people who don't like some parts of the article (I'm not going to elaborate since I am supporting) but I don't care, it's a great read and very informative. Manderiko (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Loved the movie and this is a great overview. I do have several questions, however: the "Promotion" section is only one sentence long. Is there a way to flesh it out or integrate it somewhere else? It is an interesting note to make, so I wouldn't suggest removing it entirely. Also, some of the links in the "Further Reading" (btw, incorrect caps on second word) section seem superfluous. The Esquire interview, for example, seems to have more to do with the director than his film; are these truly necessary? Perhaps the more relevant links can be used for references? María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these suggestions. I merged the Promotion subsection into the Reception section as it kinda pertains to that. I have also slimmed down the "Further reading" section and fixed the caps on the second word. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- The plot section reads awkwardly; there are verb tense problems and it's presented almost like a documentary about the Zodiac killer's actions, which the movie definitely is not. The development of the main character from timid cartoonist to amateur detective isn't really there. The Zodiac murder specifics seem to take precedence over giving the reader a sense of the character development and the direction of the plot. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that what the section needs is simply to be longer, though it there is a little room to play with. But I think a rewrite might be in order, with fewer fine details about the murders, and more about the main characters and the thrust of the story. --Melty girl (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the oomments. I've started reworking the plot a little. I've added more about the individual characters and Graysmith's investigation. I think that information about the killings is important as it does play a crucial role in the film but you're right, it shouldn't overwhelm everything else. --J.D. (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed dead links. --J.D. (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of it looks quite good, but it needs work. Can you fix the stubby paras in "Principal photography" and the like? Side-by-side caption: no dot. MOS says to use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. I see ref [13] SIX times in a row, sentence after sentence. Boring. Disturbs the look by intruding and spacing out the lines; ration the ref numbers so any intelligent reader gets a feel for what you paraphrasing or supporting from outside. Tony (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) MOS: en dashes for ranges, please. Long snakes like "At first, Fincher only wanted 15-20 minutes of score and for it to be all solo piano based but as Shire worked on it and incorporated textures of a Charles Ives piece called, “The Unanswered Question” and some Conversation-based cues, he found that he had 37 minutes of original music." "Some" is often redundant. "solo-piano-based", but nicer as "based on s p". Comma before "but". "a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide"—better say "US" the first time, esp. since it's an international context. Are you sure it's ... 441 and not 442? It's just too precise for this context. "More than US$83 million". And it's not logical: "it has performed slightly better in other parts of the world with a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide" ... does that figure exclude the US or include it? Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these comments. I've implemented all of the changes you've made above. --J.D. (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But have you dealt with these types of issues, and others, in the rest of the text? My comments raised samples only. Tony (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very well-written, (quite rare for articles on recent films, etc.) and well sourced. I can see why it passed as a good article. I loved this film when I first saw it, so the article does it it excellent justice. This article for FA? Sure, why not! (SUDUSER)85 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: What is the difference between Further reading and External links? Why is there a "Note" stuck on to the bottom of the article? (Note: The Director's Cut is 162 minutes, which makes it about four to five minutes longer than the theatrical version (not 8 minutes longer). Can't that be worked into the prose? Bringing ... bringing? (It has performed better in other parts of the world with a box office total with $51 million bringing its worldwide total to $83 million, bringing the film above its $75-million budget.) It looks like the text could use another massage; would Melty girl be willing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to be able to make time to do a careful review of this article. I'm sorry to say that I still haven't managed to do so; that is why I haven't opposed or supported. We'll see how the week goes.--Melty girl (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Read through it, and the writing is almost there, but more copyediting is needed (I did some along the way). Here are some examples of some problems:
      • "Because of Graysmith's inexperience and lowly status at the paper, he is not taken seriously by Avery and others..." Who are "others"?
      • "When he is able to crack one of the codes, Avery begins sharing information with him." This contradicts the previous statement, which proclaims that Graysmith is excluded from knowing about the codes.
      • "Fincher found that there was a lot of speculation..." This sentence takes the paragraph in an abrupt new direction. I was thinking we'd find out more about Gerald McMenamin. Instead, this sentence seems like it should have appeared earlier in the paragraph.
      • "Working with digital cameras allowed him..." Very long sentence that features two awkward "and"s and a violation of verb parallelization in "eliminating".
      • "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism, with some scenes requiring upwards of 70 takes, as Gyllenhaal was frustrated by the director’s methods:" Very awkward.
      • What's up with the last "note" about the director's cut? BuddingJournalist 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all of the comments. I have made all of the changes you've outline above. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you fix the MOS breaches? (1) Downey caption—no period, please. (2) En dashes for all ranges (incl. dates) in references and notes. (3) Period after closing quotes when the quotation starts within a WP sentence. (4) Spaced ellipsis dots. Tony (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this comment. I've made these changes to the article. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fair use rationales for non-free images need a lot of work. At the moment, most of them are too vague e.g. "Displays screenshot image of film in question." If you're really just wanting a screenshot, why do you need so many? If each image is meant to illustrate a particular important point which hasn't already been illustrated by another image, you need to explain things further. Papa November (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (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. ^ Beta Chapter History. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. Retrieved January 1, 2008.
    2. ^ Tamara L. Brown, Gregory Parks, Clarenda M. Phillips, African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2005. p.342
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ross-166 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    4. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
    5. ^ a b c d Cousens (1926), p 23
    6. ^ Cousens (1926), p 21
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2008&oldid=387222970"