Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 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 15:31, 31 March 2008.

Diocletian

[edit]

Self-nominator I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"
  • Done.
  • Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.
  • Done(?)
  • "newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian
  • Done.
  • Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"
  • Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.
  • "one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed
  • Done.
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"
  • Done.
  • "a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant
  • Done.
  • "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.
  • Done.
  • Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"
  • Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.
  • Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"
  • Done.
  • Some measurements are missing conversions
  • Done(?) I think the km's the only one.
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
  • Done.
  • Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27
  • Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.
  • Done(?)
I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)
      • Done.
    • Same for current ref 69 (Codex Justinarius ...) the Barnes New Empire ref lacks a page number abbreviation.
      • Done.
    • Page abbr missing from current ref 88 (Barnes New Empire 255)
      • Done.
    • Current ref 152 is lacking a page number (Bleckmann)
      • Done.
    • Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
    • Current ref 80 which has a discussion of Maximian's appointment as Augustus has a number of refs lacking page number abbreviations and which are inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the refs (Using the Harvard system)
      • Done(?) What should they look like?
        • You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed it now.
    • Current ref 135 (Lactantius (DMP)...) uses Harvard referencing in it, which is inconsistent with the system used elsewhere in the article.
      • Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
        • See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ack! That was supposed to be Southern 2001. Fixed it now.
All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prose needs some tweaking though not looking too bad. There is some redundant wording and some words used where a slightly more appropriate one would improve flow. I will post any that aren't straightforward here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a bad smell emanating from the coach. It would have been the kind of smell corpses are known to emanate in the later stages of decay, especially in hot climates - seems a bit wordy - why not "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a odour reminiscent of a decomposing body (or corpse) emanating from the coach." - or something like it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support everything has been addressed. Oppose for now, pending resolution of the following concerns/questions/quibbles.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede, third paragraph, second sentence is awkward and wordy. Perhaps "Although effective while Diocletian ruled, the Tetrarchy collapsed after his abdication with the dynastic claims of Maxentius and Contantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
    • Changed to: "Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian's tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
  • Rise to power section, Death of Numberian subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence. Is the he referred to Bahram or Numerian? It's unclear from the context.
    • Clarified.
  • Same section and subsection, last sentence of the subsection. Why did the act of changing his name place Diocletian in the line of legitimate emperors?
    • I don't really know. "He would then change his name to Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, as a way of placing himself in the succession of legitimate emperors after Gallienus." Potter doesn't make it especially clear, so I've dropped it.
  • Same section, Conflict with Carinus subsection, third paragraph, second sentence. Do you mean that Constantius had been an associate of Diocletian in the household guard? Consider rewording to make the context a bit clearer.
  • Same section, subsection and paragraph. Artistobulus was whose prefect, Carinus or Contantius?
    • Carinus'. Clarified.
  • Same section, subsection, and paragraph. Where did Diocletian move on to?
    • Italy. Clarified.
  • Same section, Maximian made co-emperor subsetcion, first paragraph. The last sentence is very convoluted and hard to follow. Consider rewording.
  • Same section and subsection, second paragraph, third pagaraph. Any reason to italicize Ca. and use the abreviation instead of circa?
    • No real reason, just thought it would keep consistency with the parenthesized dates. I've replaced it with "circa".
  • Same section, Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia subsection, first paragraph, third sentence. "took them to battle" is awkward. Consider rewording, perhaps to "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, which, however, failed to eliminate them."
    • Tweaked to: "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory."
  • Same section and subsection, second paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences. I don't see the "denying them their rest" in the sentence (plus it's very odd phrasing) and the mention of Maximian's build-up is without context, you've not mentioned it before this, I assume it's for fighting against Carausius? Next paragraph you mention a fleet that Maximian lost, is this the build-up?
    • (No longer same subsection) I've had to gut a few sections that were more appropriate for daughter articles: Maximian's one of them. I've made a few tweaks for clarification. They apparently moved forward so quickly that the Germans were unable to rest. I've dropped the sentence.
  • Same section and subsection, the third paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward
    • I've moved some material around and chopped that sentence into smaller pieces.
  • Tetrarchy section, Foundation of the tetrarchy subsection. Should Tetrarchy in the subheading be capitalized?
    • Yes.
  • Same section and subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very long and convoluted. Consider breaking it up into smaller chunks.
    • Done."Constantius was a former governor of Dalmatia and a man of military experience stretching back to Aurelian's campaigns against Zenobia (272–73). He was Maximian's praetorian prefect in Gaul, and the husband to Maximian's daughter, Theodora."
  • Same section, Conflict in the Balkans and Egypt subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is oddly phrased. Perhaps "The defeat kept the Sarmatians from the Danube provinces for a long time."
    • Took your phrasing.
  • Same section, subsection, and paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences are also awkward. Consider "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, which resulted in a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296. This victory consolidated the Danube frontier."
    • Tweaked to: "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, and won a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296."
  • Okay, if Dioceltian's corrector Aurelius Achilleus held out in Alexandria until 298, who was he holding out against? Context seems to imply Diocletian, but that makes no sense if he was Dioceltian's corrector, unless he revolted with Domitianus.
    • Former corrector.
  • Same section and subsection, last paragraph and last sentence, Diocletian left Africa quickly after which event? Directly before this is a discussion about the reforms bringing Egyptian administration into line with Roman practice, which isn't an event per se.
    • Moving phrasing around: he left Africa quickly after the peace treaty.
  • Later life section, Illness and abdication subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward. Consider rewording.
    • Rephrased.
  • Same section, Retirement and death subsection, last paragraph, fifth sentence. Does this imply that he may have comitted suicide? Would be clearer if the article just says that, not "perhaps even personally accelerated the advent of his death".
    • Alright.
  • Reforms section, Tetrarchic and idealogical subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward. I believe "and it is implied that the tetrachs engineered the deeat over the Plamyreneses" is supposed to mean "it is implied that the tetrarchs engineered the defeat of the Palmyrenes."? Consider rewording if that is the case, and if it isn't, the meaning needs to be made clearer.
    • Clarified.
  • Same section, Military subsection, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Lactantius criticized Diocletian for an excessive increase..."
    • Took your phrasing.
  • Same section, Taxation subsection, second paragraph, sixth sentence seems to be lacking something in the part "operated at different speed throughout the empire, and The kept up with changes in the ..."
    • Fixed.
  • Same section, currency and inflation subsection. You mention in the third sentence "Aurelian's measures" but this is the first mention of such measures. The previous discussion says that market forces stabliized the exchange rates, so what were Aurelian's measures?
    • Aurelian reminted some old, highly overvalued currencies, giving them a higher silver content and issued two new currencies. They still had a lower bullion content than their face value, however, and the government basically expected everyone to trade them at that face value (Williams, Diocletian, pp. 116–17). I've dropped the reference: now it's just market forces.
  • Diocletian and Maximian were the only Roman emperors to abdicate, surely that would merit a mention in the lede?
    • Not true: Justin II and Majorian also abdicated. I could put "one of the few".
      • Were he and Maximian the first? I seem to recall Justin and Marjorian came after Diocletian. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aye, I've put it in: "becoming the first Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate the position."
  • Why is December 22 thought to be his birth date?
    • It's his official birthday, and Barnes considers it to have probably been his actual birthday. The primary source cited is the papyri at the P. Beatty Panopolis 2.164, 173, 181/2, 193/4, 262. Barnes states the fact pretty unambiguously: "Born on 22 December." (New Empire, p. 30) Do you want any of this in the article?
      • If the source you are using says December 22 unabiguously, it should be stated something like "The modern historian Barnes gives his birthdate as December 22, but other historians are not so sure." or something like that. You'll need a source or two for the second phrase of the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that no other historian disputes the date. Williams, who has written the only biography of the bunch, just relegates it to a footnote and states the fact impartially: "Beatty in Skeat, op. cit., concludes that Diocletian's official birthday as emperor was 22 December, and Barnes considers this was probably his actual birthday." No The other works trust in Barnes' chronological work pretty firmly. Barnes, New Empire, is one of the more common titles cited by Potter and Southern's general histories. They have not mentioned the birthdate because they are not interested in the issue: they are historians, not biographers. Many of the other statements in the article could have longer and more detailed histories of disputation; this one seems quite tame by comparison. Any reason why it leaped out at you?
          • I've changed the passage, as per your suggestion.
            • It was the qualifier that jumped out at me. When I see "probably" I wonder if there is some juicy historian's spat behind the phrase, that's all. This solution works. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one, the first pargraph of the Death of Numerian section says that Carinus hurried to Rome, and the context seems to imply that he was in the East, but the section before states Carinus was left in the West. Where did Carinus hurry to Rome from? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the context imply that? He was in Gaul (a fact not mentioned in the article), and had been in the West for the duration of the Persian War. It's now: "Carinus quickly made his way to Rome from Gaul, and arrived by January 284; Numerian lingered in the East." Better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was the next sentence that said that Numerian lingered that implied that perhaps Carinus was with Numerian when he left for Rome. It was more an implication than a outright statement. The new wording works.Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a good copyedit to cut down on wordiness. Lots and lots of places have "filler" words such as "while" Since I suffer from this fault myself... I'm very familiar with the problem! I've pointed out some of the ones that leapt out at me, but I'm sure there are others.
    • Casliber has given some places a going over, and I've removed some whiles. Are there any other words I should be on the hunt for?
    • All in all a very nice article. I'll be happy to support when some of the prose issues are taken care of, and when some of the clarifications are made. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for providing a very intensive review and copyedit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.

    Jacques Plante

    [edit]

    Jacques Plante was a goaltender for Montreal Canadiens dynasty in the late 50s. He is now best-known as the inventor of the first practical goaltender mask for ice hockey. He was also the first one to use it regularly in NHL games. I've worked since around December on this article, and with the help of Risker, Nishkid64 and many others who gave me pointers and/or actually edited it, I think this very comprehensive article about Plante is worthy of featured status. Maxim(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Co-nomination–concur with Maxim, I think this article is ready. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Links were reviewed. As per previous hockey FACs, the tool doesn't like websites from the Hockey Hall of Fame, but I've cheked manually and they work fine. Maxim(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments-
    • Does line 13 to 18 of the first paragraph in "Early Life" really need all the repeated cites? Couldn't it all be cited with just one?
    • In Early Life, why did his school's coach order the former goalie off? Perhaps just a quick phrase?
    • Same with Minor Leagues, couldn't the tuques statement be concluded in 19 cite? There's a few of those else where in the article, but it's a minor thing.
    • Perhaps a little more detail on the on-ice brawl in section "Five Stanley Cups"?

    Otherwise, Support. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The fifth paragraph in the opening seems to be repeated in the 'Retirement and death' section. Seeing as how the opening is usually is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, it would probably be in the best interests to merge that information into the relevent section, and merge any other information into the proper place.

    Also wouldn't hurt to add a few external links, seeing how there is only one. Knowing that there are currently issues with a template for a link, I know that isn't long to be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two worthwhile external links added, including a link to the "History by the Minute" video re-enactment of Plante's injury that led to him wearing the mask in regulation play the first time; many Canadians will remember it. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the lead, the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. While it mentions parts of Retirement and death, it's supposed to do that, and section itself gives more information on that, too. Maxim(talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • The "See also" section belongs above the "References" section
    • "where he became well known" - "well known" needs a hyphen
    • "Canadiens won the game 3-1" - wrong dash
    • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "50 cents"
    • The "See also" section shouldn't contain articles already linked elsewhere.
    • "he signed for $35000" - should be "$35,000"
    • Some duplicate refs could be combined, eg. "Plante, R., pg.214" or "Plante, R., pg.14"
    • Some inconsistent page number formatting, eg. "pg.214", "pg. 216"
    • "He's [Plante] the biggest attraction since the good old days of Terry Sawchuk". - period belongs inside the quotes if present in the original text.
    • "three–week training camp", "10–year contract" - should be hyphens.
    • "a $10–million ... contract" - hyphen/dash not needed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly all done. For your 4th point, can you please link me to the appropriate guideline as I'm not sure what to do. Secondly, I think the see alsos are to link to subject that were not discussed a lot but are somehow pertinent to the subject. The mask is mentioned, even linked, but not discussed as much and should be an important read after the Plante article. Hall and Sawchuk were Plante's contemporaries and the two other leading goalies of the age. Maxim(talk) 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding non-breaking spaces, the relevent guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces. I think they just need to be added to "50 cents" and "$10 million". Regarding "See also", Wikipedia:Layout#See also states, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment", so I'll leave the decision to you. Epbr123 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have taken care of the non-breaking spaces, thanks. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—This is very well-written indeed. Since so much of the referencing is to a book by "Raymond Plante", it would be good to know who that author is—perhaps even a mention in the main text (Legacy?). If it's his second wife, RaymondE. If not, is it his brother? Tony (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) PS Check Canadian spelling of "fibERglass". Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the spelling tip, Tony; the brand name here is FibERglas, just to add to the confusion. The author of the primary source is, oddly enough, no relation to the subject. I was surprised at that too. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the notes come before the references and could the references be alphabetical by author please? Also, why a references AND a bibliography?
        • No, refs shold be above notes; it's confusing to have last name, page number before seeing the appropriate book.
          • To address the comment about references AND a bibliography: The references are just that, books that were used to reference the article. The bibliography is made up of books that Plante wrote or participated in writing; not all of them were used as references. The first edition of his goaltending manual, for example, is long out of print and a first edition is worth a fortune now in the hockey collecting world. Risker (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes http://www.hockeygoalies.org/ a reliable site?
        • Just because you don't know a site doesn't make it unreliable.
          • You are correct that I don't know the site, but I did look it over and try to see what sources it used, who published it, etc. before asking what made it reliable. You'll note that I didn't oppose based on these comments, I merely ask questions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not seeing any sources listed specific to the page. I'm not seeing that the author is a published author on the subject. Granted, the first reference to this page is corraborated elsewhere, but this site is the only source for the information that he was paid while playing for the factory team while the others weren't. (the site also says coach, not factory manager and says that the others weren't paid) If there are articles in the press that refer to the site as reliable that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise http://www.hockeysiteincanada.com/? (The "contact me" button on the home page is not exactly inspiring confidence)
        • I cannot find any information on sources for the information nor who is the author/publisher of the site. As above, any mentions in the press/news sites that this is a reliable source would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also http://www.goaliesarchive.com/index2.html?
      • What makes http://www.losthockey.com/main.cfm a reliable site?
      • http://www.frameworth.com/hockey/players/jacques-plante.htm what makes this reliable?
      • The connor reference, is 21 the page number? If so it needs to be formated like the other references in the notes.
        • Removed.
    All the sites check out (As mentioned above the checker doesn't like the Hockey Hall of Fame sites, but they are there fine) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look at all of the site over again, and I'd say all of them are reliable. Feel free to ask a bit more pertinent questions about the sites and I'll see what can be done. Maxim(talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All questioned reference sources have now been replaced with reliable sources. I've asked Maxim to just give it a once-over to ensure I didn't leave a duplicate lying around. Risker (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything looks great now. Thanks for putting up with me! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

    Irreplaceable

    [edit]

    Self-Nomination: After being passed to GA, geting fresh eyes for the peer review and additional substantial reviews, I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is now ready. "Irreplaceable" is song by Beyoncé Knowles and was 2007's best-selling single in the United States. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Hey, I was gonna comment on the peer review, but I guess I am too late.(been busy lately) I do think this article needs some serious prose work, some parts are kind of choppy, some sentences are short, and could be merged together. Here are a few examples of the prose issues I see:
    • When Ne-Yo heard the song, the melody was more guitar-based. He felt that it sounds like country western music. It was brought to R&B when the drums were incorporated, and Ne-Yo considered making an R&B-country western music song. - could be combined into somthing easier, like "Ne-Yo felt the original demo sounded like country music, although adding drums gave the song an R&B feel. He considered making an R&B country crossover song." or somthing to that effect.
      • Hmm. Sounds like the history is twisted a bit. Here is the real statement: "When I first heard the track, produced by Norwegian production team Stargate, they just played the guitar. There was no drums to it and sounded like country western music and when they put the drums on it, it brought it back to the R & B side of things. I was then thinking of making an R & B country western music song." --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ne-Yo also felt that with a woman singing it is empowering. - Stubby, could use clarification.
    • A demo of the song was presented to her, and was pleased after listening. - confusing
    • In an interview, Ne-Yo said about the writing that "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest, and that's what she did." - you could just use 'Ne-Yo said "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest'.
    • The strum of guitar was noted by Al Shipley of Stylus Magazine as an integral element Stargate and Ne-Yo crafted on contemporary singer Rihanna's 2007 single "Hate That I Love You". - run on sentence, could be reworded.

    These sentences (and quite a few more) have an akward feel to them, and could be rearranged/rewritten. Other than prose, the article seems very comprehensive, and the sourcing looks good, good job! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://acharts.us/?
  • And http://top40-charts.com/? (That it bypassed my no-popups and flashed me an annoying add isn't helping my opinion of the...
  • Likewise http://www.mediatraffic.de/about-us.htm?
    • Its published by Media Traffic.
      • Who is Media Traffic? The link to the article took me to a page about the chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can be found at the bottom of their site: THE MOST POPULAR TRACKS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL AIRPLAY, SINGLE-SALES DATA, PAID DOWNLOAD, AND VOTE. IMPORTANT SOURCES: IFPI, MUSIC CONTROL, NIELSEN SOUND SCAN & BROADCAST DATA SYSTEMS (USA, CANADA), ORICON & SOUND SCAN (JAPAN), OFFICIAL UK CHARTS COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), SNEP / IFOP (FRANCE), MEDIA CONTROL (GERMANY, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND), ARIA (AUSTRALIA), AFYVE & MEDIA CONTROL (SPAIN), FIMI / AC NIELSEN (ITALY), HOT100 BR@SIL (BRAZIL), MEGA CHARTS BV (NETHERLANDS), GLF (SWEDEN), VERDENS GANG (NORWAY), AC NIELSEN (DENMARK, BELGIUM), YLE (FINLAND), AFP (PORTUGAL), RIANZ (NEW ZEALAND), AND OTHER. COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY MEDIA TRAFFIC.

    • COPYRIGHT (C) 2007, MEDIA TRAFFIC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. =)

    All the other links check out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable? No last name doesn't inspire confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its Spence Abbott. Since {{Cite web}} do not allow this formatting, February 01, 1990, I used the YYYY-MM-DD formatting to all references to achieve consistency. My problem now is what type of template I'll use for the sheet music ref. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Cautious neutral. Tony (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) not well-written. In particular, many of the relationships between the ideas within sentences are jumbled. Please get someone new to sift through the whole text.[reply]

    • "Originally not created for her, Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song during the production." I can't see a clear referent for the last three words. Appears jumbled.
    • "a female empowerment anthem"—"an anthem to female empowerment" would be better; I do hope this is referenced in the main text; it's such a contestible statement that you might consider saying who "considered" this, even in the lead.
    • "the album's third single late in 2006"—so the third of how many in late 2006? I think you need a comma.
    • ""Irreplaceable" was certified as multi-platinum, and one of the best-selling single of 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."—Was certified as one of the best-selling single (I think you mean singleS) of 2007? I think you need "was" before "one". Was it both the multiplatinum and this best-selling thing that established her as ..., or just the second reason? Jumbled; the causality needs to be absolutely clear.
      • Changed to: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed again to clarify the causality: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, and its addition to Beyoncé's achievements establishes her among the most successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compared WITH, for contrasts. Tony (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved comments/objections by Dihydrogen Monoxide

    Comments

    • "Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song." - it would be better if you only had the old style (country) between dashes, followed by what it changed to (R&B/pop)
    • "album's third single, and the second single in most international music markets" - so where was it the 3rd? Confusing
    • "establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." - there have been a lot of successful female artists. Probably missing a "the most" or something
    • "The song won awards, and was nominated at the 2008 Grammy Awards for the Record of the Year" - won awards, and was nominated for one? Giving a lot of weight to one in particular...
    • "—Tor Erik Hermansen, Billboard[1]" - however, ref one cites MTV (on that note, it should be MTV, not MTV Networks, as the publisher)
    • "Ne-Yo wrote the lyrics from a male perspective. Ne-Yo revealed that he" - change the second Ne-Yo to "he", perhaps?
    • Stargate focused on the sound of "Irreplaceable"." - short, kinda meaningless, sentence...
    • "and Ne-Yo also felt that its empowering for a woman singing it" - its should be it is --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "can relate to, and that "Irreplaceable" was the result.[6] Beyoncé also wanted to make a record that women could relate to.[7]" - something that people and women can relate to seems a bit...odd
      • Huh? Ne-Yo says for people while Beyonce specifies it to women, in line of the theme of the album which is women empowerment. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe it's just me - I don't get how something can be "everyone can relate to" AND "women can relate to" - surely one falls under the other? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)
          • Me too; I just realized when you commented here. But its how the article was written (or how it is organized). But seeing how Ne-Yo was inspired by his family, it has something to do with the personal content of the song. Beyonce wanted to write songs that women can relate as well. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 10 (and other IGNs) publisher is just IGN
    • "John Jobling on Mansized.com found "Irreplaceable" a "gorgeous acoustic ballad",[26]" - is that website an RS? --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any copyvio issues with the external links?

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anymore comments/suggestions? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To Sandy: Im hiding Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments since he allowed me to do it. --Efe (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on the reviewing. I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —

    Support - subdisfactory the graphic.

    Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also.

    Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process. Tony (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response Tony, you have a very, very valid point. I read the article and did not point out grammer mistakes simply because I create alot of grammer mistakes myself. I usually don't notice them when I am reviewing an article. I do not oppose but I am striking out my support and replacing it as nuetral. sorry, Burningclean [speak] 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Further comments upon my oppose above.
      • Fair-use rationales: I wonder what a judge would think when WP is being sued for copyright infringement when she sees the FU rationale for this article, and two others in which the track is used, just cut and pasted. Exactly the same wording? No, the folks at WP:NFC would be alarmed to find this; thing is, we need the FU rationale to be more closely related to the text it is supporting. Criterion 8 at NFC says this:

    Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

    I cant access the sample so I asked the uploader which part of the song is uploaded so it will be properly captioned. --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per captioning, I stated in the template the relationship of the instruments to the genre of the song. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Convince us, please, or the NFC police will be visiting (after 23 March, I believe). At the very least, I think you need to say something about how the file "illustrates" the article — perhaps in the terms you've used in the main text, harmony, form etc. I've always wanted to know how an audio file shows similarity or difference in terms of the surrounding output by this artist and similar artists—I don't know, it's not my area, but you need to do something different for each of the linked articles. So the vocal range is more than an octave and a half—is that unusual for this artist (and the style in general)? Is the less aggressive tone to do with the lyrics here? Just one level deeper would make your FU claim stronger.

    The notational excerpt: "To visually present the musical structure of the song."—It's "part of the excerpt" rather than the whole song, and "structure" normally refers to form on a larger scale than three measures. Visually? Better "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression, rhythmic style, and pitch relationship between piano and voice." Or something like that. Caption and main text: en dashes, not hyphens, between the chords.

    I used this: "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression". --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyright tag includes this statement: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Have you provided copyright information? Who holds the copyright? Sony, is it? Website or postal address might make the company feel more recognised if their copyright people inspect the info file. Catalogue number of the album? Track number and its total duration? More details would shore up your claim. I'm not being a contrarian, but warning that they're about to get tougher on NFC!

    I think Columbia also owns the copyright. I stated Columbia in the description page. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added Sony Urban Music. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's take a look at the prose that describes the excerpt: What is a "moderate" pop song? We see "moderate" again a line later. Replace "written in the key of" with just "in". No hyphen after "-ly". ""Irreplaceable" refers to a woman breaking up with a boyfriend after she found him cheating, and was considered a statement of independence." What, the woman was considered a statement of independence?

    All crashed out comments were addressed. For the "moderate" stuff and "written....." were already fixed because the first para was copyedited/reworded. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And below, why oh why is that little-known country, the US, linked? Please tell me. Australia too. In general, it's not necessary to link anglophone countries in the English-language WP.

    Fixed some of them. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE After fixing questioned sources, a copyedit by someone new to this article will follow. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Commment - Hey, sorry for the delay, I haven't been on much in the past few days. Another look finds the prose is still pretty choppy in places - mostly in the "Background and inspiration" section -its just confusing in places. The "composition" section looks good, as does the "Release and live performances" section. I'll try and clean up a bit of the prose, but here are a few sticky sentences I notice from the other sections:

    • American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform." Sung? should it be performed, or sang, or somthing else? and did Beyonce appear with the band, or perform on her own? its a little confusing. if the sentence is related to the 2007 American Music Awards info before it - "..and a "surprise" performance of the country version of the song during the 2007 American Music Awards. American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform. The band has been known for covering Beyoncé's songs during their live shows and the idea of teaming-up emanated from their publicist" - then it needs to be restructured, you could try somthing like: American country band Sugarland, who were known for covering Beyonce's songs live, were joined by the singer for a performance of "Irreplaceable" at the 2007 American Music Awards. or somthing like that.
    Fixed per suggestion, but with little addition. I removed the "idea of teaming up" thing because its too much detailed. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the quotes in the Critical reception section don't really describe the song or add to the article, such as: "Bernard Zuel of The Sydney Morning Herald noted the track "a pretty good rhythmic ballad" and "Carolyn Davis of US Magazine referred to "Irreplaceable" a "power ballad". A power ballad is a type of song, not really a critical description. I think that there are ample quotes and critical responses, you could lose a few for clarity.
    • Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", along with "Resentment", are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B compared with other tracks in the album". The 'are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B' part sounds a little strange, could be "have more in common with", or somthing different.
      • Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and at the 2008 Grammy Award for Record of the Year." - should be "awards", and the sentence is a little vague, did they just get nominated, or win? And I'd think that the Grammy nom is a little more notable than the VH1 one... Im not sure the nominators are needed, you could add "by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" - but I think the sentence would read better leaving both out, to say somthing like: "Irreplaceable was nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammy Awards, as well as Song of the Year at VH1 Soul Vibe's awards show."
      • Fixed. I wanted to add that it was lost to blah blah blah to clear it out but some users would always object that its too much detailed. Any thought? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a go at the "Background and inspiration" section, to tighten up some of the prose there. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    =) =) =) Thanks for the help. Like Burningclean, we need assistance from those who have good grasp in English. --Efe (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a good grasp, I just suck at spelling. (I'm from and live in America) :p Burningclean [speak] 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If thats only your problem, you dont need assistance anymore. Even Microsoft Word can help you fix them. Hehe. Thanks for striking neutral. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I stumbled on this article randomly, saw it, and thought that it should be a WP:FA. I noticed someone was heavily editing it, so I didn't bother to touch it, but then I noticed that it was already nominated. Good lord, the article is definitely WP:FA status in my books! Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

    Anarky

    [edit]

    Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have methodically edited this article for over a year, to the point where I have exhausted all known first and third party sources, creating as comprehensive article as possible on the subject. If it isn't ready to be featured now, it must be nearly so. Cast (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The numerous websites dealing with comic books are known for reliably publishing interviews with comic book industry insiders; reporting breaking news regarding the industry; offering numerous reviews of comic book content; and detailing reports on industry conventions. They are to comic books as ESPN reporters are to sports games. As for your suggestion regarding the quote of Bakunin; I have followed this and traced the information to the source: an 1868 speech by Bakunin. The information is now properly cited and a link to an online version is provided. Cast (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks muchly on the Bakunin, it just makes more sense to quote direct if you can, and give the online text as a backup. That way if the online source goes dead, you still have the cite.Ealdgyth | Talk 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation for what makes the sources above reliable sources is still needed. Specific pages that shows authorship/ownership of the sites, what makes them published experts in the field, fact checking, editorial oversight, reputation, etc. For example, a bulletin board posting is unlikely to be a reliable source unless you can prove who the author is and what makes the author an independently published expert in his/her field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:
    1. 2000 AD Review: About Us. 2000 AD Review is a website focusing on reviewing content and interviewing authors associated with the 2000 AD magazine. From the website: "This is an unofficial site. All characters and related indicia are © and TM of their respective owners. Original content (c) 2002 Gavin Hanly"
    2. About Newsarama.com. From the front page: "Copyright 2008, Newsarama.com Newsarama.com is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers."
    3. GoComics.com FAQs. "© 2008 uclick The uclick Network refers to the group of entertainment Web sites developed and managed by the people at uclick, LLC. uclick Network include: Doonesbury.com, uPuzzles.com, Garfield.com, NewsoftheWeird.com, GoComics.com and uExpress.com." (Emphasis added.)
    4. COMICON.com: "COMICON.com is a one-of-a-kind virtual comics convention, only available on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any real-world conventions..." COMICON.com title and design © and (TM) 1998-2002 Steve Conley and Rick Veitch
    • Comicon: PULSE: a news service attatched to Comicon.com. Jennifer Contino, author of the noted article, is the head writer of the online publication. Please understand, all articles are published via bulletin board posts. (The author's forum account is only accessible to members.)
    Almost all of the interviews/columns were written by contributing staff writers about whom I have little information. What is immediately apparent is that the information obtained from these sources are all direct quotes from interviews with notable figures in the comic book industry. The reputation of these writers might be immediately suspect if not for the fact that comic book professionals consistently return to give ever more interviews. I should at least hope this consistent reputation would lend to them some credibility. It should also be noted that such sources as Newsrama.com are currently used in other featured articles, such as Superman and Batman. The only non interview noted above is an article by Jennifer Contino. Her job title as head writer of Comicon: Pulse is accessible, though you'd have to do more detective work to find out about her. Her subject is notable. She, it would seem, is not. On a side note, it should be understood that the relationship these types of websites have with the industry is somewhat tight, and at times there is overlap. Gail Simone was a contributor to a similar website before she made the leap to professional comic book writer.--Cast (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.
    Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been doing some digging, but the compiler seems to be non-notable. I can't find much of anything on him. I can only point out his job title at the time of writing as managing editor, and who the owner of the website is. On a side note, this is not an article in which he interprets and reports information. It is a column in which he posts written quotes from authors, in this case the pertinent author being Alan Grant himself. Alan Grant also contributed to this same column repeatedly before and after this instance. So the question in this case isn't so much what are the credentials of the compiler (note I haven't referred to him as author), but rather what are the credentials of Alan Grant. Those should be instantly manifest.--Cast (talk) 18 March 2008
    • Support, meets the FA criteria. I share Ealdgyth's concerns about the reliability of the comics websites, but as Cast is an editor in good standing and I am unfamiliar with the comics media, I am more than willing to accept Cast's word on the matter. скоморохъ 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, heavily referenced article with a neutral tone. Informative without delving into trivia. A few images seem to be included more for decoration than illustration, but not excessively so. The article definitely compares well with those describing characters with a more extensive history, such as Superman or Batman. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd chosen each image because I felt at the time that they were illustrative, but this was at times relating to the text they contained. Now that they've been reduced the text has been blurred and they've lost a degree of their informative purpose (although I feel they have retained some degree of purpose). If the matter is pressed and must be resolved, I can replace them with more illustrative images.--Cast (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry overly much. As I said, the article still falls within the guidelines, it's just around the upper boundary :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question "Anarky would appear "in the late 40s"" - 1940s or issue #40 something? It reads like you mean the previous. indopug (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, well the citation gives the full context, but I'll reword it a bit for further clarity.--Cast (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I really like the article; it is a fantastic reference. However, I'm really struggling with the sourcing here, pursuant to criterion 1c. I've realized since reviewing video game articles that a lot of fan sites and blogs are considered reliable sources of information in those circles - comics appear to be no different. There is almost nothing in your list of sources that I would bet any money on being reliable. For example, some sites transcribe interviews but we don't know where they came from or if the text is accurate. You cite a single blog ten times, where I can't find information about the author. There is a donation link despite the fact that authors don't have to pay anything to maintain a blog at blogspot. I don't mind narrow statement being sourced to these sites, like: "The author of the popular fan blog 'Anarky World' really hated this storyline" but the sites are not used this way. Some examples follow:[reply]
      • Some of what I consider important statements in the article are sourced to really shaky sites. For example, "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later poorly received by fans, who saw it as having overpowered the character, preventing the suspension of disbelief that was previously possible for a character still described as in his mid-teens. It was further criticized by Matt Morrison, a contributor to Fanzing, an online fanzine produced by fans and professionals of the comic book industry, to be a contributing factor to the failure of the second Anarky series." The first sentence isn't really even cited, despite making a huge generalization about the fans of the magazine. The only citation for this whole passage comes at the end, leading to "Fanzing", a site whose articles might be written by, well, anyone. Could be me for all you know. Trust me, I'm not a reliable source, nor am I qualified to make statements about the entire fan base of a comic.
      • A lot of your sources are primary.. the comics themselves. If you are just providing plot summaries, these are not even needed per Wikipedia:When to cite. Slims the list a bit.
      • However, this brings me to my next point - some statements that go beyond summarizing and into interpreting are sourced to the comics themselves. That is, unfortunately, original research. Examples:
        • "Throughout Alan Grant's series of books written for the character, cunning and intelligence were viewed as his primary tools for victory, often using quick thinking, fighting skills, and technology in conjunction with each other in order to defeat tougher opponents."
        • "In accordance with the superhero convention of following a recognizable theme, the character's tools often incorporate the circle-A into them."
        • "At this time, the tone of the character began to move away from improvised munitions, and toward self-sufficient funding for more elaborate technology."

    --Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for all of your input. I've tried to initially address the last two of your three main points. You are right in regards to the three examples of my prose which unfortunately appear as original research. An unfortunate product of my prose. I've reworded them to remove statements which appear interpretive. Your point regarding the citing of comics was one I initially dealt with prior to the GA nomination. Some of the plots for the character span multiple issues, and so questions arose of which issue and plot was being referred to. The comic citations are used primarily where direct panel/page citations are necessary (where does Anarky make his cameo in Wonder Woman? Only one panel of a single page. Blink and you'd miss him.), or where it becomes necessary to point out exactly what issue of what arc a quote came from. I'll go back over these citations and try to slim them down, but if they compromise reader understanding, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not.
    Now on to your first, and the most pressing point. This issue has now been raised several times; a question of verifiability. You note a blog is often quoted. I'm sure you're referring to "BATMAN: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle Speak Out" on 20th Century Danny Boy. You're not the only one who has problems with citing a blog. For a good long time, I didn't like it either, which is why I was very happy to find the author moved the post to a website, with all legal disclaimers conveniently placed at the bottom of the page, Adelaide comics and Books presents: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle. "Content on this page is copyright 2006 Alan Grant, Norm Breyfogle and Daniel Best and cannot be reproduced, reprinted, stored, transmitted (electronically or otherwise) without the express written permission of all relevant parties involved. Interview conducted via phone in May 2006 and edited by Norm Breyfogle, Alan Grant and Daniel Best." (emphasis added.) Just before I began the nomination process, I found the website had gone dead. In my haste the repair the link, I foolishly reverted them to the blogpost rather than the more respectable, and verifiable, archive.com. Now thinking clearly, I'll shift the citation to the archived website.
    That said, you are right in noting that I had to rely on some slim choices when it came to my references. As you note, these fan zines and blogs can be useful for reflecting the general disposition of a fanbase, but are not verifiable. Given that Anarky isn't the most widely known character in the DC pantheon, I was hoping a few well chosen citations could be used to represent the general attitude for the character. I have encountered other fan reviews of Anarky, but none which I felt were useful. Fanzing at least had it's legal disclaimers and staff information available (by the way, I doubt you are Matt Morrison, unless you are from Arlington, Texas. Are you from Arlington, Texas?) At any rate, I'll address this matter in the coming days. This is nothing a little rewriting can't fix.--Cast (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: on the matter of the interviews, I can understand that you feel concerned that there is no way to know if these transcriptions are literal or edited, but I'm left with no way to address this. I've tried to provide the legal owner and publisher information for each of these cites as they've been requested, and if that isn't good enough for these websites, I have to ask, how is it possible for any websites? If nothing else, I have always found the interviews remarkably consistent. Grant and Breyfogle have been asked about the character rather often, and only Grant has been known to be self-contradictory (a point noted in two of the interviews, where he makes off hand remarks about believing his own memory to be poor. Perhaps we ought to consider Alan Grant an unreliable source?)--Cast (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cast, thank you for taking my criticism so gracefully - it speaks volumes of your character. I struck some of my issues above, and I now understand your purpose for citing the books themselves. I need to think some more on the issue of sourcing. I keep coming back to the same thing: Per our policy on verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Going through your list of sources, I'm having a really hard time figuring how well they adhere to this policy. Your responses have given me some food for thought; I'm closer to thinking that for the subject matter, it may never be possible to source it differently than you have. Are there any print magazines or journals that publish criticism or reviews of comics? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Journals and magazines? I can't recall many off the top of my head, save Wizard magazine, and a weekly segment, Fresh Ink, on Attack of the Show! on the G4 channel. I don't watch that show, but I know of it. I'm rather positive there are more. At any rate, there is no sign that these ever touched on Anarky, so they are rather moot for the purpose of this article. Anarky might have gained attention by magazines when the series was running, but they simply didn't pick up on him, perhaps owing to him being a lesser known spin off of Batman. It was around too short a period to be on their radar.--Cast (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now addressed the Fanzing reference by rewording the section to remove sweeping generalizations. However, I did not remove the reference itself. Given that the owner and staff information is provided, and that the review is intended as a review, rather than a report of facts, I feel it is acceptable. Most all of the citations in the article refer to reviews, primary sources, or Grant/Breyfogle commentary. The major question becomes, can we count on the four articles [1] [2] [3] [4] and multiple interviews cited to be reliable. I have already provided the publisher/owner legal information for these. If I must demonstrate that these are reliable, I am at a loss as to how I might do so. Perhaps I might find an archived example of editors taking steps to rectify inaccurate information, but I doubt it would be possible for each website. Perhaps it is worthy of note that such websites as Silver Bullet Comic Books have been used within other Featured Articles, such as comments made by Alan Grant in the Batman article. It might be best to seek neutral input from other featured article nominators of comic books. Input on how they have dealt with these websites. This would be an acceptable use of canvassing, and I feel it is becoming increasingly necessary. Perhaps the issue should be raised on the talk page of WikiProject Comics.--Cast (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for all of your attention to this. You have convinced me to withdraw my opposition. I'm not fully supporting because I am still really unsure about this whole issue. I think we have a start, though. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help in improving the article. Neutrality is certainly preferred to opposition. If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to raise them. I'll be sure to do what I can to improve the article wherever possible.--Cast (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Per my own suggestion above, I raised the question of the reliability of comic book websites at the WikiProject Comics talk page. The discussion may be of value to any editor concerned with the reliability of sources used in the article: Reliability of Comic Book websites --Cast (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cast, I am leaning more toward supporting due to this conversation. In your estimation, is your use of these sources limited to reviews and interviews? Do you have sources that you would consider serious journalism? --Laser brain (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at a previous post in which I commented that the article contains four articles, I must retract that. A closer look reminds me that two are previews of upcoming comic releases, and a third is an interview with an editor in charge of a comic series. Of the comic book website sources used in the Anarky article, I'd say the vast majority are interviews, reviews, and a few previews. So I would say there is only one article which attempts serious journalism: Anarchists Storm DC Comics!. The article is a report of a protest and counter protest outside of DC offices following the release of the V for Vendetta film. Article was written by Valerie D'Orazio, and provides a short blurb about her at the bottom of the page. Of this article, I only draw one brief reference to Todd Seavey, a freelance writer who has written issues of Justice League, mentioning that Anarky would be a "dream comics project." In light of the commentary on the WikiProject Comics talk page, if this article is suspect for attempting journalism, we may easily strike it from the article, and nothing of great value would be lost. As it stands, it merely provides an example of an author (with a political affiliation in libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism) who would write a story for the character, if given a chance. It is used to illustrate both a professional desire to see the character return to publication, and emphasis the political themes of the character.--Cast (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I appreciate the queries regarding the reliability of the sources, but the sources used are considered reliable within the world of comics, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the silverbullets story has been used. It's being used to cite the personal opinion of a writer, and I don;t think we have any reason to doubt that that opinion has not been reproduced faithfully. Certainly the writer has had the opportunity to correct that piece, and whilst the online comic book news sites have been criticised by The Comics Journal, one aspect that was noted was their ability and willingness to correct material. At some point I will review my Journal issues and see if I can source additional material regarding this series, but as it stands I think this meets the standards. Hiding T 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

    Cannon

    [edit]

    Nominators:
    AndonicO
    Grimhelm
    Keilana
    Bibliomaniac15
    Anonymous Dissident
    J-stan

    This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the fixes and support. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure whether to add my name to the nominators or support (didn't know about articlestats before - seems I have the second most edits). I expanded a bit on Vauban though. I also extend my commendations to AndonicO for his sterling work to this article. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:

    • While the general list of references is decent—if a bit lacking in works on artillery specifically—the actual citations are somewhat less serious than I would have expected. For a topic on which so many academic works have been written, the heavy reliance on dictionaries and non-scholarly websites seems surprising, to say the least.
    • Focusing on the "Early modern period" section in particular:
      • The text seems to wander around somewhat haphazardly. The lack of chronological order in the points mentioned adds to the confusion—we jump back and forth from late 16th-century Russian sieges, to late 15th-century wheeled carriages, to mid-17th-century Swedish tactics, and back to early 16th-century Italian fortifications. This also introduces some potential points of confusion; for example, explosive shells predate the invention of the mortar, canister/case shot was available long before Gustavus Adolphus used it, and so forth.
      • More generally, there seems to be a certain lack of focus on the most salient points. The move from siege weapons to field artillery is glossed over; Machiavelli is an inadequate source, and Flodden is more suited to be a secondary example than as the only mention of an engagement involving artillery. Similarly, the development of fortifications to deal with cannon is devoid of historical detail; there's a great deal that can be said here beyond the single mention of Vauban.
      • Field artillery is generally forgotten in favor of naval artillery; there's little mention of any developments—or, indeed, of what cannons were actually used for on the battlefield—until we get to the middle of the 19th century.

    In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm working a bit on Early modern period now. For the moment, I've removed the Vauban information, as it was unsourced, and repeated what was already mentioned. I'll try to find something with more details from G-books, to expand on what was already said. The points of confusion you mention, however, are stated as you say, and I don't think they're confusing... It says the Dutch "learned to shoot bombs filled with powder," not that they used them for the first time; the same with Adolphus: he "pioneered the use of canister shot against infantry," rather than invented it.
    • Does the wording for siege engines read less "glossy" now? I'll try to find something to support Machiavelli a bit later, as well as another example other than Flodden, and a documentation on a battle involving light cannon in the 16th/17th century.
    • Further, I think the "Artillery Through the Ages" book contains more info (I think I remember reading it, at least) about this period; I'll take a second look later today, and add anything useful.
    • Thanks for taking the time to review. · AndonicO Hail! 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:
    • I'd strongly recommend Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics as a source for that portion of the article.
    • The trace italienne is not a specific type of star fort, nor identified particularly by having batteries; rather, it's the original name for the style of fortification that reached its height with the star fort.
    Kirill 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to find that book. I've removed the mention of the trace italienne. I'm adding a bit more on Adolphus now, I'll get around to re-adding Vauban and finding a few appropriate battles to add details of tomorrow. · AndonicO Hail! 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some possibilities for battles:
    • Cerignola (1503) and Ravenna (1512) are decent early examples of artillery being used in defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Post-Ravenna, field artillery is pretty much used in standard ways until Adolphus & Co. come up with horse artillery. It may also be useful to discuss grapeshot, Napoleonic artillery, and so forth, but that'd be a bit later.
    • Padua (1509) is a good example for the development of new fortifications to withstand cannon, if you need one; but there's relatively little information on it that's easily found.
    (These are just suggestions, incidentally, and likely colored by my own area of interest; so please feel free to ignore them if you find something more suitable to use.) Kirill 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestions are appreciated, unfortunately, it's late, and I've been editing for a few hours straight, so I think I'll turn in for now. I'll take a look at that tomorrow, and add it in where appropriate (also found the Battle of Breitenfeld, which might deserve a mention). Thanks again for your input, it's been very helpful. · AndonicO Hail! 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some material on Vauban with references. We could also stand to have some more mention of gabions - they were a feature of cannon warfare in the Early Modern Europe. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I have made some changes to the article, [6] and I'm prepared to support the nomination subject to the problems with the references being solved.--GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs 6 and 94, done. 25 had the publisher, but it wasn't displaying due to a formatting error. For #27, I've added publisher, year, and location. I added publisher, year, and ISBN for #59, and inserted "p." before page numbers. I'll look for ISBN numbers now. · AndonicO Hail! 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've been watching you working. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

    Komodo dragon

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    This is a self-nomination. I've worked on this article for more than a year, due to my procrastination. I've managed to pull it together recently, though, and I feel that it has reached its best point. I've addressed all concerns in peer reviews and the former FAC, so I'd like to see how it stacks up now. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Extremely well done, the article has great organization and seems to fit all of the other criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've watched this one from the sidelines and have seen it improve considerably over the past months. I have only one concern, concerning the "venomous" aspect, as I believe the researchers in that particular case have maliciously and purposefully used misleading words in their thesis. However, as there is no published testimony refuting their studies, yet...I will not let that stand in the way of this article's promotion. The prose is excellent, the references are done properly, and the subject matter is definitely notable and worthy. About time a real dragon article was featured instead of one about pixelated dragons! Great Job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This article is well wrote and sourced, truely good read. Sunderland06  22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Done in a manor that I believe is very eloquent and detailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksfan6129 (talk • contribs) --Catgut (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Just a few issues.
      • It may be within the broad paragraph number requirement of WP:LEAD, but the intro doesn't feel like a complete, concise overview of the entire article. Can you expand it a little bit?
      • per WP:MOS#Images, your image placement needs work. The placement of the scale image in Anatomy and morphology is an example of images divorcing text and headers, as well as being crowded. The left alignment issue is also present with Parthenogenesis and Conservation. The two images in Feeding ecology (just changed to Diet) violate the stricture against having a pair of images that directly face each other on both sides of the text. Image placement is tricky sometimes, so I'll take a whack at it myself. I've dealt with image placement sufficiently.
      • Shouldn't Evolution and Dragons and humans really be sub sections (or just a single section) of History? A single history section makes a lot more sense to me. I merged Evolution and Dragons and humans in to History section, and separated the etymological information in to a beginning section on etymology. I also redacted some of the other section titles for simplicity and clarity. I'd be willing to support now, but please try and expand some of a lead a little, you might mention parthenogenesis, even if I can't spell it :) VanTucky 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the images is set, and I've expanded the lead. You notified me on my talk page that you don't really agree with my changes. Incidentally, I don't really agree with your changes either. I think that the images are placed rather sloppily, and that the etymology section would do better as a subsection in a "Dragons and humans" section. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sloppily is a rather unconstructive criticism, if you have something more helpful about how you'd like the images, please tell. And I didn't do it with intentional disregard (i.e. sloppy), I did it according to WP:MOS#Images, which says that left-right alternating can be helpful, especially when you need to avoid separating headers and text. I'd be fine with getting rid of etymology as a separate section, but "dragons and humans" doesn't sound like an acceptable section title to me, it's about the history of the animal, of which it's evolution is a part. If you go with it's history, starting with evolution and then discovery (which, btw, is kind of Eurocentric in attitude) and subsequent study it provides a more cohesive and readable through-line for the reader. The previous structure read disjointed. Thanks very much for the lead work, it looks great. VanTucky 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The subsections describe the events surrounding the discovery of the Komodo dragon by the Western world, which is a particularly interesting and important section. Also note that "Conservation" and "In captivity" does not really fall under history. I am not opposed to the etymology section, nor did I remove it, but I just think that it works much better as a second-level heading later down. I do, however, like the simplification of section headings, that was much clearer. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conservation efforts/status and the history of the animal in captivity is part of its history. The fact that it's primarily in relation to mankind is a given, and to state so in the section header is a redundancy imo. I didn't see where you put the etymology, so apologies; put it somewhere else if you like. VanTucky 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All right then, I see your point. However, I'd like to move the images so that they don't seem off-center in the sections. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to set a compromise with the images. I've moved them so that they don't look off-center, and I've checked them with the MOS to make sure they comply. I have my thumbnail size set to default 180px, and it looks fine in Mozilla Firefox. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the body images are fine, but several of the ones you left aligned early on still violated the basic MOS images tenet that needed to be fixed: left images that move the text of a section separate from it header. Check out Sea otter for an example of the proper style of image alignment. But for one compelling exception (the image is too wide not to), all the left aligned images do not divorce text from headers. VanTucky 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The ref "sciam" has been moved to a different url; see here. I'll stop by to make more comments later. · AndonicO Hail! 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
    • Expanding on that, a few of the links are off. For example, from the first paragraph of the lead: Komodo island is not linked, but island is; meters and feet are linked (shouldn't be). Further down in the lead (and the article), Komodo island is linked to, which is odd, as there's no reason why it shouldn't be linked in the first sentence too/instead. Invertebrates, birds, and mammals are not linked in the lead, which should be, while zoo is linked twice in the entire text, and I doubt should be linked at all. Finally, years should be linked when part of a full date (can't remember where the MOS page is, sorry); random example: September 13, 2008. · AndonicO Hail! 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addressed. If you catch any that I've missed, let me know.
    • You need replacement or supporting references for these:
    • Ref 13: Is that website reliable? It says it can be edited by anyone (though a bit better than wikipedia, as the edits are reviewed, but still...).
    • Yes, I think it can be trusted. However, I have backed its occurrences with other sources just in case.
    • Ref 15: Not a reliable source.
    • How? It is published by a zoo that is known for being the first in the Americas to have parthenogenetic offspring.
    • Ref 29: A news article, shouldn't be used as a primary source (unless there isn't anything else available; maybe check google books). Major claims are based on this ref... not good.
    • Support
      • "A member of the Varanidae,..." Would "A member of the Varanidae (Monitor Lizards),..." be ok?
        • I've linked to it in the text. I don't want the prose to get too chunky with explanatory notes.
      • "Komodo dragons are, interestingly enough, capable" - what makes it "interestingly enough"? what is interesting about it? is it rare?
        • Removed.
      • Ectotherm redirects to "Cold-blooded". Is this the term that should be used in the article?
        • "Cold-blooded" is actually a misleading term, which is stated in the Cold-blooded article itself.
      • "and climb trees proficiently" conflicts with "as their great mass makes climbing impractical."
        • Sorry, that statement about the tree climbing refers to when its young.
      • regarding holes, these statements seem to conflict: "are able to conserve body heat throughout the night" - "usually located on ridges with a cool sea breeze". What's the source for the 2nd statement?
        • It's covered by ref 19 at the end of the paragraph.
      • mention "The Komodo dragon's loosely articulated jaws, flexible skull" at the beginning of how they eat rather than the end? I was left wondering "how?" the whole paragraph.
        • I've made it less ambiguous by linking it to them swallowing it whole.
      • So the members of Varanidae have been verified to have venom, but so far only observation has been used with the komodo dragon?
      • How is the venom produced?
      • Should venom be mentioned in "Anatomy and morphology"?
        • The venom part is not exactly conclusive. More information may come, but so far, that's all they've been able to figure out. Also, anatomy and morphology refers to the structure of the Komodo dragon, so the venom wouldn't fit there.
      • Is the short form "Komodo" or "dragon" or "monitor" I see all three used. Should probably be consistent.
        • I have it so that it isn't repetitive, as opposed to hammering in "Komodo dragon" a hundred times.
          • Repetition of the subject's name is common in all articles. An example of another animal having multiple names, but the article using only one is the FA article Cougar. Should we see if anyone else has a comment?
            • Fixed. Changed to "Komodo dragon" or switched with a pronoun.
      • Are there any other islands besides padar that they formerly inhabited? Should ...and formerly padar... be in the island lists?
        • It fits best in Conservation. I've mentioned in the Evolution section that the Komodo dragon's range extended even to Timor. Since they don't inhabit these islands anymore, I don't think it's needed.
      • The list of island is in 3 spots: intro, Ecology and Conservation. Is this desired?
        • I've removed the mention in the Ecology section. I've kept the lead one (per WP:LEAD) and the Conservation ones, which lists the population numbers.
      • Why is Monitor lizard in the see also list? It's linked via Varanidae. I still believe that this should be mentioned.
        • Mentioned and removed from see also.
          • Thank you very much.
      • Why is Megalania prisca and European dragon in the see also list? Neither seems very linked with the subject.
        • Megalania prisca is another example of an enormous monitor lizard that formerly lived in Australia. The two are often compared. As for the European dragon, it is the origin of the Komodo dragon's name.
      • Thats all my comments. -Ravedave (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I like a lot, the article is exemplary --Hadseys ChatContribs 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The only thing that I would like to see different is the many appearences of the words "Komodo dragons" in the lead which seem unelegant in many consecutive sentences - However I can understand that it is difficult to find a better solution. A very fine and well structured article that deserve FA-status.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the history section to be very strange, covering too many unrelated topics. I would put evolution near the beginning of the article, then another section for discovery and study, and another section for conservation and captive animals. Mangostar (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
    • Comment Okay, I've started to read it now. Here are a few things I've spotted:
    • Maybe change the phrasing here: "They are protected under Indonesian law and a national park, Komodo National Park, was founded in order to protect them."
      • Rephrased.
    • Explain a bit more in this sentence: "This creates an ideal culture for the virulent bacteria that live in their mouths." Why do they want bacteria in their mouths in the first place?
      • A more careful reading should answer this question: "These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection."
        • Yes, but that's further down in the article; the sentence I mentioned stands pretty much alone.
    • "With the help of a favorable wind and their habit of swinging their head from side to side as they walk, they may be able to detect carrion from 4–9.5 kilometres (2.5–6 mi) away." Is their swinging their heads a habit?
      • Yes.
    • "As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical." I think that might be an incorrect use of "mass;" do you mean "weight," or "size"?
      • Changed to size.
    • "Although they eat mostly carrion, studies show that they also hunt live prey with a stealthy approach followed by a sudden short charge. When suitable prey arrives near a dragon's ambush site, it will suddenly charge at the animal and go for the underside or the throat." Two things wrong here: "studies show" is out of place, isn't needed, and somewhat detracts from the sentence. The other is the "sudden short charge"/"suddenly charge" repetition. Maybe "sprint" could be a good substitute.
      • Rephrased
    • Another sentence with an unnecessary repetition: "In addition to the assertions of venomous saliva, Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva..."
      • Fixed.
    • "There are recorded examples of parthenogenesis, a phenomenon also known to occur in some other reptile species, such as Whiptail lizards." Should go in the "Parthenogenesis" section, which, in turn, should be a sub-section of "Reproduction."
      • Removed, felt a little out of place
    • This isn't cited: "Sungai, a Komodo dragon at London Zoo, laid a clutch of eggs in early 2006 after being separated from males for more than two years. Scientists initially assumed that she had been able to store sperm from her earlier encounter with a male, an adaptation known as superfecundation."
      • Cited.
    • "Widespread notoriety came after 1912, in which Peter Ouwens, the director of the Zoological Museum at Bogor, Java, published a paper on the topic after receiving a photo and a skin from the lieutenant, as well as two other specimens from a collector." Incorrect usage of "in which;" I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I assume it's the year?
      • Fixed.
    • "Research after the Auffenberg family has shed more light on the nature of the Komodo dragon, with biologists such as Claudio Ciofi continuing to study the creatures." Is Ciofi notable enough for a mention?
      • Yes. He is an authority on the Komodo dragon, and I've cited his work quite a lot throughout the article.
    • "Their populations are restricted to the islands of Rinca (1,300), Gili Motang (100), Gili Dasami (100), Komodo (1,700), and Flores (perhaps 2,000)." Maybe arrange in alphabetical or numerical order, unless they're already arranged according to something else?
      • Fixed. Organized from least to greatest.
    • "However, there is evidence that Komodo dragons are becoming accustomed to human presence, as they are often fed animal carcasses at several feeding stations by tourists." Perhaps you could expand a bit on why it's bad, if they aren't being harmed? Not very well explained, and it should be, considering the sentence begins with "however."
      • Removed the however part.
    • This is a bit POV and weaselish: "Komodo dragons have long been great zoo attractions, where their size and reputation make them popular exhibits."
      • I would disagree. Komodo dragons are a flagship species for those of Indonesia. NPOV != No POV.
    • Hope that's not too picky... · AndonicO Hail! 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose for now - I'll add some stuff as I go:

    • I have a problem with Anatomy and morphology' - the first always makes me think of heart and lungs etc. which are not discussed here. The second makes me think of shape, which is not really discussed either. Description is the common heading name used in almost all other biology FAs.
      • Changed.
    • Also, there is a photo of the skin but no description of it.
      • I'm a little baffled by this. It's just a closeup of the skin. Am I supposed to explain the Komodo dragon's scales and everything.
    • Physiology is also jargony, why not just senses?
      • It used to be called senses, but it was changed a while back into something more jargony. I think it would do better being clearer.
    • link or explain vomeronasal.
      • It used to be linked, but it redirects to Jacobson's organ, which is linked in the text. Nevertheless, I've linked to it just in case.
    • Komodo dragons are largely solitary, coming together only to breed and eat. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints (up to 20 kilometres per hour (12.4 mph)), are excellent swimmers (may dive up to 4.5 metres (15 ft)) - 2 sets of parentheses looks awkward, why not the mdash or ndash?
      • Fixed.
    • Surely the Venom and bacteria section would be better next to bits talking about its body under Anatomy/Description etc.?
    • ''It is thought that the Komodo dragon evolved to feed on the extinct dwarf elephant Stegodon that once lived on Flores - reword, weaselly. May as well name and describe the person who thought up the idea.
      • Named.
    • The Komodo Dragon should be singular throughout.
      • Still fixing. This will take a while. I'm fixing most references to the plural, but some sections feel awkward when changed to singular, so I've retained those.
    • It had been thought that bites inflicted by these lizards were prone to infection because of bacteria in the lizards' mouths, but these researchers have shown that the immediate effects are caused by mild envenomation. - needs rewording. First was widely held so say so, change "researchers" to "research team" or something a bit more formal.
      • Fixed.

    All these should be straightforward fixes. If you disagree and put up a valid argument I will be happy to listen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
      • Current ref 20 (Fry, Brian G. et. al Early Evolution of the Venom ...) lacks publisher information.
      • Current ref 23 (Chasing the Magic Dragon) could use publication information (issue, date etc) with it.
      • Current ref 25 (Jessop, Tim S. et. al Distribution Use and Selection of Nest Type...) is lacking publisher information.
      • Same for current ref 30 (Strange but True: Komodo Dragons show that Virgin births are possible)
      • And for current ref 36 (Trapping Komodo Dragons for Conservation)
      • And for current ref 45 (Transcript Sharon Stone vs the Komodo Dragon)
      • And for current ref 47 (Editor stable after attack by Komodo Dragon..)
      • Current ref 44 ("Such jokers, these Komodo dragons") has an access date but no link to a web page
    Links checked out fine with the tool. The reason for giving full publication information on articles that are linked on magazine web sites is so that if the web link ever goes dead, the information to find the article in the print version is still there so the reference is still valid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed them. For refs 30, 36, and 45, these are internet only and weren't on the respective magazines. For ref 47, I'm not sure how to cite the actual newspaper issue that it was in. The site only mentions that it was on page A-14 before. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

    Spyro: Year of the Dragon

    [edit]

    A bit shorter than some odysseys that are video game articles, but it covers the previews, music, gameplay, and reception fairly well, methinks, better than some of the shorter FA game articles I’ve done in any case. Fire away your comments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit shorter? Then you haven't seen this one... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed fair-use for the audio sample. Salavat (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't comment on the shorter FA game articles you speak of, but, there are some things that can be done to improve this article (at least, prior to me going through it properly to decide which way to vote). There are a lot of terms used that should either be explained in the article, or if possible, in separate sub-articles. While I understand them, having played this a long time ago, an average reader may be confused. Rhynocs, "health bar" etc. are some examples. I also don't think it is comprehensive enough - you can give more details about the game. One place to start is the bonus-type areas, where you can skateboard. The skateboard doesn't just miraculously appear out of no where - you have to go through a certain ... To access each level, you have to go through a certain ... To access certain levels, you need to collect ... What are examples of these levels? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how rattling off the names of levels where you can skateboard improves the comprehensiveness of the article in a good fashion. As for 'Rhynocs' and 'heath bar', I've reworded and expanded, but I think if you read the gameplay section it's fairly clear that Sparx functions as a visual representation of your health. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for a person who has no experience or knowledge in playing games of this nature. So far, the article is quite vague in a lot of areas. I'll give more thorough review later, although, it may seem more like a criticism if I bring out its weaknesses in too much detail. Will look through it again before I do make such a review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I believe there is some data. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it got fixed less than 20 minutes after my edit. I came across a Gamasutra article on the game regarding copy and crack protection, it seems quite interesting although whether or not you think it's too niche for an encyclopedia is up to you.[8] - hahnchen 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • "The game was the last Spyro game Insomniac Games would make". Why not use "made" instead of "would make"?
    • "Named for the animal of the Chinese zodiac". Surely it should be "named after".
    • "after one hundred and fifty". Per MoS, 150 shouldn't be written out in full. Change for similar examples, such as "thirty".
    • "The game was eventually followed by". "eventually" is redundant here.
    • "third person" should probably be hyphenated.
    • "Year of the Dragon is a platformer primarily taking place in the third person, and its gameplay is very similar to its two predecessors." Prose is weak here.
    • "These gems are used to pay off other characters". You probably should elaborate upon this as it leaves me none-the-wiser.
    • "will cause the player to lose and life". Should have been "lose a life". Please proofread.
    • "who has feelings for Hunter." I feel a bit iffy about this but I may be wrong. Any chance of rewording to make it seem less informal?
    • "where Spyro and his kind are". Should probably change "kind" to "kin".
    • "instead of tacking on more". If he actually said "tacking on", then quote it; if he didn't, then reword.
    • Reception should include at least one sentence devoted to music, especially considering the composer. Much more than the passing reference to "rich sound".
    • Actually, I'd probably feel more comfortable if the section was expanded in general. The last paragraph's placement in this section is dubious too.
    • MobyGames link is questionable to say the least.
    • Ref 17's title nees fixing

    Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All fixed except for the reception section. What is your issue with the last paragraph? I can't exactly think of a better place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Development. I just think it doesn't have much to do with the game's Reception. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Did we ever get a decision on Magic Box as a reliable source? Otherwise everything looks good on the sources.
    All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No; I'm afraid this discussion didn't go very far. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: As my comments have been addressed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

    Ima Hogg

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the most comprehensive single article on this fascinating woman, and it meets the Featured article critera. I did a lot of the research and writing, but this has been a team collaboration. Special thank-yous to: Elcobbola and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for image help, Corvus cornix and SWTPC6800 for research, Nishkid64 for writing the lead, Yomangani and Maralia and Tony1 for copyediting, and SandyGeorgia for MOS help and general whip-cracking (and if I forgot anyone I am sorry). Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:LEAD and reformat with a four paragraph lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    done. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, it looks like a very interesting article. I noticed that two of the picture captions mention the entrance to her home, but I don't see that the significance of the entrance is explained anywhere. Why is the entrance notable?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that the second one's caption is talking about how she restored the entrance, when the actual picture is of the back. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, I added a sentence to explain why the entrances were a big deal at this home. What is now the front entrance used to be the back; the original entrance is now the back of the house. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Hogg served as district attorney from 1880 to 1884. This article suggests there was an intervening election in 1882 (which he won after giving his daughter an amusing name). However, The Texas Constitution of 1868, Article V, Section 12, stated: "There shall be a District Attorney elected by the qualified voters of each judicial district, who shall hold his office for four years; and the duties, salaries and perquisites of District Attorney shall be prescribed by law."[9] Are we sure that the term of office had been reduced to two years, as of 1882? In other words, are we sure that there was an election in 1882?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what my source said, in discussion of her name. I checked several sources on Jim Hogg, and they all said that he was district attorney from 1880-1884 but didn't specify whether that was one term or two. I checked the Constitution of 1872 (which should have been in effect during the 1880s), and it says that if there is no district attorney, then a county attorney would have a 2-yr term.[10] It's possible that my source confused district with county attorney; I'm not sure. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a source that definitely confirms he ran for reelection in 1882.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We say in the article that "there are some who believe that James Stephen Hogg...." Do we know whether this is a fringe belief, the belief of a large minority, or a majority belief? For a Wikipedia article to say "some people say" seems weaselly even if the Wikipedia article is quoting some source saying "some people say." See what I'm saying?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a direct quote, and the source does not go into any more detail. The Hoggs are the subject of much legend in Texas; these stories are common knowledge and often discussed in schools. This is another legend, and I don't have any way of being more specific. If others think that this is also problematic we can take out that whole sentence, but I'd like to wait for further opinions. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't take out that sentence, but maybe rephrasing to: "legend has it 'that James Stephen Hogg....'" There seems to be a ton of evidence that this was mere legend. See Mary Kelly's book. Also, since this book by Kelly is available online (via Google Books), it would probably be a good idea to link to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to think about the rewording. I think the article makes it clear that this is a legend, and I'm not sure the value in removing this as a direct quote. (and thanks for adding the link to the Google book in the article) Karanacs (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with a few small points.
      • "Hogg worked on a volume about her father's papers" - the word "volume" is wierd and unclear to me in this context. Do you mean a single book in a set of books? If so, it's oddly worded.
      • I haven't seen other articles have external links to pictures of the subject. I'm not sure if this is within Wikipedia standards so I think they should either be added if PD-US or the links removed. There's already a link to the Commons category, so PD images could be added there if the point is making a collection of images about her.

    Overall, this article is very well written and ready to be featured. Royalbroil 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reworded to "Hogg worked on a collection of her father's papers", as it was actually a multi-volume set. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you about the images, especially since several of them were poor images. I've removed all but her page at the UT Santa Rita Awards. Karanacs (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, --GrahamColmTalk 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I just had four (five now) edit conflicts when trying to do so strike outs; so please take them as done. --GrahamColmTalk 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)) (Just finishing my strike outs)--GrahamColmTalk 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Having gotten the nitt-picking sorted out, now it’s time for the compliments. This is a masterpiece , a fine, encyclopaedic biography of one of America’s great philanthropists. I felt I knew Ima Hogg well after reading this and her portrait at the top of the article is worthy of being featured alone. I know have said this about other FAs, but this is a great Wikipedia treasure. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There may be some organizational quirks remaining from the “dump all information in now and sort out later” writing method. For instance, as Ferrylodge pointed out, there are events from 1914 in the “early years” section (Ima was in her early 30s). Also, the third paragraph of the “Education and musical interests” seems out of place, as the context (or, perhaps, just the wording) seems to imply that visiting “concerts and museums” was a merely a diversion from grief (i.e. not an action that should really be interpreted as supporting/indicating/etc. her interests). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One morning, Hogg was awakened by a burglar in her bedroom. She confronted the man, who was attempting to steal her jewelry, and convinced him to not only return the jewelry, but "wrote down a name and address, handed it to him and told him to go there that very day to get a job".[96] When asked why she did that, Hogg responded, "He didn't look like a bad man."[96] Later that year, she sailed to Germany, alone.
    How old was Miss Ima during this burglary. "Later that year???" Later what year? The year of the burglary? A mediocre student of history would have to click on the Franz Ferdinand link to figure when these events occurred.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added citation to the burglary in 1914. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes more sense, at least to me. She was thirty-two! That would have been a much cuter burglar-thwarting story if she had been ten years old or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite right, as usual. There's no other way to handle these, as long as all the non-quote metric units are formatted the same.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The following sentences sound awkward when paired together: "Her interest in mental health came from her father, who had read widely on mental health issues; during his terms as governor, Ima had often accompanied him on visits to state institutions, including charity hospitals and asylums for the mentally ill.[51] While she was a student at UT, she became fascinated with mental health.[52]"
    So did she glean an interest in mental health from from her father when she was a child, or did she first become interested in the subject as a college student? We might want to re-word the second sentence to make it clearer that she continued to pursue her passion for mental health while in college (as long as we don't stray from the sources, of course).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, Karancs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Worthy article on an amazing woman. (Disclaimer: I provided some bits of information from the Iscoe reference—some of which were included and some of which were not—and also a few relatively minor edits, but was not otherwise engaged in the creation of the article) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <off topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support with a few nitpicks
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First paragraph of Name section, fourth sentence (starts "According to Virginia...") just seems awkward to me with the parenthetical bit at the end walled off by footnotes. Perhaps word the last part as "year where he was running in a close race for district attorney of the Seventh District in Texas,[3] which he won."
      • Early years section, last sentence of the first paragraph. Indignities? Sounds a bit POV to me. Can we quote her for that? Or a biographer? As written it seems like the article is casting judgement that children having to help clean unusual. (It better not be or my son would never clean his room...)
      • You mention that one of her brothers was William, but refer to him as Will through most of the article. Perhaps put the nickname with the first mention of his full name to make things clear?
      • Education section, the last paragraph, seventh sentence. College Women's Club? Which college? Rice? St. Thomas? Another one? There are a number of colleges in Houston.
    Otherwise looks pretty good! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:24, 30 March 2008.

    Ancient Egypt

    [edit]

    I feel this article is now essentially complete. It covers every single aspect of ancient Egypt, including legacy, and is reasonably concise. It is well referenced, and the bulk of the sources, landmarks in their field, were published within the last ten years, so it is current. The article has 3 featured pictures and other carefully selected images, such as the golden mask and Rosetta stone that are touchstones of the ancient culture. The writing has been polished by months of work, peer reviewers and copyeditors. (Self-nom) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please add publisher information to all of your websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't hide the Table of Contents: see WP:WIAFA, criterion 2b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Just a few quick notes:

    • I notice the historical eras are all capitalized in {{Small Egyptian Dynasty List}} (and presumably in the linked articles), but only some of them are capitalized in section headers here.
    • Pharaoh should only be capitalized when used as a title with a name
    • Some of the subarticle links use {{Main}} while others use {{See also}}; that's logical in theory, but in some cases it looks like Main would be more appropriate than See also.
    • Image captions that are complete sentences should end with a full stop
    • It looks like most of the links in the See also section are already presented in {{Ancient Egypt topics}}, and perhaps the ones that aren't in the template should be considered for inclusion there
    • In references, use endashes rather than hyphens for page ranges (p. 67–69)
    • Reference 16 is missing a page number - "Robins (2000) p."
    • In references that refer to books listed in a bibliography, the year is only used to distinguish between multiple books/editions by the same author. Here, there is only one ambiguity—two books by R. H. Wilkinson—so references to those books are the only ones that need a year or a title listed.
    • In the Bibliography, one item ("Günther Hölbl") doesn't begin with 'lastname, firstname'

    These are just from a cursory review; I'll try to get back here and do a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed the see also section by moving appropriate links to the template as you suggest, others already linked in the article. Ref formatting should be fine now, and the main/see also is fixed as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the touregypt site is down temporarily, I expect it back up soon; it should not be permanently dead. Nevertheless, I'll find different sources. I'm almost finished with the formatting changes pointed out above and I'll finish putting in page numbers soon. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You addressed most of these, but this site http://touregypt.net/edwinsmithsurgical.htm still lacks a publisher for its citation. (current ref 163)
    • Most of the references look good, although it would be nice to have consistent referencing. Some books give place of publication, others don't.
  • Also, this site http://mtcs.truman.edu/~thammond/history/EgyptianPyramids.html seems to be a review of books and I'm not sure it's the best source for information about the appearance of the Golden Mean in Egyptian architecture.
  • Only concern (and it's rather minor) about the references is the Clarke book. It's published by Dover, and it would be nice to see a more academic book if possible.

    • Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I switched the touregypt source to a book published one. As for the truman site: I'll make a special trip to the university library and drag out the original article. As for the Clarke book: don't judge a book by its cover; it's a reliable technical book; not a lightweight at all. It was originally published by oxford university press, so it should be fine. "Some books give place of publication, others don't..." fine, I'll add whatever I can. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Perhaps show in the bibliography that its a reprint of an earlier book? I know Dover does a lot of those types of reprints. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note added to the citation about the Dover reprint giving full details. My library doesn't have the book giving the info about the golden ratio, but since this sentence is really not that important, I've removed it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the useful information on the golden ratio because the entire sentence can be attributed to Kemp (1989). Jeff, in the future, if you need help with finding or accessing sources, please post on the article's talk page or ask me directly. I might be able to help. — Zerida ☥ 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    I used to edit this article a long time ago, so I am not giving a support or oppose per se because I'm not sure if my past involvement has a bearing on its promotion. Since I was pretty inactive between November and February, I haven't followed the article's progress, so I feel that I can at least offer some comments. First, I am not clear why neither this nomination nor the peer review (which I just finished reading) was announced on WP:KMT (didn't find anything in the archives). Not everyone will necessarily be watching the article (I didn't) or may be busy with other articles. I point this out because it's critical that such a visible article on this topic undergoes review by editors with knowledge of the topic.

    I am not going to spend much time going over the technical aspects since they're already being covered, except I will mention that this is a bad idea here because from what I see the article uses several references by the same author(s), and it's not clear which one is being cited.

    In terms of criteria, the article more or less meets most of them, but to varying degrees fails "Comprehensiveness", "Factual accuracy" and a little bit of criterion 4 ("unnecessary detail").

    • Sources: There is an over-reliance on books and web sites. In a featured article about an academic topic, in particular one that is generally about ancient Egypt, I'd also prefer to see several peer-reviewed journals or magazines cited, which are especially useful in reporting on recent finds/archaeological discoveries. Ideally (though I wouldn't expect it), an article such as this would be referenced by French and German-language sources because most Egyptological literature in the West is actually in these languages.
      • I'm afraid I don't have much access to KMT, JEA, or JNES, and I don't read French or German. If you do have sources you think should be included, by all means add them as additional reading. I'll add links to KMT and the others in the see also section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comprehensiveness vs. Too much detail: The article gives too much detailed coverage of the major historical periods (especially the NK), but fails to mention or doesn't go into enough detail about several important topics. The Government and Technology sections are pretty good; the Culture section could be better and *better referenced*. Some topics that need more coverage, using specific examples/figures, are professions; courtship and family relations; towns and township; the role of women; festivals; education and learning; housing (royalty vs. commoners); contacts with other nations; sports and crafts; animal and stock-breeding. The historical periods should be truncated and have a link to the main article on each one underneath the section heading (e.g.; {{main|New Kingdom}}). Some of that material appears to be copied from the main articles, like the Ptolemaic dynasty for example, so I'd suggest at least eliminating those portions as there is no sense in having the exact same information in both articles (this is otherwise OK, just not in a featured article I feel).
      • Predynastic: The section goes through the major predynastic sites of Upper Egypt, but makes no mention at all of the major Lower Egyptian sites like Maadi, Faiyum and Merimda, among others. This is an important detail that should not be overlooked. The northern sites predate their southern counterparts by several centuries, and our knowledge of predyanstic Lower Egypt has expanded in the last couple of years with discoveries such as this one.
      • "Roman Domination": This section like the Ptolemaic one needs to be re-written, with more references, focusing more on aspects of continuity and change in Egyptian culture itself. This after all is an article about Egypt, not the Ptolemaic, Roman or Byzantine empires. We're interested in Egypt under Graeco-Roman rule, with less focus on the rulers and more focus on the culture being ruled. I am unclear what this means: "a Christian, Greek-speaking state that had little in common with the Western Roman Empire, and which disappeared in the face of the Islamic invasions in the fifteenth century." What "Islamic invasions" and what does Byzantine Egypt have to do with the 15th century? Is this a reference to something that happened elsewhere after Byzantine rule ended in Egypt many centuries prior? Of what relevance is this to the article?
      • Language and Literature: This is by far the most problematic section for me, not only because it happens to be an area of specialization of mine, but because it suffers from all the problems that I mentioned: gives very superficial overview of the language, is not entirely factually accurate, contains typological errors ("Like the semitic [sic] languages,"), and inadequate coverage of the major works of Egyptian literature, its genres and famous papyri. Admittedly, when that section was first written, it gave an overview of the major phases of Egyptian, but since then each one has been transferred to its own separate article. The section therefore clearly needed to be rewritten, but this does not give it justice. That the language section is superfically covered is also evidenced by the fact that only one reference is cited (a popular introductory grammar of the Egyptian language) and only to the first few pages. Furthermore, it makes the claim that Coptic "remained" in use in the Egyptian Church and that is still in "limited use" today. This claim cannot be attributed to Allen, a violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. It is also factually inaccurate because, if anything, Coptic is used more often in the liturgy today than it did a century ago. Another factual inaccuracy is that Cushitic is a language group of North Africa. Also no mention is made of the scribal tradition or the Per Ankh.
      • Art and Architecture: I already mentioned housing. Needs more specific and wide ranging examples from different dyansties. Needs to mention Amarna art and why it's important, as well as Saite revival. Art depicting everyday life, examples like the Meket-Ra model, etc.
      • Religion Needs to mention Akhenaten and atensim. Detail on the role of the priesthood. Important religious festivals. Important rituals and ceremonies like the Isis and Nephthys mourning scene or the anointing of the god's statue (doesn't have to be one of these, just something interesting and unique). Last paragraph in Burial customs needs a citation.
      • Legacy and rediscovery: This is awkward: "As the traditional establishments in Egypt were disbanded by early Christians, the authentic knowledge of Egyptian history was displaced by second-hand accounts and the invented stories of tourists and treasure-seekers." This is cliché and a bit Eurocentric: "Interest in Egypt was re-awakened by European travellers of the 17th and 18th centuries". Egypt is a country. The point you want delivered here is interest in Egyptian antiquity, which was not started by modern Europeans, but can be traced through Graeco-Roman and medieval Islamic writings (meaning it was always there). The scientific investigation of Egyptian civilization however (like everything else) begins in the early modern period.

    This is all I have time for now, but it covers the major areas that need attention. A lot of effort has clearly been put into the article. It appears to have just been promoted to GA status. But this is not an automatic step to Featured status. There is no hurry--unless there is an urgent need to get the article featured within a week, I think it needs more time for further development and refinement. — Zerida ☥ 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Announced. I will begin working on your helpful comments. Do you think I have referenced too many books? For this topic, I don't see how journal articles are better than books, since this is intended to have broad-brush coverage. The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples.
    I considered using {{main|New Kingdom}} etc., but since we have the navbox, having the headings under each section would be redundant. Some of the info in the history section was copied to other articles, not from them, but I will work on them as you suggest. I will also work on the language section, but I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. I will add a paragraph on Amarna art, but Akhenaten and the Aten are given their due weight in the history section. I feel adding it to the religion section would make it too lengthy, but I'm open to change. I'm not sure what you are looking for in the role of the priesthood, but if you have something in mind another sentence could be added. In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added the years back into all the sources. This could be essential in the future, if another book by the same author is introduced. For the same reason we don't use ibid, it can't hurt to have the years. And besides, taking them out and putting them back in is very tedious, so I'm not going to do it again. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to your questions:
    • Do you think I have referenced too many books? To clarify what I said, I think that the article should be referenced by academic journals in addition to the books cited; examples like KMT, the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies and (in an ideal situation) Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. It may not be one of the criteria, but despite its general scope, I feel that a featured article on Ancient Egypt should contain the most up-to-date archaeological information from academic journals. Since you probably have access to such sources, I would suggest giving them a look.
      • I wish I did have access. If you had something in mind, by all means add it as additional reading.
    • The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? Not quite. I'd want to emphasize the point regarding the status of ancient Egyptian women vis-à-vis other women of antiquity; how despite this status, Egyptian society was still largely male-dominated; what roles they could play (as unmarried, married and divorced women) and what varied positions they occupied; courtship styles; I'd want to briefly mention the role of the Divine Wives of Amun and cite specific examples of prominent ancient Egyptian women, not only queens, but interesting women like Naunakht whose will was found at the worker's village at Deir el-Madinah (I just realized that Deir el-Madinah is not mentioned in the article). Another nice addition would be brief mention of the Instructions of Ptahhotep or the Leiden Papyrus 371 as examples of what you had just talked about wrt women.
    • The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? A brief breakdown of the "social pyramid" as Egyptologists like to call it, and where these professions fit into it. I would briefly emphasize several professions that formed a distinct class, such as scribes, soldiers, medical professionals and engineers (don't forget Imhotep), in addition to those you mention like farmers or court officials. You give a good overview of the role of the priestly class; I'd also want to briefly mention what kinds of lives they led; their families (that they didn't abstain from marriage); ritual cleansing and rites of passage; abstinence from certain foods; their specialize garb; their roles in the major festivals (Opet, etc.)
    • The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? More on contact with other nations in the predyanstic period (including Sumer), as well as Kerma later on. I'd again cite specific examples that might be interesting, like the Egyptian statue of Sennuwy which was found in Kerma, and the Minoan frescoes which decorated the palace of Ahmose I in Tell el-Dab'a as evidence of trade and foreign contacts (including within Egypt).
      • Minoan frescoes and trade with Crete mentioned, the article already mentions contact with Nubia, Libya, the Levant and Byblos, Anatolia (tin, bronze), Punt, the rest of the Mediterranean, etc. and it mentions Ramesses's II peace treaty with the Hittites. I think this should be enough. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples. This should probably be incorporated into the agriculture section, and I would extend it to fauna in general. I'd give a brief history of the kinds of animals and brids that were bred in Egypt since the predynastic period, or those that figured prominently in the environment. The horned cattle (like those shown in painted reliefs from the tomb of Nefertari e.g.), sheep, pigs, poultry and geese, and how some contributed to the Egyptian diet; or those for transportation like the donkey. You might want to mention that horses were not introduced into Egypt until the Hyksos occupation. You could also mention which animals were deified, like the cat for instance, and those kept as pets like monkeys and lions (royalty). There were also domesticated bee hives. Herodotus described the harmony that characterized the relationship between people and animals in Egypt. You might want to throw in something that sheds light one that.
    • I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. The House of Life was the main office where the scribes worked. There was at least one in the all major cities, comprising libraries (called the House of Books), labs and observatories. One of the oldest was in Damanhur. Not absolutely essential, but would be a nice addition to convey the point that the ancient Egyptians had other interests besides religious pursuits.
    • In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? I would simply make reference to Egyptomania in colonial times and later one, its positive and negative outcomes, and the scientific discovery of ancient Egyptian civilization (not "the European discovery of Egypt" or something along those lines). Those sentences just need to be reworded to avoid POV. I hope this helps. Good work on the Ptolemaic and Roman sections. — Zerida ☥ 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like most sections at this points get a √. The New Kingdom and Predynastic could use more work. I added to references for the latter under Bibliography. I recommend truncating some of the NK and Naqada material and elaborating a little on predynastic Lower Egypt instead. You mentioned adding something on the Per Ankh institution, so I think that about covers it. — Zerida ☥ 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realized my source for the Per Ankh is a website--a tertiary source that isn't acceptable. Do you have any good secondary sources? In all my books, I've never come across this topic; this may indicate that maybe it's not notable enough to be included. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will add some background information on it from Strouhal. — Zerida ☥ 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was some WP:SYNTH in the mathematics section which was pointed out by another editor. I've made additions and rewrote parts as appropriate. I think this is the biggest issue for me at this point, namely synthesis so I recommend going over the citations to make sure that no OR is being introduced. Also, if nothing is done to the PD and NK sections, I will be making changes as appropriate as well. — Zerida ☥ 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. We have to mention Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Ramesses II, and the transition to the third intermediate period. I think they are already very concise and mention only the most important points. Since the New Kingdom was the peak of ancient Egyptian power, it makes sense to have this amount of material on it. As for the predynastic, I feel it's already the right length. The focus on the section should be the transition to unification, and I feel the section already does this. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly think of several different ways of truncating the 5 NK paragraphs into more concise prose. You say I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. In fact, the very first sentence in that section ("The pharaohs of the New Kingdom used military force to expand the country's borders..") could be done away with, as it colors the whole discussion of the NK in terms of violence and military conquest. While there is some validity to that argument--that the NK was more characterized by its military interactions with foreign nations than other periods--it does not need to be hyperbolically stated in those terms nor in the very beginning of the section. The length of that section gives the impression that the NK was somehow more important than other periods. While there is also validity to that view for various reasons, Egypt above all is known for its pyramids, which the OK section could use to elaborate on a bit further.
    As regards the PD section, it is not an issue of length overall, but how much coverage the Naqada period is taking at the expense of the PD northern communities. It is not sufficient to state that all that Lower Egypt is worth mentioning for is that two of its cultures were engulfed by the Upper Egyptian conquest. That does not provide sufficient context to understand these events if one does not know enough about the topic. The other problem is that the main article on Predynastic Egypt itself needs more work because it covers very little of LE with the exception of Faiyum, so we're left with this impression that predynastic Lower Egypt was just not that important. Hendrickx & Vermeersch describe some of the LE sites in the Prehistory section of Shaw, FYI. See also this list. — Zerida ☥ 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Zerida, your suggestions have been most welcome and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the article. I'm glad you've helped make it better, especially with respect to the literature section. However, some of your suggestions are asking too much and I think are taking us in the wrong direction. The PD section does not have to "do justice" to the (let's face it, obscure) lower Egyptian cultures, instead it should provide a synopsis of the transition to unification, the major events of which are social stratification and leadership, adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture, etc. These are discussed in general as "a series of unique cultures." Going into more depth than this, mentioning the names of each, let alone discussing all of them, is not in keeping with the summary style. The Naqada culture is given special priority, because it is the Naqada culture which expands and grows in power, forming political core of the unified state. But you are right, the sub-article Predynastic Egypt should have better coverage on this point. In this article, we are looking for a synopsis only.
    As for the NK, just as the era was inaugurated by the sword, so too is the paragraph. My RS show clearly the military nature of the NK, including military-style titles among the administration, military men serving in the administration, expansion of territory, adoption of new weapons, and military iconography proliferating in art. Military is certainly a main feature of the New Kingdom, since this is how they achieved and justified their power. We rightly color the paragraph with overtones of the military.
    I think the article is well balanced; I've carefully and critically studied many publications and the Digital Egypt site. To the best of my ability, the weight I've given each topic is in direct proportion to the weight the topic is given in the sources. I've given special emphasis to getting a very broad scope on topics such as daily life and social status, which aren't so awe-inspiring as to have been written about extensively. It's a delicate balancing act, and one can always point to things that aren't in the article, simply due to the richness of the culture. But we have to know when to stop. As I said above, I believe the article is essentially complete. We can always put in this or that or the other thing, but we would end up with extensive bloat that is no fun to read. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that there is such thing as a "complete article" on Wikipedia. This is Wiki after all so other editors will always want to make contributions to existing articles if they happen to fall within an area of interest. But I must again stress the issue of inappropriate synthesis of material that I've been noticing lately. I will assume good faith with your intentions, but you must absolutely be vigilant about what it is that you are claiming in the article and attributing to the authors cited. I have pointed out several instances of these, including a recent one of a reference that *I* cited. I understand that my editing may seem a bit heavy-handed to you, but that fact is that much of what I do on Wikipedia involves contributing to articles about Egypt. So if an article has "Egypt" as part of its title, I will potentially have a lot to say about it, especially if it is bound to get a lot of exposure. I get the sense that you really want the article to be featured, so I hope it does, but my priority here is for the article to be as balanced and factual as possible. Furthermore, your last comments on the article's talk page are indicative of strong ownership tendencies. Since I am not going to stop editing the article, I hope you can find a way to accommodate my edits. — Zerida ☥ 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I wrote anything that indicated ownership, it's not my intent to do this and I hope you don't stop editing, because you've made several excellent improvements and suggestions. If there are still problem areas, I would like to continue working together to reach a mutually agreeable solution. I feel we have done a reasonably fair job of this already, although not perfectly. Reading the math section after your last revision, I am satisfied with it, even though I don't agree completely, because you were able to fix some of the objections I had. I'd say 2-3 factual errors (which have now been corrected) in a 100kb article is doing pretty well, isn't it? Like you, my primary goal is to have the article thorough, balanced, and accurate. It might be helpful if you could summarize, giving clear specifics, what you think still needs work on this article, because otherwise I can't see what if anything could be improved. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's OK; the tendency to be a little possessive of articles which bear our sweat is an issue that all good writers run into from time to time. As I mentioned though, the PD and NK sections needed work, so I've gone ahead and expanded the PD with more information on northern cultures, and tightened the NK a little bit. Most of the major points are still mentioned. I will be going over the items I brought up in my review here, making changes or additions if the need arises. If a point of contention comes up, we can continue discussing on the article's talk page. BTW, there is a hidden image in the PD section; not sure if this is waiting to be revealed or if something else will replace it. — Zerida ☥ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hid the image a while ago because of lack of space for it, with the idea that it might be useful in the future. There might be space for it now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have to have the image where it is now, or can we move it down to the second paragraph in the PD section? It's squishing the text against the navigation template facing the other side. I am not terribly familiar with image MoS. — Zerida ☥ 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, it seems to vary based on system and browser used. — Zerida ☥ 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Well, as founder & an inactive member of the Ancient Egypt WikiProject you've done a lot with this important article. (I had to dig deep into the article history to see if I had edited this article. There are quite a few important Wikipedians who appear in those pages.) I do have some suggestions:

    • Dates. Maybe because that's the part I focussed on the most back when, I feel something needs to be said about the problems of dates in ancient Egyptian history. Not that the modern equivalent of these dates can be shifted to whatever value a scholar wishes, but that there is a lack of precision the further one goes back. (ISTR reading the figure of a couple of years either way for the New Kingdom, a decade either way for the Middle, & a century either way for the Old.) I wrote an incomplete attempt to explain the problem at Egyptian chronology, an article that deserves more attention.
    • Links to the articles on the individual Dynasties. Please add them, as I think they are appropriate.
    • Keeping the footnotes & bibliography in sync. I noticed that the footnotes refer to a source "Allen (2000)", but there is no matching entry in the Bibliography. I didn't check to see if there were similar
    • If you need help with providing cites to translations of various texts, I do have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters -- as well as a few other scholarly Egyptological works. Drop me a line & I'll see what I can do. (At the very least, both of those books ought to appear in a "Further Reading" section.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Allen to the source list, and I'll add links to the dynasties. The MoS says to link only the first occurrence of the term, so that's what I'll do. As for the dating, do you think putting that in a footnote would be a good strategy? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnote on chronology, link to Egyptian chronology and citation added. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As the comments above show, no article on such a vast topic can please everyone, but I think this already clearly meets FA standards on content, referencing and general style (I didn't really look at MoS detail points). If something needs to be cut, the bit on glass-making in the technology seems way too detailed, especially given that we don't know if it was all imported or not. The art section would benefit from a sentence or two on media, mention that not all art was massive sculptures, and more links, and a few more bits dotted in the history sections on the political context of neighbouring powers would help. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a cite for Robinson (1998) but no Robinson in the bibliography. Probably Robins (1998)
    • Cite for Billard (1978) p. 109 but nothing in bibliography
    • Ditto for Aldred (1988) p. 259
    • Guessing by the page numbers, I think I'm seeing two instances of Loprieno (1995) that probably should be Loprieno (1995b)
    • Several books in the bibliography that are not cited in the text. Do we wanna move to to a "Further reading" section? What does Wikipedia's guidelines etc. suggest?
    I just added references to be used in one of the sections. Maybe Bibliography is a good catch-all term for now. — Zerida ☥ 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Took care of the ref issues above. Earlier I trimmed excess unused references from the bibliography section, but the ones I left in are good general sources. I'm not sure what benefit it would be to put them in a separate section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, looks like named refs could be used for the following:
    • Allen (2000) p. 13
    • James (2005) p. 54
    • Loprieno (2004), p. 161
    • Manuelian (1998) p. 358 (five instances)
    • Manuelian (1998) p. 372 (three instances)
    • Manuelian (1998) p. 381 (three instances)
    • Robins (1998) p. 212
    • Ryholt (1997) p. 310
    • Shaw (2002) p. 146
    • Shaw (2002) p. 313
    • Shaw (2002) p. 422 Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a possibility, but it would save only a few characters and is much more sensitive to breaking if the refs are changed or shuffled. If it's really a big deal I guess I can do it, but I'm reluctant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked a few of these, others are linked in other ways or are not relevant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Wow! Very impressive work. The prose is engaging, brilliant and certainly on a professional standard!! It appears to be comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable, satisfying criterion 1. Criterion 3, a requirement of GA status, appears to also be satisfied. To my knowledge, criterion 4 seems satisfied too, as it doesn't seem to go into an unnecessary, confusing level of detail. I do note that that issues may be raised regarding content by those more knowledgable on the subject (and MoS guidelines may need to be met in some areas), however, as such, the standard of this article is extremely high, and at least, close to being Wikipedia's very best work. While I am making an assumption that any other issues raised in relation to content and MoS are resolved within a reasonable time (if not resolved in this time, then my vote of support would be invalid), I wish to congratulate all major contributors to this article for an oustanding effort in making an article of this quality, and length. It is always a pleasure to review an article of such a standard. So, upon resolving major issues that may exist (if any more, and if raised), this article is indeed worthy FA status, and I therefore submit my vote of support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I believe this meets all the criteria. I have no objections. 79.76.234.35 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be logged in. Anonymous editors may propose suggestions, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    79.76.234.35 (talk · contribs)'s only edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed comments made by karanacs Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I think this is an excellently written article that provides just the right amount of detail in a very accessible way. I saw a few nitpicky things that ought to be fixed. If you'll get these I'll definitely support.
      • This sentence didn't provide enough information for me to really understand what it meant: Yet Hatshepsut's nephew-stepson Tuthmosis III sought to erase her legacy near the end of his reign for usurping his throne
      • Just to satisfy curiosity, could you put the number of children that Ramesses the Great sired in paranethese in that sentence?
      • In the agriculture section there are words that are unnecessarily wikilinked - soil, taxes, bread, beer, silt seem especially unneeded (there are similar issues in the Livestock section; words that are common don't need to be wikilinked)
      • This sentence needs a bit of tweaking Wine and meat were enjoyed on feast days and for the upper classes -> peasants didn't eat wine and meat "for the upper classes"
      • In the references, page number ranges need to be separated by an ndash and not a dash. See WP:DASH for questions; I fixed the first of these (ref 5) in the lead as an example for you
      • The references are not all formatted exactly the same. These are the styles I see most commonly. Please pick one and standardize
        • Author (date)p. pagenumber
        • Author (date),p. pagenumber
        • Author (date), p. pagenumber
        • Author (date),pagenumber
      • Ref 107 - Ehret (1995) does not have a page number listed
      • A few of the bibliography entries don't have ISBNS. Can you get those easily?

    Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, formatting of refs should be done, a task that needs constant maintenance. I fixed the 4 or so remaining endash problems; I've found that special coding is not necessary if you copy and paste the right unicode character. RII's children now listed in a footnote, and fixed other sentence issues. No matter how many times I try to prune them, the unnecessary wikilinks keep showing up, like weeds. I went through removing them again, but undoubtedly this task will require constant maintenance. There are only two books that lack ISBNs, these I could not find anywhere, so I suspect they may not have them. The others are journal articles and so will not have these. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are now no references to Ehret. Was that intentional? If so, he should be removed from the bilbiography. Another ref (#147, I think), has no page number now. (Ref work is icky, I know). Also, don't forget the comment above about Hatshepsut. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added Ehret thinking I would have more use for it later on in the language section, but there is nothing so far that can't be referenced to the other sources so I removed it. Added missing ISBN for Badawy. — Zerida ☥ 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes and questions: Per WP:MSH, is the capitalization of section headings correct on, for example, Predynastic Period, Early Dynastic Period, First Intermediate Period, etc.  ?? Readable prose size is 71KB, which would make this one of Wiki's five longest FAs; has anyone looked at whether summary style has been effectively employed? Please have a MoS guru (like Tony1 or Epbr123) go through the Math section; I'm not certain, for example, those fractions are displayed correctly, among other things. Please check citations for consistent usage of p pp p. and pp. pp. is not used consistently on plural pages. There are also missing named refs, see WP:FN, one example (all should be checked):
    75. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372
    76. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372
    77. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

    To locate others missed, you can go to the printable version, and copy paste the refs into an Excel spreadsheet, then sort to locate duplicates. Is everything listed in Bibiliography really used to source the article, or is some of that Further reading ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Capitalization corresponds to Egyptological convention; same for the main articles on those topics. "Domination" in the Roman section was capitalized before; that's the only one I changed. With regard to length, the History, Art, Architecture and Burial customs are the longest sections. The intro is a little long, and some of that information is mentioned under Legacy. When the article was submitted for FA review it was at 91 kb; now it's at 104 kb. It seems inevitable that the article will be longer than average given the nature of the topic, but there is potential for further work on the longest sections. — Zerida ☥ 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead should be a summary of everything in the article, so of course it will cover the same points; I think the length is appropriate for an article of this size, compared with other FAs. One paragraph that is too much detail is under the Predynastic, mentioning the lower Egyptian cultures. I justified earlier why we don't need to have coverage of that topic (See my comments "The PD section does not have to "do justice"..." on this page for an explanation) and removing that would help immensely. Otherwise I think the history section is appropriate. The language section could be trimmed, as it is a little too technical. Architecture, art and burial customs could be brought down some, perhaps by a few sentences. The Predynastic and Language sections could be trimmed by up to a paragraph each, though. I'll implement the multiple name refs thing, even though I hate it because it breaks so easily.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to have to revert your unilateral deletion of the the work put into the PD to bring it to balance. A general encyclopedia on ancient Egypt covers every major area or aspect of the civilization. The PD covers 2,000 years of history in three paragraphs. We want a featured article on ancient Egypt to be a miniature version of this type of work. The contention that one part is "too technical" is not a good argument; the same can be said about archaeology or architecture. This type of information is standard in any well-written article on a language. You seem somewhat familiar with Allen, so I suggest going over it in-depth. — Zerida ☥ 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Depth is exactly what is not needed in summary style! But what do I know, I'm not an expert, I just know that I think the language section is too long and technical. Being too technical and having too many details is a perfectly appropriate argument; I don't think the other sections are so detailed or technical as the language section. I've been trimming some of the other sections as you suggest in order to shorten them, they were indeed a little long. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment about "depth" was to help you understand the language section if you found it too technical. I wasn't suggesting that we should cover it in-depth in the article, and it hardly is. I'll see if I can work around some details however. — Zerida ☥ 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The language section has been truncated, it should be fine now. The Art, Architecture and Burial custom sections are still far too long. — Zerida ☥ 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK all multiname refs are taken care of and the p. pp. consistency issue as well. Combined with using the "Find on this page" option, the excel-sort approach is actually very effective, thanks SG. The language section is looking much better and the Predynastic shorter, thanks Zerida. I'll ask Tony1 to look at the math section. ([13]) Do we have to put uncited bibliography entries into a further reading section? To me that would look odd, especially considering that many of the bibliography entries could themselves be further reading. Zerida, if those sections you mention are too long, what do you suggest we remove? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed down those sections, see what you think. — Zerida ☥ 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a few elements back, but it looks a lot better, thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Down to 94 kb. I think that's pretty good for a topic of this scope. — Zerida ☥ 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few minor changes since your last run-through, and I think we're right on track. We haven't lost any content but it is certainly more compact. Given the richness of the content, I'd say we did OK, compared with such monsters as the Byzantine Empire (a whopping 136kb [14]). I'm certainly very happy with the current article. The only thing I'm not sure of is this "further reading" issue. Is there some MoS thing on this? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, except for the raging Bibliography; see WP:GTL for discussion of References vs. Further reading. Also, the size is now a much more reasonable 61KB readable prose (9950) words: see WP:SIZE re 10,000 word max guideline. Another issue: see WP:LEAD. An article this size should most assuredly have a four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to summarize all important aspects and highlights of the article. For an article this size, the lead is underrepresented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it looked a little small; I'll change back to the previous version. I'll follow your link and fix the bibliography. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I renamed the ref/notes/further reading sections, and removed the entries that we didn't directly cite. Then, I created a further reading section where I put only the most important selections that weren't cited. This is my best understanding of the GTL. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:16, 29 March 2008.

    Double Seven Day scuffle

    [edit]

    Quite a short article, about a very short fight between South Vietnamese secret police and a group of famous US journalists which lasted less than a minute in all probability, and only one punch landed. I used a book about the experience of journos in South Vietnam, so that's probably about as specialised as we can get for a source. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • with all the talk of the photos of Arnetts bloodied nose - could you not include it? I was rather expecting to see it and was disappointed!
    • there are quite a few copyediting/grammar type errors, eg "was tall man" and "speaking French....(who was?)" and "hardened public feelings" rather than "public feelings hardened".

    Fainites barley 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyedited. Unfortunately, it's unusual that the actual punchup is the most famous instance of journalist confronations mentioned in Prochnau's book about the experiences of media in Vietnam, but the actual picture is not there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It must have been in the papers at the time so someone must have it in their archives! Its like doing an article on the hoax moon landing without the piccy of the flapping flag. Fainites barley 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Managed to scrounge one out. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great picture.Fainites barley 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although you have removed errors the prose could do with tightening. eg 'blithely'.
    Fixed. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Nice little article. Fainites barley 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I don't want to either support or oppose at this stage, as I've only had a cursory look at this article, (though my first impression is leaning towards the latter). My main concern is with the prose in some areas, such as here: "The editor of the New York Times told Halberstam that it was out of line for him to send cables to the White House without the authorisation of his superiors. " In this particular example, a direct quotation from that editor of the NY Times may make the prose appear more professional, but a similar result can be achieved if a better choice of words (instead of 'out of line') is used. Perhaps another copy-edit is needed in other places. The article's length is indeed quite short! I'm curious as to why no other Wikipedia articles are linked as sub-articles (in a "see-also" section for example)? Parts of the article also lack wikilinking to other relevant articles, which it could do with (eg; Washington) - this, among other little issues, is something that I would've expected the GA review to pick up on, although I am more concerned that the reviewer (in this case) has said very little in his review at all. After all, a GA review should clearly state how the article satisfied the GA criteria, and specifically note any suggested improvements (or if there are none that the reviewer can think of), and should not merely be a checklist (especially if the article was not quick-failed!!) In my opinion, the GA review for this article sadly did the opposite, and I hope it is not a common practice by this reviewer, or any other GA reviewers, to review articles in this manner, especially when making a recommendation that the article go through to FAC! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct quote added for Halberstam. And the article was expanded a little more from some bits and piêces lying around. I personally think the links are obvious, but more things have bên linked. Also, there is no real need for a see also section when there is a big template of related topics at teh bottom. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Yes, the template does seem sufficient - it was a fault on my part for not noticing it. As for linking, I think it's generally better to wikilink to other Wikipedia articles as much as possible (except, if for example Washington appeared several times, then keeping it to once per paragraph is sufficient). It is interesting that among other features, being able to navigate between relevant articles in this way is something that many non-Wikipedians find attractive about using Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I personally enjoy vignettes like this and would love to see more of them zipping through FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Interesting article, well-referenced. Meets my criteria for FA. Khoikhoi 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The redlinks should probably have at least a stub to explain what these are in at least a little bit more detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although not part of the criteria, I have created the relevant stubs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Comments - great article, I really enjoyed reading it. A few comments:[reply]
      • "Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Buddhist crisis, was a tall man, standing around 20 centimetres (7.9 in) taller than the average diminutive Vietnamese policemen. He waded into the fracas swinging his arms, reportedly saying 'Get back, get back, you sons of bitches, or I'll beat the shit out of you!'" I think you can eliminate the word "diminutive"; it doesn't lend any additional explanation to the point that Halberstam was taller. Additionally, is there any more information in your sources about this part of the incident? I mean, normally police officers have weapons. It seems ludicrous that a man swinging his arms around would scare off professional police officers. Were they unarmed? Did they have orders not to use their weapons? At least in some countries, even motioning as if you might assault a police officer will get you beaten and/or arrested. There is no indication of why Halberstam wasn't arrested; from reading your description, he is the one I most expected to be.
      • "The photos of Arnett's bleeding face were circulated in US newspapers..." Can remove the "were".
      • Why don't you cite any print news or journal sources for this event? There must be tons of stuff out there. --Laser brain (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the language tweaks that you suggested. The information in the books didn't explain why the cops didn't arrest Halberstam etc. Yes it is surprising. There had been a few embarrassing incidents for the government in 1963 during the protests - Hue Vesak shootings, Hue chemical attacks and the self immolation of Thich Quang Duc involving police brutality, so possibly they wanted to do pretend to be civilians randomly harassing Americans instead of pulling a gun and show that they are government officials bullying people. Since at that time the Diem regime was getting massively criticised for repression. Another thing, is that you would be surprised how skinny Vietnamese people can be, even trained army people - just look up some history books, eg see how bony General Le Minh Dao is, the article has a picture for you. I'm not sure why we would want the news article for use as a source, because the correspondents for the Vietnamese news at the time are the journalists who are in the fight, they are too close to the action to be neutral, which is why I used the books, which are by historians and professors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your responses, I have stricken my comments and changed to support. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

    SS Christopher Columbus

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's an interesting article about an obscure but important part of maritime history. SS Chris was an oddball.. the only passenger whaleback ever, built for the Worlds Columbian Exposition, she carried over 2 million passengers in her 40+ year career, but she is not very well known. She looked funny to be sure, but she was built in record time and she was designed to load and unload thousands of passengers fast, and to move at a high rate of speed while sailing... I think this article meets all of the criteria, and can be modified to meet any that I missed :). It's stable, and on a non controversial subject so sticking to the NPOV was pretty straightforward. It started as a spinoff from Whaleback, made WP:DYK, and during the course of two GA nominations, (one failed and one successful), has had a lot of eyes on it and a lot of hands helping make it better. I think it's pretty thoroughly referenced, (almost) all the links check out mechanically, and it's got an interesting selection of images, (including a painting, photos, postcards, a newspaper ad and even a free pass signed by her designer), well spaced and not overwhelming... There's a quote from her designer, cites from the NY Times about her impromptu racing career and lots of other tidbits. This is my first FA nomination so it's with a mixture of trepidation and excitement that I submit this article for your feedback and review. I look forward to taking on board ouch! all actionable suggestions and ending up with a better article, pass or fail. Thanks for your time and consideration. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Belatedly adding myself as co-nom; looking forward to putting her through the wringer to get her up to FA! Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <article stats moved to talk page>
    Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • Heading on infobox seems to have become an equals sign.
      • Got that sorted, but should there be something above the image? ++Lar
    • Put citations in numerical order (right now you have a [4][5][3])
      • I think I got that one sorted. ++Lar
    • Headings per WP:HEAD avoid "The" at the beginning.
      • "First whalebacks" reads funny... would "Predecessor whalebacks" be better to avoid the "the"? I tried "Background and proposal"... what do you think? ++Lar
    • Year ranges in the infobox need to be seperated by en-dash per WP:DASH.
    • "on the lakes " - explain for non-experts.
    • Avoid squashing text between a pair of images per WP:MOS#Images.
      • A lot of people have thrashed around on the number, placement, etc. of images on this article. I think all the images it has are needed. I've tried {{imagestack}} but had mixed results. Which sections do you think are bad, which images? I could use a little help on this one... anyone else have ideas? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the images are all public domain not all necessarily have to be in the article but rather can roost on Commons. I'm sure if the user is interested in more media they'll figure out how to find it using the commons template. Encouraging the user to visit and use this great sister project whenever possible is a benefit to both parties I believe. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser on Commons verify, I absolutely agree that Commons is an awesome project... more than a sister, in fact, she's a mother to us all :)... And I put a gallery at the bottom of the article, and a link to still more additional images I found during my researches, using {{commonscat}} as well, some time ago. But every image in there, I contend, is important to telling the story the article has to tell. I'm not averse to removal, mind you, but this article has been around a while and has already has quite a few removed or shuffled... I did try a good dose of {{imagestack}}... see what you think. Or propose specific images that could be removed, perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to say really, the additional images section gallery would seem the only one to remove without sacrificing too much encyclopedic value. Your choice, I'm only a spectator of this board - you're the one who has to capture the king. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be a good starter. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My issues have been resolved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    {{*Comment. I was surprised to see that I had made so many edits to this article, as I've not really looked at it since it's successful GA review (I was the reviewer). I do have just a few comments:

    • "... reportedly also the longest vessel on the Great Lakes at the time of her launching." I'm not an expert on maritime terminology, but "launching" sounds a bit awkward. Why not " ... when she was launched"?
    • Yup. ++Lar
    • "Construction of the Columbus was ordered by the World's Fair Steamship Company at a cost of $360,000." Being picky, I know, but it wasn't the ordering that cost $360,000.
    • tried "..at a projected cost of $360,000." instead. ++Lar
    • "The cabins and public spaces were outfitted with oak paneling, ...". Not sure that outfitted is right here. Fitted out?
    • Yup. +++Lar
    • "This placed Columbus among the fastest to be built ships to that time." Seems a bit awkward. Maybe better to merge that sentence with the previous one?
    • Tried it. It's still a bit awkward though even with the join. Any ideas there? ++Lar
    • "The builders further promised rapid loading and unloading, predicting that the vessel would be able to embark 5,000 passengers in five minutes, and disembark the same passengers in even less time. The Columbus was specified to be able run the six miles from the dock downtown to the fairgrounds at Jackson Park and 64th Street in 20 minutes." Having read that I was left wondering whether the ship actually met those design criteria.
    • I never found a cite for whether she did or not, so I was left wondering that too! A lot of advertisements bragging about various aspects of how fast she was, though. If I could find an advert for how many round trips she did, or what the sailing times were, that would sort it, but I haven't yet. ++Lar
    • "The Columbus was one of the first ships to be fitted with an on-board radio, installed as early as 1909." Not sure that the "as early as" adds very much.
    • I don't know when her radio was added. It has to be as early as 1909 but could be earlier. The cite I found was a 1909 book of callsigns, which -> she had one then. Maybe earlier, can't say. Ideas for a reword? ++Lar
    • "Although she was used for excursions elsewhere around the Great Lakes, her regular schedule was a daily trip to Milwaukee, leaving Chicago mid-morning, sailing to Milwaukee for a two-hour stopover, and then returning (as the advertisement (pictured) illustrates). This brought a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day." It seems self-evident that it would bring a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day doesn't it? Perhaps I've misunderstood what's meant here.
    • I think that was a hanger on to lead into a paragraph about how much carousing they did, I don't quite recall. :) I found some sort of memoir about rather festive/joyous brewery tours by aforementioned crowds of sightseers, IIRC, but it wasn't quite solid enough so I think maybe it got cut from an earlier draft. Perhaps that's just a hanger on phrase that needs to go too? Still 4000 passengers are quite a few to discharge every day. But I suspect she didn't routinely carry that many once she was out of fair service. ++Lar

    I'm pleased to see this article at FAC, and I'm confident that I'll soon be able to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for some great comments so far. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
    Resolved issues from User:Dihydrogen Monoxide

    Comments

    • Maybe it's just me...but the infobox seems wider than usual. Not sure if shrinking the image is a good idea, but yeah...my ramblings. :)
      • Took the pic to 250, it now has whitespace on each side and the infobox doesn't seem any narrower... I agree it does seem a bit wide... anyone else want to try? ++Lar
    • "She was the only whaleback ship ever built for passenger service." - the ever isn't necessary
      • Doesn't hurt. Given the number of things McDougall tried, the emphasis seems good. ++Lar
    • Not sure what the deal is with the bold number in ref 1
    • "She was scrapped in 1936 by the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company at Manitowoc, Wisconsin.[3][4][5]" - is this so contentious that it needs 3 refs? Best to avoid this (makes readability a bit worse) wherever possible
    • "able to travel at a "high rate of speed".[9][10][11]" - same issue with 3 refs, and I think you could say this without quoting (again, not that it matters majorly...)
      • dequoted. ++Lar
    • "Six Scotch boilers were then installed[13][15] and two triple-expansion steam engines" - this reads awkwardly with the 2 refs in the middle. A comma could fix it?
      • comma added. ++Lar
    • "She was commissioned on 13 May 1893" - the first time I read this I thought it referred to the Columbian Whaleback Steamship Company...might want to use "the Columbus" instead of "she"
      • reordered preceding sentence to make antecedent clear. ++Lar
    • "The Goodrich Transit Line steamer Virginia (later the USS Blue Ridge) is said to have raced against her." - who won?
      • They raced a lot over the years. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, won, it seems (ref the steam pipe explosion incident later in the article, I think SS Chris would have won that one). No idea how many times they raced the first year or which one won more often. ++Lar
    • "by the Goodrich Transit Line,[22][23][24][25]" - ...you guessed my comment;)
      • Would it be bad form to put the multiple page references to the same book into one ref that lists several of them? I think that would get 3 of them collapsed to 1. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during a race with her rival, Virginia." - I think you should link Virginia the first time you mention it. Also, check the link; that one doesn't talk about a ship
      • It is linked up higher. Maybe not link it at all here? It's a long way away, thought the rule was first link per section? Fixed where link points. ++lar
    • "In 1915, after the SS Eastland disaster, in which the Eastland tipped over while docked in the Chicago River, with the loss of over 800 lives, the Columbus, along with other passenger ships, underwent stability testing" - very awkward sentence, especially the first part
      • Tried breaking this up and reorganizing, I agree it's a bit off, wording wise. We need to sort the multiple ref thing (I'm not convinced it's a bad thing necessarily) but I've done what I could about the rest... thanks for the input! ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A very nice article overall. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide explicitly gave me/Lar permission to hide these resolved comments; see here. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from TonyTheTiger (talk)
    Comments
    • It is not clear looking at the infobox why Goodrich Transit Co. is listed twice with no other owner between. Should there be an asterisk.
      • Probably. The data is from the BGSU ship registry, and Goodrich had multiple holding companies, HQ's etc, this was, near as I can tell, a legal ownership shuffle that didn't matter operationally. Either asterisk it, or smush the years together I guess... preference? Meanwhile, next edit run, I'll asterisk it... should that note go below the list of dates or all the way at the bottom of the box, or treat it like a footnote? (an earlier version of the article had refs in the infobox, but those were all removed (which is what caused the out of order ref numbering, actually, IIRC) during the GA process I think.)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources indicate she was owned by Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine from 1909-1921, then by Goodrich Transit Co. of Delaware from 1921-1933. I don't think the distinction is particularly important; I would be happy to just describe that as Goodrich Transit Co. (1909-1933). Maralia (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is probably an interesting story in that ownership changes. When did Deleware become a buisiness friendly state? Was it about this time? Was there some risk that the company undertook at that time to make the change advantageous? See if you can find something. At the very least the text should retain this transfer detail that you found even if we can not find the reason immediately. I have no preference how the infobox is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There probably is an interesting story, so I'd marginally favour keeping the ownership changes in this article. The larger question seems to apply to Goodrich Transit though, an article I started as a stub, rather than this one, unless a cite could be found. The best I could do was infer, (as I did about the previous ownership, which likely was a Goodrich shell, but I can't prove it) which of course, you have to be careful of not shading into OR territory... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Most of this information is now in the text. I originally filled in the ownership part of the infobox only because the new ship infobox supported it. Perhaps the infobox could be shortened by limiting the ownership data to the text-- I surely have no strong feelings on the subject. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The info box has merged the details out and I don't see Delaware anywhere in the text. Thus, potential information has been lost. Either put the information back in the infobox clearly stating the two different Goodriches or put the info in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Finally found an explicit source to clarify this: the Goodrich Transit Co., incorporated in Delaware in 1920, was a successor company to the Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine. As such, I think this is great information for the Goodrich article, but I don't see it having a place here; the ship belonged to the same company throughout, and the company did not even change names. The source is The Fitch Bond Book. The Fitch Publishing Company. 1921. p. 533. Retrieved 2008-03-26. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you have been trying to make everyone happy with the images, but currently they are distributed 0/3/2/2 across the sections. Can we get one in the first section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't the infobox take up the whole first section, or just about, meaning that an image would be in a squeeze text if it was on the right or funny if it was on the left? I do agree with the wish, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The infobox end more or less coincides with the end of the first section; on widescreen, it doesn't even end until somewhere in the second paragraph of the second section. I can't see any way to add an image in the first section without it sandwiching text with the infobox. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how this meshes with your other image issues, but most people have their preferences set so that their default image size for thumbs is tolerable on the left opposite an infobox. Try moving one image to the first section on the left without declaring an image size for the thumb unless it will lose support from other people taking issue with your images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just as an aside, most articles receive the majority of views from casual readers, not logged-in editors. The most important test for image placement, in my mind, is what the article looks like from the logged-out situation. Per my comment below, things looked good at that time; I don't know if any images have been moved subsequently, though. Risker (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I understand it the most common display setting is 1024x768. When I set my computer to this setting a few lines of the second paragraph of the first section oppose the infobox. I don't think squeezing would be bad if you put one image to the left of the second paragraph in the first section, but I am not sure what others think. Then we wouldn't have an imageless section followed by sections with 3, 2 and 2 images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you use the Captain (nautical), ferry, promenade deck, schooner link in the article? It seems that either propulsion or propeller should be linked. In fact many terms in the third paragraph of the Construction and Columbian Exposition should be linked. Jackson Park should be linked on first usage, not later.
      • Capt/ferry/prom/schooner linked. Moved jackson park link to first. Not sure about which to link prop/prop :) (note that "propeller" was a term given to ships as a whole, back then, to contrast them with "sidewheeler" or "sternwheeler"... seems a rare usage now... that's just trivia for everyone's enjoyment) Any other links needed do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That paragraph has a lot of jargon that should be linked is there a nautical cabin article? panelling, etched glass and many other words might not be familiar to all international readers. You could probably link about a half dozen terms in that paragraph. Look closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    • The commons link belongs in the external links section.
      • John moved it. ++Lar
    • The images would look better staggered left and right.
      • Excuse me while I die laughing. Look at an old revision, say, from before the FAC, that's how they used to be. :) ++Lar
    • There shouldn't be text sandwiched between an image and an infobox.
      • White livery image moved to tail of construction stack to resolve this. ++Lar
    • The format of the author names in the refs is inconsistent.
      • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
    • Some ref dates need linking.
      • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
    • Some measurements need non-breaking spaces or conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some refs are missing the author, publisher or publishing date.
      • I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
    • There are some dead ref links. Epbr123 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linkchecker comes up with 6 items. Three are NYT links which all work for me (and are flagged only for excessive redirects); one is a googlebooks link that works for me (and is flagged with the inexplicable 'changes searcher'). Of the six linkchecker links, only the two Chicago Public Library links are broken for me (returning 404 errors). Can anyone else recreate Epbr's experience of all six links not working, or confirm otherwise? Maralia (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been doing some work on footnotes which may have corrected some of these issues. See below. Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image in the external links section still has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the CPL one. (when I get time I may try to find the CPL stuff using wayback or something, they had some interesting stuff, it's a shame that they reorged and it doesn't seem findable)... The WisHist link is fine. Anything else? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could if you wish link to the ship-wreck.com image page which has a lot of images, or cite it for the proposition that postcards are widely available. Just an option, if you want to use it. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    I'm about ready to support this article now, if the problem with the images can just be sorted out. I've got no problem with a ribbon of images down the righthand side, instead of staggering them; I think that where there are a lot images that makes sense. But there are, I think, too many, causing a block of white space between the Expositon and Regular service sections, at least on my screen. Are the graphics of the triple-expansion engines and the printed pass really necessary do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with a ribbon. See the talk. But we have editors calling for a reversion to right/left/right now. I do think the engine and the pass add a lot to the article. The engine was alleged by the source to be one of, if not the, biggest triple-ex ever to that time. The pass could go (to McDougall's bio, when I write it) I guess, but it adds a type of image not often seen in articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a go at repositioning the images. There is no more sandwiching, and images are staggered right and left without impinging on section headers. I dropped two images: the ore dock pic that was in the gallery (because the image quality just wasn't up to par with the others) and the engines image (because I just couldn't create room for such a vertical picture). I also moved the detailed propulsion info out of the infobox and into the text of the Construction section. It's compliant with image guidelines now, I believe; Lar, can you live with it? Maralia (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will miss the engine, I think it's a big part of the story, but yes, I can live with any change that makes everyone else OK with the images. Thanks! Why not move images removed to the gallery at the bottom? The bridge image is not too key I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved comments and concerns of Kablammo (talk)
    Source questions

    Copied from article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Questions about footnotes: Introduction[reply]

    Background and proposal

    (I'll look at other sections later . . .) done. Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Kablammo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) New comments On dead links: In two footnotes (one of which was used three times, but now is only used once) there were two url= calls; one for the webpage cited, and one for the website of the publisher; this resulted in linking errors. Those have been fixed Remaining concerns:[reply]

    • There is still at least one broken link.
    • There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support.
    • There may be questions on the reliability of some of the sources-- enthusiast sites rather than more "scholarly" resources. That may simply be reflective of what is available.

    Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you elaborate on "There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support."? Presuming you don't mean the few you listed above (which are now struck as resolved), or the lingering issue of the dead link at footnote 10, I can't figure out to what you are referring. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't tagged it but this phrase (in penultimate paragraph of SS_Christopher_Columbus#Construction_and_Columbian_Exposition) should have a source:

    another publication dubbed her the "Queen of the Lakes".

    There was one, but it didn't support it, so I removed it. I think that and footnote 10 are is my only remaining sourcing concern. Kablammo (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar, interesting fact:

    This book is an account of ships that have borne the name "Queen of the Lakes," an honorary title indicating that, at the time of its launching, a ship is the longest on the Great Lakes.[15]

    This book would a useful source, if anyone can get it at a local library. Kablammo (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Queen of the Lakes

    The source for this that I used is a source referenced from within the problematic "bibliography" (The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - By David J. Bertuca, et al) source which we can't see online easily since it's a current book. Try this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&btnG=Search which yields among other returns, this chunk of text 

    The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - Google Books Result
by David J. Bertuca, Donald K. Hartman, Susan M. Neumeister - 1996 - History - 440 pages
"Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America. ... 
books.google.com/books?isbn=0313266441...

    which goes to this Google Books page: http://books.google.com/books?id=F6cWRxU9go4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&source=web&ots=aOAma8HxWe&sig=OJChMJEdloRHCIvtceDSpwzx19A&hl=en (the infamous page 146, which I can see but which other people, when given direct links to it, sometimes cannot, it varies, which is why I think we ditched it... Maralia suggested just making it a cite book instead of cite web but that's cheating I guess, I've never actually ponied up the 100 USD it would cost to get this book. ) and on that page, for source O226, (by their numbering) it says

    "Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America." 'Seaboard 5 (May 25, 1893): 608-610

    which I think supports the claim that "one publication dubbed her Queen of the Lakes" :) Wheeeee! ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lar-- I just discovered that myself! (I didn't read far enough down before-- my apologies.) Anyway, I think it looks good! Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke it out as a separate ref using {{cite journal}} ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I will cap this section later.)

    Support. A worthy and interesting article. Kablammo (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    If people who have switched to support could do the collapsing box thing it would help show what's left to work on... I think we're getting there, aren't we? Thanks all for your help and comments so far. It was good when we started, but it's a far better article now than when we started the FAC, and that's the point, isn't it? :) ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I read this article when it first came to FAC, and thought it was pretty good but could use a few tweaks; I was just a little busy on a neighbouring page to comment then. All the tweaks I thought of at that time have now been taken care of. I've now looked at the image placement using three different screen sizes/resolutions and two different browsers, and they seem to be appropriately placed in all instances now. This is a well-done article, and speaks to the benefit of collaboration. Risker (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Resolved stuff from Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments — Just some minor points:

    • "Background and proposal" section, 1st paragraph: Is there perhaps a better phrasing that would avoid the back-to-back McDougalls (which are a little jarring).
    • "Construction and Columbian Exposition": 4th paragraph: The spacing between five and minutes looks a little funky . Is the non-breaking space between them needed since the number is spelled out? Also, the "downtown dock" referred to is in Chicago, right?
    • Same section, 6th paragraph: Is it necessary to restate the distance of the trip two paragraphs after its first mention?
    • Same paragraph: The Virginia was said to have raced on the maiden voyage, or while the Columbus was working the expo?
    • "Regular service" section, 2nd paragraph: Can the advertisement be referenced without the nested parentheses?
    • Same section, 3rd paragraph: Do the three accidents include the death of the crewman mentioned previously, or is that a different incident?

    All-in-all a very good article on an unusual boat — Bellhalla (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rephrased to avoid "McDougall. McDougall"
    • Dropped the hard space that presumably was added before the number was spelled out.
    • No, it's not necessary to mention the distance twice. Thank you for pointing this out; I've been looking for a way to fix that overly long sentence :)
    • I don't think Virginia raced her on her maiden voyage; think it's just a strangely placed sentence. Lar?
    • Got rid of the nested parens by mentioning the advertisement image with (see advertisement right).
    • No, the "three accidents" mentioned are the known accidents of the ship; we haven't found any detail on the single crewman's death during the exposition, and I hesitate to equate that unknown situation with the explicitly sourced explosion and two collisions. Maralia (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

    Silverchair

    [edit]

    After extensive peer reviewing, I think this is ready, but am happy to act on any suggestions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment":
    • That personnel section is unnecessary; the images and information should be incorporated into the prose. Artists who contributed only on an album or two needn't be mentioned at all, they're more suitable for the album articles.
    • Include music samples throughout the History depicting their musical evolution and also one in the musical style, to describe their sound in detail.
    • "both rated it in excess of four stars" - like four and a half? five? why the ambiguity?
    • U.S. should be US, I hear. Make sure that after the first mention of "United States", they are all "US" only. indopug (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. Most of the stuff has been done; the rest is replied to. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you add those individual band member pics through the article; the first two paras look especially picture-scarce. Is it "Silverchair is" or "Silverchair are"? Because the lead sentence disagrees with "Silverchair have been highly successful...". Add that pic of Johns with Fanning (found in the Dream Days article) instead of the current Across the great divide pic. I'll give a detailed prose review/copy-edit in a couple of days. Cheers, indopug (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment On my browser/monitor there's a Grand Canyon of a gap of whitespace between "at some stage in the future" and "Joannou believed that".Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an image there, which has since been removed; that might have been the problem. Try taking another look? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's gone, but now there's a smaller one below "when working with a record label..." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that'd be the image/audio sample. Not really sure what I can do about that, but feel free to play around with it if you can. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Another very good article. Some minor points before I can support
    • "At the culmination of this touring, the band announced that they would be taking a 12 month break". This sounds a little ornate and culmination means "Attainment or arrival at the highest pitch of glory, power, etc". Is this what you mean? Can it be simplified to "Following the end of this tour program, the band announced that they would take a 12 month break"?
    • {{Cquote}} should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so.
    • "Silverchair is highly successful in the Australian recording industry, being a recipient of the industry's flagship awards, the ARIA Music Awards, a record 20 times" This sentence reads a little awkwardly to me. Inspiration fails me at the moment but let me think on it.
    Otherwise, this is great work. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your time. All done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Concerns addressed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments The prose needs some serious work. I'll try to make a pass at it soon. There's some inconsistency in the references; the Rolling Stone review of Frogstomp is listed in two different footnotes in two different formats. In terms of hard information, most of the article is fine. However, the "Musical style" section is particularly weak to me; most of it relies of reviewer comments on specific albums, and then the section ends with some very short paragraphs. Try and work in some material about influences or approaches to performance and composition. Include more about influences. This Rolling Stone article should be helpful because not only does it mention the oft-made comparison to grunge groups early in the band's career, but Johns mentions the influence of Black Sabbath on his band. try and scrouge up contemporary references from the 1990s. I'm reasonably sure they've done a couple of guitar magazine interviews, which would be very useful. I've already looked at Rock's Back Pages and nytimes.com and didn't turn up anything, but you might want to try findarticles.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments. A look over the prose would be great, if you can. I fixed the RS ref double-up. I don't have access to many magazines, but I found some on findarticles which I'll get to adding in - I've also put the Rolling Stone Q&A in. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am very angry: this article is short, and it has many sub-articles. These sub-articles can be a part of the article, they aren't so long and they are in big part tables. In my opinion, this isn't a good kind for the growth of Wikipedia, but a creation of un-sensed articles that can stay "1000 times" in the principal article, so they aren't encyclopedic and needs a link for return to the previous article. Here I don't vote, it's not fair this thing (and this motivation isn't a violation of FA criteria). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links checked out with the link tool. A number of these questions are probably because I am clueless on US music websites, much less Australian ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Dislike the organization of the WP:LEAD. The reason why there are notable should be in the very first sentence. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? I haven't really seen this in many band FAs...generally, the next few paragraphs talk about that, while the first just says when it was formed and who's in it. At least, as far as I know... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other band FAs are poorly organized does not mean this article needs to be. Readers show know at a glance the answer to the question, "So what?" Ling.Nut (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about now? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following sources need a specific explanation for how they meet reliable sources, that is what makes the authors published experts in their fields, what is the reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc. (no, having a staff page doesn't meet that):

    • Comment Most of my concerns were promptly fixed in PR, but I do have a couple:
      • The first ref in the sentence "During the tour, Johns took regular medication for his reactive arthritis, which had forced the band to cancel several shows." doesn't mention anything about medication, just that he has arthritis. The sentence could be reworded and that ref stuck in after just that fact, if you don't mind the pesky mid-sentence ref. [Edit: actually, neither ref mentions medication. The second ref doesn't mention cancelling shows, either.]
      • Also with that sentence, what is "regular medication"? Does this mean he took medication regularly? Why is the article mentioning the meds? Couldn't you just say that the arthritis forced him to cancel shows?
      • The Awards and accolades section is so short, maybe you should incorporate those two sentences into the lead or somewhere else. As an added benefit, you could put the List of Silverchair awards link into the see also section, which currently only has one lonely link.
      • Not sure about this sentence: "Gillies notes that Silverchair will often "run the risk of losing fans" in their work; reminiscent in the changes in musical direction in Diorama and Young Modern." What does the part after the semicolon mean? Also, it needs a ref because of the quote, and you can only use a semicolon with an independent clause.
      • I'm still not sure that a lot of the material about reviews belongs in the Musical style section. This stuff is just reviewers' opinions about the band, not necessarily their style. What about a separate "reviews" or "reception" section?
      • Passive voice tends to make the writing awkward, as with this sentence: "Young Modern was produced independently by the band, to ease the pressures faced previously when working with a record label."
      • I think this sentence is too long and awkward: "Freak Show saw the band show more of their own musical style, rather than copying others,[47] and received more praise for its songwriting than its predecessor; Yahoo! Music's Sandy Masuo described the lyrics as moving and emotional."
      • I'm not sure what this means: "Meanwhile, Diorama was seen in a discovery of the band's originality..." Also, meanwhile is used twice in two sentences.
    • Unfortunately I'll be on wikibreak, so I won't be around to change to support once this stuff is addressed. But I have no problem supporting once these things have been addressed, which others can decide whether they think they have been. delldot talk 10:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All problems look to be addressed and it was a good ready.  Sunderland06  18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are some parts of the article which don't tally with my recollections, however, it is about a decade since I was into the band, all my music magazines from that era have long since been thrown away and my memory is fallible. In terms of actionable points though:
      • The explanation for how the band got their name contradicts this interview reproduced on their official site.
      • One thing I'm suprised to see omitted is that of a murder case where the defense counsel blamed the actions of the defendants on them listening to Israel's Son prior to the murder (the defense was rejected). It received extensive press coverage at the time, an earlier equivalent to the furore when Marilyn Manson was blamed by some parties for the Columbine shootings. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the band name info in. I wasn't aware of that "Israel's Son" stuff (very...wow...), and I've done some searching, but have only found fansites discussing it. Not saying I don't trust you, but can you point me to an RS about it? Shame that most of the info could be offline now... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I used to have a whole bunch of issues of Melody Maker and Kerrang! from the mid-to -late 1990s which would have the relevant information, but threw them away long ago. Since becoming a Wikipedian I now hoard such things :) Google News Archive Search turns up a few things, albeit mostly subscription-based, e.g. 1, 2. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. I added in some info about that; using one of your links as a reference, and this for most of the actual information (since the two have similar stories). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:06, 27 March 2008.

    Ernie Toshack

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... ermm I think it is a comprehensive account, properly sourced of one of the spearheads of Don Bradman's Invincibles. Relative to my other articles, this is relatively short, because he only played first-class cricket for about 3 years; he started late because of WW2 and then had a knee injury. Part of the attempt to make a featured topic. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment.It's well illustrated, too.Phanto282 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - the article needs more references and some tables with his records about his matches etc. Support - thanks some recent edits, the article is so subdisfactory. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not actionable; examples are needed of statements that need citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Breakdown against individual countries given, as are alternative sources and obits. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean on the sources, those sources are stats cards with no dates of publication indicated, so they aren't there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Mojska's original oppose rationale. I didn't understand what he meant by date labels. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Linkie tool is showing that the Obituary needs registration.Everything else shows fine for the little tool
    Everything else on the sources checks out great. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - nice article, some suggestions (with my cricket hat off)
      • "new ball attack" - a bit too jargony for the lead.
      • "and had his early cricket career hindered due to the economic difficulties of the Great Depression" how? I had to read ahead to find out he suffered a ruptured appendix, but was the ruptured appendix a result of the Great Depression? A bit confused.
    Hmm, the source means a lack of money meant that he had less time to train I think, although it is not clear. It didn't mean the illness. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Test cricket is linked to twice in the lead but first class isn't.
      • Any chance of expanding how he came to be orphaned?
    None of the sources give his parents' cause of death. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "fastish" - I don't think so! Perhaps medium-fast?
      • "1944-45" - en dash required.
      • "first-class" or "first class"?
      • Any chance of linking out to bowling averages?
      • " wicket-taking list." which list? Context needed.
      • Two "back injury" sentences in the Invincibles section reads awkwardly.
      • Ref 1 seems to have a spare pair of closing braces.
    • That's all I can see right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from that, everything else has been (hopefully) attended to. I also linked batting average and a whole pile of other cricket jargon. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • What influence did his bowling have on future Australian bowlers like Thomson, Lillee and McGrath? Who were Toshack's own influences? I think it's important to put his contributions into context, especially given the number of great fast bowlers that Australia has produced over the years.
      • I also think the article ends rather abruptly. There's a substantial discussion of life after cricket in the Don Bradman article. The article says that Toshack spent 25 years as a foreman and supervisor on construction sites...was he not involved in cricket (as an administrator, coach, etc) after retirement? AreJay (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is important to put his contributions into context, but in this case, as the sources quote Bradman, his style of bowling was rather unusual and did not have any similar precedents or imitators after. He is compared to the prolific English fastish spinner Derek Underwood explicitly. There was no speed gun in those days, but he would have been somewhere around 110-120 kph from the qualitative description. With regards to Thomson and Lillee, they were express fast bowlers who bowled conventionally, outside off stump, usually with a 6-3 field whereas Toshack bowled with a 4-5 legside field. McGrath was also the same although he was moderately fast. The other thing was that Toshack bowled left arm over the wicket at their pads, and in his era the pitches were not covered and Toshack was famous for bowling on sticky pitches as discussed in the article; since the mid 1950s, pitches have been covered during rain, so nobody after the the mid 1950s played under Toshack's conditions. The only Australian left arm pace bowlers who played after Toshack but before the 1960s were Bill Johnston (cricketer) and Alan Davidson (cricketer) but they were fast bowlers, and bowled to a conventional off side field, not leg theory. None of the sources compare him to earlier bowlers, so it would be OR for me to do so. Looking at the List of Australian Test cricketers and the players in the 50 years preceding him, there were no other left arm fast spin/slow medium pace type bowlers except Charlie Macartney (also an FA). However, Macartney did not bowl at leg stump with a leg side field. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to find more info on his after cricket activities, except that he also wrote a bit about cricket and enjoyed gardening. I looked up a book of the New South Wales Cricket Association and did not see him in the list of board members or state level coaches, so it would be rather ungainly to put in a few sentences "He did not do this...he did not do that". Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my GA review on Talk:Ernie Toshack. Daniel (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment late to the party (sorry). I'm working my way through this now, but as a generality, while his cricket playing life clearly should be the core of the article, the post-cricket years are too quickly dismissed. I appreciate it's probably hard to find out more about his life and interests after playing, but I'm sure the comments about his writing could be expanded? --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The SMH obit from which I got the writing about cricket is all that I can find, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I ccan't see any books by him in the State Libary either. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes:
    • Jargon, what is this 11/31 ? ... He took career-best match figures of 11/31 in the First Test ... 11 out of 31 ? I see these slashes throughout, and I don't know what they are. Is that like a baseball average? Are they explained somewhere? (Never seen a cricket match in my life, sorry :-)
    • Thanks, Mattinbgn; that will help, although I can't say that the Bowling analysis makes any of it clear or understandable :/ Perhaps this is how others feel when reading American football or baseball articles? I'll try to learn the sport so I can understand these FACs, but both cricket bios at FAC right now have lost me. Maybe it's just me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Tests supposed to be in upper case here? ... who played in 12 Tests from ... and here ? First-class and Test debut
    • More lingo here, what are "third grade" and "first grade"? Is that like AAA and AA ball in baseball? ... starting in third grade in 1944–45.[4] Within two matches, he rose to first grade. ...
    *Yeah, third grade is the third tier of competition. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More lingo, this is the first time I encounter the word "wicket" in the article, no idea what this phrase means or what a "wicket" is ... sorry :-) ... and was quickly among the wickets. Can you cricket experts run through the article one more time and make it easier on someone like me who has no idea of cricket (wikilinks or explanations)?
    • should non Test have a hyphen here ? And number consistency ? ... only six of the 29 non Test matches on the tour ...
    • Conversion, we need cm here: ... Standing 6 ft 2 in, he ...

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cricket followers delight in using the word wicket in many senses, including "sticky wicket" in this article, but it could be clarified better. Presumably the first time a short bowling statistic is used it should say "11 wickets for 31 runs (11/31)" or "11 wickets (out of a possible 20) for 31 runs (11/31)".--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okey doke. Linked to the cases of a dismissal and linked the sticky wicket explicitly. I also changed wet wicket etc to sticky, since otherwise, people would not understand and sticky is already used directly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and please don't shoot the messenger. Many readers, and not only those in non-cricket playing countries, will have problems understanding this article and Toshack's achievements. The problem lies mainly in the First-class and Test debut and Invincibles tour sections —with all that jargon. Although not entirely avoidable, no effort has been made to accommodate readers not used to the terminology. The words won and win are used only once and lost not at all. Wicket subtley changes its meaning as in and was quickly among the wickets and his only ten wicket match haul, (which is also bad grammar) and sticky wicket. Given that most of the important scores are in the statistics box, these sections could be improved by spelling-out the bowling result the first time one is used and explaning its significance. And, (I know this requires skill), avoiding using so many. There are some odd phrases in the article.

    **He took career-best match bowling figures of 11/31 in the First Test from the Lead. This needs a possessive or indefinate article.

      • the club for which he was residentially zoned" does this mean local?
      • He performed consistently without taking large innings hauls
      • Toshack collected his only ten wicket match haul in Tests
      • He removed both and ended with 5/2 in 19 balls the removed is bad.
      • When he was available this is redundant.
      • He had a moderate Third Test does this mean moderately successful?

    These are just some examples, there are more which makes the style of the prose difficult to follow. The Article seems to finish half way through; what about the writing career we read about in the Lead and what did he build? What did he do during his long retirement? Lastly, Ashes should be wiki-linked. Forgive me and don't shoot me.--GrahamColmTalk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the part about writing, we found nothing in all the libraries of Australia, so it appears he didn't write any books, we do not know anymore than what is in the obit. No full book biography was written about Toshack, so we are in a tight spot. As for not using lost, during Toshack's period, Australia did not lose a single match. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it so that all the notations are put in word form with links the first time, and then with the numbers in brackets. I think I have tweaked your wroding requests. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment There is not much info on Toshack post-cricket because he severed his connection with the game, so much so that when he attended an Invincibles reunion for the first time, in the 1990s, he had to be re-introduced to some of his erstwhile teammates. Phanto282 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing to Neutral. I have made a few changes, please revert them if they are not improvements.[16]. The quality of the prose prevents me from supporting. (See the opening sentence of the Style section for example). This isn't grammatically incorrect but, for me at least, it ruins the flow.--GrahamColmTalk 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    Flag of Germany

    [edit]

    Self-nomination: I've been working on this article for the last few months, getting info from various sources and documents in an attempt to make this article as good as it can be. It has gone through GA review, Peer review and a number of copy-edits. Writing a featured article is new to me and so now, after going through all of these procedures, it is clear to me that the only way that I can figure out what else needs to be done to make it suitable for FA is to nominate it and see what the response is. Looking at other FA flag articles, I believe this article is ready for nomination.

    Wherever possible, I have supplied English references. Many sources are German legal documents or periodicals and I could not find any English versions. Since the history of the flag is intricately tied with the history of the country, a lot of German history is included - so I have concentrated on references that relate specifically to the flag, to prevent duplication. If someone wants to know more about actual historical events, they can look at the relevant articles and follow the references there.

    For some facts that I have unearthed, I have so far been unable to find "reliable sources" to back them up. For some of these, I have commented out some parts of the text until such sources become available - other passages can also be commented out in a similar manner if deemed appropriate. Some other facts have no hard documents behind them but are common knowledge in Germany - or at least appear to me to be so, after the time I have spent here.

    So I am interested in any suggestions you may have. Thanks. 52 Pickup (deal) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Prior to the FAC restart, a copy-edit request was made at WP:LOCE on 13 March. 52 Pickup (deal) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've added a {{cn}} about the intent of the Allied Control Commission; we require a source denying the all-too-likely possibility that the four powers were simply marking their own failure to agree on the future of Germany, which technically continued until the peace treaty of 1990. Aside from that, support, as before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for having another look at this. It is true that at the Allies had not yet agreed on what exactly would become of Germany upon formation of the ACC, so I cannot produce a source to deny this. But the flag was only for use by German shipping since international law requires international shipping to have some sort of flag: and since the ACC had not yet figured out what to do with Germany, that's why this ensign was only provisional, as stated. The intention to humiliate can be seen in the passage of the law that I've quoted in that no respect shall be shown towards this flag and it should not be dipped in salute to any other country. It has also been suggested that the colour choice of this provisional ensign was also part of this humiliation since it contains the national colours of the Allied powers: red-white-blue (UK, USA, France) or red (USSR). But I have been unable to confirm if this was deliberate. So I've reworded that section to make the statement about humiliation clearer so I then took the liberty of removing the cn-tag since the citation provided gives the reasoning. Does that answer your question? 52 Pickup (deal) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have a source for that deduction, from no respect shall be shown towards this flag and it should not be dipped in salute to any other country to humiliation? If not, it is Original Research, since not being dipped to the Union Jack in English waters is a great privilege, which most national flags do not possess. My OR would be that this simply means that it is not a national flag, and the Allies were not going to invent foreign relations for Germany before deciding on its domestic relations. Neither conjecture belongs in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The idea that a foreign power determines what flag you use is also generally an affront to a nation's sovereignty but, since I cannot explicitly prove that, nor provide any more solid evidence at this point, I've removed the "humiliation" bit. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, yes, after May 1945, there was no sovereign German state. It may well be true and sourceable that C stands for Capitulation, and that humiliation was intended; but let's have sources, and be sure they are duly weighted. For now, the tag is dealt with, and I continue to support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question I'm a little concerned that the article has missed an entire section on 'flag protocol' or usage guidelines, at least in the headings. Is there any particular reason why the article is missing this heading, as well as the headings or subheadings 'symbolism' and 'manufacturing'? I ask this question because most other successful FA flag articles have used similar headings, and I find it quite effective. I am also concerned whether this article is missing significant details. Still, in what the article does have, it seems quite impressive, particularly the history section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting points. Information related to flag protocol is spread through other sections (e.g. "Variants" and "Flag Days"). Similarly, symbolism is described in the introduction and is a main part of the History section since that is effectively a history of its symbolism. I am unfamiliar with any specific manufacturing information. - 52 Pickup (deal) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an unusual, but interesting approach you've taken. I still would like you to take a look through the approaches taken on Flag of India, Flag of Australia among other Flag FAs (some more listed at the Heraldry and vexillology project page). While I appreciate the way in which you've gone through history in your approach, I do prefer the way in which the other articles deal with headings, as it seems to be a classic and effective approach in how they go in giving information to the reader - how the headings are named and ordered, the way in which they deal with the relevant areas of law of the flag's country, and so on. It is up to you of course whether you wish to keep the article in its current form, or to modify it accordingly. But it's something worth considering, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    Grim Fandango

    [edit]

    Self-nomination Myself and other editors have worked to polish this article from an already decent start; having had both GA review and several eyes from the VG project to provide additional suggests have helped to get it to this state. MASEM 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All other links check out fine on the link check tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed 1 and 3. The grimfandgo.net site is admittedly a fan site, but it has been noted as one of the better GF fansites, and only one reference off that site is used here (it's referenced as from the Escapist article as a fansite as well, but that's a different example). If this is a problem, it can be removed I think without affecting the article. --MASEM 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I think the information that it's sourcing is important "It was the first LucasArts adventure since Labyrinth not to use the SCUMM engine, instead using the Sith engine, pioneered by Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, as the basis of the new GrimE engine." (curent ref 9) (it is used elsewhere to reference itself as a fan site also at current ref 25, but that is okay, since it's sourcing that it is a fan site (weird logic, but it works)). Any chance one of the other sites has that information? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this PDF by the people that created Lau that includes the fact that Bret M. (LucasArts) was going to use it to replace the SCUMM engine. This one confirms that GF was based on the Jedi Knight engine, so, I think that covers it? --MASEM 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    further FYI, I felt both references found are excellent additions so have included them on top of that existing statement. --MASEM 05:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: Neutral:

    • "examine, collect, and use objects correctly to solve the various puzzles with the game, in order to progress." Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it be in the game as opposed to with?
    • Per WP: LEAD the lead needs to be a comprehensive summary of the article, yet there's no mention of Reception.
    • I asked this in at the wikiproject talk page, but got no response. Is there any chance of the gameplay section being expanded? I haven't played the game, so I don't know if expansion is really necessary, it's just that the section is quite short compared to others.
      • It is an adventure game, which I have added a wikilink to, but to describe how to play one is redundant with that link.
        • Fair enough. That's all I needed to know.
    • "The player controls Manuel "Manny" Calavera as he seeks the fate of Mercedes "Meche" Colomar in the Underworld." Strange wording here. Is he actually looking for her, or is he looking for her fate, whatever that is supposed to mean.
    • "The user manual observes that everyone who smokes in the game is dead: "Think about it."[2]" This is bordering on trivia. Think about it ;).
    • Story is unnecessarily wordy: "However, Manny is able to get the upper hand and defeat Domino." This can really be summed into "Manny defeats Domino". In general, I'd like to see the story cut down, although, looking at consensus, this seems to be a stylistic preference. Besides this general preference, the redundancies should be cut out.
      • Ok, I've tried to cut down and remove redundancies, I don't think I can cut more without losing absolutely key elements of the plot.

    *"and is considered to be one of the first applications of the language in gaming applications;" Any chance of a source here?

      • It's the same source of the following sub-sentence, but I added the link to be explicit
    • When a co-author is used in the sources, their names are presented as *forename**surname*, while the primary author uses the reverse order. Is there any chance that this could be changed?
    • I'm no expert in grammar, but in "character alone was comprised of 250 polygons.", isn't was and of redundant here?
    • Again with the grammar: "head to move separate from his body". Shouldn't this be separately?
    • "the 3D engine also allowed for choreography". I'd reword this—"allowed for" sounds awkward.
    • "full-motion video cutscenes were incorporate to advance the plot". Incorporated?
    • "using the same in-game look for the characters and backgrounds". I'd replace look with style or something else here.
    • Cutting out some redundant alsos would be good.
      • Done.
    • "Staying true to its film noir style storyline". Probably needs rewording as the phrasing here seems informal.
    • "Staying true to its film noir style storyline, many of the game's locales visually evoke a feeling of a stylized post-war America, with its roadside diners, shady bars, hot rods and neon signs." This could do with a source, because it seems like OR withoout it. Cut out visually. Also strange as the sentence is kind of speaking for everybody who played the game. This won't have evoked that impression for everyone.
    • "Grim Fandango successfully mixed all these elements, with GameSpot noting the "beautiful art direction" and calling the visual design "consistently great"." I'm not sure if this should be in the Development section.
    • "inspired by the likes of Duke Ellington and Benny Goodman as well as film composers Max Steiner and Adolph Deutsch." Again, this needs a source.
      • Source already include, dup ref.
    • "enjoyed a limited release as a stand-alone soundtrack album". Any elaboration possible here?
      • I've changed the wording a bit as that's a bit flowery. There's not much more to say except that it was released; there's no indication of sales or the like for it.
    • "the game was to be shipped in the first half of 1998 but slipped". Informal phrasing again—why not use delayed.
    • Reception is just basic and needs to be expanded. The negative comments amount to Gamespot having trouble using the interface. There must be more. C&VG gave it 7/10. At the moment the section seems like a collation of quotes. No mention of music? It could do woth at least two more paragraphs. The neutrality is also disputed here.
      • Here is the CVG review that gives it a 7. Ok, it complains about loading times, which can be added, but... I see nothing in the text of the review that indicates that its a bad review, it even ends "One of the games of 1998." I'll put the comment about load times in, but I question where that actual review number is from.
        • Look at other reviews for negative points. Admittedly, it was a very well-received game, but as long as it hasn't got 100 percent, there must be complaints somewhere.
          • Ok, I've added a few more of the nitpicks that reviewers had with the game.
    • "The game has since gone on to be considered one of the best video games of all time." This doesn't seem to be supported by the proceeding text, with only Gamespot adding the label. I mean, this label is hardly compatible with "7th Most Underrated Game of All Time as of 2003"
    • The "Awards" section could do with some quotes and more cohesion.
      • Ok, to be honest, I've never seen quotes used with awards (generally since this further pushes the POV balance), and in terms of cohension, it's pretty much in chrono order. I am not sure what else you are looking for here.
        • Okay, don't feel obligated to add quotes, I just feel that it helps the prose flow a bit.
          • Added a few to help here.

    *"Despite its high quality, good reviews and numerous awards, Grim Fandango" This is unnecessary. Such things make this sound like an advertisement some times.

    • It's possible that extraneous detail has been added to Sales to seem that it's bigger than it is. After all, there is only one piece of actual data there.
      • There's one data point, yes, but again, the data point is what makes GF the end of the era, so to speak, with the other supporting sources.
        • It could just really do with some more data, especially something from other countries to give more comprehensive coverage.
          • I found one other datapoint, but the usual sources for sales data don't have this information this far back, and LucasArts refused to releasd numbers back then. As a point on the whole section, it may be more than just "sales" but it's not "Sales and Aftermath", but maybe there's another term that describes this.
    • There doesn't seem to be need for the Gamrankings EL if it's used as a source.
    • I'd make a choice of either Mobygames or IMDB, as one is redundant in regards to the other.

    I hope this helps. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Striked comments. Tell me if you think I've missed some. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've addressed all the comments above at this point. --MASEM 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great job on the amendments so far. Masem, I hope you don't mind if I check over this article tomorrow morning. It's getting quite late where I'm from, and I at least one to check over the article whilst partially awake: ). I've striked the straight-forward things, will look over Reception and Story tomorrow. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, just let me know if you think it needs anything else. --MASEM 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've declared myself neutral after another look and done a bit of copyediting but there are still some issues:
    • Try to change the passive voice to the active
    • Cut out the colloquialisms and informal language. For example, "the nail in the coffin" should definitely be taken out, unless you can attribute it as a quote.
    • For the Reception, what really is the relevance of these fan sites? The whole section could be arranged differently as opposed to positive paragraph and negative paragraph, but this may amount to stylistic preference.
    • "Top video game of all time" means the same as the previous version, only that the prose is worse this time. I changed it back. Try to find more sources to support this claim
    • In general, the prose could probably do with more fine-tuning.

    I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • (I moved this to above Casliber's comment to avoid confusion). Ok, on specific points: I've changed how I'm describing the "greatest game" aspect to being "included in publishers' top game lists" (which is absolutely true); I've moved the fan community to the last section to avoid cluttering that one section in reception. I've tried to de-passive-y and clean up the language, I'm going to ask for a VG project member to help to a second check on that. --MASEM 14:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This is a real good article. I really wanted to play the game after reading it. I noticed a few minor issues that I would like addressed before supporting.

    • I noticed there aren't any citations in the lead paragraphs. I realize the statements were all sourced in the rest of the article, so this is not a big deal at all.
    • In the "Story" section, there was a sentence that seemed a bit out of place: "Manny steals a client from his co-worker Domino Hurley (Patrick Dollaghan)." Is this client Mercedes Colomar? It's kinda of implied by the proceeding sentence, but the flow seems off to me as it is now.
    • The voice actors in parenthesis kind of break the flow also. Would it be possible to move the voice actor content to the "Development" section?

    Other than those three things, I think this is a great article. It's well-written, properly sourced and a great read. I'll check back here later. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • For the third point, would it only make sense to bring in the non-red-linked characters into the dev section, and then possibly consider a link to IMDB for the rest of the cast as an EL? Mind you, there's no information that I can find why certain actors were selected outside of the language thing, but I can still say "the voice cast included Blah blah for This Character, etc." --MASEM 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's fine. The development section is already very comprehensive, it doesn't need that much extra info. Maybe add it to the paragraph with the music info to make the whole paragraph about the audio.
        One other issue that came to mind, though I think it's already been brought up, the "Reception" section has a lot of direct quotes. Would you mind if I massaged the text some? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support: All of my major issues have been addressed. The article is well-written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. A very good article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    Timor Leste Defence Force

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. This article has been peer reviewed and assessed as being A-class by the Military History Wikiproject and I believe that it is now FA class as it provides a comprehensive overview of East Timor's troubled military which draws on all the key English-language references on this topic. The East Timorese military seem to think so as well, as an earlier version of the history section is being used on the military's own website! The article has been copy-edited for compliance with the MOS and all images used are either free or have a fair use rationale. Please note that the article was recently renamed from Military of East Timor following a discussion on the talk page and consultation on the main East Timor page and wikiproject, and 'Timor Leste' is used in the title as this is the more common name for the military. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support (as one of the A-class reviewers). --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/mindef/Eng/n3.htm is a dead link
    • It's probably better descibed as an unreliable link - the East Timor military's website only seems to be active during business hours in Dili, at best. As it works some of the time and is a useful reference, I'm reluctant to remove the links to it outright.
  • http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/18/tnews16.htm looks like a repost of a no dead site. The site is given as http://ti-recentnews.blogspot.com and says "These are apparently from UNMIT Daily Media Review" I'm not sure this is a reliable site, since it is hosted on the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network
    • I think that ETAN qualifies as a reliable source. While it's an activist group, it has a long history of hosting the whole text of documents, including sections of documents and news stories which disagree with ETAN positions. As such, I think that this is OK given that it's not going to be possible to find a better link.
    • Everything else source and linkwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Licensing for Image:F-FDTL.png is incorrect. User:Boffin may have “cropped” this image from Image:East timor coa.png, but so doing is only the creation of a derivative work and does not give Boffin authorship, authority or right to release the image into the public domain. Image is expected to be the property of the government of East Timor, whose laws may or may not release government works to PD. Please determine the correct copyright status; again, current assertion that Boffin (whose talk page indicates numerous problems with uploaded images) has ability to release the image is false. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I'm not sure what I need to do here. The image was uploaded a while ago by someone else and is hosted on another (related) website and I don't know what the image's status is under East Timor's copyright law (if East Timor has such a law yet). --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • East Timor's government website is terrible (broken links, etc.), so I haven't been able to find the statutes to determine whether it’s PD. There’s also a language issue; my Spanish is just fine, but I’m not sure whether it would be sufficient to make “legal” determinations from legislative Portuguese. In any case, iff you believe that the image significantly contributes to our understanding of the article (required by WP:NFCC#8) and you can support that belief with an adequately worded fair use rationale, I’d recommend uploading the image to Wikipedia with this license: {{Non-free symbol}} The Commons, obviously, cannot host fair use images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. No obvious flaws, meets all the featured article criteria. MrPrada (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    Choe Bu

    [edit]

    Self-Nominator. I just created this article yesterday, but already it is showing incredible potential and promise as a possible featured article, with clearly-cut sections and sub-sections, ten nine stable and copyrighted images that are relevant to the topic, 35 42 inline citations (some used multiple times) from 12 17 different scholarly sources, has about 30 34 KB in size (including everything besides body prose), and has been appropriately categorized at the end of the article. I've even got a worthy external link at the end. Plus, a bonus: this is an interesting subject, so it is not going to bore you to tears reading about it. Lol. Enjoy.Pericles of AthensTalk 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment References look good. You scared the crap out of me with the "I just created the article yesterday ..." until I saw the article itself, not just the nomination page. No fair scaring reviewers like that! I'll try to look at the article itself in a bit, it certainly looked interesting at first glance. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks good to me, from a brief glance "and then ultimately executed during two political purges in 1498 and 1504" should be re-worded as it seems that he was executed twice. The lead also seems rather short in my opinion. There is also a great deal of images in the article, which seems to be a bit of an overload, especially the picture of bamboo shoots. That might be something to consider. Mattyness (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I just fixed that mistake in the introduction; thanks for looking out.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In careful consideration of what you suggest, I too believe that the bamboo shoots picture is perhaps a bit excessive. I've deleted that image from the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just expanded the introduction a bit as well, as you've suggested.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although I think a copyedit by someone wouldn't hurt, as I'm no expert on prose styling. Slight oppose Keep in mind I'm reading this as someone who has never studied Chinese or Korean history beyond a couple of books here and there. No systemic study, so some of my questions are going to sound pretty stupid to folks who know more.
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First sentence in the lead might be a bit run on.
      • Which court was he banished from? Chinese or Korean? Context is unclear to me.
      • "Ch'oe's diary accounts of his travels in China became widely printed since the 16th century ... " sounds awkward to me somewhere in there.
      • Agree that the lead seems skimpy. Of course, since mine are skimpy too, I'm not sure how to help here.
      • What's the difference between a prefectural town and a "normal" town?
      • A bit of context on what a chinsa examination was so I don't have to click through?
      • That third sentence in the first paragraph of Official career is quite a doozy, LOTS of offices listed there at the end that just sort of drag on ... Consider rewording, perhaps to "During his 18-year career as a graduate scholar official, he held posts in the Hudoang Library, printing office, and the national academy. He also held posts involving the military, such as on the military supplies commission, with the office of the inspector-general, and with the Yongyang garrison." (If I messed up on guessing which went where, I'm sorry. I didn't know where the "office of the special counselors should go.)
      • Consider this as the next sentence: "His career career culminated as the minister of the Directorate of Ceremonies for the capital, a distinguished office.
      • The first sentence of the southern china section starts "While still raining heavily, Ch'oe's crew..." which gives the impression that the crew was raining, a bit odd. Perhaps "Although it was still raining heavily, ..."
      • Any reason for the Chinese/Korean/Japanese translations of "brush conversations"?
      • One thing I'm noticing is that you cite things in sequence to the same source. Such as in the last two sentence of the second paragraph of Southern China or the first two sentences of the third paragraph in the same section. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you can cite the source once at the end of the two consecutive sentences. Nothing particularly wrong with the way you have it, it just makes for a LOT of little letters in the references.
      • Ch'oe and his party make a dash for shore, then suddenly in the next sentence they are under escort? Did I miss something in there?
      • The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of Southern China is pretty long. Consider chopping it up a bit?
      • "The battalion escort of Ch'oe's party reached Jiantiao Battalion ..." makes it sound at first like only the escort arrived, only later did I realize that the Koreans were along with too.
      • Another really long sentence is the one in the seventh paragraph that starts "Due to the hai jin laws, the Ming government .."
      • I don't understand what is meant by "lofty provisions that were complements of the transport offices".. provisions as in food or provisions as in arrangements?
      • Second sentence of the eighth paragraph, which starts "After visiting the Suzhou..." is "the Suzhou" needed for some reason? It isn't used in the sentence before.
      • First paragraph of Northern China subsection, the second, third, and fourth sentences all start with Ch'oe, which is repetitous. Consider changing one of them to something different.
      • With the seventh sentence of the first paragraph of Northern China, did you mean Southern Chinese rather than Southern China? Given that you talk about the northern Chinese in the second half of the sentence, and the comparison would make more sense if you were comparing the peoples.
      • Okay, is it important that the early printed copies of the diary are located in various libraries in Japan?
      • Mostly, I enjoyed the article, but I can't help feeling it wasn't so much about Ch'oe Pu as it was about his trip in 1488. While it was interesting, at times there was too much information, with a bit too much detail on dates and exact places stopped, especially in the first sections.
  • I've pointed out several very long sentences. There are others also, that might profitably be shortened a bit.
    • My main concern is the prose which tends to be a bit wordy and have long sentences. I've pointed out some concerns above with them, I'm not sure I'm the best one to be massaging the prose, since I tend to be wordy myself. I'm also a bit concerned about how much of the article is about the one journey and how little is on him or his family or even the importance of his diary in historical studies. Don't get me wrong, the story was a very interesting read, but I'm not sure it should be in so much detail in an article about the man who took the journey. Perhaps some of the detail could be in an article on the work itself? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator Response I've addressed each and every one of your immediate and specific concerns in the bulleted list. However, as to your concern about his journey in China, that is arguably the most significant event of his life in terms of impact on pre-modern literature and modern scholarly historical studies (which is covered extensively in the section after the "Death" of Ch'oe). To be honest, I've exhausted all the available resources on events of his personal life, career, and death. I can't find anything else. Most sources tend to focus on this one monumental event of his life. Therefore, the weight is given to that section. Plus, how is anyone going to make sense of the "Publication of Ch'oe's diary" section without knowing what his travel accounts entail? I agree with everything else you've suggested (which is reflected in the recent edits to the article I've based on your suggestions), but this one part I have to firmly disagree on. There is sufficient information on his official career and ultimately, the end of it. Although I couldn't find information on his immediate family beyond his father dying, it is significant that his grandson who published his work is mentioned in the last section of the article, which goes to show he obviously had a married life.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely an editorial decision on what to focus on. I'm not suggesting cutting the travel section way back, not even somewhat back. I just think it could profitably cut some of the minute details that are present in the beginning, including the exact distances traveled per day. For example, this sentence "In a daylong trip, the party reached the next station located 35 km (21.75 miles) north by the second watch of the night." would convey the same impression without the level of detail written something like "In a daylong trip, the party reached the next station during the second watch of the night." But, as I said, it's an editorial decision, and I'm not going to oppose based on that. I do suggest that if you don't cut the Southern China section back, that you break it into sub-subsections to make it easier to read. Right now it's a rather large wall of text and without being broken into section it is a bit hard to read.
    That's a fair assessment. Also, if you feel like the real "Ch'oe Pu" is lost in all of this, I have recently added a very good quotation from Kleiner's book on Ch'oe's affinity towards Chinese culture in comparison to his own. Just another tidbit to demonstrate his opinions rather than travel times and Chinese battalion names and other technical stuff.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE User:Historiographer has recently moved the page from Ch'oe Pu to Choe Bu, and this has pretty much severed the link between the FAC talk page and the article. I hope administrators can fix this soon, and keep his move of "Choe Bu"; otherwise I will have to revert his page move so that people reviewing this article as a candidate will be able to access the page from the article. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    University of California, Riverside

    [edit]
    previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)

    Nominator: Extensively revised and copy-edited by multiple parties since the last FAC. Since I haven't the patience to go through the whole MOS, I would appreciate any concrete suggestions regarding any stylistic or grammatical oversights on my part. Bring it. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I believe they are all fixed, as there is no longer a mixing of citation types
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the extremely picky department, some of the accessed dates in the references are linked, some aren't. I'm putting it up for your notice, not that I know whether you should or not. Random sampling of some of the other college/university FAs shows they are linked on those.
      • These refs need publisher information:
        • Current footnote 24 (University of California, News and Communications "UC Enrollment Growth"
        • current number 27 (UC Riverside Athletics (1 Oct 1999) UCR Invited to Join Big West Con...)
        • 28 (U of C, Riverside Office of Strategic Communications (19 May 2006 "UC Riverside updates plan for future law school...)
        • UCR Athletic Department (11 Nov 2005) "UC Riverside Women's Soccer" (current ref # 107)
        • "Southern California Rugby Football Union (current ref #115)
        • University of California Riverside (18 Mar 2004) UC Riverside to Dedicate Amy S. Harrison Field.." (current ref #112)
        • "UCR Karateen News (current ref #116)
      • No volume or issue information for the Lovgren Stephn "Gene for Key Spider-Silk Protein Found" in National Geographic, so that if the link goes dead folks can still find the source.(current ref # 56)
      • Same for the Kahn, et. al. "The UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection" (current ref #66)
    Web links all checked out as good. Ealdgyth
    Date formatting resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates; this article mixes {{citation}} with cite templates, resulting in inconsistent citation style. All of the citations templates need to be converted to citet templates. I have never encountered before on any Wiki article the strange and unnecessary date linking used on accessdates here, see my sample edits. The third chart (see my inline comment) completely runs off my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on this. I think the problem with the date linking was, I would copy and paste the date format used in the source article, and where the links didn't turn blue immediately I would mark them up manually rather than tweak the format. I was wondering what was causing this issue, as I have done this hundreds of times and the dates would never go blue consistently. Oh well, good to know now, I guess.Ameriquedialectics 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last FAC, I attempted to change all the "cite" templates to {{citation}} in these two edits, but somehow that caused the navboxes to display improperly. The problem isn't apparent when I view the older version of the article, which uses only the {{citation}} template. So either there was some kind of syntax error with the template at the time, or I was doing it wrong. szyslak 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember that. Very mysterious. Must have been a template issue, I would think. Anyway, I changed all the citation templates to citet tags, and fixed all the problems with the dates, I believe. Please double check. The third chart I forked off to Diversity at the University of California, Riverside. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Thanks,Ameriquedialectics 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comment - A few things:

    • In the last paragraph of the lead the final two sentences start with "In 2006/2007".
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead you have the Regents shortened to UC Regents, in the history you have their full title. Shouldn't it be reversed?
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This needs to be explained further, it seems to have been just dropped into the paragraph. "However, after Riverside's Mayor Lewis asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the south coast air basin a disaster area in 1973, Riverside became famous for its smog and subsequent student enrollment declined significantly." Why was it a disaster area, are you saying pollution caused this?
    This is explained in greater detail in the History article, but basically Hinderaker, the campus chancellor during the period, in an 1998 interview blamed sensationalized news reports of air pollution in Riverside for the decline in student enrollment during the 1970s. I attributed the info to Hinderaker's interview. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same with this "Poor gate receipts forced Hinderaker to terminate UCR's two-time California Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA) championship football team in 1975, but the development of innovative programs in business administration and biomedical sciences created incentive for students to enroll at Riverside and kept the campus open." I think you are trying to say as a result of the declaration enrollment/money dropped. But it is very choppy, you go from disaster area to poor gate receipts.
    I removed this from history, as there is a mention of it in the athletics section. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 1995, underrepresented minorities constituted 25.2 percent of the UCR student body, the highest proportion of any UC campus at the time." This could be written better. Maybe made up, accounted for? Also, who were these minorities, blacks, whites, Hispanics?
    Fact checked and fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this needs a citation. "With UCR scheduled for dramatic population growth, efforts have been made to increase its popular and academic recognition". Who says it is in for population growth?
    The Regents, but I can provide a ref for that. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the 90s references like this. I think 1990's should be used instead.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first phase of a new Commons was recently completed in 2007. Remove recent.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The regents are overlinked. A number of sections have the regents mentioned and linked.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "UCR was the first college in California to open a staffed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) resource center in 1993, the first UC campus to offer a LGBT minor studies program in 1996, and the first campus in the nation to offer a gender-neutral housing option in 2005." Needs supporting citation for each claim.
    The single reference used lists all the claims. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I missed the citation for these in the next sentence. You might want to consider adding the cite to this sentence as well. These are huge claims that shout for a citation. KnightLago (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The university recently bought a nearby apartment complex for student housing." When?
    2007. Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The soccer field was recently resurfaced with artificial turf, but the track field remains run-down." When? I see you say the track is run-down, but the citation for this is in the next sentence. I would add the cite to this sentence as well.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Famous alumni" would be better as notable alumni.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More recently graduated alumni include" could be phrased better.
    Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why is this semi-pro until April 18? Does it really need that long? I saw a little vandalism on one day and then protection for more than a month. Is this really necessary?
    Explained below. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In looking at the article I read very little negative information. Has there never been any controversy, criticism, etc.? Also, there are a lot of references back to the school. I would try and add more outside sources in place of some of the in-house sources you have. KnightLago (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding negative information, information regarded as negative has been presented, to the extent possible, impartially. Information generally regarded as negative includes the effect of smog on enrollment and campus development in the 1970s, (covered in history) UCR's student admissions selectivity and status as a referral school for applicants denied access to other campuses in the UC system, (covered in history and admissions) the PR survey designating UCR 11th in terms of "least happy students," (covered in "student life") as well as the poor condition of the track field, all of which are given appropriate weight, in my opinion. A controversy not on this page, which is discussed in the history article, is the faculty diversity ratio, which I was thinking of including in this article but I am not sure where to put it. Beyond that, the men's basketball team sucks, and before they got a new coach there was controversy over how that program has been administered, but I don't think it's relevant.
    I will work on those other issues. The article is under long-term semi-protection because of this guy: User:SummerThunder. He generally comes back within a few hours of unprotecting it. Thanks for your comments, Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I normally ask the negative question to see if the writers have thought about it and included everything they should have. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help or if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: outside sources, I've gone outside of the school to the extent possible on a lot of this... there are precious few third-party publications about UCR. More references link back to the school because the university hosts copies of articles mentioning it in the media, so whenever a link to an outside source goes dead i can usually find a copy located here:[17] Ameriquedialectics 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you took care of all my concerns. Good job. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. KnightLago (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many Comments Nice article. Am looking for nitpicks.
    • This jumps out: Info in the WP:LEAD about diversity and economic disparity is less notable than corresponding info presented in the body text. Suggest ditching the bit in the lead comparing Riverside to other UC schools, and use instead USNWR info about "third most ethnically diverse" and "15th most economically diverse student body in the nation" Ling.Nut (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if you mean the body of text in that paragraph in the lead or the body of text re: admissions, enrollment and retention in "the body," but both sections cover that info. (Nevermind, I figured out what what you meant, added to the lead.) UCR's diversity is largely a function its admission standards vis a vis the other UC schools and the fact that UCR graduates an equal proportion of students without regards to economic disparity is about the most notable thing about the university from some perspectives: [18] Ameriquedialectics 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article text states "...The Highlander's reporting has brought it into conflict with certain representatives of student government" The cited source spells this out more clearly: "Students, organizations, coalitions, and ASUCR senators, for the past three years, have described the Highlander student paper, specifically its staff, and its content, racist, sexist, homophobic, and perpetrators of criminalized notions of communities of color as well as being responsible for endangering the lives of womyn of color." Whoa, that level of detail kinda got passed over in the article. Leaving it out raises some flags about boosterism etc. in my mind. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's overblown rhetoric put forth by a student government faction in retaliation for critical reporting. The Highlander paper went off-line sometime in 2006, but from what I remember reading of the incident leading to these charges, representatives of a militant group wanted ASUCR to pay for a private "safe-house" and a non-UCPD affiliated security detail for women of color, and openly called people who opposed this idea racial slurs at an ASUCR meeting. The Highlander published photographs of the activists along with a extremely critical account of ASUCR's handling of the meeting the next day; the newspapers were stolen, and this move to redistribute the Highlander's referendum funds was proposed on the part of ASUCR senators sympathetic to the militants. The only reference i can find to this episode today is this [19]; racial turmoil on the campus seems to have died down since the individuals involved graduated or otherwise moved on, or at least I don't recall the Highlander having published any stories on further incidents from 2004-2006. During 2003, they also published a racially-offensive editorial cartoon about the English-speaking capacities of Asian GSAs and used to publish UCPD sketches of suspected criminals on campus, but I haven't seen or heard anything in print outside the Highlander regarding this, so I hardly think the charges are notable. (Found a solid ref for this. Seems 2003 was a bad year for the Highlander.) Saying there was conflict between a faction of ASUCR and the Highlander that resulted in a certain action is hardly boosterism, and is about the most NPOV way of approaching the matter without appearing to take a side. Ameriquedialectics 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I've made what I would consider further improvements to the passage. Previously, it read:

    Since then, The Highlander's racially-insensitive reporting has brought it into conflict with the larger communty as well as certain representatives of student government, leading to a stolen run of papers and an unsuccessful proposal to redistribute the referendum funds to other student publications in 2003.

    In this edit, I edited the passage to be more concrete about what is meant by "racial [insensitivity]":

    Since then, several representatives of student government, along with the larger UCR community, have criticized The Highlander for publishing racially-insensitive content, including a cartoon that depicted a stereotypical Asian American graduate teaching assistant with poor English skills.[citation re: cartoon moved here] This led to a stolen run of papers and an unsuccessful proposal to redistribute the referendum funds to other student publications in 2003.

    This doesn't presuppose the truth about allegations of racial insensitivity, and at the same time doesn't sidestep the issue, which led to significant controversy on campus. szyslak (t) 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a lot of student papers have racial sensitivity issues, and the Asian cartoon was only one of several incidents leading to the stolen run of papers and the referendum proposal in 2003. (Which I assume was killed in the student senate, as it was never put to a popular student vote.) I would say the second clause in that first line "...including a cartoon that depicted a stereotypical Asian American graduate teaching assistant with poor English skills," is probably unnecessary. There were a host of issues with the Highlander at that time, and as that event wasn't specifically mentioned in the referendum proposal text, it probably wasn't the reason the newspapers were stolen the day after that senate meeting. I won't contest keeping it in, however. (Addendum: Not that the two necessarily have anything to do with each other; I think the proposal and the stolen papers were outcomes of the disrupted senate meeting primarily, rather than the Asian cartoon specifically.) Ameriquedialectics 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 74 links to the front page of the UCR/California Museum of Photography website. Not sure how this relates to article text, and the website is not searchable. Can link to a subpage, or delete note? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Carillon Tower..is its name officially the Carillon Tower, Carillon Bell Tower or the Bell Tower? Note that a Carillon is a musical instrument and should be wikilinked. Moreover, if the word carillon is not in the Tower's name, the text should be reworded to clarify that. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of freshman admits...". I looked up "admit" online at Wiktionary, Encarta, Compact Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. I didn't find this noun form. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The main campus sits on 1,200 acres (486 ha)...". WP:UNITS states that "Measurements should be accompanied by a proper citation of the source..." I dunno if you wanna make an argument based on WP:IAR that these cites would clutter up the page... Ling.Nut (talk)
    • In the lead: "Some of the world's most important research collections on citrus diversity and entomology, as well as photography, are located at Riverside". OK I found verification for putting citrus diversity and photography as "world's most...", but not for entomology. I assume the assertion is true, so please make the statement and its verification more explicit in the body text. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Regional enrollment, 2007" table drags the whole page off to the right... requiring the use of horizontal scroll to read the table. I'm not sure how to address this. If you place the table below its mate to its left, you eat up vertical real estate instead of horizontal. If you delete the table... would that be a good idea?... you're deleting some info that may or may not be considered useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask what browser you're using? I use Mozilla, and the tables format automatically depending on what the window size is. I was thinking of getting rid of the diversity tables altogether as more complete statistical tables are already provided at the "Diversity at UCR" article. Actually, I'll just do this. Ameriquedialectics 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discrepancies: "Riverside State Assemblyman John Babbage drafted Senate Bill 512 allocating $6 million for the project.[15] Governor Earl Warren signed the bill in 1949 after reducing its initial allocation to $2 million." The sources provided don't support this version. The first source is a timeline which states that Governor Warren earmarked $2 million on April 21, 1948, and later (Aug. 1, 1949) signed a bill to appropriate nearly $6 million. [Note the sum went up, not down, and Babbage is not mentioned]. Eventually the project would cost $6.5 million (see July 30, 1952). Babbage is mentioned at this point, but only as the third of three people "instrumental in shepherding the legislation through Congress". The second source only mentions the 1948 signing of the $2 million bill. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I initially wrote this for the UCR history article, I was going by Judge Gabbert's interview [20] I later found those other sources but didn't collate them... I suppose they are more likely to be right, will edit the text to reflect them. Ameriquedialectics 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be a sourpuss, but to me it seems that UCR's role as a referral school, and its last-place position among the UC schools in the USNWR rankings, is a bit underplayed—even though the former fact is at least mentioned. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found some referral information I can make something out of here.[21] There's a ranking table on the main University of California#Campuses_and_rankings page detailing the standings of respective UC's; I don't see the need to point out UCR's standing as "last place" among UCs in US News, unless we also want to mention that this position ties them with the University of Vermont, University of Arizona, and UMass—Amherst, among other universities, but i frankly don't think the rankings are that important. Ameriquedialectics 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discrepancies. Puzzled. Needs verifiable research: "According to a 1998 interview with Hinderaker, Riverside became famous for smog after Riverside's Mayor Lewis asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the south coast air basin a disaster area in 1973". The Hinderaker interview never actually mentions 1973 as the date of the mayor's request to declare the city a disaster area. Wikipedia articles—perhaps copying from each other—seem to be of one voice dating the event to '73. The interview does mention news articles dated prior to 1973 about Riverside's smog problem, but perhaps those articles predated the mayor's request (?). However, this 50th Anniversary Timeline dates the request by Riverside's mayor to Nov. 14, 1971— two years prior to Wikipedia's favored date...
    • UCR itself, to my knowledge, has never been the subject of negative press coverage for the smog issue, the city was, and enrollment declines at the university were blamed on the coverage the city got. Ameriquedialectics 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we're still on the subject, "significantly" is kinduva weasel word in "...causing subsequent student enrollments to decline significantly". The Hinderaker interview gives some specific figures that could be (verified and?) cited. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discrepancy: "By 1995, African American, American Indian, and Latino student enrollments accounted for 30 percent of the UCR student body" The source cited states that "Proportional representation ... ranged from 25.2 percent of total applications at UC Riverside..." Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Date for source requested: "With UCR scheduled for dramatic population growth..." First of all, I would use "projected" rather than "scheduled": "With dramatic population growth projected for UCR...". But... perhaps more importantly... the press release used as a source is undated, leaving me uncertain whether these are.. still projections.. or whether events have caught up with the source text. If that's true, these can no longer be referred to as projections in any ongoing sense. The text of the press release makes it seem to me that it could date from no later than 2004, and perhaps much earlier. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Much improved. In some ways, it's well written, but there's a problem in the integration of ideas into some of the sentences; and a few other glitches need fixing, too. Here are random examples from the top. The whole article needs treatment.

    • "$730 million dollars have been invested"—each single one of them? And why $ and dollars?
    • Simplify: "Plans are underway to open a medical school—California's first new one in 40 years—at UCR by 2012." --> "Plans are underway at UCR to open California's first new medical school in 40 years by 2012."
    • Comment for Tony' The text originally read as you request. I dislike that version, as it prefers simplicity over clarity. The sentence is amibiguous: does "in 40 years" refer back to "open" or to "first new"? Sure, the meaning can be worked out. By why place the additional cognitive load on readers (many of whom are non-native speakers, I must add)? The cost of a pair of emdashes is worth the benefit of zero ambiguity. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no preference on this. Ameriquedialectics 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the version with the em dashes, mostly because it reduces ambiguity. (In fact, the em-dash phrasing might've been my idea.) Maybe we can remove the phrase "at UCR"; why would an article about UCR discuss an in-progress medical school elsewhere? szyslak (t) 10:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • False contrast? "While it is among the least selective of UC campuses, it is also the most ethnically and economically diverse of all the UCs, and graduates nearly two-thirds of all students within six years, without regards to economic disparity." I'd have thought the association between a lack of selectivity and ethnic and economic diversity were not surprising. Why is this jammed in with the six-year graduation point? Hard to position it (is six years prompt, too?).
    • "UCR was the first campus in the nation to offer a gender-neutral housing option in 2005, and its extensive outreach and retention programs have led it to become known as a "campus of choice" for minority students."—I'm thinking hard: the gender-neutral housing does have something to do with the outreach and retention programs, I know it, but it's still unclear. And some women would take issue with their categorisation as a "minority": 51% seems like a majority to them. Please make it straight-sailing to read. Also: "... and have contributed to its reputation as a "campus ...".
    • Tried to make the reference to LGBT student programs more clearly a part of UCR's general outreach and retention programs. The reference to gender-neutral wasn't a reference to women specifically... there is not currently an article on gender neutrality in a social sense on en.wiki, however, and the concept probably isn't adequately defined in the real world either, so UCR really is pioneering in this regard. Ameriquedialectics 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Their nickname was inspired by the elevation of the campus, which lies on the foothills of Box Springs Mountain."—My mind was assuming "elevation to the top-rank of sports ...."; then I had to re-run it when I realised you meant "altitude".
    • "The UCR women's basketball team represented the conference in the 2006 and 2007 Division I tournament, but lost both times in the first round. In 2007, the men's baseball team won its first conference championship and advanced to the regionals for the second time since the university moved to Division I in 2001." "But" is not logical, and I'd want to avoid the negativity in any case in the lead. Why not put the details in the main text below? Tony (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've just finished a thorough copyedit, which should take care of any remaining prose issues. If not, please feel free to let us know. I also did a lot of prose-realted work in January, during this article's last FAC discussion, when it wasn't close to ready from a copyediting standpoint. Not that I take full credit for this article's writing quality; many, many other users have helped tremendously. That said, this is simply an excellent article: it's well-researched and extremely comprehensive, with a clear, logical article structure. Overall, this article is more than ready for featured status right now. (And I mean now, not "when this or that is fixed".) I'd say "support" rather than "comment", but I feel my prose work has made me a bit too close to this article. I have a fairly large number of edits, but aside from my copyedits most of them either stem from a long-resolved POV dispute stemming from the edits of two users who departed a while ago, or are reverts of banned user SummerThunder (as Amerique described above). I think everyone involved with this article deserves credit for all their excellent work on an article that isn't easy to write. szyslak (t) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

    USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria of a Featured Article. The article has undergone a peer review at WP:MILHIST, a successful Good article nomination, and a successful A-class review (also at WP:MILHIST) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (Disclaimer: I participated in the peer review on this article.) I've given her another copyedit. Significant changes were adding endashes in date ranges and in routes (Bremen–Baltimore etc), and turning on links for the less common unit conversions (knot, hp) while turning off links for conversions in ft/m (only within the text, left them in the infobox). I also removed the hard spaces in dates; I don't know if someone suggested those to you, but they're absolutely not necessary in dates. A couple remaining issues:

    • I think you should pick either North German Lloyd or Norddeutscher Lloyd and stick with it throughout the infobox & article. No need to elaborate since you've linked to the wiki article.
    • The Immigrant Ship Info source doesn't meet WP:RS. While the website provides some sources for the information there, the info is already fourth-hand: some people wrote some books, some guy compiled a paragraph ostensibly based on those sources and emailed it to another guy, who posted it on the web. I note that one of your sources is one of those same sources; hopefully you can directly reference the Immigrant Ship Info footnotes to the Norddeutscher book.

    Good work on this. I don't see any major hurdles aside from that one sourcing issue. Maralia (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note for other reviewers who might notice one of the external links is down: history.navy.mil is the website run by the Naval Historical Center. Some of us from WP:SHIPS have been in contact with them about website outages over the last couple days; they are aware of the problem and working on it. This is an official website of the United States Navy, so I'm confident it will be available again shortly. Maralia (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That website is now back online — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I just left a note about DANFS sourcing in the talk page of the article. I wasn't able to find my way here, should have left it here. Can the generic DANFS disclaimer be dropped? doncram (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though paragraphs that are from DANFS are individually cited to the public domain source (and its named author), I feel that dropping the {{DANFS}} template would be intellectually dishonest. The individual footnotes do nothing to show that they are referencing public domain text. And, yes, while it would be simple to add something to the footnotes, current consensus on the incorporation of public domain text is to include notices such as this (a consensus of which you are aware through discussions you have participated in here, here and here). Also, on a practical level, keeping {{DANFS}} can help keep bots that search for copyright violations from flagging the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually i think now the problem is in the other direction. The article as presented does not adequately credit the DANFS text. When I asked the question, I had not analysed to what extent the article repeated the DANFS text. Reading the article I had assumed, incorrectly, based on your usage of the multiple footnotes to Cressman, that you had written material based on the Cressman/DANFS text and were being meticulous in providing where you got each fact that you wrote. I thought if that was the case, that the DANFS generic disclaimer would not be necessary, and that perhaps you only left it in an abundance of caution to give full credit where due. I was making incorrect assumptions about what would be done in developing this article to be a Featured Article candidate. In fact, I see that whole sentences, including ones with unusual phrasings, are unchanged from the DANFS text, starting in the World War I section of the article. For example:
    • "Bridgeport embarked a draft of 358 men for transportation to Charleston, South Carolina on 2 September and, after coaling, got underway on 4 September." in article, has wikilinks but is little changed from the DANFS text:
    • "Bridgeport embarked a draft of 358 men for transportation to Charleston, S.C., on 2 September and, after coaling, got underway on the 4th." in DANFS.
    For another example:
    • "Late in the morning watch on 15 April, Bridgeport sailed for the Azores as part of a goodly company of ships." from the article, is identical, except for wikilinking, to:
    • "Late in the morning watch on 15 April, Bridgeport sailed for the Azores as part of a goodly company of ships." from DANFS.
    Those two sentences leapt out for me, because of their non-standard phrasings. The phrase "as part of a goodly company of ships" should perhaps better be put it into quotes, for example, because it is a quaint, non-standard usage. And is it in fact ungrammatical to say "embarked a draft of 358 men", or is that just also quaint, non-standard usage?
    Those are part of longer passages that are nearly identical, which are adapted only very lightly from the DANFS text, which is more idiosyncratic and dated, although nicely written in its quaint style, than I anticipated.
    Given that, I think the small-font dot-point that is the DANFS template at the end of the references section is inadequate, that it is far too unobtrusive in the article to update the reader about whose writing appears here. I believe that the common reader would enjoy the article, find it well-written, and have the reasonable but incorrect expectation throughout that the article was written by wikipedia editors. Only a few readers would notice the unobtrusive template at the bottom, and be informed enough to do a double-take and realize that some/most?/all?/just-a-little? of the article was not the wording of wikipedia editors.
    I am not saying something like the following would be the only solution/improvement possible, but perhaps advance notice, and more prominent notice, would be better. In USS Pampanito (SS-383), a section-leading template now states "This section adapts text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships article "Pampanito", available here" and is positioned at the beginning of the DANFS-adapted text. My creating and inserting that template has been discussed and criticized elsewhere, in part because some find the notice too obtrusive, but I believe it is at least better in calibrating the readers' expections with the extent of DANFS material use in the article. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the consensus, as I understand it, the notice appearing in {{DANFS}} is adequate. Your suggestions of needing to quote public domain text, and the rather vocal opposition to it (in my view) are under discussion here, and are better addressed there. I think the merits of this article as meeting or failing to meet Featured Article criteria should be addressed within the context of current consensus on handling public domain text.
    Also, your mention of the approach at USS Pampanito (SS-383) is rather disingenuous, since you implemented that example, and per discussion here that particular approach was rejected by other editors. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to be disingenuous. I prefaced my mention of Pampanito with acknowledgement that I created that template and that it had been discussed and criticized. If it helps, let me acknowledge that I am involved in discussions elsewhere, where the criteria for FAC would be relevant to mention. I came to FAC to examine any statements of criteria on referencing public domain text. I do not find such statements, but I do find this Ship article using DANFS text is a current candidate. The SHIPS practices for treatment of DANFS material have been brought up repeatedly by others, in discussions elsewhere, and it seems impossible to discuss what practices should be for other PD material, without discussing DANFS, so I want to get more informed about DANFS usage and in particular about its usage in Featured Articles. If there is a consensus in place that is expressed somewhere, I would like to be pointed to that. I agree that if there is a clear policy statement or consensus otherwise expressed somewhere and if a change proposal process exists, that then it is fair to direct me away to that, for any purpose of changing that policy. I think, however, that policy should be based on characteristics of PD text, and one policy will not properly fit all, and I don't know where the relevant policy statement is or should be. So I acknowledge am here fundamentally because what are practices here is relevant to informing a potential general policy proposal somewhere else. And also that I want to understand enough about differences between DANFS and some other PD text, to be able to defend my wish to use quotations of that other PD text. With all that, I grant you are entitled to suspect I have dirty hands in participating here. But again it is not obvious to me what are practices or consensus here, and I do not see clear FA criteria relating to referencing of PD text. There is no other good way to find out what the practices are here besides participating, and it feels appropriate and honest to me to question the referencing in this FA candidate article. I guess I want to ask you to set aside the discussions elsewhere, and to ask if we can just discuss this Bridgeport article and how it complies or not with Wikipedia guidelines that are relevant. Can you respond to the questions I ask about the Bridgeport article? doncram (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the contrast between citation of copyrighted sources vs. citation of DANFS. Comparing the 15 citations of Dreschel to the 30 citations of Cressman, they look similar. Am I correct to assume that the Dreschel cites are for passages that are not copied, but rather that the passages are editor-written and the Dreschel cites provide justification for content, while the passages footnoted to Cressman are incorporated and only lightly adapted? The reader sees:
      1.  a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Drechsel, v. 1, p. 264.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad Cressman.
    which is similar and
       * Cressman, Robert J. (6 December 2005). Bridgeport. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. United States Navy. Retrieved on 17 January 2008.
   * Drechsel, Edwin (1994). Norddeutscher Lloyd, Bremen, 1857-1970: History, Fleet, Ship Mails. Vancouver, British Columbia: Cordillera Pub. Co.. ISBN 9781895590142. OCLC 303578
    which is similar, and the only clue for an informed reader that the degree of reliance could be very different is the separated, small font
      This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
    that appears further down. Can the degree of reliance upon actual wording of Cressman be communicated better somehow? I suppose that you could answer that you don't want to and that clearer differentiating is not consensus practice, but I am asking honestly. And is it correct for me to assume that long phrases, certainly anything as long as a sentence, from Dreschel, would be put in quotes? Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor. A wording issue unrelated to DANFS--I misread at first the sentence "USAT Bridgeport was reconfigured to carry war brides and other military dependents at the Todd Shipyard in Hoboken, New Jersey" to suggest that the war brides were carried at the shipyard, like this was a residence ship at the shipyard. I would prefer changing the order in the sentence to, perhaps: "USAT Bridgeport was reconfigured at the Todd Shipyard in Hoboken, New Jersey to carry war brides and other military dependents. She made several voyages between England and the United States in this capacity, ..." doncram (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Rule to separate my comments from the above blocks of text)

    To answer your questions about this article (if I have missed any buried in the text above, please bring to my attention):

    • The question about whether or not something is, in your words, "quaint, non-standard usage" or not: I don't think it is, but if you do, you are free to edit it.
      • Thank you first of all for your complete reply. I believe you restated and addressed all of my questions. About whether various wordings are quaint or non-standard, I was sharing my opinion, a comment on the tone within the article. I appreciate that the same language may not rub other people the same way. Perhaps others could comment on the degree to which they find such wording is unusual or appropriate/inappropriate for wikipedia. Thank you for the invitation, but I won't step in to edit the article now. doncram (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question about whether or not the "quaint, non-standard usage" should be quoted: I do not, because it is public domain text that anyone is free to edit. If an editor, for example were to think that the phrase "part of a goodly company of ships" could be better expressed as "a whole shitload of ships", then that editor is free to change it. If, however, it were enclosed in quotation marks, the original text would, in effect, be locked in place, never able to be changed or improved whatsoever.
      • If a phrase is very non-standard, I think it is better writing to rewrite it into new words, or to put it into quotes. Quoting shows some distance from it and sets it off as recognized non-standard wording that was composed by someone else, not by the wikipedia editorship. Putting it into quotes does not at all prevent another editor from changing it. For example, if there is a phrase in the article "in a 'goodly company of ships'", an editor who didn't like the wording and doesn't deem the quote to be helpful could replace it by, say, "in a flotilla", and in doing so consciously remove the non-standard wording and the need to attribute the non-standard wording to somewhere else. doncram (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of the character of the Drechsel cites: Yes, that is correct.
      • This question was about whether the Dreschel cites are for passages that are not paraphrased as the Cressman passages are. Thank you for clarifying (that the Dreschel passages are not paraphrases). doncram (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of notice about the Cressman cites: That public domain text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is incorporated is noted. That Cressman was the author of that particular material from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is noted. I think that each informs the other, so, no, I don't think that any further attribution is necessary.
      • Let me say, I did not at first appreciate the degree to which you were specifically identifying in the article where the incorporated text was. I understand now that you have gone to some length to identify each paragraph that includes incorporated or paraphrased text by a footnote to Cressman. This plus the DANFS disclaimer, which wikilinks to the actual DANFS text, represents a higher degree of attribution of DANFS material than is shown in many other Ship articles. I interpret that your treatment here represents a kind of "best practice", and I want to say for the record that I appreciate what you have done.
      • Still, I think that some improvement of the attribution would help. I expect that the average reader, or even a fairly interested one, would not understand the significance of the separated DANFS statement and put together the several elements here. I think the average reader would not end up understanding that the paragraphs ending with the Cressman quotes are largely or partially paraphrasings. I think some differentiation within the Cressman vs. Dreschell footnotes could be helpful in clarifying that. How about adding a sentence to the Cressman footnote such as "Paraphrasings from this public domain source are included"? That would put together more for the reader.

    (For example if a student was quoting a phrase from a paragraph of the Wikipedia article as a source, that could give pretty clear warning that the student should also check the DANFS source before quoting. It could be even more helpful if the sentence was wikilinked to an article explaining a wikipedia-wide or Ships-article-specific practice of paraphrasing extensively from public domain materials generally or from encyclopedic sources like DANFS, but I am not prepared to create that article, and I am not suggesting it be done right now.)

    • The question about material from Drechsel being in quotes: To use Drechsel’s exact words, whether quoted or not, could potentially be a copyright violation. Given that I have not used any of Drechsel’s exact words, it is rather a moot point.
      • Yes, thank you for clarifying that. I think it could be helpful, also, to communicate a difference to the reader, that while you paraphrase from Cressman, you do not paraphrase from Dreschel. Expanding the Cressman footnote probably would accomplish that differentiation. doncram (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regard to your comment about the phrasing of one sentence: I you think another arrangement would express the intended meaning more clearly, you are free to edit it.

    If you wish to continue discussing generalities related to public domain text, I'm willing to do so in other fora (though I'd rather be improving Wikipedia by working on other articles). Let's keep the discussion here related to whether or not this meets Featured Article criteria. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to stay focused in my comments here upon the referencing that appears in this article, and I hope you agree that I have. There are general criteria for Featured Articles about referencing, and some guidance in Citing Sources and in MOSQUOTE about use of quotations that does not specifically give specific guidance on what to do with public domain text. Your practice of including a footnote to Cressman at the end of each paragraph including paraphrasing, for example, is not specified in any of those sources. To suggest that you add a sentence to the Cressman footnote could possibly have implications on what best practice is, and eventually have implication in other featured article reviews, which would be fine in my view, if a better practice is in fact figured out. Anyhow I feel it is appropriate here, now, to focus upon the referencing and how it might be improved, or not, in this article. Again, I appreciate more, after further examination and your comments, how the referencing is more specific than I understood it to be earlier on. doncram (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Well-written. Pity there are so few sources. Do we need (Id No. 3009) again in the lead? Doesn't explain it, and you've announced the ID number already in the first sentence. Why are all the ship titles bolded? MOS breach.Tony (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We commonly bold the first introduction of alternate ship names in the lead, presumably based on an (admittedly loose) interpretation of WP:LEAD's advice on bolding variants of the article topic. The sheer volume of alternate ship names often makes it impossible to list all the variants in the first sentence as we would with a person or a place. I personally don't like the appearance of bolding strewn throughout the lead, but I suppose it serves a purpose in clarifying to people who arrive via redirect that they are, in fact, at the right article. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ships "commissioned as" name in the second paragraph is now de-bolded and the "Id. No. 3009" removed. That was an artifact from before the "ID-3009" was put in the initial sentence of the lead. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 25 March 2008.

    Genetics

    [edit]

    Self-nominator. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unclear why the current ref #2 (Hartl & Jones Genetics) has an 854 pages listed at the end? Did you mean page 854?
    It probably meant the entirety of the book. I've removed this, since I assume it's unnecessary. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Works! Although the citation needs a page number for the exact source of the information. I take it you did not add this citation? Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a textbook, and I do happen to own it although I didn't originally add the citation. The other one is too, which I also own. These citations follow the first sentence of the article as general sources for uncontroversial knowledge not covered by other citations within the article, per Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines: "Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources..." Madeleine ✉ ✍ 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okies. Learn something new every day! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The online copy of Wiliam Bateson's letter needs publisher information. Also, has this letter been published somewhere in a journal or book? If so, probably good to reference that also.
    This is (as you can see in the link) a private hand-written letter. I'm not aware of it being "published" in a journal. There is the later reference to the first formally published usage of the term, from that conference. Is the "The John Innes Centre", which has this document in its collection, considered a "publisher"? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct. That fixes it. (The historian in me would like to see some secondary source saying that it's the first usage) Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a reference to the OED. I'm accessing the online 3rd edition; I'm not really sure how to do these OED references, maybe you could point me to an example. I'm guessing it should have an access date, so I've noted that. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OED works as a source. I'll let an MOS expert look at the actual citation, because I'm not sure exactly how to do that either. I'd think Template:Cite web, but Template:Cite book also has an access date and url spot so that might be better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kenneth R. Bridges How Does Sickle Cell Cause Disease? reference needs a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable souce?
    Citing a publisher for websites is confusing to me. I suppose I could cite "Brigham and Women's Hospital Information Center for Sickle Cell and Thalassemic Disorders". Is this acceptable?
    While not as reliable as a textbook or journal article, this is a website for an organization for the disease within Brigham and Women's Hospital, an established medical research institute with strong ties to Harvard Medical School. In this case I opted for a reference people could freely access; I could provide a textbook reference instead, or in addition, if you feel it necessary. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - I think I picked it because it has diagrams spanning the amino acid change to polymer formation to cell distortion. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that publisher is fine, you've got the right publisher if that is the group behind the web site. I couldn't find any information on their site giving me any idea who was behind them. Knowing that makes it a reliable source! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • MedlinePlus: Phenylketonuria needs a publisher and last access date at the least, publisher and other bibliographic information would be better.
      • The Use of Model Organisms site needs last access date information at the least, other bibliographic information would be better
      • NCBI Genes and Disease needs publisher and last access date at the least, more bibliographic information would be better...
      • PHarmacogenetics fact sheet needs publisher at the least, more bibliographic information would be better.
      • The Post-Human Genome Project site needs publisher and last access date, more bibliographic information would be better.
    Links check out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and I've added last access dates and publishers that seemed to be organizations responsible for relevant sites. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I did the Good Article review a few days ago and was particulalrly impressed with the clarity of the prose and quality of the images. I wasn't expecting the article to appear here quite so soon. The article is accurate but needs more citations. Please find some, especially for the Natural selection and evolution section. I would make sure each paragraph of the article as at least one reference. Is a description of F1 hybrids and all those other F numbers needed?--GrahamColmTalk 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support It's comphrehensive, encyclopedic, well-written and most importantly— comprehendible. It sets a good standard for science articles.--GrahamColmTalk 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Since the article is pretty much a solo act and hasn't changed significantly since I wrote it last year, the best way to improve it is to get the feedback I'm getting here. As you noticed before I responded here, I've added some more citations — the history section was also lacking. If there are any remaining places anyone thinks should get a citation, adding a fact tag would be very helpful.
    I'll think about how to add stuff on F1 hybrids; maybe create a new section on genetic notation. Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a section Genetic notation and diagrams that includes information on F1/F2. I hope this doesn't disrupt the flow of the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I've read this one a while ago and it was pretty good. I don't have the time to look at it in the detail needed to provide criticism, and probably don't know enough anyway. One thing that I thought about back then was the need to have a clear scope for the genetics and gene articles to avoid too much overlap, although some is inevitable. It would be great to have a WikiProject on this topic. Richard001 (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Excellently detailed and expanded- above all, engaging. I was seriously interested when reading this, and I normally find the subject rather tedious. Teh Rote (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Brilliant! After a quick read, these were my suggestions, and have now been addressed:Leevanjackson (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead section... I am reading this in conjunction with Introduction to genetics seems the latter article goes into a bit too much detail (glossary?), and although some users call for a seperate article, I think this articles lead could be shortened to be an introduction, moving the current detail to a new more in-depth section.
    Sorry I took a while to reply here. I made a reduction to the lead that removes the historical overview: [23] This was before others had responded to these comments, so if someone liked the old version better feel free to revert. If the lead could use further (or different?) simplification, maybe the third paragraph (molecular overview of how DNA -> traits) could be removed. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • History and Research sections should be consecutive, since it finishes on research I'd suggest moving history just before it.
    I'm neutral on this. Does anyone else think this is best? I have observed that some people really like having the history at the beginning of an article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article works best with the History at the beginning. This is how the subject is often taught. Please don't move it. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggest moving the research techniques subsection into genetic change maybe rename and expand to be genetic manipulation.
      • The ending seemed a bit abrupt - think it needs a 'see also' or 'related articles' section
    • Support very impressive, I would have been scared to even tackle this topic. Please don't add a see also or similar Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 25 March 2008.

    Giants: Citizen Kabuto

    [edit]

    According to articlestats, the nominator (now retired) has never edited this article and User:Jappalang, the principle editor, is responding to the FAC:

    Jappalang 34
    Bryan H Bell 12
    Epbr123 9
    Thunderbrand 5
    David Fuchs 4
    The Merciful 4
    CyberSkull 4

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. The Development and Reception sections are particularly comprehensive and well sourced. FightingStreet (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FightingStreet is a retired editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Guess it shows that I never played the game or I'd have known the manual was in-universe. Thanks for the explanation. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources look pretty good besides that one site hosted on about.com, and the two lost links. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I noticed that the nominator didn't seem to have edited the article. Articlestats is not working at the moment (due to a wiki fluke I believe), but I notified User:Jappalang, who appears to be one of the article's most active editors, that there is precedent to withdraw the nomination if he felt the article wasn't ready. He has responded that he understands this and wishes to proceed with the nom. Maralia (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Numerous criterion three issues:
      • Image:Giants Cast.jpg – Per WP:NFCC#3A, “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”. The three characters in this image are present, in superior or reasonably equivalent detail, in other images utilized in the article (also a NFCC#8 failure, as contribution to our understanding, therefore, is not significantly above what has already been provided by the other images). Now moot, but image is also not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
      • Image:Giants Delphi Original.jpg is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
      • Image:Giants Meccaryn Jump Attack.jpg has the stated fair use purpose of “show[ing] the interface of the game, and illustrat[ing] an action scene in the game.” The interface can be seen in the Delphi and Kabuto images. The Kabuto image most certainly seems to be an “action sequence”. What significant understanding does “jump attack” provide above the contributions of the other images (NFCC#8)? Image appears redundant (NFCC#3A). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed Image:Giants Cast.jpg and reduced the following images to 0.1 megapixels as per low resolution standards: Image:Giants Delphi Original.jpg, and Image:Giants Citizen Kabuto Box Cover.jpg. The fair use rationales for Image:Giants Meccaryn Jump Attack.jpg have been corrected in regards to low_resolution rationales. The Kabuto sequence is an illustration to aid the reception section and is from external camera views. The Jump Attack picture is a gameplay screenshot. I believe the low resolution policy is directed at piracy attempts, which is impossible for screenshots of games. The 0.1 megapixel restriction recommended in Template:Non-free image data is a guideline which is commented in the archived talk here. Do these address the image concerns? Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The purpose in the FUR for Image:Giants Meccaryn Jump Attack.jpg still seems insufficient in establishing the significance of the image. If I'm correct in assuming that I know what the image is attempting to accomplish, I would recommend rewriting the purpose to align with this article prose: "Players control their characters from the default third person perspective". Reduction in resolution would lose the two small characters in the center and the "Sea Reaperman" text; I'm not convinced those elements are important enough to warrant the this resolution. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have reduced its resolution, and rewritten its FUR as well as the caption in the article to express the default third-person interface illustration. Are these measures sufficient? Jappalang (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, indeed! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Refs where the author is "IGN Staff" don't need that. Only give author if there's a definite person behind it.
      It is correctly attributed to them. Certain sites (e.g. GameSpot, IGN) only name the author if a certain staff member or a guest writer is involved. Crediting to the "staff" neither goes against policy or is bad form. Jappalang (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks tacky to write Staff when it's assumed, if nobody else is named. At least, to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move the image in the Reception section down, below the reviews table, so there's more room for prose
      I have changed the position as suggested, thereby "liberating" the text. :-P Jappalang (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Windows version box cover art" - not really needed unless box art was *very* different on other versions
      Actually, the PlayStation 2 cover is different. Refer to gallery of covers at Moby. The Mac cover is slightly different, more like a cropped version of the Windows cover (hard to find a large version of it but you can see a thumbnail of it at its apple page. Jappalang (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes sense. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include the soundtrack's track listing in the article (see Age of Mythology for a drop down box for that, if you like).
      I think a track listing is not a requirement for a FA. If there was substantial information or reviews over a particular track or several of them, then it would qualify under coverage to bring them into the article. However, since the article's mention over the music is a general overview, and history of selecting the composers; having a list of tracks would be superfluous. The external link to Giants World Domination offers the track listing for anyone who is interested. Jappalang (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, the last paragraph of the lead: "Game critics praised the game for its state of the art graphics, humorous story, and success in blending in one genre with another. Criticisms of the game centered on the Windows version being released with crippling software bugs and lack of an in-game save feature, the latter also a criticism of the Mac OS X version. While the PlayStation 2 version added this feature, it excluded the multiplayer feature; and critics rated it technically inferior to the Windows version. The game sold poorly for both Windows and PlayStation 2, although it enjoyed a successful launch for its small Mac OS X market." Sounds redundant, tacked-on clauses. Annoying passive voice which causes odd jumps in flow, for example "Each player directly controls a single character; a decision made by Planet Moon Studios to focus the players on the action without them getting overburdened with micromanagement." Also some random phrasing in reception, such as "Giants' scores of 85 and 86.7% on the compiler sites Metacritic and Gamerankings indicate most critics awarded high marks to it." (Why wouldn't you just state MC gave it this, GR has that?) The reception prattles on with sections like "The Entertainment Depot commented it is the levels in the Kabuto segment that are boring due to the same objectives throughout." Also, some glaring MoS issues (like commas after refs) which if I am noticing means it's in a bad way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have copyedited the article. All passive sentences are now active voiced. I have brushed up the connectives between the sentences, and rearranged a few to provide a better reading flow. I reduced the "prattling" on in the Reception by broadly grouping the reviewers' opinions instead of focusing on details, and eliminating most of the "namedroppings". I have also ensured all references are after punctuations, although I protest it only occured in the last statement of article in its previous state. As for why I did not state "GR and MC gave xx and yy", GR and MC do not review games but calculate a score. My original intent for the statement was to indicate the most reviewers, in the pool used by those sites, gave a high score to Giants. I have rewritten the statement to be clearer in this intent. I appreciate the feedback and ask of you to take a look through the article again. (Article as of these actions) Jappalang (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other concerns:
    • "As there is a limited number of Smarties in a mission" - are?
      I presume you mean the grammatical use of "is"/"are"? I believe this is contentious, but "is" is the proper form to use because we are talking about a group (i.e. "the number"). Although not recommended, let us try a bit of Googling. Google shows "353,000" hits for "are a limited number of" and 388,000 for "is a limited number of". This might mean they are equally used; but if we avoid the 'split infinitive' and go for "a number of", then "is a number of" shows 4,100,000 hits, and "are a number of" shows 2,760,000 hits. I would prefer one who has an English major to help us out here. Any one? Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He consumes Smarties to grow in size and power; when he is at maximum size, he can produce smaller Tyrannosaurus rex-like units as troops." - citation for the T-rex comparison?
      This is from the citation provided at the end of the paragraph since that reference provides for the ending two sentences. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The game world of Giants is set on the fictional Island, a piece of rock hurtling through outer space." - clarify; how can an island be an asteroid at the same time?
      The "Island" as implied by the capital "I" is the name of the piece of rock. I have italicized it as per WP:MOS to make this clearer. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They set up the Smarties' work ethics as part of a visual reward system; players labor for the Smarties while witnessing their hedonistic indulgences. The payoff, however, is a 'big gun'" - what is this big gun?
      The "big gun" is the metaphor for the reward. What is not more desirable than a "big gun"? Fans might argue it refers to the Millenium Mortar, but the source (the developer in the cited article) only states "giant gun" without specifying which gun is it. I replaced "big" with "giant" to make it clearer as a quotation. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the laid-back natures of his friends – Gordon and Bennett – frustrates him as much as the troubles gotten into by inquisitive Tel and Reg." - you've never mentioned 'Tel' and 'Reg' before - who are they?
      They are the band of Meccaryns he leads. I stated the composition of the band to clear doubts of their identity. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The player as Baz is on the Island looking for the missing Meccaryns, Reg and Tel." - You might have misunderstood me; passive voice is fine as long as it doesn't lead to confusion about who or what is doing what action. When the alternative is awkward, rephrase like "As Baz, the player is on the Island looking for..." et al.
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Timmy, a Smartie rescued in the first mission, functions as a guide for the player; he functions as a plot device to move the story forward" - rephrase to remove redundant-sounding 'function', perhaps 'also serves as' because there's no direct link between player guide and plot device.
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire plot section occasionally suffers from "the player... the player" redundancy. As this is the plot section, no one is going to complain if you use character's names for actions, if this cuts down on the awkward sentences.
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They also consulted... the team..." et al in development - vary the language ("Planet Moon" did this, that, whatever).
      Implemented the suggestion. I hope I have varied enough. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "MacPlay announced on November 01, 2000, it was publishing the Mac OS X version of the game" - remove the comma
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Interplay's division, Digital Mayhem, started to port the game to the PlayStation 2 (PS2) on January 22, 2001,[38] and posted updates of their progress on IGN." - you jump from October of 2001 back in time to January. Perhaps state this as concurrently, e.g. "Meanwhile the Interplay division Digital Mayhem had started porting the game to the PS2 on..." or something similar.
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They and IGN thought the enemy AI was terrible; enemies were unaware of the deaths of nearby teammates, or kept running into obstacles.[11][2] ActionTrip, however, had found the AI decent enough." - 'They'? Say 'Both FiringSquad and IGN' or something similar. Rephrase the ActionTrip's counterpoint, perhaps attach it with a semicolon to provide the contrast.
      Implemented the first part. Regarding ActionTrip's counterpoint, I could not simply tack it on with a semicolon as IGN's and FS's criticism had one (I think it looks bad and might contravene some grammar law or something). However, I expanded on why ActionTrip think the enemy AI was decent in a similar sentence structure to the criticism which should provide a contrast. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... pointedly asked why did Interplay focus on censoring the game for marketing purposes instead of testing for and fixing the bugs before release." - rephrase to "asked why Interplay had focused on censoring..."
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "they reported the game sold poorly for the Windows version." - rephrase to "they reported the Windows version sold poorly." and maybe note which publications reported the poor sales?
      Implemented the suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite Digital Media Online's pessimism about the smaller Mac OS X market's demand for the game,[72] it sold out within months of its release.[73] According to the quarterly sales reports by NPDFunWorld, the PS2 version sold 11,272 copies in the US for the 6 months since its release" - need some contrast between the sentence before talking about Windows selling poorly and then the Mac's sellout. Also, is 11,272 good for a PS2 game or bad? you need to state it- and write out '6'.
      I am not certain what you mean on the contrast part, but I tried something. Please read the change and comment. If it still fails to throw up a contrast, could you give more specific examples (they need not be on Giants). I have added figures from games released in the same month as Giants to back up a conclusion of poor sales on the PS2. I used Shadow Hearts, a Japanese CRPG and Max Payne an action shooter which I think is a pretty good selection. On the '6' part, I followed the guideline in WP:NUMBERS when it was not disputed, and recommended numbers in a statement to be all digits or words; but that is moot since the whole section is in dispute. I have gone ahead to the mixed format of digits for large numbers and words for the small numbers in this sentence. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    --When you've addressed these concerns, leave a note on my talk page and I'll stop by again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:33, 24 March 2008.

    Clem Hill

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured article criteria, being a comprehensive, neutral and well-referenced account of the career of one of Australian cricket's early characters. His later career was the subject of some controversy, involving boycotts, fistfights and heated meetings. I believe a thorough GA review has addressed many of the stylistic issues and removed some of the ambiguou statements. I hope others find it as enjoyable to read as I did to write. This is a self-nomination. Mattinbgn\talk 07:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notes usually come before References. See also would go before the Notes.
      • Is there an author listed for the Henry John Hill Aust DB article? Just asking since the Clem Hill one has one listed (I don't have access to the dictionary)
      • Don't shoot me for asking, but... is http://cricketarchive.com/index.html generally considered a reliable source? I'm not exactly up on cricket web sites. ** It also looks like cricinfo requires registration? Need to say "registration required" in the citations.
      • Is the "The Australians in England" a book that is hosted on the site? If so, can you list the page number (if possible).
      • The South Australian Cricket Association reference needs a publisher, you currently have Press Release in the publisher space.
    Otherwise, the sources and links look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Ealdgyth
      • This has now been done
      • No author has been listed, which is unusual for an Australian Dictionary of Biography article - see here for confirmation.
      • It is certainly reliable enough for the purpose it is used for here; provision of statistics. One of the general editors of CricketArchive is Philip Bailey, a leading cricket statistician. Cricinfo does require registration in places; another good reason to prefer CricketArchive for statistical information. The Wisden site needs registration as well.
      • The Australians in England, 1896 is an article in the 1897 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and has been accessed from an online archive. This has now been shown in the reference.
      • The publisher was the South Australian Cricket Association. Using the referencing format in {{Cite press release}}, the name in the publisher field is the issuer - "publisher: Issuer of press release". Should I be using a different referencing format?
    Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. A citation template for press releases. Learn something new every day. Sandy and/or some other MOS maven may tell you differently, but it looks fine to me, since it follows the template. (Hey, my normal field of editing, medieval bishops, does not exactly overflow with press releases...) Looks good to go to me! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, that's the easy part! On to the rest shortly. -- Mattinbgn\talk
    I knew that RfA nom was worth something ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His batting style was nonetheless attractive" - How?
    • My source, Robinson, doesn't really say. "It was not simply that he scored quickly, but that his batting was always animated. He was constantly on the move, playing attractive shots."
    Some of that could be weaved into there...talk about being a quick mover, etc. (if that's not mentioned - I forget!). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In total he was dismissed in the nineties five times" - Did I read this right? He got out 5 times in 10 years?
      • No, from 90 to 99 runs. Given the sentence before it — the whole phrase reads "In the 1901–02 season, Hill was dismissed in consecutive innings for 99, 98 and 97. In total he was dismissed between 90 and 100 five times in Test cricket" — I can't see that there's any context concerns here. If someone removes the preceeding sentence, yes, but at the moment I'd consider it fine. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, looks better. Thanks for catering for me! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "record partnership for the eighth wicket – 243" - I'm *thinking* that a different dash (em dash perhaps?) would be better suited here, if not a comma/semi colon. But I don't know.
    • should be an em dash and now is.
    • He has a ADB article but I don't think anyone is rushing to write an article any time soon. No reason to add it back until one is written.
    • "Rebecca, nee Saunders" - "nee" needs an accent acute, I think. Forget the character code :(
    • Done.
    • "Hill was one of eight sons and eight daughters" - probably should refer to him by his first name when discussing amongst other "Hill" surnamed-people. In any case, be consistent throughout this section - I see some "Hill" and some "Clem"
    • Now standard throughout the two paragraphs relating to his family.
    • "but the manner in which he made them" - specifically? Quick runs (Gilchrist-style) or what was it that was special about them?
    • Once again my source is not overflowing with details. "The way he made 21 on his debut against Victoria so impressed wicketkeeper Jack Blackham that he announced the discovery of another great batsman."
    • "the calibre of K S Ranjitsinhji and George Herbert Hirst." - slight POV? I dunno...
    • Slight, yeah but not needed. Reworded.
    • "played a brilliant innings" - is this a quote? Otherwise, I'm fairly sure on the POV here...
    • "Australia to 6/58[18]" - ref to end of sentence?
    • I can do this but this ref is more of a note explaining what 6/58 means rather than a source. Moving it to the end of the sentence I feel makes it less easy to find. Your thoughts?
    • "His 99 at Melbourne in the New Years Test was the first 99 in Test cricket" - redundancies - "99"?
    • reworded and I think it is now much better.
    • "with Wisden noting that he "play[ed] especially well".[55][54]" - swap the ref order here
    • Done
    • "The reply from McAlister — a member of the Board of Control who still bore some animosity towards Hill from past comments[59] — to Hill's request was" - should these be en dashes?
    • "Wisden obituary, [66]" - italics for Wisden
    • Yep
    • See also section should be external links
    • Of course, done

    Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the very thorough review. I have addressed all points above except where mentioned. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. – comprehensive and fully-referenced article which avoids peacock terms. I'm not sure that "Test" when used in a generic sense should be capitalised.--Grahame (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingo alert: can you please run through again to address lingo not familiar to people who don't know cricket? For example, I cant' decipher what these mean (these are only samples):
    • Hill was at the centre of a riot at the Sydney Cricket Ground after he was given out run out in a Test match against England. (given out run out?)
    • Despite this, a school sportsmaster threatened to leave him out of the School XI if he continued to play the hook shot. (what is School XI? What is a hook shot? Why is a hook shot a bad thing?)
    • dismissed for a duck in the first innings and was 0 not out in the second as South Australia won by 10 wickets. (Not 0 not out in the second, no idea what that means).

    Help. I noticed similar at Ernie Toshack; can you all try to make them easier on non-cricket readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to inform you on cricket (I'll leave it to Mattinbgn to make appropriate adjustments):
    given out run out – being run out is like failing to reach first base in baseball before the ball. It might read better "adjudged run out", if you think that the two outs confuse.
    hook shot – to quote Batting (cricket): "An aggressive, cross-batted shot played at a bouncer aimed at or near the batsman's head. The batsman must step inside the line of the ball and swing his bat around his head, hooking the ball around behind square leg, usually in the air and sometimes for six runs. It is a dangerous shot to attempt, but can be very productive." I don't think we want to say all that. A major difference between cricket and baseball is that in cricket you can play safe by hitting the ball into the ground and accumulate runs slowly but relatively safely. I suppose you could say "he continued to play the aggressive but risky hook shot."
    0 not out – in cricket there are 11 batsmen and innings is over when 10 are out, ie there are not enough batsmen left to have a person at each end and so one is left "not out". You could say "had made no runs at the end of the second".--Grahame (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the elaboration Grahame. I will make suitable changes now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sandy. I have had a shot at trying to wikilink more of the jargon and rewording where appropriate. Please let me know what you think. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling with this and with Ernie Toshack, and will need to work through both of them with care; may get to it tomorrow. Hopefully, the input from the non-savvy will pay out over the longrun :-) For example, what Grahamec see said above is still Greek to me (haven't looked at the article yet), and I am an (other) sports enthusiast; I suspect this is a combo of British English and not knowing cricket, but we should try to get as much clarity as possible, even for people like me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A little more context:given out run out, the point is that the home crowd disagreed with the umpire's call (which is not unusual in many sports) that a player was out. A hook shot is a shot that is strongly discouraged for normal players, but some good players get away with it and score many runs from it (which is the point of cricket). At the end of an innings all but three players are not out (and don't care) in baseball, but in cricket only one is not out and cares because it affects his batting average (which is most important in cricket) and because being 102 not out is much better than 102 out (because it suggests that he might have got much more, except that he ran out of partners). I would say in the context of this article that the reason that Hill was given out does not matter a lot (but there is no reason to leave it out), that all that needs to be said about the hook shot is that it is risky (and always discouraged by cricket coaches) and that while non-followers of cricket don't need to know that Hill was 0 not out in an innings or what this means, followers of cricket think it matters. It is not possible to give all possible context, baseball articles have arcane statistics too, even for somebody like me who has played softball in an Australian school and spent a year in an American school where I was not offered the opportunity to play baseball, but that was New York. I don't think the issue is British English, just cricketing terminology. Nobody in Australia (or India) uses the term wicket except in the context of cricket. That probably doesn't help much.--Grahame (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "what is School XI?" - XI in this context means "team". There are 11 players in a team and thus the school team is called the school XI. See 11 (number)#In sports for (a little) more information. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Many people outside the sport don't realise what a complex game cricket is, and this makes writing these articles a challenge. I think the challenge has been met here and the editors should be congratulated. Yes, there are some esoteric aspects of cricket that will remain a mystery to uninitiated readers, but the editors have clearly gone to great lengths to help them. The bowling statistics have been kept to a minimum and, more importantly, shorthand notation has not been used. The Wiki-linking, which at first glance seems overdone, is very helpful. (I was amazed to see just how many cricketing terms have their own articles on Wikipedia). The article is encyclopedic, well-written and well-sourced, exciting and interesting. Having said this, a few oddities remain:

    • Hill had little luck during this sequence of nineties.— No Sandy, this is not a cricketing term; it's bad grammar. Does this mean —"during the late 1890s"?
    • The pair put on 60 runs in half an hour before Trumper was out— can't we just have— they scored 60 (more)runs?
    • Contrary to expectations leading into the tour,— This could be clearer, how about— "before the tour?
    • Hill did have a tendency to get out in the "nervous nineties", —This will sound odd too many readers. I would delete it.

    And, finally, talking about deleting, that Excel chart doesn't add anything to the article. It's ugly, (what are those blue spots?), and will frighten novices into thinking that you need a computer to understand the sport, (which I secretly suspect to be true). In short, I would be proud to see this article on the main page, I am sure it would attract many more contributors to the project. --GrahamColmTalk 18:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 18:33, 24 March 2008.

    Tropical Storm Vamei

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I re-wrote the article and expanded it to become, what I believe, to be the best source of information on the web for this particular tropical cyclone. Now, this wasn't just any cyclone. It formed in a region of the world that is believed to be impossible for tropical cyclone formation. So, there might be a little problem or two, but I'll be happy to fix it if you point it out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak support Great article, with a lot of useful information, but needs a few more references, especially in the lead. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information in the lede appears later in the article, so there's no need for refs up there. Also, the entire body of the article is sourced. Regarding potentially not enough references, unfortunately, most of the references on the storm I had found were copies of the ones I chose for the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moderate Support If there is such thing...I like it all, but it seems to need a bit more expansion. Too little on anything else, such as aftermath. But then again, the other FA Geology etc. are just as long, so good enough, but a bit more would be nice. Especially with the limit info. And I like the wind measurements and the accurate time sustained, but they might need some refs...--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, there really isn't much info on this storm online. It's a bit of a tricky situation. It didn't quite cause enough damage to be known for that. Instead, most info on the storm deals with its unusual formation, and its record low formation. Additionally, it was just over six years ago, which is before the time period when tropical cyclones became really popular with news agencies. As I said, everything in the article is referenced. This is how I do things. I put a reference at the every section, which means all of the info from that section came from that one reference. A section could be a sentence, paragraph, or somewhere in between. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Are those 2 refs in the lead necessary?
    • "tropical storm, the intensity of Vamei is disputed; some agencies classify it as a typhoon" - can you wlink typhoon and tropical storm (if different to tropical cyclone, mentioned above. and if not, then just use the same word in both cases) for those who are clueless, like me!
    • "140 km/h (85 mph)" - to km/h and mph need to be wlinked to their respective units' articles?
    • The Storm history section image could have a better caption?
    • "a tropical depression about 230 km (145 mi) east of Singapore, which is 156 km (97 mi)" - I think you could drop the "which is" in favour of a semicolon (personally, anyway...)
    • "However, convection persisted near the circulation over land, believed to have been caused by upper-level diffluence." - might be jargon or I may be dumb, but somehow I just don't...get...this sentence...
    • Some refs (I noticed when looking at #4) don't have publisher info
    • "In 2004, the name "Vamei" was retired and replaced with "Peipah"" - anything else on this...seems odd as a parastub
    • The title of the navbox at the bottom is a redirect.

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments My list of copyedit issues, which follows, had so many really minor prose improvements on it that I took the liberty of making those changes myself. I've kept the self-completed part of my list below in case my explanations are helpful. The remaining issues follow.

    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On December 29, the system reached the southeastern Bay of Bengal, which was initially believed to have been a separate system." - 'On December 29, what was initially believed to be a separate system reached...'
    • "However, the JTWC classified as a continuation of Vamei in a post-season re-evaluation, based on analysis of satellite imagery indicating the circulation of Vamei crossed Sumatra without dissipating." - multiple issues. 'In a post-season re-evaluation, the JTWC classified it as a continuation of Vamei, based on analysis of satellite imagery that indicated the circulation of Vamei crossed Sumatra without dissipating.'
    • "The circulation from which Vamei developed from was a vortex that appears along the northwest coast of Borneo during every winter, which is maintained by the interaction between monsoonal winds and the local topography" - 'Vamei developed from a vortex that appears every winter along the northwest coast of Borneo and is maintained by interaction between monsoonal winds and the local topography.'
    • "Thus, the conditions for the formation of Vamei are believed to occur once every 100–400 years." - '...the conditions which resulted in the formation of Vamei...'
    • "Radar image of Vamei from USS Carl Vinson" - the ship name should be in italics (but not the prefix).
    • "Offshore Malaysia, strong winds from Vamei damaged two U.S. Navy ships in its eyewall." - 'offshore Malaysia' is awkward; the referent for 'its' is slightly unclear. 'Offshore of Malaysia, two U.S. Navy ships in Vamei's eyewall were damaged by strong winds.'
    • "Vamei brought strong winds and heavy rainfall to Johor, as well as to portions of Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, and Selangor; rainfall reached over 200 mm (8 in) in Senai in Johor. " - rewording can take care of the awkward 'in Senai in Johor': 'Vamei brought strong winds and heavy rainfall to portions of Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, and Selangor as well as to Johor, where rainfall reached over 200 mm (8 in) in Senai.'
    • "The rainfall caused a landslide along Gunung Pulai, which killed five people and destroyed four houses." - 'Along Gunung Pulai, the rainfall caused a landslide which destroyed four houses and killed five people.'
    • "Moderate damage was also reported to transportation, as well as to education and health-care facilities." - 'was also reported to' is awkward, and 'transportation' doesn't really stand on its own in this sentence. 'Moderate damage to transportation, education, and health-care facilities was also reported.'
  • "The typhoon is named after a songbird with white feathers, popular to feeders in Macau;" - what does 'popular to feeders' mean? are you going for 'common at birdfeeders' or perhaps 'popular among birdwatchers'?
    • The replacement, "The typhoon is named after a songbird with white feathers, and was contributed by Macau;[1] the name was retired after its usage." reads as though the typhoon....was contributed by Macau(!); 'retired after its usage' could be improved to clarify that it was only used once.
    • "at 1200 UTC", "at 0000 UTC", etc - I believe WP:MOSDATE prescribes colons in times.
    • I'm not going to argue this point endlessly, but I will say this: setting aside the issue of what weather professionals use (it's admittedly relevant, but I want to address your other reasoning), I'm bewildered at the suggestion that MOS isn't specific on this because it doesn't explicitly describe how to handle UTC times - a time is a time. The UTC page itself uses colons on all times.
    • I figured UTC was different. MOS is a guideline, not an official rule, and since the WPTC uses "1200 UTC", I'd rather keep it that way. FWIW, here is a reference supporting our usage of it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
    • "Tropical Storm Vamei weakened quickly as it crossed the extreme southern portion of the Malay Peninsula, and late on December 27 it weakened to tropical depression status before emerging into the Straits of Malacca, based on analysis by the JMA." - as written, the storm weakened...based on analysis by the JMA! Please relocate/rephrase the ending phrase to clarify.
    • "Additionally, the probability for a pre-existing tropical disturbance to develop into a tropical cyclone is between 10–30 percent." - several issues: with 'additionally' you are presenting the probability as an additional factor, rather than merely a statistical prediction based on factors including the ones previously described; wouldn't 'existing' suffice, rather than pre-existing?
    • "the agency issued Stage Red Heavy Rain Warnings, Category–3 Rough Wind Warning, and Rough Sea Warnings." - if the middle item in the list is singular, it needs an article ('a...Warning')
    • "The Malaysian government provided assistance to the affected families for food, clothing, and repairs, totaling up to RM5,000 (2001 MYR, $1,300 2001 USD)." - as written, the sentence doesn't make it clear that the amount is (I presume) an individual allotment. Perhaps 'The Malaysian government provided affected families up to RM5,000 (2001 MYR, $1,300 2001 USD) in assistance for food, clothing, and repairs.'
    • Ref formatting could do with a bit of improvement:
    • Australian Severe Weather ref needs a retrieval date.
    • The Gary Padgett ref needs a publisher.
    • It does appear that his work is at least largely self-published. I see that Padgett is cited in a lot of WP:TROP articles; is there a prior conversation somewhere concerning his qualifications as a reliable source?
    • The first cite of New Straits Times has a retrieval date but no url; all cites of New Straits Times should list it as a work, not a publisher.
    • The Dybas ref needs wikilinking on the pub date, and needs a retrieval date.
    • The USA Today cite should use cite news rather than cite web.

    Maralia (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the copyedit and suggestions. OK, I simplified the sentence about naming in the lede, as it wasn't particularly important. Regarding the timing, the MOS isn't specific for times that are UTC; FWIW, the rest of the featured tropical cyclone articles do not use a semicolon (simply 1200 UTC), which IIRC is the format used by professionals when writing about tropical cyclones. I clarified the sentence about JMA. I removed "additionally" in the other sentence, though pre-existing is the wording used by the paper it was from, and it emphasizes that a tropical disturbance is needed to exist before it becomes a tropical cyclone. I simplified the warnings sentence. Yea, your suggestion for the assistance makes more sense. I don't know what I should put as the publisher for the Gary Padgett reference. Though I cited it to that site, his summaries appear several places online, though just not in one particular place or published by any particular agency (the bottom of the page implies he self-publishes online). The New Straits Times links are from an online news service provided by my school, so there is no URL available. I changed it to work, I fixed the Dybas ref, and the USAToday link should remain cite web, since it's a website and not a news article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very much in line with other FA grade cyclone articles, in quality, content, and style. A little information on the aftermath would be nice. Coming from a cyclone-prone part of the world, I believe, there was much cleaning up up after the disaster, ideally with the international community involved. Anyways, a lack of that information shouldn't be a barrier in passing this one. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. The online site that provides info on disasters worldwide, ReliefWeb, turns up no results in a search for "Vamei", and does not list a single source in the database in 2001. The newspaper archive I used listed only 30 hits that even contained the word "Vamei", most of which talking about how it formed so close to the equator. While I'm sure there was some aftermath, there has been none that I can find. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 24 March 2008.

    This Charming Man

    [edit]
    previous FAC
    Former featured article – has been on main page

    Co-nom with WesleyDodds on a song containing the immortal line "Why pamper life's complexity when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seat". Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments The 'Fan Reaction' section doesn't really talk about the reaction of fans. Only what one dude said people felt about it. I'm also a little displeased with it being it's own section, especially considering the topic isn't discussed to a great length. The second paragraph in the section doesn't even stay on topic. Please remove it. NSR77 TC 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rid the article of that dudes openion. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not look at MOS/prose/etc. issues, just sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment on the pictures. The covers should be good for fair use, but I believe (someone else correct me if I'm wrong) that if you're claiming fair use on the still from the video, you need to use it for more than decoration, the critical reception of the video needs to be discussed in the article and the still should show something significant. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone. Thanks for the close look, the article is much improved now. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out the image. It did not add a whole lot, the article is not weaker now. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I share concerns about Image:Thischarmingmanvideo.jpg:
      • The existing prose of "the band playing the song in a room with a floor covered by flowers" is perfectly adequate to describe the video. The Fair Use image does not appear to contribute significantly above the contribution made by the prose (required by WP:NFCC#8).
      • The image is not low resolution (required by NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the video still here is fine. Stills can be pretty significant in demonstrating to the reader what the video looks like, without forcing them to watch it. I really dislike that rationale. In reality, I'd say that only 10% of all the pictures on Wikipedia are vital to their respective article. The way that rationale phrases it makes it seem like the picture needs to be an integral aspect of the article, which is not true in almost all cases. NSR77 TC 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A FU image actually must be integral; that verbiage is based upon NFCC#8. FU is, by its very nature, a violation of the rights of the copyright holder; if we’re to do this, we need a very good reason to do so. How is our understanding significantly enhanced by the grainy image of the band standing in the corner on a flower-covered floor? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a picture of that Top of the Pops performance might be better, if someone can find a shot. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't been able to find a RS to back up the claims, so the section is gone. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment "It met with a chilly reception from fans of a band.[26]" - This is a mere opinion, and should be attributed to its author. Currently, it's written as though the statement is factual (when it's actually just a critic's perspective). LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I cut the statement. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
    • "The Smiths" or "the Smiths"? Be consistent.
    "The Smiths" all the way through now. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does camp link to gay and moustachioed to Freddie Mercury. I'd rather "anthem to an 'out' moustachioed pumped-up alpha male self-assertiveness" be written maybe a little more formally; its kinda hard to understand what you're trying to say. "and alien to many UK homosexuals" seems grammatically incorrect.
    Relinked, and reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • TEAC three-track tape recorder - wikilink?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "release the song as a single instead of the slated release"
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of the song for release as a single." song is ambiguous here I think. "release" again.
    I think it's ok, or I don't see the problem. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matrix Studios, Strawberry Studios in Stockport, Greater Manchester - wikilinks?
    Linked. Delighted to see the wikilink for Strawberry Studios is blue. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • punctures one of his bicycle's wheels while cycling on a remote hillside.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A passing "charming man" pulls over in a luxury car to offers the cyclist a lift,"
    Reworded as "stops to offers the cyclist a lift". Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Driving together the pair flirt, although the protagonist finds it difficult to overcome his reticence" Shouldn't there be a "While" at the start of the sentence? Simpler word than reticence?
    'While' and 'Reluctantce' now both in sentence. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think lyrics should be in italics.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "archaistic" - is that a word? Or is it archaic?
    Archaic. Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "nothing to do with fashion" - what does that mean? As in modern trends/ways of speaking?
    I think its clear. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "homoeroticist" or "homoerotic"?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why 'single quotes' sometimes and "double quotes" other times? ('charming')
    Done, I think. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link faggot
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Professor of Popular Music - unnecessary capitalisations?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does homoerotic need to be used thrice in that paragraph? I think a lot of stuff in that para is a repeat of stuff discussed before, particularly the "meeting in terms of a "brief encounter" and suggests, on behalf of the songwriter, "partly a homoerotic attraction"."
    I cut all this. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • unusually danceable beat - "unusual" according to whom? What does "unusually" even mean here?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The drums were originally programmed on a Linn Drum Computer by Peter Boita under the direction of producer John Porter who used Boita's Linn Drum programme to trigger the sampled sounds of the live drum kit, featuring a Motownesque bassline." - Simplify please. Boita's Linn drum needn't be mentioned twice. Any wikilinks there?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Marr's guitar part consists of single notes of thirds as opposed to strummed bar chords, and his guitar serves to creates a counter-melody throughout the song." - wikilink appropriately.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link vibrato.
    Linked. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and in both videos" - huh? Which two? Why did the description of the music video completely disappear?
    Cut sentence fragment. Section was pulled due to a lack or RS. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article would not be comprehensive without a description of the video. Like plot summaries, describing a video doesn't need a source. indopug (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored under 'Release'.
    • Noel Gallagher doesn't need to be qualified twice.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • UNCUT -->Uncut?
    Changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why only the Peel session sample but not the single itself too? Include an image of the TOTP.
    2nd Ogg on the way. The TOTP img ran it to FU problems. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you tell me the start and end times I can upload the sample... indopug (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but Im traveling at the moment and the computer here has no media software. I'll comeback on monday on this when I get back home. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Smiths followers" - I think fans would be better here, unless you want to imply a sort of religious following.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the band's eponymous debut, The Smiths" - just link eponymous debut to the album and remove The Smiths.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's encouraged to avoid doing this by various music guidelines. It's really confusing to the unfamiliar reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't that heavy machismo quote from the lead be repeated in the prose?
    I don't see the point. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's that blah about "everything in the lead MUST be repeated in the body" indopug (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its gone now anyway. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. What I meant was everything mentioned in the lead should be mentioned again in the prose, since the lead is the summary of the article. So Morrissey's "heavy machismo" should be in the body of the article too. indopug (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating quotes doesn't make sence. The body section re: "then mainstream gay culture" and "'festive faggot'" repeates the substance. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll tweak the lead a bit after I go out to buy some cupcakes (in the middle of the night; I forgot it's Easter). But yeah, the lead doesn't need to contain the exact same content as the body; it just needs to convey the same information. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to qualify Travis in the Versions paragraph; I had to search back to find out who he was.
    Clarified and wiki linked on 2nd mention. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Track listings of the different releases? What about Personnel?
    Personnel at least added. Searching for the Track listings. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got em. Added. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about production, mixing etc? indopug (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both producers are credited in the infobox and article body. Ted De Bono is credited in the article body. I don't have a source for the engineer of the offical version. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    indopug (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these, I have fixed most, will follow up later. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose After finally taking a long hard look at the article, I'm still disappointed with it. I really think it has some serious POV issues. First of all, the TOTP performance, while being revolutionary and notable, is in no way "famous". The Smiths are and have always been an indie band. Their fame reaches only the boundaries of independent music and, since they never entered the mainstream, the word "famous" is a bit strong. The paragraph starting with "During a famous appearance on Top of the Pops..." is shockingly POV and littered with non-neutral statements. The UNCUT quote is a sentence too long. "The Top of the Pops performance would be cited by many Smiths fans as being a key event in their musical upbringing." That is not only a blatant POV statement, but it isn't backed up by a single source. The way the article is written I can't help but feel like The Smith's changed the world with this song; unfortunately, they did not. Praise needs to be toned down several notches. There isn't even a quote from a review that expresses negativity. Furthermore, I don't think the quote where Marr explains the song's composition is at all necessary, considering there are already several paragraphs of prose that cover it. Finally, the UNCUT quote that was added to the lead is irrelevant to the sentence subject matter and overkill. NSR77 TC 02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut your specific examples, will update when remaining instances are excised. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok all done. Except: I did not find any negative reviews, and I'm not sure there were very many/any. I've left the Marr quote as it covers aspects of the songs technical composition not else where covered on the page. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe it is typical to have a "References" section (containing what is now in the "Sources" section) before the "Notes" section. Is there a reason this article doesn't do it like that? Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Tuf-Kat. Its a matter of preferance (I think!). Switched and retitled now....Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My many, many thanks for such a careful and detailed review. The article is much improved. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know. I only restored this yesterday, but don't have the source and cant verify. I'm keen to chop it again. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Phew! Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 24 March 2008.

    D. B. Cooper

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria. As some of you may know, D. B. Cooper is the infamous aircraft hijacker who jumped out of a Boeing 727 with $200,000, never to be seen again. He has been subject of many references in popular culture, and the FBI investigation of the Cooper case continues to this day. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Just the lead for now:
    • Link flying minutes?
    • No article exists. I can't find any other page that might be of relevance to flying minutes (airplane speed came to mind, but there's nothing about flying minutes there).
    • "found approximately $5,800 in decaying $20 bills that were uncovered on the banks" unless you mean that they weren't in a cover.
    • "Brian Ingram was eventually allowed to keep $2,860 of this money." - But is this sentence necessary for the lead at all?
    • "In October of 2007" can this be a new paragraph? It happened way after the previous clues. Or maybe from "The nature" begin the new para? I think logically that second paragraph should be two.
    • "The Cooper case (code-named "Norjak" by the FBI[5]) still remains an unsolved mystery."
    • "unsolved mystery" and then "unsolved case". The repetiton is unnecessary; i think the second "unsolved" can go.
    indopug (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other links check out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added that summary; but I'm not so sure a better approach wouldn't be to just kill that section and include a reference to the main article in the "See Also" section rather than using {{main}} at all. TJRC (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I have removed the section and added D. B. Cooper in popular culture to the "See also" section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, my only objection has been addressed. Will (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:26, 22 March 2008.

    Æthelred of Mercia

    [edit]

    An Anglo-Saxon king; the most useful FA for comparison is probably his brother and predecessor, Wulfhere of Mercia. Æthelred and Wulfhere share a lot of historical context, so I reused quite a bit of the material written for Wulfhere. It's been rewritten, both to suit this article and to provide variety, but there's a lot of evident similarity remaining and several identical sentences which I couldn't easily rephrase. I feel this is OK but I wanted to point it out to reviewers so they can make their own judegements. The relevant material is in the first two sections, "Mercia in the seventh century" and "Ancestry and early reign". Other than that, several contemporary kings are now FA and they might be useful for context: Ine of Wessex, Cædwalla of Wessex, Aldfrith of Northumbria and Wihtred of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I'll be back by later to review and support or oppose. For now... we should just note that the linkie tool checker thingie up there isn't quite right, it tries to send you to a page that doesn't exist. I think it doesn't like the Æ in Æthelred, but if you cut and paste it in, it works fine. Also returns no issues. No issues with the sources either.
      • One quibble... you use Bede Ecclesiastical History and Bede HE interchangably in the footnotes. Probably should stick with Ecclesiastical History. (footnotes 13 and 24 right now are the HE occurances I saw).
      • I'm not seeing a bibliography entry for Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 656, p. 29 (footnote 17)
      • Yorke, p. 107, accepts the account in the Life of St Mildburh, which makes Merewalh and Æthelred brothers, as genuine. Kirby, p. 93, expresses doubts (footnote 18). Which Yorke?
      • I'm not seeing a References entry for :Eddius Stephanus, Life of Wilfrid, 20, in Age of Bede, pp.&216–127 (footnote 19) Also I think you wanted a non-breaking space in place of that &
    That's it. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the above are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, my first edit back..if only for the simple fact i dont want to study. But a cursory glance over the intro--the tone is a little colloquial, and you will need some footnotes in it too. --Osbus (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Footnotes aren't compulsory in the lead, unless there is something controversial there; do you see anything that needs a citation? Everything there is cited in the body. I'd be glad of any specific comments on the lead, since I'm trying to improve it, but I'm not sure what you're referring to at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lede's much improved, every concern addressed. Slight oppose Mainly due to the following concerns/quibbles/issues/pickiness: (picture me standing here with a nice dark English ale in one hand...)
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say in the lead that he was the son of Cynewise, then in the main body it's more nuanced than that. Probably better to just strike the bit about Cynewise from the lede. And was she crowned queen, referred to as queen, or are assuming she was queen because she was Penda's wife? (ooh, BIG can of worms there!)
    Agree on the lead; I cut it. Yes, Bede explicitly says "Queen"; IV 24 is the chapter. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However, AEthelred was unable to re-establish the domination of southern Britain that his father and brother had enjoyed." seems awkward to me. Perhaps "However, AEthelred was unable to re-establish his predecessors' domination of southern Britain."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh. Wilfrid. The last sentence of the lede is unclear, because (while *I* know more about Wilfrid than I ever wanted to) when you say "argued his case for the return of his ecclesiastical lands." it's unclear WHICH ecclesiastical lands you're referring to. I know you mean York, but most folks won't know that, especially as the sentence before has AEthelred giving Wilfrid a bishopric, and the logical inference is that the ecclesiastical lands Wilfrid wants returned are the ones AEthelred just gave him.
    I made it "the ecclesiastical lands he had been deprived of in Northumbria"; I didn't want to be more specific. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is Oswald? He just appears, some context would be good. Likewise, what are the two kingdoms that made up Northumbria? You mention them later, it might work better if you list them when first mentioned.
    I added "Edwin's nephew" to Oswald, and named Bernicia and Deira at first mention. Let me know if this is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. I wouldn't say (talking about Bede's HE) "this work also provides valuable information about the early pagan kingdoms." I'd say "Anglo-Saxon" instead, as by this time, the kingdoms are mostly (at least nominally) Christian. At least they are not all pagan.
    I made this change, but I think what I wanted to say was that Bede doesn't provide information only about the Christian areas but also to some degree about the pagans. I think your change is an improvement though so I went ahead with it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation on the "stirred up all the southern nations against [Nothumbria]" (all quotations have to have a citation on them direct, blech).
    Done -- it was the Stephen of Ripon cite from the end of the sentence, so I just moved it up. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'd say "A third suggestion is that the kings of Essex solicited the invasion, in response to recent Kentish attempts to ..."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, Putta ended up as bishop in Hereford after leaving Rochester. Was hereford in AEthelred's kingdom? Note I am still bogged down in the Bishops of Ely, so Hereford hasn't been done yet so I'm not as conversant with Putta as I should be yet.
    Yes, Hereford was in Mercia. Do you think this needs to be added? I didn't think it was important what happened to Putta (for this article, anyway!); it's just the effects of the destruction of Rochester I wanted to describe, and naming Putta and Cwichelm seemed a way to make it more direct. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was more informational, and also to alert you to why you suddenly had wikilinks in your article. (Also for why the articles I wikilinked suck so bad at the moment...) You could expand it a bit, if we think that AEthelred put Putta on the see at Hereford, but I don't have any explicit sources that say that. It might show he was expanding his influence if it had been outside Mercia. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You give no context on who Theodore was in the quote about AElfwine's death, it might be nice to have a bit. Especially as it intertwines with Wilfrid's life. (Theodore was in favor of dividing the NOrthumbrian see)
    I've added a note that he was Archbishop of Canterbury, but I'm not sure what you mean about Wilfrid -- do you just mean that the connections between Theodore and Wilfrid should be expanded on at some point? Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably best to leave the Theodore-Wilfrid spats in their articles, but you should be aware that the two of them were like oil and water appearantly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same section this sentence is just awkward "Osthryth was buried at Bardney in Lindsey, the monastery where she had caused the relics of her uncle..." it is the "she had caused" that makes it seem off to me.
    Reworded: "the monastery where, at her urging, the relics of her uncle, Oswald of Northumbria, were kept and revered". Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, something's wrong with the whole last paragraph. Was Ceolred a son or a daughter? You call C both.And did the Evesham chronicle name or not name the mother of C? It says it did, but the context really implies that it did not. What's the date for the Evesham chronicle anyway? How reliable is it likely to be?
    Oops. Fixed the "daughter" slip; he's a son; fixed the "name" error -- it did not name her, apparently. If you look for the Latin title in Google Books you can find the Rolls Series Macray text from 1863; according to Kirby the reference is on p. 73. My Latin is not strong but I can see near the top that the chronicle simply says Chelredus is not the son of Ostritha, and doesn't name his mother. (Kirby isn't clear on this so I thought you might want to see the source.) As for date, Macray's edition runs to 1418 but he lists the authors in the preface; from what I can make out it appears some of it is twelfth century. For reliability, I'm really relying on Kirby here -- he uses it so I figure it's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than use my (beyond rusty) Latin, I'll take Kirby's word for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And hey, given the anglo-saxon names (and I'm using one as my user name!) it's not easy to tell the sex of the person just from the name... we all make that mistake upon occasion. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • need a direct citation on the Bede quote in the first paragraph of the Abdication section.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hunter Blair in The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society says (p. 93) that AEthelred gave 44 hides at Fladbury to Bishop Oftfor of Worcester. He quotes the charter "so that just as when [the land] was first handed over, so again through his diligence the most proper life of monks living on it under an abbot may be recovered".
        • Same source, page 105. "Before 705 two nuns, Dunne and her daughter Bucge, were granted twenty hides of bookland at Withington (Glos.) by King AEthelred and his Hwiccian sub-king to establish a minster"
        • Same source, (p. 229) it appears that after his death, AEthelred was honored as an abbot. "...it was as abbots rather than as founders that King AEthelred of Mercia (d. 716), and the Nothumbrian king's thegn Eanmund, were buried and honoured in the churches of their ministers." He footnotes Bede HE iii II v. 24 (P. 246 and 566 of the Colgrave and Mynors edition), AEthelwulf De Abbatitbus II p. 395-402 ed. by Campbell, and an article by Blair on page 507 of Local Saints and Local Church in the Early Medieval West ed. by Thacker and Sharpe (Which I don't have).
        • Yorke, in The Conversion of Britain (Second edition, p. 63) at least speculates that perhaps the Picts were acting in concert with Mercia in pressuring Northumbria. "The history of the Norhtumbrian overlordship in the south had effectively been ended in 679 when at the battle oft he river Trent King Aethelred of Mercia (675-704) had avenged an earlier defeat of his brother Wulfhere by Ecgfrith and permantently detached the former kingdom of Lindsey from Northumbrian control. Whether Mercia and the Picts had been acint in concert against Northumbria is not known, but in the eigth century Onuist of the Picts (729-61) and AEthelbald of Mercia (716-57) may well have operated in unison to hold the northern and southern overlordships respectively between them."
        • Same source, it does appear that AEthelred was promoted as a saint. Page 193 "The body itself [of Oswald] was retrieved from the battlefield at Maserfelth, whose site was either in Lindsey (Lincs.) or at Oswestry (Salop), by Oswiu's dauther Osthryth who placed it in the monastery at Bardney (lincs) that had been founded by herself and her husband King AEthelred of Mercia (son of Penda) and where subsequently both of them were also to be promoted as saints." (My lord, that's a LONG sentence!)
      • Consider varying the first word of the first sentences of the lede. Each one starts "AEthelred..."
    I changed the middle one to "He", which I hope is enough -- let me know if you think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a brief mention of the other extant Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Which ones were still around, which ones had been subsumed by AEthelred's time?
    Do you mean in the lead, or the background section? I was hoping that the map would save me from having to provide that sort of geographical survey; is that not enough? Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me look at this tomorrow. I'm too tired to think straight. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the map, I'm not sure which are considered subkingdoms (such as Deria and Bernicia) and which are true kingdoms at this time. I think a simple sentence right after the first sentence of the first paragraph of Mercia in the 7th century should do the trick, something like "The independent kingdoms at this point consisted of Mercia, Northumbria (rest of list giving any subkingdoms that stayed under one overlordship this whole time) (then list any subkingdoms that tended to change hands)." You'll notice *I* can't write the stupid sentence... I had the sense to not study this period for precisely this reason. Much easier to keep track of Wales/England/Scotland with bits on France and Ireland impinging...
    I won't oppose if you really feel it's unneeded, but I know I felt a bit at sea on the who was really a king while I was reading the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you're at sea, others will be drowning. I had a go at this; take a look and let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • try "For kingdoms other than his native Northumbria, such as Wessex and Kent, Bede had an informant in the church at Canterbury who supplied him with information." which cuts the wordage and is more accurate. (This is Nothelm, later Archbishop, whose article (plug plug) is probably as good as it'll get)
    Didn't Bede have an informant in Wessex, too, though? Daniel, if I remember rightly? How about dropping the unnecessary reference to Northumbria and just making it "For Wessex and Kent, Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in each province, but he appears to have had no such contact in Mercia, about which he is less well-informed"? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. That reminds me the Bede article needs some work, it passed GA back in 2006. Anyway, I'd have to look. Add to my list for tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used the wording above; let me know if you have more comments on this one. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's our informant - Daniel of Winchester Bishop of Winchester. So that covers that part. Good ole Leo Sherley-Price says in the intro to HE (p. 26) that "Bishop Daniel of the West Saxons, who had provided information abou thtat province and the Isle of Wight." Not sure what you want to do with it, but it was bugging the back of my mind... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, yeah and that wording works. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it presumed that Hlothhere was forced to accept AEthelred's overlordship? Did he accept it and it is just presumed that it was forced? Or is it presumed that he accepted the overlordship? If the latter, why is it only presumed?
    This is from Zaluckyj, who says "Certainly, after the defeat of their army, the Kentish kings Hlothere and Eadric were only allowed to stay on as rulers under Mercian overlordship". She cites Dutton, which I don't have. I read her "Certainly" as "Presumably, and in fact almost certainly" -- I don't think there's anything in the primary sources to say this but she and/or Dutton are right to say it's pretty sure to have happened that way, given how these things worked. I felt I needed to signal to the reader that this was a deduction, not a recorded fact, so I used "presumably". How do you think this should be read? Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not take the easy way out... "Regardless of the reason for the invasion, the historian Zaluckyj believes that Hlothhere was forced to accept Æthelred's overlordship after this." That's one great thing about writing an encyclopedia as opposed to research papers, we can do that sort of cop-out. (If you tried that in a research paper you'd be laughed out of all the good historian parties!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the trouble with that is that I really don't like using Zaluckyj as an authority -- the impression I get from the book is that she is more of a synthesist than an original researcher with a reputation, and I don't think it would be good to name her as a source that way. Her book is extremely thorough, and I've found it often contains details I can't find elsewhere, so it's been useful to have, but I prefer to only use her when she is citing something else identifiable. Dutton, in this case. Can I get away with just changing "Presumably" to "It is likely that"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which Dutton? I'll go dig and see if I can find something that will cover this. The problem being... our libraries overlap a lot! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leonard Dutton, Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Yes, I'd noticed that! Thanks for looking; I hope you find something. I think some rephrasing will probably work if you don't, though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go with "Regardless of the reason, Hlothhere was likely then forced to accept Æthelred's overlordship." Likely just doesn't make it sound so ORish, at least to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- done. Mike Christie (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Wilfrid was able to return to Nothumbria in 704, I wonder if AEthelred had anything to do with that?
    I don't have anything that speaks to this, but I don't think it's a safe assumption -- Aldfrith of Northumbria died on 704 or 705, so it could also be connected to that. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Penda converted to Christianity when? Was AEthelred raised a Christian from birth? OR did he convert past childhood? There is little mention of how recent conversion was in Mercia, and of any conflicts with pagans.
    Penda died a pagan, but he didn't object to Christian missionaries, and two of his sons were converted -- Peada and Wulfhere. This was in the early 650s. Æthelred's date of birth is unknown, and it could well be that he was raised a Christian; it may also be that he was converted as an adolescent. Without any sources I simply left it that he ruled as a Christian king -- do you think this would be useful background? I'm not sure what I could say -- I could talk about Penda and Peada, but the background material is already quite long relative to the overall article and I'm reluctant to extend it without a good reason. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm.. you know. You say "He was known as a pious and religious king." up in the lead, but don't really go into that in the main text. You mention the fact that he retired to Bardney, but there really isn't much in the article to back up the claim in the lead. Some at the bottom, but it's not really tied together in a manner to say "Pious and religious", or at least not to me. Certainly attacking a bishopric so harshly that the bishop flees, the relics of Oswald are said to have been moved on his wife's influence, and you don't specifically say that any charters went to religious houses. I'm thinking this needs a bit more, maybe mention any grants to religious houses, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Done, with a nice quote from William of Malmesbury I found in Zaluckyj. Mike Christie (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the further data (to incorporate or not incorporate as you desire) department:
        • From Brooks The Early History of the Church of Canterbury p. 77 (discussing events after the death of Theodore of Tarsus in 690) "For it is interesting to find that Wilfrid's friend and protector, King AEthelred of Mercia, was exercising an overlordship over Kent at about the time that Theodore died. Thus in 689 he confirmed a grant of land made by the Kentish ruler Oswine, and on 8 January 691 he confirmed a charter of King Swaefheard. The later charter is particularly intersting since it shows that in January 6981 AEthelred had invaded Kent, for the confirmation was made dum ille infirmaverat terram nostram. We know nothing of the reasons for AEthelred's invasion nor of its results, but as Wilfrid's position in Nothumbria was again becoming untenable in 691, it is possible that one of the things that AEthelred hoped to achieve was the translation of his friend and protege to the vacant metropolitan see. But if this was indeed AEthelred's aim, he was thwarted." (others have speculated that wilfrid wished to be translated to Canterbury at about this time....)
    For everything except the Brooks I think we're OK as it stands. The charters Blair mentions don't seem worth making special mention of; Æthelred is already described as a religious king. The article already says he was made abbot of Bardney so I think we're OK there. From Yorke: I think the Pictish connection isn't definite enough to be mentioned for Æthelred, though it does for Æthelbald. Æthelred's (and Osthryth's) sainthood is already mentioned, so that's covered. Brooks: I think the article covers the charters, but I could add Brooks' suggestion that Æthelred wanted to see Wilfrid installed at Canterbury. It seems a little far-fetched, though -- Wilfrid was a Northumbrian, after all. And I already have three possible explanations for that invasion listed! How much evidence is there of Wilfrid and Æthelred being close friends at that early date? I can add this if you think it's justified, but I'm on the fence at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rembember Brooks is talking about around 691, not 676. Wilfrid had already gone into exile twice at this point, and the one big thing about Wilfrid isn't that he's Northumbrian, it's that he's very cosmopolitan. He's all over the place, Frisia, Gaul, Sussex, etc. He was in exile for about five years in Sussex, before returning to York, and then getting expelled again, which is when he headed towards AEthelred. It's entirely possible that he was good friends with AEthelred before this. Wilfrid definitely had a knack for living in style and consorted with kings easily. I know it's plausible that Wilfrid wanted to become ABC. (It would have suited his inflated notions of his own importance) His article is still very much a mess, because try as I might, I can't LIKE Wilfrid. So I keep putting off working on it and getting the needed sources. (grins). What a horrible reason to avoid an article, but there you are. Brooks definitely thought it was possible, and he's certainly an expert on this sort of thing. Remember this is not the 676 invasion, but AEthelred exercising overlordship in Kent in around 691. So it's not ANOTHER reason for the invasion and destruction of Kent. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh. Wasn't reading it properly. Yes, this is worth adding; I put in a sentence. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to run and pick up the child, I'll get back to the other replies when I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All in all, the lede feels lacking somehow, more like a section of facts tacked together (and I know my leads are often like this) with no real compelling "hook" to make the reader keep reading.
    I have this problem a lot; I think it's in the nature of leads. I'll have a think about ways to smarten this up a bit, but I've left this point to last and haven't come up with anything yet. If you have any good ideas, please let me know ... Mike Christie (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I had a go at this; not sure whether that's enough. Let me know if it's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You knew I'd be long-winded. Hope this helps! I'm of course, happy to support when some of the clarifications are made, etc. Feel free to argue with me about some of the more "opinionish" of these concerns. I reserve the right to find other things too.... Ealdgyth | Talk 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Great article. Certainly meets all the criteria. Two things: be nice if the map labeled where Rochester was, and in what community in Mercia did Æthelred live? --maclean 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not put Rochester on that map -- it's a general map used in multiple articles and I don't think it would add a lot of value. I've created specific maps for some articles, but I'm not sure there are enough locations mentioned in the article to help. How about if I give a specific location for Rochester when it's first mentioned? E.g. "destroying Rochester (in northwestern Kent), the seat of the bishops of West Kent"? For your second point, nothing is known for certain. There are towns known to have significant royal connections, such as Derby, Tamworth, and Repton, but nothing specifically to connect them to a residence for Æthelred. It's likely he moved around and stayed at different places, judging from what is known of other kings, but there's nothing in the secondary sources that mentions this with respect to Æthelred. Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but some comments I think the section on Osthryth's murder should be expanded. Who might have killed her and why is covered too fleetingly. Bede says she was killed by members of her own household, so this should be mentioned, and the other potential reasons for her murder, such as the very obvious deterioration in relations between Northumbria and Mercia (including a war, or at least a battle, and support for Northumbrian political exiles, or at least an exile), should be spelled out. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the info about Mercian nobles killing her, cited to Bede; you're right -- that should have been in there. I can't find any secondary sources to support your (reasonable) comments about the possible causes, though; do you have something I can cite? I looked at Kirby, Yorke and Stenton without seeing anything along those lines. Mike Christie (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:26, 22 March 2008.

    Opeth

    [edit]

    Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has come a very long way since I began the rewrite. (before) I welcome any comments or reccomendations. It may not look like very many sources for an article that is 37KB long, however the biography, written by the band's frontman, is used many times with its different chapters. The article meets all critiria for this nomination. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from RyanGerbil10
    • Comments. This looks good at first glance. However:

    **According to the manual of style, quotes which are more than two paragraphs should be enclosed in <blockqoute> tags. The addition of the name after the dash at the bottom of the qoutation expands it to two paragraphs.

      • Right away there is oversue of some redundant words such as "Opeth is a Swedish heavy metal band that formed in 1990..."
      • Some copy-editing may be required: "departed after an argument between the band, ... " (taken from the lead). Between is an awkward preposition to use here.
      • "... however, the band combines their genre ..." A pronoun would be more appropriate here.
      • "... and on average, their songs last around 10 minutes." 'On average' is kind of a weasel phrase. A better usage might be advisable.
    • I'll continue with other sections, but overall this article seems quite close, my first impression is that it is quite well written and referenced. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next section (Formation):
      • "Isberg asked former Eruption member ..." Eruption should be linked, blue, red, or otherwise.
      • "... with the exception of Isberg and Åkerfeldt, leaving to form a new project. The band's name was derived from the word "Opet", taken from the Wilbur Smith novel Sunbird. Opet, which meant "city of the moon", was the location of a fictional empire in the book." This transition seems like it could be improved.
      • "One show later guitarist Pettersson left, and Lindgren switched to guitar." Sentence fragment.
    • The rest of the section seems fine. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. I can't guarantee a perfact job, but I can help with a lot of stuff. I'll have a go at it and we'll see what other commenters have to say. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome. Thank you. That is the part I have trouble with on articles. I have to go to bed for school right now so I can't do anything else for now. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have finished my base review of the article. I cleaned up the punctuation, spelling, and in some places the verb/band agreement. However, another set of eyes would always be nice. I still have two areas of concern however:

    • The article contains the usages "UK' and "U.S.," which I'm sure WP:MOS has something to say about, this should be standardized and fixed.
    • The logo, despite having an impeccable non-free rationale, is still an SVG image with dimensions somewhere above 2000x1000. This might be a bit large for fair use.

    Support. Assuming those two things get taken care of, I would tentatively Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) #1[reply]

    Oppose As I stated in the peer review, I'm not sure about the validity of extensively citing a bio on the band's website, a self-published source. Has research even been attempted with regard to sources in the band's native language/country? Surely they'll be a goldmine of information. On a side note, the prose isn't up to the mark throughout. indopug (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anything that my self-promote the band in the bio is unused. Usually bios on a band's website are written from reviewers takes and not by the mainman himself. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field." I'm certain that this is an acceptable source. Maby to make sure, we should ask SandyGeorgia or Raul654. If it is unaccepteble, that sucks, but I can't do anything about it and it will remain a very good GA. I will wait to ask them about it until you state whether or not you also like the idea. Also, could you please describe "the prose isn't up to the mark"? Do you mean it needs a copyedit? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to try and verify the information through other sources. Nirvana, for example, loved to make stuff up in their press releases. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What if I found as much info as possible through other sources. Whould that work? They randomly made stuff up? That's rather funny. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced quite a few of those sources. Most of them now are quotes. The rest are of stuff I couldn't find elsewhere. We can agree on that usage, right? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it needs copy-editing. There are too many quotes in the article, hampering readability greatly (esp. those big blockquotes). Best if you work this off FAC I think. Why is AMG praise for an album in the Style section? indopug (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was fitting for a style section. Do yu mean you want it to be copyedited off FAC? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's fully realized, stunningly beautiful, and emotionally fragmented; it's a terrain where power, tenderness, and sheer grief hold forth under heavy manners. Awesome." - Please explain how that describes Opeth's musical style. It should be off-FAC because the sourcing is inadequate. indopug (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Opeth_logo.svg‎ is extremely infinitely high resolution (low resolution is required per WP:NFCC#3B). Also, fair use requires the image be used to identify critical commentary. Aside from the caption, article prose relating to the image is,” Still Life was the first album … to bear any kind of caption on the front cover upon its initial release, including the band's logo”. The implication seems to be that either 1) the logo is not critical to our understanding (NFCC#8 violation) or 2) the article is lacking appropriate prose regarding the logo (FA criterion 1B violation). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think the logo is not needed there, too. As the article says, they didnt really use one on their first few albums, anyway. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the high resolution, its an SVG, meaning that it can be scaled to whatever size without loss in quality/clarity. indopug (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is precisely something that should not be the case in a fair use image. Assuming resolution of the inclusion issue(s), the image would need to be re-uploaded in an alternate format. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can remove it if that is what needs to be done. I ddin't place it there so it is no loss to me. If someone wants to see the logo they can look at an album. I don't have software to downsize it. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please remove it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And for clarity, I just wanna say that it was removed, but Cyrus XIII uploaded a lower res version and replaced it. Skeletor2112 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacement image, Image:Opeth logo.png is also high resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and does not contribute signifcantly to our understanding. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone... again. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) #2 - sourcing and debate[reply]
    • Comment - I think the bands history article is fine for a citation in this instance, its written by the singer/guitarist/songwriter - its not a press release or some kind of advertisement. Looks like a lot of its cites have been replaced anyway, but it was used to reference things like tours, members, cancelations, some quotes, ect. Anyone concerned with that ref should actually take a minute and read what is linked.

    I have to take issue with a few things from indopug(big suprise, huh):

    • "Has research even been attempted with regard to sources in the band's native language/country? Surely they'll be a goldmine of information." - Not really in this case, the band conducts all of its interviews, writings, songs and everything in English. Im sure there are odd articles here or there in French, German, Swedish, or whatever, but everything they do is in Engish, including the band's website/history section, written by Akerfeldt.
    • "On a side note, the prose isn't up to the mark throughout." - Can you give any exact examples of what you mean? What isnt up to the mark? The article was just completley reworded/copyedited,(aside form the musical style section, which is coming) and I dont see any prose issues. Please, copy and paste the prose "throughout" that is not "up to the mark" so we know what you mean.
    • "There are too many quotes in the article, hampering readability greatly (esp. those big blockquotes)" - Other than album reviews, I count eight total quotes... A quick look at recent FA Flea, I see at least 15 quotes.
    • It should be off-FAC because the sourcing is inadequate." - Why are you always so quick to try and remove stuff from FAC? you did the same thing with the AiC article, and it made it. Instead of opposing or "STRONG" opposing or whatever, why not comment, and give examples as to what the article needs to meet FA standards? Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, I don't believe that FAC=peer review, and that if an article isn't already nearly there, it shouldn't be listed here. This article significantly uses a self-published source, and I am concerned that an entire article should be based on what the lead singer says had happened. The prose isn't as bad as I thought, apart from a few typos, but I'm really only opposing because of that source. Somebody guarantee me that that source is OK, and I'll strike my oppose and review the article normally. As for quotes, why should a four line block quote be used to describe an album in the band's article? "confident the record is gonna be available everywhere." - can't that be incorporated into the prose?
    And please, Skeletor2112, I would rather not be drawn into shouting match, your personal attacks against me above are bad enough. As for your belief that I always [STRONG] oppose, please check In Rainbows (a fantastic article I had no problem supporting after a few suggestions), "The Last Temptation of Krust" (which I copy-edited after the first FAC closed) and "Deja Vu" (which failed despite my copy-edit). Unfortunately, Skeletor, my standards as to what Wikipedia and Wikipedians can achieve aren't low, so I am strict with articles that, IMO, don't nearly make the cut. indopug (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Burningclean himself will attest to the fact that I helped address reviewers' concerns at FLC for (his) AiC discography. indopug (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how I attacked you in any way... in fact I think I was quite civil. It seems that you oppose certian people's articles straight away, while giving comments on others first -especially articles you worked on, like all of the articles you mention above. I realize that you have been here longer than your username, and you changed it for whatever reason, and you have high standards... but show me any FAC page that doesn't have suggestions, corrections, ect? You say "I am concerned that an entire article should be based on what the lead singer says" Looking at the references - the article uses seven cites from Akerfeldt's writings, thats seven out of the article's 48 total references. How is "the entire article" based on those seven cites? The "four line block quote" is used to describe the (often misunderstood) concept of Still Life. And in order not to minimize the genius that is Mikael Akerfeldt - he is the songwriter, lyricist, singer, guitarist and driving force for the band, not just the "lead singer". Its like you read the article a month ago, and decided then to oppose no matter what, without even looking at the article again. "The prose isn't as bad as I thought" - huh?? Thats what I mean. You give reasons that you don't even back up with examples, and I dont get that. If you dont think the article is FA standard, fine. Cite a reason, give an example, and that is that. But these lofty comments, like "its not comprehensive enough"(AiC) or "I am strict with articles that don't nearly make the cut" - just explain what you mean. Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, I never opposed for Opeth on the basis of bad prose, only sourcing. The article cites chapters of the autobiog multiple times, totalling 15. Pardon me for not recognising the genius of Mikael Akerfeldt; I guess the fact that he's a genius makes his word completely reliable and objective. As for that album, why should it be explained at all in such detail is my question? "you oppose certian people's articles straight away" - who are these "certain people"? Also, I mostly never even saw those pages I supported at before they came to FAC. Genuine query: is getting bored of your old username and getting a new one illegal?
    Oh, and the irony. :D indopug (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WOW! I missed alot overnight! [to Skeletor] "indopug(big suprise, huh)" That was a PA (minorly, but still...) otherwise it nothing else offensive was said. Indopug does have high expectatations, and despite being pissed of horribly and wanting to punch something, it really is, for the most part, good. Looking back on the AiC FAC (just about the longest running one in Wiki history) it was long, boring, and agravating, however it was a reasonable opposition. This one, personally, I think is a dumb opposition. If you looked at the bio that is on the website, it is practicaly a book. Mikael Åkerfeldt practically is Opeth. I know that sounds dumb, but any fan or person who knows the band would agree. We should really ask Sandy if the source is alright. Or someone superior to Sandy. I will after this message. I did find other sources for alot of them. The bio is used 15 times, but if you look at Slayer, one of the best articles I have ever read, you will see that a magazine/bio thing it used 18 times. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I apologize if saying "big suprise" was taken the wrong way, I meant of course that I assumed(when I saw comments from indopug)that he would have problems with the article. I guess his style is a bit frustrating to me, not always giving specific points that can be adressed, and trying quickly to dismiss articles. I didn't submit this article or AiC, and they both needed some work, IMO, to get FA. But the idea that the work can't be done "in time", and that the article should be "taken off" FAC because 15 of the articles 70 cites are taken from Akerfeldts own writings, is absurd. Yes indopug, for the record: Akerfeldt is GOD, his word is the Ultimate Law... i know sarcasm is hard to pick up through text, but come on, man. And it's too bad you dont like Opeth, because you are missing out on some great stuff! But yes, he is more than just the "lead singer", he is Opeth. It's like saying "meh, who cares what the piano player says" when you are quoting Beethoven... he more than just the pianist. Changing your username is fine, sure. ("illegal"? huh?) Inquiring editors could even trace back my username change if they wanted. I never changed my account, however, and all of my prior work is viewable to anyone. I have to imagine that with your knowledge of Wikipedia's FA process, you have been here a lot longer than your current account, probalby have written many articles, and done a lot of work here. And wether or not your old account(s) contain "problems" (or whatever reason you opted to make a new account), so be it. I was just assuming that you have more expierence than your account shows. Congratulations on getting a gold star! Ironic? In relation to what - your username change? Not sure what you mean, but good job. I know that you do good work, as anyone can see by your excellent comments on the In Rainbows page you mentioned above: you gave specific examples of things that could be fixed/adressed, and once they were, you support. Simple, I guess I have only seen your reviews (this and AiC) that were different, but that is exactly what I mean. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See, the problem with that source is not whether or not Akerfeldt is an important part of the band, the question is that after he typed up the story and posted it on the website, there is no third-party verifying the facts. That is the problem with any self-published source. In the case of Slayer, the words of the bandmembers have been published in a third-person magazine, thereby giving some integrity to the information.
    As for me not listing out clearly what my issues in this case and AiC's case, I disagree. Here, a serious flaw was that I thought the article extensively used that self-published source while in AiC's case, enough sources weren't researched/considered (the magazine articles remember?). Both the articles, IMO, needed to be FAC because the research was not good enough; prose, MoS issues etc were secondary.
    What was ironic was that in the same half hour I was commended for my reviews and had my integrity as a reviewer questioned! That just cracked me up. indopug (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have checked each and every instance Opeth's official biography has been used - it has only been used to verify factual information, and not for information concerning critical feedback. If a musician types up info and publishes it themselves, or echoes those same words to a journalist and it then gets published by a magazine, then the words of that musician have been published whichever way. For these reasons, I deem Indopug's opposition to Opeth's official biography being used here to be wholly invalid. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand where you are coming from, but I just don't think it is valid. I truley do see what you mean by the third party deal. I have a dumb question: What is "IMO"? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO=In My Opinion. Google is your friend. Will all participants please try to keep this FAC page focused on WP:WIAFA, without the personal off-topic commentary, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another dumb question: Wht does "Google is your friend." have to deal with this? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It means Google is a very good resource for answering questions. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) But, Lucifer, is it not fair to assume that that journalist would have (in some way) verified the information coming from the musician? Is this the same case with the website—No. As for the site being used only for "facts", I think its a little iffy if Akerfeldt comments on why other members left the band, because they wholly constitute only one side of the story. (Cites #3, 10a, 19d). Cites detailing record company interaction may not be objective as the band may despise the label because of the constraints imposed by them (time/budget/creative constraints or whatever). 19b could exaggerate the no of shows actually played. See, I'm not accusing the guy of lying or anything but as an encyclopedia, we need verified information, which this source sadly does not provide.
    Heavymetal.about.com seems looks unreliable to me; I'm also not fond of the use of tertiary source biographies to cite a Wikipedia biography article, also a tertiary source. Also, even apart from the autobiog, a lot more of the cites are Akerfeldt talking about his band. See the Smashing Pumpkins article, where despite a similar situation, the band's history is not presented from Billy Corgan's POV.
    Thanks, indopug (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Indopug, when it comes to factual information on an artist (not opinions, but factual information), the artist in question is deemed to be the best source by a journalist. If an artist says he was born on X date, I can assure you that a journalist will not be going around asking third parties to verify every single little detail. If we went with your opinion, then it means that artist interviews aren't deemed a valid source. On another note, Smashing Pumpkins isn't a similar situation - there's much more sources for that article compared to this one. Akerfeldt commenting on why other band members left does indeed constitute one side of the story, I agree. At least, now we're getting somewhere and getting to the root of your concern. There's two options Burningclean can use to address this;

    1) Find interviews with the departed musicians. 2) Attribute the reasons for the musicians leaving to Akerfeldt. So, it would say; "According to Akerfeldt,...". LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The second option would be still imply that the band's history is almost entirely presented as per Akerfeldt's POV. By "similar situation" I implied that the two were essentially one-man bands. I agree what you say about "facts", but a lot of instances here Akerfeldt gives reasons as to what happened: the small amount of studio time, stuff about record labels could be iffy if only referencing to the frontman.
    After a brief scanthrough I also realised that the prose is quite lacking at times and there are typos aplenty. Choice sentence: "Although Akerfeldt initially believed the band could not finish both albums in the allotted time, Opeth completed two full albums in just seven weeks of studio time, the same ammount of time it took to record Blackwater Park." - Has a typo, unnecessary complexity, repetition and redundancy; could be cut to half its size. indopug (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If his point of view didn't count as reliable, in turn, interviews would not be reliable either. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I fixed up that sentence, I had to leave in "studio time", though, because it wasn't seven consecutive weeks, it was seven weeks total, split up into a few parts. There again, though, when you say "prose is quite lacking at times and there are typos aplenty", please, can you list exactly what you mean?? Where are the typos? any additional prose issues? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Åkerfeldt said the primary reason for singing with Roadrunner was the label's wide dsitribution, ensuring the album would be available at lager chain retailers." - Yikes! "Although delays with the album's artwork pushed the release back an additional month, Still Life was released in Europe on 18 October 1999." - I don't see how "Although" fits in with the the second clause of the sentence. "This time it was, tough" - is that right? "Pleased with Still Life, the band sought to recreate the recording exeperience, and again entered the studio with minimal rehearsals, and with no lyrics written." - again, can be improved. Also check for correct spellings of "Åkerfeldt" throughout. These are merely representative of the prose issues; do you agree now that it needs a copy-edit? Maybe you should ask the LoCE? I also find all the albums' critical acclaim a mostly generic "brilliant" or "astounding"; could you maybe include more descriptive praise? Words like "brilliant" really do not add much to the understanding of the reader. indopug (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the typos, sentences, and put the Å on all Åkerfeldt's. None of the album's critical blurbs contain just "brilliant" or "astounding", the complete quotes are: "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth"; "startlingly unique," and "a far-beyond-epic prog/death monstrosity exuding equal parts beauty and brutality."; "brilliant", a "formidable splicing of harsh, often jagged guitar riffs with graceful melodies". I took out one "brilliant", as two reviews said that. I'm not sure it needs a copy-edit, but if these are "merely representative of the prose issues", please list anyhting else you see. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had the time to list all the defects, I would have time to correct them myself. I think you're being unreasonable in asking me to list each and every imperfect sentence here; haven't I already proven that prose is deficient at times? Even a light read-through of the article by fresh eyes would be enough to find and then fix the issues. I never said just "brilliant" or "astounding" were being used, but that those terms don't add anything to the understanding of the reader. For eg: "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth" - gives no indication as to the kind of music contained within and the reasons for the reviewer liking it; on the other hand, "a far-beyond-epic prog/death monstrosity exuding equal parts beauty and brutality." and "formidable splicing of harsh, often jagged guitar riffs with graceful melodies" are good in the sense that they succinctly describe the albums' strong points. indopug (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is about "proving that the prose is deficient", rather giving specifics on what you see is wrong. I don't think it's unresonable to ask that you give specifics.... if you oppose, give me the exact reasons. I hate to quote the FAC page again, but "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Non-specific stuff doesn't help us make the article better. And what you personally get out of the critics comments is a bit subjective, isn't it? When I read that 'a reviewer called Blackwater Park "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth", I get that the album is a)really good, and b)covers a wide range, creatively. I mean, its a long way from saying the ablum is "good", and "long" or somthing. Plus, the full review of that album is: 'All Music's Ed Rivadavia called Blackwater Park "astounding, a work of breathtaking creative breadth", noting that Opeth is "repeatedly shattering the foundations of conventional songwriting".[16]' In any case, I expanded the second part to say "keeps with Opeth's tradition by transcending the limits of death/black metal and repeatedly shattering the foundations of conventional songwriting". I agree that a fresh look is needed, I'll see if I can possibly get Tony, the "king of prose", to take a look. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all a matter of opinion Burningclean - indopug feels the source isn't ok, whereas I do unless there is material to the contrary. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do we know if it is okay to use? He seems to be the only one opposing it. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite me being the only one to oppose, that fact is that the source is a self-published one. Even if I agree with the usage of that bio (with qualifiers like "according to Akerfeldt") the band's history is to a very large extent (many of the other sources are Akerfeldt interviews) based on the viewpoint of one person (leave it be that he "is" the band). This isn't a question of his word being unreliable as such, but if the opinions of exclusively one person are considered throughout the article--especially on matters such as band mates coming and going, record label issues etc--then its a little POV. Maybe a little more (offline?) research will unearth more information in the form of articles written about the band, interviews with other band members etc. indopug (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I use interviews from band members. I spent hours looking for stuff other than Akerfeldt. The point is is that he does almost all the interviews. Other members, because they are so flipent, don't have the insight that Akerfeldt does. I also have quite a few magazines with Opeth featured but only two have usefull info. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to say that it's not uncommon for one band member to handle all press. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, maybe we need to consider a thrid-party non-music reviewer's opinions about whether the is in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:RS? If there is another band FA (preferably recent and of very high quality) that has similar issues? indopug (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Official bio is causing this many problems, I don't see why the cites can't be replaced with the RockDetector.com bio, which pretty much covers everything cited from Akerfeld writings. RockDetector.com Opeth bio Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I replaced most of the cites from Akerfeldt's writings, aside from a few that couldn't be found - such as album rehearsal times, studio length, shows played on the 2003-2004 tour, and the quotes taken from the Official Bio. Here are all of the facts that rely on the bio as of today:

    • When Åkerfeldt informed Nordin, who was on a vacation in Brazil, Nordin decided to leave the band and remain in Brazil.[10]
    I found an Itallian interview with Nordin, which was transcribed by the interviewer and posted online, where Nordin basically says the same thing - only the source may not meet WP standards. Anders Nordin Advent interview
    • Due to time constraints, the band were only able to rehearse twice before entering the studio.[10]
    • "This time it was tough", Åkerfeldt said. "I feel pleasantly blown away by the immense result, though. It was indeed worth the effort."[15]
    • "Steve guided us into the realms of 'strange' noises for guitars and voice", Åkerfeldt later said.[15]
    • "I wanted to write something heavier than we'd ever done, still I had all these great mellow parts and arrangements which I didn't want to go to waste".[18]
    • Opeth completed Deliverence and Damnation in just seven weeks of studio time, the same ammount spent on Blackwater Park alone.[18]
    • "Deliverance was so badly recorded, without any organisation whatsoever", Åkerfeldt said, that Sneap "is credited as a 'saviour' in the sleeve, as he surely saved much of the recording".[19]
    • The band embarked on their biggest tour yet, playing nearly 200 shows in 2003 and 2004.[19]
    • Åkerfeldt said the primary reason for signing with Roadrunner was the label's wide distribution, ensuring the album would be available at larger chain retailers.[26]
    • "To be honest", Åkerfeldt said, "that's such an insult after 15 years as a band and 8 records. I can't believe we haven't earned each and every Opeth fans [sic] credibility after all these years. I mean, our songs are 10 minutes long for fucks sake!"[26]
    • The band rehearsed for three weeks before entering the studio, the first time the band rehearsed properly since the 1998s My Arms, Your Hearse.[26]

    None of this stuff is really that controversial, IMO. And there's no way anyone can say now that the entire article is based on these cites. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The formats of the date entry in each reference are inconsistent; with some using January 31, 2008 and 2008-01-31. --Efe (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about the "Retrieved on" date? Or the date the article was written? Looking at the cite web template examples, it seems that for web cites, both dates should be in the 2008-01-01 style, so I changed all dates in web cites to that style. But the cite journal ref's use the spelled out month for publication date, and the numerical date for 'retrieved on', I think because magazines are monthly, and don't usually have a specific date(other than October 2001, ect) Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. I'd recommend removing the Rock Detector and Heavymetal.about.com biographies because they are tertiary sources and the sites are unreliable. Cite them back to the autobio if you wish; the statements aren't controversial. I think it would be a good idea if the nominator asks Sandy to restart the nom; this way potential reviewers won't be frightened off by the 40kB of text in this FAC. More reviewers implies better article after FAC. I'll be giving a detailed review of any other concerns (prose/MoS etc) later; I'll be happy support then. Thanks, indopug (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Skeletor. Jeez I miss a lot in a day. I wish we were in the same time zones! Good idea indopug. I'll ask her now. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Burning, could you ask again for this nom to be restarted? indopug (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I put in another request, Sandy probably missed the last one, as it was in the middle of her(very active) talk page. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy responded on her talk page, saying that she'd rather not restart this. Suggestions: "one thing you can do is cap off portions of the text that are no longer relevant," and "Another thing you can do if all agree is to move some comments to the talk page of that FAC, as long as you leave a link to the talk page so subsequent readers can see it." I think we can do that to clean out some stuff, plus maybe put a note on any relevant project talkpages (project metal), or other reputable reviewers talkpages requesting a review. Skeletor2112 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would somebody mind chopping out some comments and moving them to Talk:Opeth? I don't quite know what to cut out. I missed alot becuase Indopug, Skeletor, and I are all in different time zones and it seems that they edit while I sleep. I've been busy with school so I can't keep track of the many comments. However, I am on spring break currently so I will be able to be on more hopefully. I'm usually up much later (or earlier if that's the way you see it). So maby we could wrap this up before my week long break is over. Indopug, do you support, or are you nuetral? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral as of now. Copy-editing is required. I think either nom can take out all my comments from this page, we've reached a compromise on the issue of sourcing. Although I would once again like to urge Sandy that the best solution might be to restart this one. indopug (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be better to hide the comment by using that drop-down banner thing (copy the code from another FAC), since whenever a similar issue of sourcing comes up we can point to the archive of this FAC. indopug (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When capping comments, pls keep the following in mind: 1) do not cap someone else's comments unless all agree issues are resolved, cap only your own comments, 2) add your sig to the cap subject line so I know comments were capped by the original reviewer and so I know who did the cap without having to step through diffs, and 3) I can't see the hide/show button in black caps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One of my pet peeves is when an article can't decide whether an entity such as "band" is singular or plural. Please pick one and stick with it throughout the article. Second sentence: "The band has..." Third sentence: "...the band have..." Same issue with "Opeth": "Opeth is...", "Opeth incorporates...into their..." I've scanned a bit further down too and I'm a bit concerned about the prose (mostly flow, organization, and context issues). I might get around to a more in-depth review later. BuddingJournalist 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much so. Could anyone give this a good copyedit? Should I ask someone who doesn't know about the FAC? A copyedit seems to be the only problem with thsi beast! —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not to good at this aspect(as I mess it up everytime!) but what is the correct way then? From what I understand from the last FA we did, if the band's name is not plural, then it's an "it"? Even though a band is a group of people, it's not "they went on tour", its "it went on tour"? Just sounds so wrong... Can you imagine a voice-over reading "When Metallica went into the studio, only the best would do. It wanted the best production available, and did everything it could to achieve that." It forces you to use "the band" 100 times more, or the band's name over and over. I don't have any idea how to find it, but is there info in the MoS on the correct way? Skeletor2112 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Dihidrogen Monoxide 06:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comments - OK, I know I was supposed to copyedit, but I'm really not in the mood. Here's a review instead.

    • Remember to be careful with "is/are" and "has/have"...I might miss some, but a Ctrl+F should help.
    • "with Åkerfeldt remaining the one continual member." - I don't like the sound of this. Perhaps "with only Åkerfeldt remaining throughout." OK, that doesn't sound great either. You try.
    • "into their usually lengthy songs, most of which are more than ten minutes long." - kinda redundant, you could shorten this (or just cut off after the comma)
    • "release of their fifth album, Blackwater Park." - you should say how many albums have been released before stating that a certain album was fifth. Otherwise, it's a bit meaningless
    • Is there a better image for the infobox. You can hardly see them without looking at the full size image :(
    • "Morningrise was also a critical success, with All Music Guide giving the album four stars" - rather than be AMG dependent, have you tried Metacritic?
    • "After the tour, Åkerfeldt and Lindgren dismissed bassist Johan DeFarfalla for personal reasons without the consent of drummer Anders Nordin. When Åkerfeldt informed Nordin, who was on a vacation in Brazil, Nordin decided to leave the band and remain in Brazil." - I'm a bit concerned about the ref used here
    • "and also the first Opeth album to bear any kind of caption on the front cover upon its initial release, including the band's logo." - ref 12 seems to only cite this; what about all the stuff before it?
    • "Opeth released its breakthrough album" - how is it a breakthrough? You've mentioned positive reviews and stuff already; be specific (sales breakthrough?)
    • "the album ten out of ten possible points" - you don't need the "possible points"
    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the Orchid section. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I don't even know who wrote that. I doubt it has sold a hundred thousand copies. It's gone though. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Tony (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose—Reluctantly withdrawing the oppose, since I have no time to return again. See below. The prose is not a nice read yet. Here are random examples from the top. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to run through it carefully?

      • "The band has been through several line-up changes, but currently comprises"—The "but" isn't logical; use a semicolon and "currently, the band comprises ...".
    Changed to: "The band has been through several personnel changes, with the current line-up featuring Mikael Åkerfeldt (vocals/guitar), Fredrik Åkesson (guitar), Martin Mendez (bass), Martin "Axe" Axenrot (drums), and Per Wiberg (keyboards)." Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The band rarely played live in support of their first four albums, with their first world tour taking place after the release of their fifth album, Blackwater Park." Hate that "with" connector. Why not: "The band rarely played live in support of their first four albums, and did not conduct their first world tour until after the release of their fifth album, Blackwater Park."
    Changed to the same as above. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The band released its debut album Orchid in 1995, but would not see commercial success until the release of 2003's Damnation, which ..." Icky ick: please avoid "would" as a substitute for the plain past tense (did not see). The possessive 's for a year is not acceptable in formal prose.
    Changed to "did not see". Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One show later guitarist Pettersson left, and Lindgren switched to guitar."—comma after "later"? And can you be more precise than "one show"?
    Changed to: "Lead guitarist Pettersson left following the band's next performance, and Lindgren switched to guitar." The cite said somthing like "after one show, __ left, then one show later __ left, then one show later __ left" - no real dates. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "as a session bassist for recording purposes, although he would join the band on a full-time basis following the release of their debut album."—"for recordings"? Get rid of that "would", and all of the others: "he joined the band" and give us the TIME, please.
    Changed to :"The band initially employed former member Johan DeFarfalla as a session bassist for recordings, although he joined the band on a full-time basis following the release of their debut album in 1995." Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wacken.com is the official website for the Wacken Open Air music festival, rockbeast.com is a heavy metal site, i wouldn't call it reliable for news but the link used in this article is an interview with the website and the artist. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    M3tal H3ad is correct on both of those. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Return comments—The random test: Deliverance and Damnation (2002–2004)
      • "a long time friend of Åkerfeldt's". Probably drop the 's. "long-time"—all varieties of English would hyphenate.
      • "label" (which I had to stop and think about) followed by "record label"—why not give the fuller item first?
      • Spaced ellipsis dots, please; see MOS.
      • Huh?
      • Nicer style if you change the second "said" to "claimed that".
      • ... complexity."—Nope, this is a slip-up; dot after the closing quote, since the quotation starts within a WP sentence. Where a quote follows a colon, it may be acceptable, but it doesn't here.
      • If readers are still ignorant as to where Stockholm is, they should look at the opening sentence, where it's linked. Please consider removing repeat links, so that your high-value links are not diluted. Ration links to the good ones for a better read.
      • "including the Damnation album in its entirety"—Can you reword to remove two little words?
      • Caption: "Peter Lindgren performing in 2005, before he parted ways with Opeth."—It's all one big nominal group, not a proper sentence, so no dot. The verbs are downranked, but need to be on the top rank to qualify (like ... "Peter Lindgren performed in 2005, before he parted ways with Opeth.)

    I've withdrawn my weak oppose, but this small sample shows that more work is needed to attain the required "professional" standard of writing. Can you ask Deckkiller for advice? Tony (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'll contact him. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I won't. It seems he's retired. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    from a brief scan, its looking better. I'll go through it later and give a detailed review in a day or so. indopug (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shibby —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? indopug (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, shibby has nothing to do with it. That is my form of exlamation. I got it from Dude, Where's My Car? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has undergone another copyedit courtesy of Paul Erik, with details left on Opeth's talk page. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, he rocks. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • I really don't see the point of having lists of bands Opeth are goind to tour with; Megadeth, Lamb of God, and Arch Enemy; Dream Theater, Between the Buried and Me, and 3; Amorphis, Nevermore, and Angel Dust; Morbid Angel and The Blood Divine...Cradle of Filth etc... remove them please.
    • I got rid of the majority, but kept a few because they are important for the tour. —Burning
    • The paragraphs in the Musical style section are kinda stubby; could you combine them and rephrase them so that the entire section is more cohesive?
    • Done. —Burning
    • Decibel Magazine - "Magazine" is never in italics and caps in wikipedia; make it Decibel magazine.
    • Done. —Burning
    • gold and platinum → Gold and Platinum - throughout.
    • Done. —Burning
    • Link and write the full name of each member only for the first time; afterwards, refer to them only by their last name. For eg: Per Wisberg.
    • Done. —Burning
    • I suspect "setlist" may not be a familiar term for non-musical readers.
    • Bandmembers/bandmates aren't words.
    • Wow, Ctrl-F is very helpful. Done. —Burning
    • I wonder if naming each and every AMG reviewer is required as that bit of detail can go to the album articles. The names simply increase complexity. Standardise "All Music Guide" throughout; I see a "All Music" or two.
    • Again, i have to say that I don't get the point of that Still Life blockquote; if you really feel it necessary, reduce it to a sentence or two and merge into the prose.
    • I took a few sentences off and merged it to the text. —Burning
    • Why is that darn logo still there? I thought we agreed at FAC to remove it. This would also imply that elcobolla's concerns weren't resolved at all. Its also still at a too-high resolution.
    • Done. —Burning
    • Overlinking throughout, and in close proximity: Candlelight Records, Studio Fredman, Canada; also check for others.
    • Done. —Burning
    indopug (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please include ellipsis ([...] ← these things, without the square brackets) whenever you shorten a quote by removing material from in-between a quote. Also read WP:ellipsis. I noticed you hadn't done it when you reduced the Still Life quote. Could you check all the quotes and make sure they're correct? indopug (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the only one. Thanks dude. (check out my new sig :)) Burningclean [speak] 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I randomly looked at two other FA's for bands and they both have about the same outline as this article but also a "Legacy" section. Could anything like that be written from the sources you have? Has Opeth influenced the genre or other bands significantly?
      • I don't usually make comments pursuant to FA criterion 3, but the images of the band playing live are.. not very good. The two close-ups are okay, but the blurry ones from 100 yards away and the one that's dominated by the illuminated back of someone's head should probably go. They don't lend a polished appearance to the article.
        • Done. —Burning
      • "Originally formed by David Isberg, who left the group shortly after enlisting Mikael Åkerfeldt, the band has had 15 official members, with Åkerfeldt the only constant member." This doesn't make sense to me - it suggests that Åkerfeldt joined the band some time after Isberg formed it, but then it says that Åkerfeldt is the only constant member, suggesting that he has a member since the start.
        • Done. —Burning
      • Some word choices are awkward:
        • A recording "containing" acoustic guitar seems odd.. maybe "include"?
          • Done. —Burning
        • You don't "receive" commercial success.. you experience it?
          • Done. —Burning
        • "By January 2008, Opeth had completed 13 songs, including three cover songs." I wouldn't say "completed" unless they actually wrote the songs in the studio, which is highly unlikely. Maybe "recorded" would be better.
          • Done. —Burning
      • Getting to the History.. if Opeth is anything like pretty much any other band, there is some debate over what genre they are considered. Does your first source support the statement that Opeth was formed as a "death metal" band? I understand that the subtleties of Scandinavian metal are quite complex.. death metal, black metal, folk metal, metal metal, who knows what else. I think we need to be precise on this point and have a sourced statement about what the band considered themselves at the time.
        • We do. I'll double up the ref for more clarity. —Burning
      • What language is the word "opet"?
        • It's Wilbur langage. —Burning
      • "Unsatisfied with their slow progress, Döring and Dimeo left the band after their first performance..." Whose slow progress? What does that mean?
        • Done. —Burning
      • "Stefan Guteklint joined on bass in 1993, but was dismissed when the band signed its first record deal with Candlelight Records in 1994." Who dismissed him, the band or the label?
        • Done. —Burning
      • "The DVD was eventually certified Gold in Canada." What does it mean for a DVD to be certified Gold in Canada? Can you provide a wikilink or more information?
        • Done. —Burning
      • "Opeth was scheduled to perform in Jordan without a crew due to the fear of terrorist attacks in the Middle East." I was curious about this "no crew" thing so I clicked your source. It says nothing about crews or terrorist attacks. What source supports this statement?
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

    Elderly Instruments

    [edit]

    Self-nomination: After working on this article quite a bit (from scratch), I believe it meets the FA criteria. I researched the article extensively on the Web and at the library; I consider it the most comprehensive reference available about the subject, by far. It has had a peer review. I also got the owner to release several photos under Creative Commons for use in the article. Laser brain (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments web links all work (the little linky tool above says the NYTimes one has been moved, but no biggie), all sources look good to me. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Just some comments for now from my first read through.

    "decided to utilize" wouldn't use be better?
    It's a fine point, but the definition of utilize as "turn to practical use" I think suits this context better. Agree? --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "fixed them up" how about repaired?
    Done. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "due to the already larger number of musical instrument dealers in town" larger?
    Fixed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "get-out-the-vote non-profit organization" I'm English, this is lost on me.
    Clarified. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "online auction sites such as eBay" is the mention of eBay really needed?
    I feel it is, since the source mentions it. Many smaller musical instruments retailers now do the majority of their online business on eBay; it is notable that Elderly does not. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Totaled" I know this is linked but it ruins the flow of the prose.
    Reworded and de-linked. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "hard-to-locate" does this mean rare? --GrahamColmTalk 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, reworded. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I have read this interesting article several times and I would be happy to see it on the Main Page.--GrahamColmTalk 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <Moved off-topic commentary to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I think that there are significant prose problems with this article, some of which I'll list as examples.
    • "Guitarists routinely send invaluable instruments to Elderly for restoration and other important projects". What are these "other important projects? Wouldn't the instruments be better described as valuable?
    • "Around that same time, they began taking merchandise orders over their new Web site, the brainchild of an existing employee". As opposed to the brain child of a non-existent employee?
    • "Eventually, Werbin and college friend and business partner Sharon McInturff, who had $500 in capital to start with[5], leased retail space from local businessperson Ray Walsh in East Lansing, Michigan, who they met at a flea market, for $60 per month and started advertising locally." Muddled.
    • ... Elderly operates in over 35,000 sq ft of space ..." Sometimes imperial -> metric conversions are given and sometimes they aren't.
    • Elderly is well-known for the quality and expertise of their repair technicians ..."
    • Elderly provides a well-known appraisal service for vintage instruments. They employ ..." Lots of places where there is a confusion as to whether Elderly is singular or plural.
    • Hm, these two are tricky. Will look over the article for violations; I believe what you've copied above is correct. You would say: "Burger King sells hamburgers. They pay everyone minimum wage." Right? I'll double-check with my editor at work. --Laser brain (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is consistency. I really can't see any justification for mixing singular and plural as in "Elderly is well-known for the quality and expertise of their repair technicians ..." as opposed to "Elderly is well-known for the quality and expertise of its repair technicians."

    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I know the problem. :-) I do think that there are significant remaining prose problems though, and that maybe a fesh pair of eyes is needed. For instance: "New York City native Stan Werbin came to Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1969 to attend graduate school. He brought his banjo and guitar with him ...". Came to Ann Arbor? Was this article written in Ann Arbor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback - I will correct remaining issues and go over the whole text again for stragglers. --Laser brain (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just gave it a look-through without looking at the above comments. In the second paragraph of the lede, it says how it underwent major expansion, and then it says into mail order. Was its major expansion through mail order? If so, the wording should be revised a bit. Is there an estimate on how much money it makes per year? If so, that'd be a good addition to the second lede paragraph. Is there any reason "folk music" in the first paragraph of history is in quotes? I removed some facts that were fairly unimportant to the article, such as who they leased their first store from. Also, the history doesn't really delve too much into how they become so popular. It says that they did mail order, but I'd imagine that several other companies did the same. Was there anything they did unique? I recommend merging the "business model" section with the history section, as they sort of go hand in hand. "...one of the larger vintage instruments dealers" - is there an actual number for that stat? That'd be good. Also, in the history section, is it needed to include the type of building that the company bought? It'd be nice to see what percentage of its sales were from a particular model, but I realize that info might not be available. Also, I notice that the company is merely called "Elderly" many, many times in the article. Is that another official name for the company, or is it more of a nickname, so you don't have to write out the title every time? "Many notable guitarists..." - such as? Is there anything on the Old Fogey Distributing between 1988 and 1997? All in all, it looks pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs)
      • Thanks for your excellent copyedit and your comments here. I have addressed most of your concerns, except as follows:
        • I'm not sure about moving the Business model section into History, since the History is a chronological account and the Business model is just general information I found.
        • The source does not specify where Elderly ranks in vintage instrument sales, just that it is one of the larger.
        • I included the Odd Fellows building information because it might be an interesting fact. You can see from the exterior picture that the building is somewhat eccentric (for an American retail shop) with the large "IOOF" intact. I thought readers might wonder where this came from.
        • No detailed sales information was available from my sources (or on Elderly's web site).
        • The company is called "Elderly" at times in most of my sources; do you think it's too informal? I guess I consider it the same as calling a restaurant "Wendy's" when its full name is "Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers".
        • I struggled with the notable guitarists bit because the source supports it but gives no names. I think it's important though. I can find musicians who have seen famous people in Elderly but they are just anecdotes. No reliable sources.
        • I found almost nothing on Old Fogey - it was a last-minute addition and only one source mentioned it. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's starting to look a lot better, but there are still a number of prose issues. For example:
    • "In 1986, Werbin bought out McInturff, who remains the sole owner." Who remains the sole owner? McInturff, even though he was bought out?
    • "Web" and "Internet" aren't capitalised consistently.

    I'll have another look through the whole article later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Werbin/McInturff thing was a recent edit; I reverted it back to the way it was. Fixed the Web/Internet issue. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At these shows, Werbin or other staff members load vans with typical bluegrass instruments like banjos, guitars, mandolins, fiddles and resophonic guitars to showcase to musicians and businesspeople." So they load the vans at the shows?
    • "Although he initially tried operating in Ann Arbor, Werbin eventually decided to avoid doing business there ...". I'm quite certain that Elderly will do business wherever they can. Perhaps this means "decided to move from Ann Arbor"? This article badly needs a fresh pair of eyes to look it over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed these. As I said earlier, I'm at the point where I'm not seeing anything else and multiple editors have had their eyes on it for a few days. I will poke around for another copyeditor but I'm starting to lose confidence that the article is ready if it's as bad as you keep saying. I might have to try again at a later time. --Laser brain (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get discouraged, I'm wavering now. ;-) With just a bit more copyediting I might be changing my mind and supporting this article soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I noted that Epbr123 has also gone through it in the last 24 hours. --Laser brain (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I made some copyedits. It is a fine read, indeed. Couple questions I was left with:
      • Werbin and Sharon McInturff, his college friend and business partner, leased retail space in East Lansing, Michigan for $60 a month in... - could a year be placed in that sentence for better context on the $60?
      • In 1986, Werbin bought out McInturff and is now the sole owner. - tense shift in middle of sentence. bought out McInturff to become the sole owner.?
      • has become popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music niche markets - I would like to tone down the language but concerned that I'd change the meaning. Would 'has become popular and internationally known within the folk music niche markets' be fair to say? Also, in 'its reputation as a premium repair shop' does "premium" have a technical meaning, or can it just be removed as an unnecessary adjective?
        • It is known outside folk music too; most guitarists I've ever met have heard of Elderly Instruments. I removed the word "premium" since it doesn't seem needed. I used it because they tend to take repair jobs that other shops reject, as noted in the Repairs heading. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been noted for carrying "elite" brands - noted where/by whom?
      • Likewise, in an edit I qualified the 'Elderly is well-known for its liberal policy..' with according to x magazine it is...unless the magazine was quoting somebody else saying it was well-known. Could you do the same thing (inline qualifier) for the 'Customers are encouraged to pick up...' sentence (so it isn't WP saying it is ok pick it up, but rather "according to x it is encouraged."). --maclean 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Certainly a well-done article. Only two things stand out for me as being iffy. One is the persistent use of "also". The second is the use of broad generalizations (like "well-known") - being called well-known in the Lansing Business Monthly doesn't translate into a universal label, but could mean well-known in MI or in the music industry or the Lansing business community. I'd prefer to see this qualified, or better yet proved rather than simply stated (for example in an edit I removed the sentence '...reputation for being an influential retailer...' because the next sentence proved it, making the first sentence just an indulgence - and my personal writing style shies away from those). --maclean 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do 85 employees all work in that one building? It has two parking spaces! maclean 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have edited the generalized statements to exactly what the source supports. For the statements that Elderly is nationally known, I have added a national reference supporting. Let me know if you think more sources are needed - the Billboard article also supports the statements that Elderly is nationally known for its repair services and internationally known as a retailer. Yes, all 85 employees work in that complex! You can't see in the picture, but there is parking all up and down the surrounding streets and there is a lot in the back. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

    Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    Renominating as per lack of support/oppose and after adding in Laser Brain's suggestions. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Looks good, covers all aspects of this book, its origin, and its reception. I wonder if you could find any images of the book itself to see the art style used, I am curious myself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Just looking at sources and photos, haven't looked at MOS or prose issues.
      • Is The Comics Reporter a blog? A magazine?
      • Same for Sequential Tart, it looks like a Webzine.
      • And the same for BookSlut.com?
      • Footnote 18 is to a comic book letterer's blog. While it's mainly to source his comments, I'm not sure why he's important enough to be considered a good critical source (Our article on him isn't very helpful, and is unsourced, ugh.)
      • Ditto with 19. Is Johanna Draper Carlson a well-known comic critic?
      • The images look okay, although I'd like to see something in the article itself discussing the fact that the artist is basing the panel on a famous painting. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out reliability concerns, I hadn't even though about them. To address concerns; Comics Reporter is written/run by Tom Spurgeon (who definitely is reliable); SequentialTart is has been referenced by third parties, but it is a webzine. BookSlut has been referenced other places, and is an amalgam of writers; her editor, Jessa Crispin, appears places too. Johanna Draper Carlson also has credits to her name, so I’m pretty sure looking back at them they satisfy WP:V. Footnote 18, I’m iffy. The letterer is important in the industry, however he does have no significant connection to actual reviewing of graphic novels/comics. If that seems questionable, I guess we can strike his comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a recent crash course from Sandy about RS and websites and all that fun stuff, I think we can live with the letterer, although it might be a good compromise to point out he's a letterer in the industry, which would do the full disclosure thing. Another that might influence it is if a lot of folks look to his blog for recommendations? As it is now, I think if we says he's a letterer, the source can probably handle it. I reserve the right to have Sandy come in and say "Nope!" though...Ealdgyth | Talk 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's fine with me. As for the famous painting thing, I'll see if I can find something that references it or other works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still see several sources of questionably reliability, and the answers above don't complete the info necessary to establish that WP:V is met. Who are the authors of these pieces, where is their expertise established, and why are bulletin board blog postings used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bulletin board postings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, David, by the time I got back here to type it up, I mixed up bulletin board and blog. I meant, for example, this; we need to know what makes these authors reliable, as in published by independent reliable sources as experts in their fields. If you can just provide that specific info, that will cover it for anyone who questions in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the clearing up. I'll get digging. For Johanna Draper, would being published in Publisher's Weekly count? [28] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing needed, just to show that the sources aren't Joe Bloe's Blog. Don't want you getting criticized if you hit the main page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be unfortunate... I'll look at the others and provide justification here when I'm done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, for the other two sources which have questionable notability: Colleen Mondor is an editor/author at Bookslut as well as Eclectica Magazine and Booklist. She does guest columns at minor publications as well. Carol Fox is a published author of her own books as well as one of the editors of The Dreaming (Tokyopop comic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "illustrated by the company Big Time Attic" - I dunno...is "the company" necessary?
    • "of a real historical event known as the Bone Wars" - trim this...just having the wlink "proves" it's a historical event
    • "first work Ottaviani has written which had elements of fiction" --> "first semi-fictional work written by Ottaviani", perhaps?
    • Fix the date linking on ref 1
    • "Ottaviani has the Cope and Marsh interact" - why the "the"?
    • ", according to Ottaviani," - not necessary as you've said its unlike HIS books
    • "about the Bone Wars" - if you're wlinking Cope and Marsh again, you may as well wlink Bone Wars again
    • "One of Ottaviani's bits of creative license" - Never seen "bits" in professional writing before...
    • Charles Knight is a dab page
    • So are "Bone Sharps", "Cowboys", and "Thunder Lizards" different chapters, or how does that work?
    • Does ref 16 make mention specifically of the novel? I suppose you don't have to...but yeah...
    • Is it worth doing a review scores table like we do on VG articles?

    Nice work as always, David. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done all the fixes you noted. Since there aren't as many just-book reviewers, I'm not sure if the table is worth anything- most publications don't actually assign a 'grade', as it were. As for the "Bone Sharps", et al, yes, they are three different sections. I'll add a line saying its broken up into three parts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all seems good now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added (I was trying to figure out how to nest multiple images in one box). 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops: "as the official scientist form the U.S. Geological Survey"
    • Can someone change the curly quotes to straight ones? MOS requires this.
    • Odd placement of "that" in the final rather than the initial item of the list: "it is here he learns that his USGS expense tab (to which he had been charging drinks) has been withdrawn, his publication has been suspended, and that the fossils he found as part of the USGS are to be returned to the Survey".
    • Audit the use of semicolons, which sometimes seem a little arbitrary compared with the periods. Just which sentence parts are best glued together in this way?
    • responds that "it is not a story about science. It is about men."—Nope, MOS requires logical punctuation where a quote starts within a WP sentence.
    • Doesn't MOS require sentence case for titles, both the title of the article and of publications appearing in the main text?

    Further scrutiny by someone new to the article would be good, although I'm not opposing. Tony (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed a few semis, and fixed the quotes, et al- I don't know what you mean by sentence case for titles... as far as I know it is capitalized? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: looking good,
    • Are you sure "A Tale of Edward Drinker Cope, Othniel Charles Marsh, and the Gilded Age of Paleontology" needs to be in the title? I think its a caption (or whatever the appropriate word is) rather than the actual title of the piece.
    • "A newly formed studio taking on a 160-page graphic novel is ambitious; again, I'm really lucky" to have had the book published. — might be better to include that last bit also in the quotes inside [this thing]. Reads awkwardly and I don't know whether its a accepted method either.
    • American West - link.
    • "One [instance] of Ottaviani [using] creative license was to transport the artist Charles R. Knight earlier into the story than [was] originally intended in early drafts."
    • "Ottaviani's granddaughter forwarded the author a copy of Knight's autobiographical manuscript, and Ottaviani made Knight's role prominent." - make that simpler please. Not clear how the two clauses are related. Took me a moment before i figured that "the author" referred to Ottaviani.
    • "Ottaviani's company G.T. Labs eventually published Knight's biography, with notes by Ottaviani and forewords by Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen." - that's rather abrupt, seems totally unrelated to previous sentences.
    • No need to link everything again in the plot section.
    • "with the intention to visit" - "of visiting"
    • President of the United States of America, US Geological Survey - links
    • money in attacking Marsh
    • "granted him favor and status in politics and society. By the end of Bone Sharps, Marsh is seen to have lost favor" - variety please.
    • real events, and certain artistic - remove comma
    • "A major change made to complement the story was the insertion of Charles Knight into the narrative; in real life, Knight did not meet Cope until much later in his career." - repetition; its already mentioned earlier. Come to think of it; that entire bit after the first para from Background can be transferred here.
    • motivations", is still relevant to today' society.
    • "intricate details" - in the plot? or in the art? or what?
    • "educational settings" - what does that mean? like educational institutions?
    • "as part of a test to educate young children using comic books" could you make this a little more clear? Something, I can't quite put my finger on it, is wrong. What is this "test" trying to achieve?
    indopug (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work; but I don't see the merit of having "One instance..." and that quote about Knight in the background section; its rather abrupt there. For one thing the reader has not yet read the plot summary, and the description of Knight's role might be difficult to appreciate. Why don't you shift the whole thing to the Fact vs fiction section? (and then reword accordingly to ensure smooth flow of prose) indopug (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And is linking Jim Ottiavani in each cite required? What is 90 and 57–58 at the end of cite # 16,17? indopug (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the links, and clarified the numbers are for pages. As for the Knight section, I've moved it to the fact vs fiction section, and made some transitional statements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportAll concerns taken care of; very interesting article. indopug (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 16:13, 20 March 2008.

    HMAS Melbourne (R21)

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. I feel that this article on the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne is ready for a run at FAC.

    The article is comprehensive, covering the entire history of the ship from design planning to scrapping. All of the information if factually accurate, and is verified against the reliable published sources listed in the References section. The article is neutral, and in regards to stability, the only edits I can forsee are spelling, grammar, and phrasing fixes. It follows the style guidelines for lead section, section layout, and consistent citation use, as well as meeting the WP:Manual of Style. All of the images are of acceptable legal status, with no non-free images included. The article is pushing the upper limit for length, but I feel that none of the information present can be removed without compromising the comprehensive nature of the article.

    The article has undergone a peer review and A-class assesment, both by the Military History wikiproject. -- saberwyn 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Sources look good
    Question resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unsure about using "et. al" in the Citations, generally we're supposed to not use abbreviations, but I'm not sure we have to be so picky in footnotes.
    Links check out fine with the little tool at the top. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with et al; there was a semi edit war at WP:MOS over whether it should be italicized, so I stopped paying attention to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so that is taken care of and I learn something new... (grins) If they are editwarring on it at WP:MOS, I have no idea which one it should be .. so it looks good to me! And my eyes thank you for using books, they are SOOOO much easier to check as far as sources....Ealdgyth - Talk 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abbreviations like "et. al." (et alii/et alia - and the rest) and "ed." (editor) are commonly used in APA style citation (which is the style I've been taught for university) and other citation styles, so I'd be happer to keep it in, but I'll find a way around it if anyone else starts making noise about it. As for italicising or not, that can be changed if necessary once the backing and forthing at MOS stops.
    As for using books... I like using books. There more permanent than websites, are more likely to have gone through an editorial process before being released, and if my brother starts annoying me while researching, it is infinitely more difficult to bludgeon him with a website. -- saberwyn 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to keep that in mind for my teenage son... anyway, taken care of and hiding this to keep things need for Sandy. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Who wrote this? If it's family members, ex-naval personal, they've created a fitting memorial to those who died. There are probably still little issues here and there, but I noticed only these on a quick run-through.
      • Consider providing a 2008 equivalent of 2.47M Australian pounds from 60 years ago. Doesn't mean much without, and if monetary sums are an issue during the history of the vessel (they are), it would be nice to have a benchmark, such as 2008 dollars. See MOS on currencies.
      • "72 foot 7 inch (22.12 m)" et al.—metrics first, please.
      • "A Sea King Mk 50 of HS 817 Squadron Shark 09 takes off, 1980"—This caption has a verb on the uppermost level, so is a real sentence and requires a final period. See MOS.
      • Quotation: "Please be advised that HMAS Melbourne arrived at Port Huangpu, intact and safely afloat, proud and majestic. She has been innocent, never once bowed to the natural or human force, in spite of the heavy storm and the talked about jinx"—should there be punctuation at the end? Or ellipsis dots?
      • Many house styles require "et al." to be italicised. Me, I'd slightly prefer not, but don't care that much. I'm sure MOS will end up allowing either. Tony (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My grandfather served aboard this vessel in the early 1960s, prior to the two collisions. He was one of the victims of 'the jinx', when he fell and broke his back in mid 1963. As for your comments: struck when completed
        • Currency benchmarks - I'll get back to you on that one, although I do have a question. Will this figure need to be updated every year, to maintain a benchmark relevant to the readers?
          • And after looking at, I realise I don't know where to begin in arriving at a 2008 AU$ figure for the various sums of money mentioned in the article. Any assistance ould be appreciated. -- saberwyn 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question: I found this at the ABS site (CPI - Consumer Price Index - G2), but only back to September 1969, showing a ninefold reduction in the purchasing power of the currency. We need stats from further back. [29]. Ah, earlier is here: [30]. I googled <CPI Australia historical>. You might let WikiProject Australia know if you find the data, since many Australian articles need to provide this equivalent. I think there's no need to update it regularly, as long as there's an equivalent with a reasonably modern point of time. Perhaps after five years, someone might do the honours. And did I say how good the article is? Well done. Tony (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have a go. I make no promises on success, but I'll have a go. -- saberwyn 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Update: I've got the figures and some sample working from RefDesk Mathematics, so I'll hopefully have something in the next day or two. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Update: I've converted all the post 1969 values in userspace, and as soon as I finish the others, I'll move them into the article. One problem though, the figure you specifically requeted for the original 1947 purchase price is beyond even the second set of data you've given, which starts in 1950. I'll try to find older figures, but this will be hard. -- saberwyn 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: All converted figures have been placed in the article, and have been appropriately nbsp'ed. There is one exception... the original 1947 purchase price. The online-available Australian Bureau of Statisics CPI data (which was used to calculate the conversions), does not go back that far, and a hidden note has been added to the article while this difficult-to-find figure is sought. -- saberwyn 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The use of imperial measurement came about because all of the sources that really focus on her were written in the early 1980s, either before or at the same time as Australia began converting to the metric system. Should be easy to fix.
          • Two instances, the Tracker's wingspan in the "Modifications during construction" section, and the guns on Voyager in the "Voyager collision" section, have both been converted to metric with imperial in brackets. -- saberwyn 09:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will fix the caption. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should be a full stop at the end of the quotation, both in the body and the footnotes. Easy fixed. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever happens, happens. Will be easy to change if necessary. -- saberwyn 09:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you dropped by and fixed up a few en dashes. Thank you. I can never seem to get dashes and hyphens and other horizontal lines right, no matter how many times I read the relevant part of the MOS. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A great article which meets the criteria. As a note, conversions of amounts of money across periods of 60 years are very imprecise and should be avoided unless they're really needed, in my opinion. As the cost of ships has changed at a different rate than the cost of the items used in the consumer price index, it would be missleading to use the level of inflation over 60 years to convert Melbourne's price into 2008 dollars and I doubt any better index is available - unless figures are available from a reliable source, trying to work it out ourselves would be original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But really 2.4 million pounds from the forties does need some kind of equivalent, or it may as well not be cited at all. I see nothing wrong with a generalised "all-group" CPI factor, which still gives readers an idea of how much in general could be bought with that sum. Tony (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is exactly the kind of article I would right on a carrier if I was right for the carrier articles here. Evidently you took careful measure of the suggestions left on the both the peer review and A-class review pages. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I worked on this at the MilHist peer review. I have an issue with one sentence:

    • "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, although later investigations found the destroyers solely to blame." - We came to agreement over language in the Evans collision section, but this sentence in the lead doesn't work for me, unless you've come up with some new sources since then. To what 'later investigation' regarding the Evans collision does this sentence refer? If there are no new sources, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase 'later investigations' - it's too strong a phrase for the non-official, independent research of book authors, IMO. Maralia (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Evans collision is going to be the death of me. :P Okay.. the SPC page says "Melbourne was again cleared of blame in relation to this incident." Cassells says nothing about the investgations in either collision. In The Royal Australian Navy (Stevens ed.) says that the comments of Melbourne's role in the collision were laid against Stevenson, and that the court martial was to clear his name (and therefore, in my interpretation, the ship's name). I don't have access to the other books at this moment in time, but will hunt them down on request.
      • My opinion is that the court martial of Stevenson, where it was found that there was nothing he could do to avert the collision, is the investigation that cleared Melbourne the second time. However, I would not oppose a rewording of that sentance to something like "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but the carrier and her commanding officers were later cleared of blame." Suggestions? -- saberwyn 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think your new wording immediately above works well, possibly better than what's there now, though admittedly I had no issue with the original. My one suggestion is that we should just refer to the carrier OR her COs, so maybe something like this: "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but her commanding officers were later cleared of any blame." or "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame." Pls note I've also said "any blame", I think that works better given the expression earlier in the sentence is "partly at fault". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Cleared of any blame' is problematic because it was an international incident and Stevenson was cleared of blame by Australia, not explicitly by both parties to the incident (he was in fact faulted in two counts of the Joint Board findings). You could certainly say that the RAN cleared Stevenson at court-martial, that the RAN did not apply sanctions, or some variation on those, but a national finding isn't the same thing as an international absolution - imagine if the USN personnel were somehow acquitted too; it would be rather disingenuous of me to then claim the Evans was cleared of all blame, as I imagine Australia would have a thing or two to say about that (and would probably start by pointing to the Joint Board findings). Maralia (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me just add that this is my only issue; it's a fabulous article, and I especially appreciate the time and effort you put into working with me when I had concerns about the collision section at peer review. Maralia (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An apple with a worm in it still means there's a worm. The fact that Stevenson was cleared by the Australian court martial is detailed in the body of the text, so people aren't going to be misled in the end. Also, trying to work all the possibilities and caveats of this incident into the lead is going to make the lead secion very awkward. I could drop any from the new sentance, but that's about it, plus its probably going to imply the same to the casual reader.
    Althogh Stevenson was not cleared in an American or international court of law or similar, at least 2 USN personnel have agreed with the Australian verdict and stated that he was not at fault. In Hills' article Muddied waters, he says "McLemore still believes there was nothing Stevenson could have done to avoid the collision. But he says he was not surprised at the decision to court-martial the Australian skipper: "In the Navy you always have to have someone to blame," he says. "He was screwed, we all know that." ". Retired USN Vice Admiral Houser, in a review[31] of the book by Jo Stevenson says "After painful and indefensible charges against Steve in a Joint Board of Inquiry, Evans was found primarily to blame for the collision. The Royal Australian Navy court martial found Evans solely to blame. Reading accounts of the collision, it is easy to conclude Evans was at fault.", and repeats McLemore's claim, although attacking Jo's reasonings as to why the court-martial was held.
    On the point of if the three Evans officers had also been cleared, it would say in the body of the article something along the lines of "Stevenson and the three USN officers were all cleared of blame in their home countries" followed by a sentance with an anchored link to the subarticle's section on the particulary nasty political fallout that followed. If the situation was reversed, with Stevenson charged and one or more of the USN officers honourably acquitted, the article would say "Stevenson was charged... USN officers were cleared of blame", and the lead would be changed to read "Although cleared of blame for the Voyager collision, Melbourne 's CO was charged with [blah] over the Evans incident."
    It all boils down to finding multiple reliable sources from the American side of the ditch discussing the inquiry and aftermath. I'll keep looking, but I'm afraid the only way to get a definite solution to this is to nick a TARDIS, sit in on the action, become an American citizen, and then write a book on it. -- saberwyn 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved comments --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Leaning towards support. Picky copy points, mostly for clarity.
    • Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame. This is a bit woolly and doesn't reflect the article content. Replace with "Melbourne's captain was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was acquitted of all charges at a subsequent court martial"?
    • The scrapping was delayed as Melbourne was studied by the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as part of a secret project to develop a Chinese aircraft carrier and used to train PLAN aviators in carrier flight operations. > "Once in China, the scrapping was delayed" etc for clarity.
    • Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible in June 1947 for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. The logical connection here isn't quite made. How about > "Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, but funding cuts in 1947 led to the purchase of two only : Majestic and her sister ship HMS Terrible, for a combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition."
    • Incorporation of new systems and advances increased > "Incorporation of new systems and other enhancements increased"?
    • These carriers were intended to be 'disposable warships': they were to be operated during World War II and scrapped at the end of hostilities or within three years of entering service. > "These carriers were intended as 'disposable warships', to operate during World War II and be scrapped at the end of hostilities or within three years of entering service."?
    • In later years, these refits would either extend in length or be displaced by large-scale refits, as the age of the carrier led to the increasing need and importance of maintenance. Bit long-winded. How about > "In later years, these refits would take longer and become more large-scale, as the carrier's age began to tell."
    • Repetition. Replace commenced with "started"? Lots of although ...
    • Bofors was reduced to 12: four twin and four single. Twin and single what?
    • To be or not to be: found to be partly at fault; the third ship to be constructed with an angled flight deck; she was to be upgraded; the largest project to be undertaken; to be 'disposable warships': they were to be operated; to be constructed with these features; the Fleet Air Arm were to be decommissioned etc.
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes its a bit iffy, and I'm trying to work out a way to reflect it without dedicating an entire paragraph of the lead to it. The problem is:
    • In the first collision, multiple members of the bridge crew, including the captain, were found at fault by the findings of the first Royal Commission, and all were cleared by the findings of the second Royal Commission. There was no court-martial at any stage
    • In the second collision, only the captain was charged, but was cleared by an Australian court martial (see above discussion with Maralia)
    • This might be clearer with less detail. For instance, why not simply say that there were extensive judicial inquiries into Melbourne's role in both incidents, lasting for XXX years? This has the added advantage of drawing people into the body of the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that is also not exactly true. With Voyager, there were inquiries for a few months in 1964 and 1967, split by several years of public campaigning for the second round. With Evans, the entire show was wrapped up by the end of August, three months after the event. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then delete the "lasting for XXX years" bit, if that's the deal breaker for you :) I'm not happy about the conflation of an inanimate object and people: ie specific individuals were acquitted. In the lead, I'd have thought it was better to dwell on the high profile cause célèbre aspects. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When discussing actions and events involving named Naval vessels, it is common usage to use the name of the ship interchangeably with the ship's captain. I suppose it is a form of shorthand but it is one that has a very long history, going back at least three centuries. In an article about an event that involved a Navy ship such as HMAS Melbourne, it would be entirely commonplace to use the word Melbourne in the context of both the ship itself and its commander. Thus it is entirely appropriate to discuss the degree of Melbourne's responsibility for the accident with Voyager and it makes perfect sense to say that Melbourne was initially held partly responsible but was later cleared of any blame. Anyone conversant with normal Naval language (and we are talking about a Naval event) knows that ships generally, in both spoken and written language, are treated as if they are living things. Frankly, having served about two years on Melbourne myself, I am in no doubt that she was a cantankerous old biddy. This treatment of a ship as a living thing and especially the fact that she is home and mother to those who serve in her is in part why a ship is always feminine, even if the name is masculine (the Frank E Evans was still a she). I know that Wikipedia has a broad audience but I feel we risk losing something valuable if we have to dumb down every article, especially those within particular fields of interest, such as military and naval history, by not observings the conventions of those areas of interest.Nick Thorne talk 10:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but I'm not talking about dumbing down the article. I'm talking about changing the focus of one sentence of the lead for clarity. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the sentence reads "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame." This is an entirely correct sentence and is also completely consistent with the rest of the article. I am sorry, but I think you are wrong about this and I oppose changing the sentence. It is concise, accurate and entirely to the point. A change "to the focus" of this sentence is simply unnecessary. Nick Thorne talk 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not 100% comfortable with that wording. Would altering the previous sentance to read "she was sold in 1985 and towed to China for scrapping." be adequate?
    • Its unclear if the cuts were in 1946 or 1947, so changed to "...although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined..."
    • Now reads "Incorporation of the new systems and advances caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million."
    • Changed
    • I'm not comfortable with that wording, but see your point. I'll play with it Would "As time passed, the refits were either extended in length or replaced by major upgrades or overhauls." be adequate? (Note: not in the article yet). -- saberwyn 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll work on it
    • 4 instances of commenced has become two instances of commenced, one of started, and one made redundant by other phrasing. Other words to follow, but with the size of the document, some level of repetition is unavoidable. -- saberwyn 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9 'although's have been reduced to 7. I'm having trouble thinking of synonyms other than 'but', of which there are already 16. -- saberwyn 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mounting... basically were one or two strapped together. I thought I had made it clear in the first instance in the section and dropped it from all repetitions, but on inspection the other two reductions in armament do not follow this format, so your indicated instance has been changed
    • That is the question. I'll work on it, per "Repetition" 10 instances of "to be" have been reduced to four. -- saberwyn 05:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to place further comments directly under the relevant point. -- saberwyn 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this article needs a lot of trivial MoS cleanup. I left sample edits; perhaps Epbr123 (talk · contribs) can be enticed back, as he used to catch all of this, and even fix it himself. Also, something seems off in this sentence (hyphen somewhere?):
    • At 9:58 pm, Melbourne was informed that five Ton class minesweepers, search ...

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure where you mean. Maybe you're saying that "Ton-class" needs to be hypenated, but searching the RAN website[32] does not demonstrate a single instance of hyphen use. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For SandyGeorgia: The sentence lists three resources despatch to help, the ton class minesweepers, the search and rescue boats from Creswell and helos from HMAS Albatross (NAS Nowra). I suspect you a mis-reading the clause about the S&R boats as being descriptive of the Ton class minesweepers. I suggest we resolve this by changing the order of the clauses to remove any confusion. I will do this now. Nick Thorne talk 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your MOS fixes so far. I will try to go through and get as many more fixed as possible. Also, the conversions you asked for in hidden notes have been made: square metres and square yards for the acre, metres for the yards. -- saberwyn 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through, and most of the stuff you picked up appears to be the single instance of it being missed. I've nbsp'ed (or alternately {{nowrap}}ed) every measurement, time, and financial figure I can find (with the exclusion of the yet-to-be-added 2007 values for each figure requested above by Tony1, but that'll be done when I complete and insert the figures). Dates are all validly formatted, except where there is a date range. MOSNUM appears to be complied with. Conversions are done. The placement of the Commons link is something I was always unsure about... I know now. Endashes appear to be done (except where part of a wikilink to an article title with a hyphen). The captions all appear to comply, and the one you changed was one Tony1 asked me to put punctuation in above, so I don't know what's going on anymore there.
    • I make these statements with the following caveat: I have been staring at this article since October last year. By this point, my eyes could probably fail to see a small misplaced frigate. Verification of MOS compliance by a set of fresh peepers would be excellent. -- saberwyn 05:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment by Saberwyn: One of the major problems so far appears to be the wording of the lead section in relation to the two collisions. The wording in the article is currently

    However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels. On the evening of 10 February 1964, Melbourne collided with and sank HMAS Voyager when the Daring class destroyer altered course across her bow. Eighty-two of Voyager’s crew were killed, and two Royal Commissions were held to investigate the incident. The second collision occurred in the early morning of 3 June 1969, when Melbourne collided with and sank the Allen M. Sumner class destroyer USS Frank E. Evans in similar circumstances. Seventy-four United States Navy (USN) personnel were killed, and a joint USN–RAN Board of Inquiry was held. Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame.

    That last sentance appears to be causing all kinds of grief, for what I assume to be the following reasons:

    • Although Australian sources say the carrier was cleared of blame, the second collision was an international incident, and no word has been laid down in a non-Australian reliable source on the blame or blamelessness of the carrier in the Evans collision (at least not in any source I can find)
    • Should be replaced with "Melbourne's captain": This would be incorrect, as in the Voyager collision the entire bridge crew was found at fault in the first Royal Commission, and all were cleared at the second Royal Commission. Also, if we specify that the captain was cleared, people are going to assume (incorrectly) that Other Melbourne Crewman/Officer X was found at fault and blamed for everything.

    Suggested alternatives have been:

    • Changing the focus to the legal aspect - A possibility, but although the collisions were 'responsible' for the only occurance of two Royal Commissions in Australian history, and possibly the only ever joint RAN-USN Board of Inquiry (although this is not mentioned in the article as I have no source confirming on denying this fact), they were short (not including the political and public ranting that occurred between the first and second Voyager collision, two were either biased or flawed in their investgation (the first Royal Commission, and depending on the national origin of the source, the Joint BoI), and there was no specific legal action charging anyone for the Voyager collision (people were blamed, but the RAN took no action except to cold-shoulder Robertson). Too many caveats, in my opinion.
    • Drop the sentance entirely, and retool the paragraph to work without it

    Responses will be appreciated. -- saberwyn 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here's my two decimal units. One problem comes from tying the two incidents together succinctly in a way that doesn't happen in the body of the article. Another arises as a result of synecdoche, the honourable acquittal of the captain for negligence does not equate to complete exoneration of the vessel and the entire crew for everything. A further problem is whether the emphasis on exoneration is undue weight. Finally, it's clear that some blame did attach (rightly or wrongly) to the two skippers as their careers were ruined. The difficulties in the lead come from trying to say too much: I have no quibbles with the corresponding text in the body of the article at all. I suggest that the lead is simplified. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would simplifying by dropping the problem line be adequate? I'm working on a slight tweak to the intro in userspace... the new paragraph reads:
    Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career, having only peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War. However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels. On the evening of 10 February 1964, Melbourne collided with and sank HMAS Voyager when the Daring class destroyer altered course across her bow. Eighty-two of Voyager’s crew were killed, and two Royal Commissions were held to investigate the incident. The second collision occurred in the early morning of 3 June 1969, when Melbourne collided with and sank the Allen M. Sumner class destroyer USS Frank E. Evans in similar circumstances. Seventy-four United States Navy (USN) personnel were killed, and a joint USN–RAN Board of Inquiry was held. These incidents, along with several minor collisions, shipboard accidents, and aircraft losses, led to the reputation that Melbourne was jinxed.
    Yes! No problems with that at all. (And earlier comment changed to support.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New and improved intro (sans blame sentance) is now in the article. -- saberwyn 07:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Uh, yeah I have problem with that: according to english rules the sentence should have a semi-colon if useing however. Therefore, the sentence should look like this: "Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career, having only peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War; However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.83.183 (talk • contribs)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:13, 20 March 2008.

    Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

    [edit]

    Self-Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is (in my opinion) a very thorough and well-researched article about a relatively obscure work of art. It's been relatively stable since it became a good article months ago (recent edits are me tweaking the intro and remedying the remaining redlinks). All images are free. Savidan 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Really it could do with more pics of the tomb itself. Otherwise, it looks good on an initial scan, but the English and the links need a fair bit of work, and I could not always follow the meaning. Some context for the artists as well as the subject should be added - a paragraph would do it. I have de-sized the pics per MoS. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish I had more pictures of the tomb itself. What I got was from the commons and does not lend itself to cropping. There is a section about the subject (the first subsection in the background section) and a section about the artists ("Attribution"). Please let me know if there is any specific information about the subject or the artists that you feel is lacking. Could you also be more specific about "the English and the links"? Thanks for your comments. Savidan 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The background of the artists is not covered - a little should be said about their careers up to the point they did this, and its place in the development of their art - also who did what, if this is known? It is quicker to do the English & links than describe the problems, though many unlinked words (that need them) should be apparent on a read-through. I will add bits I don't follow later. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look into adding a bit about the standings of the artists prior to their work on the tomb. "Who did what"...well, its a matter of dispute. The article contains a variety of viewpoints on this question. I look forward to your edits/comments on the English and links. Thanks for a speedy response. Savidan 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added what Lightbown says about the two of them at the time of their partnership. Savidan 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Service! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the style of the prose over the top in parts, and the flow is spoilt.[33]--GrahamColmTalk 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have accepted your edits. Could you be more specific if you have any remaining objections to the prose, being as Johnbod has copyedited it as well since your comment? Savidan 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have copyedited the prose, added & moved the pics; please check that the sense is correct. Some other points:
    • "Tomb-monument" is not really an English term. It could be "tomb monument", but I think "monumental tomb" is better at first appearance, and thereafter just tomb, or, for a change monument.
    • I've changed it to "tomb monument" in most instances as that appears to be the most commonly accepted form of the term on google scholar. "Monumental tomb" is far less common. It can be just "tomb" when only the burial function of the structure is being referred to and just "monument" visa-versa. However, when referring to the structure as a whole with both its burial and artistic functions "tomb monument" is probably most approrpriate. Savidan 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is not quite there - a bit more on Coscia's status at death and relationship with Florence is needed, and the suggestions of historians in the 2nd para don't seem to be endorsed by the main article - maybe they should be moved down? A quick summary of the design is needed.
    Please see my comment below.--GrahamColmTalk 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coscia was imprisoned for three years in Germany" - a bit vague; where & by who, if known.
    • In a castle in Randolfzell by some agent of the Holy Roman Emperor, but I don't see it as relevant to the tomb. What is relevant is that he was ransomed by Florence. Savidan 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "....Martin V (still in Florence)..." - we didn't know he was. Better say somewhere when he arrived and how long he stayed.
    • Well, you should have. ;) The previous paragraph says when he arrived in Florence on his way from the Council of Constance to Rome. It's a bit unclear when he left, but I added the date of his arrival in Rome. Savidan 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be better to just make the "background" section just about Coscia, & move the Baptistry section into the commissioning one. Myself, I don't think the "main article" hat note is needed.
    • I see those two sentences as solely background and am skeptical that they can be moved to the commissioning section without interrupting the narrative. I put the main article link just because a lot of readers may not be familiar with the full history of the baptistry and the other works of art contained within it. They aren't directly relevant enough to this article to justify including them (for example, I probably couldn't find a source mentioning them in relation to each other), but that article is valuable context if you want to read this article and get the most out of it. If you still disagree, and want to try to incorporate these in another section, I'm open to seeing what you have in mind. Savidan 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll have a go. It has 2 or 3 links (with the pic captions). There is an article (or section maybe) on the Ghiberti doors which ought to be linkable too. DoneJohnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't we know if "the 1424 date in the Florentine calendar falls in 1425 in the modern calendar" or not?
    • Vasari - was it his life of Donatello where he made the claim? - should be refed anyway.
    • " four white marble tabulas" - use blocks, tablets or sheets I think.
    • Del Migliore - who he?
    • Just some piss-ant contemporary art historian. To my knowledge its not standard to give biographical details of such individuals mentioned only in passing. 20 years form now he may have his own article on Wikipedia, maybe not. Savidan 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It should say "art historian Fred Del Miglio" since this is his only mention. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the "screen" back wall of 48.4 cm in width" - in depth might be clearer? or "protruding from the back wall" or something.
    • links needing disaming: console, tripartite, added Fred of Austria - and I expect quite a few others. You need to follow all the links to scweck where they go - eg spiratelli is redundant, as it just goes to putti, which you linked 2 words before.
    • Boniface 8 - was the statue of him?
    • I'm afraid whats stated in the article is the limit of what the source mentions. It just says it was commissioned by him; not that it was of him. This was just an example McHam drew upon to tie gilding to the papacy; the work of art in question may not even be notable enough to merit mention anywhere else (as is unfortunately common in art history).

    Savidan 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support The article is much improved.--GrahamColmTalk 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) and I'm considering Support it would be worthwhile to address Johnbod's points above. I have tweaked some of the photographs because my myopia was a problem. I am watching this space with much interest.--GrahamColmTalk 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side point The account of the end of Coscia's reign at his own article is rather different, & much shorter. The passage here could be added there. A bit of text should be added to Michelozzo too. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for Coscia, I've wrote that section with the intention of highlighting the portions of his biography which were relevant to Florence. The article about him proper is not terribly well cited (and thus somewhat suspect), but I will attempt to verify any details there that look relevant to this article. My plan for Michelozzo and Donatello is to get the Lightbown book back and see what it said about them when they first partnered together; at least that way it won't seem like cherry-picking on my part. Savidan 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just cutting and pasting the bit here to there (J23) would be an improvement, assuming your version is correct, which I don't doubt. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to make sure that whatever we are taking from that article (god knows who wrote it) is accurate. What bit in particular were you interested in? Savidan 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suggesting you add to it, not take from it. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hesitant to add any biographical detail of John XXIII which does not have at least secondary relevant to the tomb itself. This article is not meant to give his entire biography. Unless those details tell us more about his relationship to Florence, I think that they are better off a click away from the article. If you can be more specific about which facts you want (and why they are relevant to the article) I will undertake the necessary research to find a source for them. Savidan 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, add to the biography, from this, the tomb article. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs clarifying. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • more points:
    • depository-general needs explanation; it seems this was a job normally held by a person. Since the name suggests otherwise, you need to explain it, leave it in Italian with an English phrase of expanation, or convey the point without using it.
    • Probably one day I'll write an article about this, but I am unsure what details would be approriate for this article. It's already clear that Coscia had a business relationship with the Medicis which is really the extent of its relevance to this article. I don't know that there is an italian that would be more appropriate here; it was in english in the source cited. What makes you think that Italian translation is needed here? Savidan 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • plenty more duff links - pylon, legate. You have to go through checking them all yourself.

    But we are nearly there I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recapitulation
    • still o/s (not complete):
    • Del Miglio - just drop him?
    • I think it adds something to say that there are two contemporary (ish) art historians who say this instead of just Vasari, even if we only have an article about Vasari. Earlier you suggesting adding his first name; I am not opposed to this although I do not consider it strictly necessary. If you're interested the source that Lightbown is working from is Firenze città nobilissima (1684) but he does not give a page # in this instance. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've making very heavy weather of this! Do you see why it can't just be left? It implies Del Miglio is some sort of minor Vasari type. Is Del Miglio just saying he believes Vasari? In an FA you can't just drop in an unexplained surname; really his book should be refed in the note, even if not see. "Smith, citing Del Miglio.... " If he isn't worth naming in full, is he worth mentioning? Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to a footnote. Savidan 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - btw I misread your initial description of him as "contemporary" above to mean "contemporary now"; as a C17 type who had access to records now lost (I gather) the original text, with 'C17 historian' & a note of his book, would be fine. Sorry about that.
    • other:
    • there is no real artistic context, especially on the form of the tomb. I think this is needed, especially as there is unfortuunately no other WP article I am aware of with anything much useful on the topic, or Italian medieval sculpture in general, except the one on the Verona Scaliger Tombs. Looking at Pope-Hennessy, I see he says Pagno di Lapo Portigiani, whoever he is, also worked on the Coscia tomb - does Lightbrown etc have anything worth mentioning on him? In many ways the design of the tomb is quite conservative, classicising a Gothic pattern. I will try to add something on this. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portigiani - Lightbown says: he spent 18 months working for Donatello and Michelozzo as a marble carver in 1426 and 1427 before going to Siena (p. 22); that we don't really know whether he or Nanni di Miniato (the other known assistant of D. And M. during this period) worked on the tomb (or any other project for that matter) and that when they are mentioned by art historians its generally just an attempt to attribute allegedly inferior aspects of the project to them (p. 48-49). Being as there's no firm evidence that either of them work on the tomb, I can't see more than a note that these were the known assistants during that period (perhaps in the "Attribution" section). If we had an article on Donatello and Michelozzo (which eventually we should) I would say put it there and not in this article at all. As it is, I'll leave it up to you. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Artistic context - I wan't to avoid any possible original research here and thus do not think that we should mention facts about other sculptures, etc. unless there is a source for making the comparison to the tomb. Thus, I don't think that another section is due, only (as already exists) comparisons within the regular flow of the article. Could you be more specific about what you think would be warranted? I agree that its unfortunate we don't have an article on this topic. Savidan 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with what I've added now. Context is certainly needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits are good. Am I to assume you resolved your own concern? Savidan 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I want to just have a final read-through before confirming support; maybe today. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support having edited it and added bits myself. A good, well-sourced article, and WP covers medieval sculpture (which ok, this isn't, by a nose) really badly. But I've said enough here already. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support but with one comment Please confirm that 'Most modern scholars accept uncritically this testimony of the executors, attributing Coscia with "tact—and tactics",' (particularly the quote) comes from Janson, 1963, p. 61. If not, please cite this. There may be an issue here that a book from 45 years ago is indicative of "later scholarship" rather than "modern scholars". DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:37, 20 March 2008.

    Song Thrush

    [edit]

    Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because passed GA Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article includes one Song Thrush kept in a cage, and perhaps this practice has not been fully explained. Should the history and legal aspects of this practice be expanded? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "carry pathogens such tick-borne encephalitis": how common is this and in which parts of the world is it likely. I think that this only applies to a few places in the world and virtually unknown to occur in western Europe, but I might be mistaken. I think encephalitis needs putting into better context. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enjoyed reading this article. Very nicely written and referenced. A few comments:
    • First sentence of the Classification section is a bit long and awkward.
    • The article implies that the practice of keeping the Song Thrush in cages is illegal; this needs to be clarified as the source indicates that only the trade of the bird would be banned.
    • I think "the trade in wild birds has recently been made illegal" is still problematic. It seems to say that trade in wild birds of all species is illegal, and that trade in captive-bred Song Thrushes may be legal. Would it be better as, "the trade in Song Thrushes has recently been made illegal"? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the ban on Song Thrush sales in China controversial? I wonder why China is willing to defy 2,000 years of tradition to protect a Least Concern species. Perhaps the reasoning could be described more fully?
    • For such a common bird, the pictures could probably be improved:
    • The Description section should have a picture that shows the bird more clearly. The current picture is a bit too dark. There are a few nice free pictures here.
    • Try to make pictures face the text.
    • Image:Song_Thrush-Mindaugas_Urbonas-2.jpg, if used, should be cropped. More bird, less grass :)
    • Try to include at least one picture of juveniles, chicks, nests, and/or eggs. There are some here; I don't think any of these are free, however photographers are often willing to grant a CC-by-SA license if asked. Good luck!

    Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed the text, no indication of how controversial. I'll respond to image queries on talk page until i know what I'm doing. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to a follow-up letter, The Times article that you have quoted only included the Song Thrush because of confusion with other species; see timesonline. Was the article news about the Song Thrush or other species? Snowman (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the China bit, but given the ambiguity, might be better to remove mention altogether? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the ambiguity with caged birds in China is a deficiency. Are their better sources? Snowman (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going on what people said at the bird club a few years ago, I think that British wild birds can be legally traded in the UK providing they have a leg ring on to prove that they are captive bread. Also British birds for show do not have to have a ring. but the owner needs to keep good records in case of an investigation and they can not be sold. I think that there are a lot of regulations for keeping British birds, which are all well documented and easy to find on the internet, but I have not looked it up recently, so I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure what you say is more-or-less correct, but there is little I can find, apart from the ambiguous China bit, to suggest that catching/trading/keeping wild Song Thrushes is a significant problem anywhere. I don't want this to become an article about general bird-keeping legislation instead of T. philomelos. Adding details for the legislation in GB would be very parochial unless I also did it for the other countries in this bird's huge range, and that would completely distort the article. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note reviewers please note that I will be away until Tuesday. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The point I would like to make is that the article implies that bird keeping is illegal, but this is not correct and the article needs fixing. At least in the UK, bird keeping is legal, but there are rules and regulations and the birds must be captive bread (afaik). I agree that the article need not include too much about bird keeping. A quick fix might be just to refer to wild-caught birds in the article, but I do not know the laws all around the world. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended the last sentence to clarify that I'm referring to wild birds. Obviously trade in captive-bred birds, whether legal or not, cannot affect the wild population numbers. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've shepherded this article at various times. Looks good, although agree it'd be nice to get some more diverse images but concede this may be difficult and hence not a deal-breaker. The gould painting is helpful here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Cautious neutral. 1a, and the lead is slender. Here are random examples of the issues.

    • Opening sentences start with "It is". "It is". "Its". Insert "the" before the "throstle", to match the very first word.
    • "Its distinctive song with repeated musical phrases has frequently been referenced in poetry."—Harvard or Vancouver systems?
    • "This thrush breeds in forests, gardens and parks, and is partially migratory, with many birds wintering in southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East; it has been introduced to New Zealand and Australia. Although this species, despite hunting, is not threatened globally, there have been serious declines in the west of its range due to changes in farming practices." Too many disparate ideas packed awkwardly into these sentences. And do the NZ ones winter in Southern Europe? Introduced into. This × 2. West of which range? "and IS vulnerable to predation by cats and ...". Tony (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I find the above quibbles small. Good article. Please incorporate the recordings from [34] -Ravedave (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added the sound file, thanks for that, Ravedave. I've addressed the copyediting issues, although I'm not clear why referenced can only apply to book-type references. I would have thought these minor issues could either have been addressed by fixing, or by a comment rather than an oppose, but I note this editor's last comment too. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comprehensive, good prose. Some minor points however are
    • Support Comments
      • First sentence - use that instead of which.
      • "...there have been serious declines in the west of its breeding range due to changes in farming practices." This statement is never really explained. Later in the article you simply paraphrase it. What farming practices, and how do they affect its range?
      • Stylistic but ungrammatical use of commas - do not use commas to separate clauses that don't stand on their own. There are many of these throughout - check the whole article, please.
      • In the Distribution and habitat section, the section beginning with "Birds of the nominate subspecies..." loses me. What is a nominate subspecies? You move from talking about the "birds" plural to "it" singular and I can't determine what is meant.
      • "Its flight is strong and direct, and they cross the sea..." Again, moving from singular to plural for no apparent reason.
      • Check the spacing in the Voelker citation - looks like there are no spaces after commas. --Laser brain (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've fixed these. Taken out China bit altogether, since probably not this species. Reasons for farm decline not known, reworded, Baggies ref not needed, removed. I don't know what to do about the mollusc site, I'll see if i can find an academic site later. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed snail ref Jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments This was an interesting article. I don't know anything about birds, so I come to the article as an interested lay person. Here are my questions and suggestions for improvement:
    • It is brown above and black-spotted cream or buff below, and has two recognised subspecies. - I think the "above" and "below" language is a bit confusing - I think that a bit more description is required.
    • Although not threatened globally, there have been serious population declines in parts of Europe, possibly due to changes in farming practices. - Could you briefly describe the farming practices?
    • This is still vague - if it cannot be described, delete it. Awadewit (talk)
    • The Song Thrush was described by German ornithologist Christian Ludwig Brehm in 1831 under its current scientific name. - Slightly confused by "under its current scientific name" - does this mean "given its current scientific name"?
    Sorry, it means it still bears the first name it was described as; many species, if not most, have one or more changes along the line. Is it clearer now? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be so picky, but does the new version mean that Brehm gave the thrush its scientific name? It's not totally clear. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still unclear. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This name derives from the Latin word Turdus - Does it derive from Latin or is actually Latin?
    Well, the word didn't change at all so I guess it is the latin really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • these three species are early offshoots from the main radiation of Turdus thrushes, and hence more distantly related to other European species such as the Blackbird (T. merula) - What does "main radiation" mean exactly?
    Changed to "are early offshoots from the lineage of Turdus thrushes before they diversified and spread across the globe". - i.e. they are early offshoots off a family tree which split into many species and spread around the globe. Feel free - spread worldwide etc. if you reckon the last few words are too colloquial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • T. p. clarkei, described by German zoologist Ernst Hartert in 1909, and named for Eagle Clarke, occurs in the rest of Great Britain, Ireland and on mainland Europe in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and possibly somewhat further east. - "lives" rather than "occurs", maybe?
    • It intergrades with the nominate subspecies in central Europe, and with T. m. hebridensis in the Inner Hebrides and western Scotland. - What does "intergrade" mean?
    It means hybridises where their ranges overlap. We can add "and intermediate forms/birds with intermediate characteristics are seen" if needed as well. Do you think we need to add it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hesitate to make any scientific pronouncements. I usually just announce when I can't understand something. :) Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The breeding habitat is forest with good undergrowth close to more open areas, and in the west of the breeding range gardens and parks are also utilised. - awkward wording
    done
    The passive voice is awkward here. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded
    • T. p. hebridensis breeds in more open country, including heathland. - Could we find a good link for "heathland"?
    linked
    • In the east of the range the Song Thrush is more restricted to the edge of conifer forest. - slightly confusing what range we're discussing at this point
    done
    Still confusing - it seems like we might be talking about T. p. hebridensis, but then the sentence says just "song thrush". Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded
    • Vagrants have been recorded in Greenland, various Atlantic islands, and West Africa. - I'm not entirely sure what "vagrants" means in this context - I can guess, but I would rather not. :)
    linked
    • The female incubates alone for 10–17 days, with a similar time until the young fledge. - This sentence needs to be expanded for clarity.
    done
    • This species is occasionally a host of parasitic cuckoos, such as the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), but this is minimal because the thrush recognizes the cuckoo's non-mimetic eggs,[3] although it does not demonstrate the aggression toward the adult intruder that is shown by the Blackbird. - This sentence needs to be split into two and explained further. Also, the "this's" become a bit vague.
    done
    The "this's" are still a problem and now the "it" has an incorrect reference. I would also explain further. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded
    However, the Song Thrush does not demonstrate the aggression toward the adult intruder that is shown by the Blackbird. - What "adult intruder"? This still needs to be explained further. Awadewit | talk 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    almost missed this amongst BTO stuff, changed to adult cuckoo
    • Can you tell me what the BTO is? It looks like it might have user-generated information but it also looks professional.
    linked
    I'm not quite sure of the response here. I was asking the editors to reassure us that the site is reliable. It was already linked. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the BTO conducts ornithological research and advises the Government. It publishes Bird Study, a major scientific journal, Ringing & Migration, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland, the Winter Atlas, a Historical Atlas and Migration Atlas. I would have thought that its credentials were impeccable.
    I saw that, but the website looks like it takes user-generated information. That was the root of my question. Awadewit | talk 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where to go with this - if you really think that BTO refs 3 and 28 are unreliable, that effectively sinks half-a-dozen existing FAs for birds with a range that includes western Europe. These two refs have their own internal refs - or do you mean that the fact that they use BTO survey information, some of which is from non-professionals, makes them suspect? Sorry to appear dim, but I really don't understand how the BTO can be viewed as "self-published" or "user generated" when the UK government accepts its data. Also note that ref 28 is a joint publication with the JNCC, if that helps with your concerns. Jimfbleak (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the sheer amount of data in the two refs, perhaps it would be helpful if you could indicate which facts/figures you think are unverified, and I'll try to find other sources, or failing that, remove the information. For some data, like egg size, there won't be any other sources. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to understand I know nothing about birds, so I was just worried when I saw the site used "volunteers". I wasn't sure what that meant. However, if the British government accepts its data, that reassures me. I still am curious who these "volunteers" are, though, and how the whole system works. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The BTO work is Citizen science. It is more authoritative than "science" by individuals - since it has a large number of volunteers who ensure that the results are less biased by individual variation. Here are some links to help assure you that "volunteers" can indeed ensure quality - [35] full text :) Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This mdtravelhealth site looks like it might be self-published. Do you think it should qualify under WP:SPS? Are there any other, more reliable sources, with the same information?
    not needed anyway, removed
    • I'm not entirely sure if Image:Old west bromwich albion crest.png needs a fair use rationale. All of the other images, which are well-chosen and lovely, are public domain or creative commons of one type or another.
    I'm not sure, not my image, but the fair use bit does no harm
    I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was - there is no fair use rationale for this image, but it seems like it might need one. There is a fair use rationale for the other page on which this image is used. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that fair use has to be explained for each page that the image appears on. The image might be more than 100 years old and in the public domain, but this needs clarification as the source in unclear. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I enjoyed reading this. I especially enjoyed listening to the bird call - nice touch! I look forward to supporting the article soon. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I think I've fixed all the issues not picked up by Casliber. The farming practices bit is equally vague in the literature; it seems clear that intensive farming in western Europe has a pronounced effect, but I haven't yet found a definitive source to say what the relevant factors are. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found an authoritative ref that speculates on the reasons, and added that Jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed all but the image now, do that next. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a fair use rationale, although I'm not totally convinced it's necessary. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments It's an enjoyable read but a little confusing and thin in places. A few minor points to clear up and then I'll support:
      • It seems not entirely sure about the distribution of T. p. hebridensis: first it is found in the Outer Hebrides and Isle of Skye in Scotland, then we have T. p. clarkei interbreeding with it in the Inner Hebrides and western Scotland, and then it is (I assume) referred to as the Hebridean race and the Hebridean subspecies.
        I've tried to clarify this, the pure birds are Outer Hebrides, and mixed race birds in the Inner Hebrides. The books use "intergrade", which is perfect, but had to be removed as too technicalJimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The upperparts of this species become colder and greyer in tone going east across the breeding range from Sweden to Siberia. Colder and greyer in tone? Some of that is redundant. Also it should be made clear whether individuals change colour as they move east during the breeding season or whether the birds that breed farthest east are greyer birds before they move east. And "upperparts" isn't a word as far as I'm aware (though I won't get upset if somebody can correct me). I'm guessing that this was put in to address the "above" and "below" confusion. "Upper parts" (two words) is OK, but I haven't changed it as you might be able to think of a better word.
        I think I've clarified the tone bit. Clements, main source, says "upperparts", other books use "above" and "below" :) Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • exotic birds in captivity, such as White-faced Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna viduata). Budgies are more popular than White-faced Whistling Duck as captive exotics. I take this to mean that the whistle of this duck is often mimicked by the Song Thrush, but it needs to be made clear.
        done Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The species with which it is most likely to be confused is the Redwing. Most likely seems a bit of a reach. Is that based on the single reference?
        Yes, but I take the point, and I've reworded Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Song Thrush breeds in most of Europe (although not in the greater part of Iberia). From the map it also appears not to breed in the greater part of Italy, Greece, the Balkans or the Mediterranean islands.
        Not my map, and I lack the skills to fix it, but it does breed in at least the first three and some of the islands Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 0.2% is missing from the nesting site statistics. Picky.
        fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wanted to know more about the introduction to New Zealand and Australia. Why was it introduced? Any attempts to eradicate it? Alien species aren't normally that popular.
        There is little on the introduction that I can find beyond what's here. no mention of eradication attempts, but I'll look again. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        nothing Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Another edit found a ref suggesting sentiment was the reason, added
        It appears that they have some impact on native invertebrate species in NZ [36] [37] and are regarded as a pest in orchards. There appears to be no plan to eradicate them but they are not protected [38] Yomanganitalk 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    added pest status, see also my note on your talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Eurasian Sparrowhawk piped while European Magpie is not?
        fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are the effects of the parasitic infestations for the birds? Does Lyme Disease occur in thrushes or is there a risk of transmission to humans (or is that statement not relevant)?
        There's not a great deal on the parasitology of this species. I couldn't find anything to answer either question.
        Added a ref that suggests that birds act as a reservoir for Lyme Disease. I think its impossible to know what species has previously hosted a tick that bites a human unless it occurs during the handling of an animal. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Song Thrush plays a pivotal role in The Hobbit as I recall. Might be worth mentioning in the In Culture section (which is an unappealing title. I wondered whether I would see it in a petri dish in this section. "Cultural references" perhaps?)
        "In culture" is fairly standard in bird article. My own view is that there is enough in this section already (where do you stop?) and the examples given have clear links to the bird's song and behaviour Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Getting the balance between what needs to be in "Pop culture" and what will constantly be added and re-added is always tricky. Yomanganitalk 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The male thrush's beak should open and close when the audio clip is playing. (It's a joke, don't block me). Yomanganitalk 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL Jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article reads as if the distribution of tick born encephalitis is the same as Borrelia bacteria. I think that the distribution of Borrelia is much wider than the distribution of tick born encephalitis (Eastern Europe and Russia). Snowman (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    tweaked to clarify - please amend if still not clear Jimfbleak (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been concerned about the wiki bird articles making each individual bird species sound like a health hazard, and I think the spread of infections to humans needs to be put in context here again. A zoonosis is about whole ecosystems. Many birds and animals (probably over 100 species) carry these sort of ticks and contribute to the infection pool, and the tick life cycle is complex. The introduction of the Pär Comstedt reference from 2005 says that; "birds participate in the ecology of zoonotic infections, an important cause of illness and death in humans and animals" and "Information that would allow comparison of the reservoir importance of bird and other vertebrate populations is not available or is controversial." Snowman (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The blindfold test—Further to my "Oppose" above, which was promptly derided as small quibbles, I took one section at random, removed the blindfold, and look what I found:

    (aww, it wasn't Jim nor me...:( )
    Not by me, although I thought your response was a bit bitey. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ok, done)
    • "The reasons for the decline are poorly understood but may relate to the effect on food supply and the availability of nest sites of a switch from spring to autumn sowing of cereals, and possibly the increased use of pesticides.[31]" Hard to read; consider dashes (... to the effect – on food ... sites – of a switch ...). "The", not "a switch". And I think you need to narrow it down a little—"the recent switch", or better "the switch over the past 50 years" or whatever. The when and/or the where. This is poor.
    Rephrased
    • "... and the habit of using the hard surface of roads to smash snails leads to some road kills." I had to read it twice, slowly, to understand that it's the thrushes that use the hard surface, not the road builders. "Some" is weak: does it really add to the meaning?
    (how about "can lead to road kills")?
    rephrased
    • "However, as with hunting, there is little evidence that the taking of wild birds for aviculture has had a significant effect on wild populations.[7]" Ref 7 is cited an awful lot (up to letter S in the ref list). But it doesn't look authoritative to me, as part of an ID guide series. Is this a scientific or research-based text? (Clement, Peter; Hathway, Ren; Wilczur, Jan (2000). Thrushes (Helm Identification Guides). Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd, 392–395. [please fix the hyphens in the ref list that should be en dashes—see MOS.]
    (It isn't my book but if I know anything it is that 3 whole pages on the Song Thrush is a lot more detailed than just about any other text published, and I'd guess it represents the most detailed synthesis of information available. However, Jim should be along soon as I need to sleep. Will see what has happened when I wake up)
    Although describing themselves as ID guides, these are standard, fully referenced family monographs - Thrushes has 9 dense pages of references. Only six refer to the Song Thrush, but these include Birds of the Western Palaeartic, the major multi-volume ref for all European species.Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the past, the Song Thrush was sometimes kept as a cage bird because of its melodious voice.[35]" Gee, "in the past" means a lot. When? Sometimes? Sorry to be mean, but these words in this context do not conceal the fuzziness of the writing; in fact, they reveal it.
    tweaked Jimfbleak (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an example of the density of issues that make promotion unlikely until the text is properly gone through. It will require a good copy-editor AND the collaboration of the expert(s) who wrote the article, since there's information that needs to be filled in/cast in more specific terms. Tony (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In the light of the comments by User:Yomangan (thanks for the vote) and Tony, I've done another section-by-section copyedit. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your efforts! I've just read the article again. Unfortunately, it just doesn't quite flow yet. For some reason, I have to read a lot of the sentences twice to figure out what they are saying. I'm not quite sure why this is. however. I think it could be because of all of the species names and parentheticals. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to go round in circles. For example, in the hybrid bit, I had to remove the perfect word "intergrade" as too technical, the replacement "hybridises" was considered too vague, so I had to resort to writing out the subspecies names each time - hence "all of the species names and parentheticals". The only other solution is to take out the hybrids bit altogether. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold the fort Sandy/Raul/Jim, I will ask a recently retired master copyeditor very very nicely and cross my fingers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Holding with no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for positive input. In the meantime, I've rewritten the hybrid bit (sorry, "intergrade" is back), split the agriculture bit into two more intelligible sentences, and removed scientific names where they add nothing or are used inconsistently (eg for cuckoo, but not magpie). I've also removed my more intemperate comments from above Jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't want to stand in the way, so I've withdrawn my oppose. But let's hope the wonderful Circeus can be coaxed back into service. It's much improved, anyway. However, please tell me what the earthly use of Greek letters is:

    Her name is derived from the Ancient Greek philo-/φιλο- (loving) and melos/μελος (song).

    This clutters the text, makes it quite hard to soldier through the sentence, and—beyond PManderson and other classics experts—is quite useless to our readers, since the transliteration is provided and the Greek symbols are hardly likely to aid a web search. Tell me, please ... Tony (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That reminds me..worth discussing on an MOS page. I am the guilty party for putting them there. I like them in other alphabets as they are a direct transliteration, whether of Arabic, Chinese or Greek. The former two have many characters which may be ambiguous if written solely in Roman characters, and I don't find them distracting myself, however I do try and use them only sparingly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - in between the two comments above, I took the Greek out (I don't have strong views either way) obviously needs to be discussed elsewhere. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked in Clements, which actually says May in northern Sweden, so I've corrected to that. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:37, 20 March 2008.

    Super Smash Bros. Melee

    [edit]
    previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

    Self-nom: Since the last FAC, the article's been expanded, copy-edited, and all disputes resolved. I believe that it meets the criteria. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note on WP:RSN that discussion is ongoing about the use of Magic Box as a reliable source.
  • What makes http://www.joystiq.com/ a reliable source?
  • Same for http://kotaku.com/.
    • Web links checked out fine with the little linkie tool the second time I did it. NOt sure what was up with the timeout. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "(Hey, I play mostly on my PC or my XBo360, I am not clued into Nintendo fandom...)". This is most disappointing. It's never too late, save yourself and buy a Wii;) Anywho, I think that I've addressed all of your concerns. For Kotaku and Joystiq, I can say that these two are considered reilable blog sources and are written by professional editors. I don't know if you want more proof for this. I didn't know about Mushroom Kingdom, so I just replaced it with a better one. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an explanation of what makes those sources reliable, per WP:V, is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how one goes about proving reliability. Both Kotaku and Joystiq employ professional staff to write the blogs—so these aren't forum members or randomers just writing the news. Kotaku and Joystiq cites it sources on the website. Now, if you look at the claim Kotaku is supporting, it is supported with a transcript from an interview with Nintendo developers. So besides anything, nothing is dependent on Kotaku themselves as it's only a transcript. For Joystiq, the first citation also links to the actual primary source of the tournament website. I have no doubts about the reliability of the source, but it could be changed to the primary website if that would make people feel more comfortable. I could do this again for the second Joystiq source too. It isn't really required, but it's probably best to link the source of the blogs for people who aren't convinced about their reliability. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, to be safe, the Joystiq sources have been replaced with the sources which corroborate them on the page. I don't see how there could be issues with the Kotaku source, so eveything should be resolved now. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No clue, but I'm personally wondering why no one's closed this FAC yet, been nearly a month. --

    Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you mean here, Rock. Is there any reason it should be? Like, as it being a necessity. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:12, 19 March 2008.

    Damageplan

    [edit]

    Self-nomination An article on a short-lived band that came to an end after guitarist Dimebag Darrell was murdered while performing at a club. It previously looked like this, and i thought i would bring it up to standards. Will be here to deal with any concerns, thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed and added a free image. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'll work. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • The Metal Hammer reference, is there a article title or author for that?
    Was added by User:Burningclean M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Linkie tool says that http://www.showandtellonline.com/_damageplan/_interview_012904.html is dead, but it shows up fine for me. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It also works fine for me, no idea what's wrong. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think including an image for a defunct band in the infobox constitutes Fair Use; the rationale could be strengthened by asserting that one of its members had died. Is there a pic of that concert? I'd like to see those charts in the discography section better formatted (see an FL discography); better yet move them all to Damageplan discography and only list the album and singles here. I wish the pre-murder portion of the article could be beefed up; although I understand that might be impossible. More later, indopug (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they only have one album, a discography page may be unnecessary... Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, with only one album and four singles it's fine on this page. I also formatted the album in the discography section. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a promotional image? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I meant. indopug (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this one was widely used for promo purposes, (it was in a bunch of magazine interviews, ect) but the site it's taken from doesn't list any info on the pic. Damageplan Promo pic Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An image would be nice, the band only performed 2-3 small club shows so it's impossible to get a free image. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff Skeletor2112 Skeletor2112 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks pretty good. The band info is a little sparse, though I know they didn't have much output before the murder. I do remember that the band was formed as "New Found Power", and that they changed the name later and used NFP as the album title. Here is the first story from Blabbermouth that I can find that names them NFP [39] The formation section could also use dates of some kind.

    There are a few sentences that are a little confusing:

    • "Gale was killed by police officer James Niggemeyer, who was found to act accordingly by the Franklin County prosecutor's office." sounds a little weird, like it could be "who was found to have acted accordingly" or "who was later found to have acted accordingly by.." ect.
    Changed to "who was found to have acted accordingly"
    • "Although there have been rumors of Damageplan recordings near completion, they have not surfaced, and the band has not performed since the incident." could use some clarification, like "although there have been rumuors of additional Damageplan recordings..." ect. Though I don't know if they should actually be called "rumuors", as the "post-murder actions" section confirms that there are.
    Reworded and mentioned that their manager said there are recordings still out there
    • "A police investigation did not find a motive behind the shooting, although some fans claimed Gale blamed Darrell and Abbott for the demise of Pantera, and that Gale said the brothers stole his lyrics while trying to steal his identity." defenetely needs a cite of some kind, although if IIRC, that stuff about the breakup was debunked, and that Gale's mom did verify that he thought Pantera had used his lyrics in the past.
    Cited
    • "Vocalist Lachman joined The Mercy Clinic, which he found as a grieving process." sounds a little weird, too, you could say "Vocalist Lachman joined the Mercy Clinic, which he found therapeutic." or "which aided the grieving process"
    Changed to the first one
    • "Anselmo made the statement "Dimebag deserves to be severely beaten" in the December 2004 edition of Metal Hammer." could be clarified a little, like "Prior to the shooting, former Pantera vocalist Phil Anselmo made the statement.." Also, the sentence "Anselmo is the vocalist of the band Down, which reformed in 2006." seems tacked on.
    Clarified, and removed the Down part, just seemed irrelevant to Damageplan

    The paragraph about Jerry Cantrell after the chart info could be incorporated into the article's main section, it seems out of place there.

    Incorporated

    Thats all I really see, aside from maybe adding some "meat" to the band/album section, it looks great. Good work \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments as always M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blabbermouth review of New Found Power, should it be needed at all. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further
    • Add a promo pic, although I think that one by Skeletor has a little too much sky.
    • Is there a pic of the concert where Dimebag was murdered?
    Not that I've seen, there was an awful video on youtube that claimed to film it but the quality is so bad there's no idea what's going on.
    • "Billboard 200 peak:[23] 34" was difficult for me to comprehend what with that cite coming in before the peak no.
    • That singles table is not upto standard, with the title bar being too big. See this for how the table should look.
    • "Post-murder actions" - a better word than "actions"?
    • "Following the events of 8 December" - full date please.
    • "although did not win" - missing a "he", but the sentence needn't be mentioned; if it doesn't explicitly say he won then it is implied he lost. I think that's standard.
    • "Vocalist Jerry Cantrell of Alice in Chains" --> "Alice in Chains' vocalist Jerry". Maybe vocalist is unnecessary/incomplete description of his role in the band.
    • "Darrell and Abbott had a demo of the first song they wrote titled "Ashes to Ashes", Lachman insisted it was on the "backburner" until Cantrell showed interest." reads awkwardly; especially the connection between the two clauses.
    • "Columbus, Ohio, United States" US is unnecessary here.
    • "U.S. Marine" - link?
    • Add an 'either' (before the quote) before "hit and miss..."?
    • "Anselmo and bassist Rex Brown favored their side projects and would not communicate with the other members" - I don't understand what this sentence means; clarify please.
    • "They thought it was time to move" --> "move on"?
    • joining playing bass.
    • "as when recording with Anselmo he found it difficult to get him in the recording studio." can be improved I think to "while he found it difficult to get Anselmo in the recording studio." or something thereof.
    • brothers house, brothers backyard studio - apostrophe?
    • Why such a detailed description of the recording of that Cantrell song? "Later, Darrell and Abbott had a demo...just fucking lay it down." seems unnecessary.
    • "including members of KISS, Judas Priest, Slayer, Metallica, Ozzy Osbourne, Megadeth, Anthrax, and more." not a fan of lists of names like this... why not just many major bands paid their respects or whatever?
    • Franklin County, prosecutor, lethal force -- links?
    Taken care off everything I'm sure, i removed the width
    Tweaked that darn single table myself a bit. I still don't get the sentence "Anselmo and bassist Rex Brown favored their side projects and would not communicate with the brothers, while Darrell and Abbott wanted to continue to write and play music." What does "favored their side projects" mean? What does that have to do with the brothers wanting to write music? Also, why is Bob Zilla not bolded in the template at the bottom? Anyway, these won't stop me from giving my full
    support, excellent work. indopug (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When i tried to copy and paste the single table everything messed up so i took a shortcut removing the width parameter, seems i was sprung :O. Bob Zilla wasn't bold because i copy and pasted the template from another band and just forgot to add it. I tried to clarify the sentence to read "Anselmo and bassist Rex Brown favored contributing to their side projects and would not discuss or record Pantera material, while Darrell and Abbott wanted to continue to write and play music" Basically, the brothers wanted to write and play with Pantera, the other two wanted to write and play with their side projects, i hope that clarified things, thanks for the support. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Is there any reason why Bobzilla isn't bolded on the template?

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

    The article was promoted 01:12, 19 March 2008.

    1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

    [edit]

    Self nomination. This is a stable, WP:GA-rated article, and was on the Main Page as a WP:DYK in November 2007. It has also had a peer review, and contains some relevant free-use images. I believe that it is of a high enough quality to be considered for WP:FA status, and I will do my best to address points/comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, I previously commented on this article's peer review and see that my concerns about images were addressed - it is an incredibly referenced article for an event which far too few people even know occured during their lifetime. Heavily copyedited to meet high standards of prose, contextual images and I couldn't ask for much more. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article is comprehensive in its coverage, and well-sourced. It was good to begin with, and has had many eyes on it over time, and benefited from extensive review. One minor quibble, I don't see the need for the scanned page of the Congressional Record, which appears to be duplicated in text form on WikiSource. The physical image takes up space without adding any value. I will try to do a more thorough review in the coming days, but would be very surprised if any significant problems turn up. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support. Per this comment from Peteforsyth (talk · contribs), I removed that image from the article. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources and source formatting issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • For Sandy - MOS issues with the format of the references. A couple of places use pp. where most of the references use Page/Pages.
    • Yes, there is some very strange, non-standard, and not correct usage of cite templates here, resulting in inconsistent citation formatting, links not to specific URLs, and strange and inconsistent page formatting like ... November 25, 2006, p. Page A11. Can the authors please work with someone who knows how to clean up the cite templates to get them corrected ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will work through the article and take a look at this, and I am familiar with cite templates, but it may be difficult without specific examples of where to fix things. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the other links check as live. Ealdgyth,Talk 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, these things shouldn't be too hard to fix, I will get on this. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked through, and there are numerous strange errors, some misleading, since they don't go directly to the page that verifies the text. I hope the authors will work with someone who knows how to use cite templates and get them all corrected. The wrong templates are being used in some cases as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I have noted your comments, (also above) and I will work to fix these instances. Can you please tell me where the "wrong templates" are being used? Cirt (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Generally meets the FA standards. I did some tweaking of the intro sentence and the image placement per MOS. Also, the biggest issue I have with the text is the size of some of the paragraphs. It made it rather difficult to read in some sections, especially Investigation and Aftermath. Ideally, paragraphs are 3-4 sentences in length (though I doubt this is in policy anywhere). VanTucky 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support. I will work on breaking up some of the paragraphs a bit. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Cirt! VanTucky 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. FYI, this is the version of the article as of the update when it was added to T:DYK, at 03:31, 23 November 2007. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support - as per the above comment by VanTucky (talk · contribs) I have done some work on a few of the paragraphs in line with his comment, and I'll continue to do some more tweaking. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When two or more references are placed together, my understanding is that they should be in numerical order. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is the convention people usually follow for WP articles. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification. The references in this article are not in the proper order and should be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand the concern. The refs are sometimes out of numerical order because a single ref is not assigned a new number the second or third time it's used in the article; thus, ref #1 appearing in the lead, and then again later in the article, will still be ref#1. This is as it should be, and occasionally leads to the numbers being out of order in the article. As long as they're in order in the "references" section, that's fine, because they're easy to locate. -Pete (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's a very minor issue to which he's referring, you currently have "Bob was originally a carpenter[21][7]", and he would rather see "Bob was originally a carpenter[7][21]" on citations where you have multiple footnotes, they should just be placed in numerical order :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral OpposeComment Is this a neutral point of view? The organization had lacked the sophistication necessary to breed drug resistant strains of the bacteria, and the victims responded to antibiotic treatment. What evidence is there of them even trying to grow antibiotic-resistant salmonellae? And were they treated? Salmonella infections rarely are treated with antibiotics. Also, I find the use of the word agent instead of bacterium or bacteria in some, not all, sections not a neutral word. Same for utilize (also bad grammar). Lastly, that micrograph could be any old (harmless) coliform, (despite what it says at Commons). It's use is subtle non-neutrality--GrahamColmTalk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the Salmonella image, I will get on these other points soon. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm opposing until all the points I've raised above are addressed. My worry is that the article credits this group with more sophistication than was the case. Anyone can grow salmonellae; all you need is a bit of food and a warm place. I'm not going to say here how easy it is to get the bacteria, but it is. The over use of the word agent implies that the culture had been weaponised. It's not a neutral article.--GrahamColmTalk 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence in question above that you highlighted was since removed, or at least that wording was removed. And I could show you literally hundreds of respected scholarly and academic sources, and reports by government agencies, that use the exact same wording as in the article, i.e. "agent". That is NPOV wording for this incident, which has been referred to as a "bioterror attack" in hundreds of sources. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: - Done. - I went and removed a few instances of the word "agent". Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: - Done. - I checked, there is actually only one instance of the word "utlize" in the article, changed to "use". Cirt (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. I'm going neutral on this. Thanks for your quick responses.--GrahamColmTalk 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob, thanks for your quick response to my responses.  :) Cirt (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Here are some observations. I still think it's an excellent article overall, but these points I think need a little attention.
      • "Two waves" of attacks -- what does this mean? The dates are just about continuous. Unless the "two waves" can be described in more detail, I'd suggest eliminating this distinction.
      • "The perpetrators" -- is there a more specific word that could be used? "Osho's followers"? "Rajneeshees"? Don't want to run afoul of libel here, but a more specific word would improve flow.
      • The paragraph about the initial health investigation, and the later determination that it was a deliberate attack, could use some work. It repeats several times that the health investigation didn't determine that it was deliberate; it would be better if stated clearly once, and not repeated in the section.
      • "isolated the source" -- can't we just say "located" or "found?" I like simpler language better. "Isolated" sounds more technical than I think is meant here.
      • There's a sentence "The Rajneesh group is the only known org..." that seems out of place in the paragraph it's in.
      • Using the names Osho, Bhagwan, and Rajneesh interchangeably is confusing. I think it's best if the multiple names are stated clearly at the beginning of the article, and then just one is used from that point on. I chose "Osho," but maybe one of the others is more appropriate?
      • If it's known, what became of Sheela and Puja after their release?
      • Near the end, the sentence stating that "all but one" of the restaurants went out of biz seems a little out of place; is there a better paragraph for it?

    -Pete (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I will begin to address these points. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      • I think the following sentence in the lede, "After other tactics to gain political control failed, Rajneeshpuram officials decided to incapacitate voters in The Dalles, the largest population center in Wasco County." may still refer to the erroneous idea once present in an earlier version of the article's body that the homeless scheme predated the salmonella attack and had failed; in fact, the homeless scheme continued through September and October 1984 (Carter, p. 215–221). Perhaps something like "Fearing that their votes would not be sufficient, ..." might do instead.
      • More sociological context could be presented. According to scholarly analyses, the commune was subject to immense pressures from its environment. Carter e.g. writes in "The New Renunciates of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" that "The short life of Rajneeshpuram is attributable to consistent and coordinated pressures from coalitions of existing residents, each group of which seems to have been offended by different facets of the Rajneesh ...". This view is echoed in Latkin: "Seeing Red: A Social Psychological Analysis": "The Rajneeshees did not receive a cordial welcome to Oregon. Soon after the Rajneeshee arrived in Oregon, church leaders began denouncing Rajneesh and his followers. Petitions were circulated to rid the state of this supposed public menace. Letters to the editors in newspapers around the state reviled the Rajneeshees. One such letter stated, 'Are we going to stand by and see another Sodom and Gomorrha rise, or are we going to make a stand for morality and our children's futures?'" Gun clubs in Oregon handed out notices declaring "an open season on the central Eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin" (Carter, p. 203). The political takeover of Antelope was prompted by the Antelope Council dragging its feet over processing requests for building permits and then trying to disincorporate itself rather than processing them (the Rajneeshees were by then present in sufficient numbers to win the disincorporation vote and from then on were in the majority in Antelope). Legal challenges to the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram for land use reasons were later found to have been unwarranted, the Court of Appeals finding in 1986 against 1000 Friends of Oregon that the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram had not violated state land use goals (for details see Carl Abbot (1990). "Utopia and Bureaucracy: The Fall of Rajneeshpuram, Oregon", The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 77-103). The present depiction of circumstances around and leading up to the events in question appears more black and white than in the relevant sociological literature.
      • The language is at times a little reminiscent of TV-style crime infotainment programmes; a more sober style would help to make the article appear more neutral.
        • I read the article closely this morning, and did not notice anything along these lines. If you provide specific instances, I'll gladly work on them. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Unless you'd like to provide specific instances, I'd call this Done.. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re the "two waves": Carter refers to two "outbreaks" and dates them September 10–17 and September 22–24 (p. 224).
        • Are these dates contradicted in the Prelass and McCann sources? The dates given here make more intuitive sense than dates that are continuous (though I'd imagine the differing dates probably come from identifying different endpoints on a bell curve.) Maybe we should just replace the word "waves" with "outbreaks" and call it good? -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, multiple secondary sources use the term "waves" to refer to the two phases of attacks, or two periods in which people became sick due to exposure to the agents. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't consider this a major problem. If I can think of a way to slightly adjust the text to improve the flow, I'll do it; otherwise, no further action required as far as I'm concerned. Certainly not something to keep the article from FA. Done. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sheela runs two nursing homes in Switzerland now (see note on article's talk page). I believe she had tapes of her daily conversations with Rajneesh (she had bugged his apartment), which she made available to the US authorities as part of her plea bargain; these did not provide evidence to show that she was acting on his authority. To my knowledge, these tapes have never been released, but it might be worth looking into.
        • The Oregonian story cited on the Sheela article gives enough info to flesh it out a little; I'll take care of that. Might need another source for Puja, I'll look for that too. Done. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayen466 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to above comments

    Okay, I will take a look at these soon and address these above points. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The "investigation" section seems to be seven paragraphs long (including one really long para), and some of the later paras (concerning sentencing, etc.) do not seem to fit logically under the heading "Investigation." Ling.Nut (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Okay, I will take a look into that, and perhaps shift some things around so they are in a more appropriate location in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ling.Nut (talk · contribs), could you explain this a bit more specifically? How best do you think this could be addressed, could we have a new subsection for the bottom 2 paragraphs of that section, and if so, what title would you suggest for that new subsection? Cirt (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) The simple addition of a "Prosecution" heading helped tremendously. I have many thoughts about reorganizing various sections, sentences etc. However, I don't wanna clog up this FAC, and writing my thoughts may be an ongoing process. I seriously considered merely editing the article as per WP:BOLD, but the changes are nontrivial, and with it in FAC now that might be frowned upon. :-) So I'm gonna start putting my thoughts on the article's talk; will post a link here when I get at least several things written down. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, sounds good. On that note, my thanks to Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) for helping out with addressing some things with the article during this FAC process, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    here ya go, some quick thoughts. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, these are certainly a lot of points to address. I will do my best to get to all this stuff, and the above comments as well soon. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments The title "1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack" gives the leading impression that it involved the whole cult. This is similar to calling (for example) the Omagh bombing the "Catholic Bombing of Omagh" or maybe the "Muslim Bombing of the World Trade Center". Similarly, membership of a group in itself doesn't signify anything unless some aspect of the group has prompted the action. All the perpetrators (bar Knapp) were women, so maybe it could be titled "1984 Womens bioterror attack"? Thought not... The article makes an attempt to implicate a whole group in what was, by the admission of the article itself as well as primary sources, the actions of maybe a dozen people. If the article aspires to be a featured article then it needs to be more neutral. 84.159.117.90 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — 84.159.117.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Response: If you do searches for this exact term, or terms virtually identical or very similar to the title of this article, you will find that this is the way the incident is referred to, in literally hundreds of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. This includes both academic sources, scholarly sources, and government reports. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore: the "few people" who were prosecuted for the crime were in leadership positions in the cult. Ma Anand Sheela is described as the "main manager and spokesperson" of Rajneeshpuram. And the intended consequence of the action was to increase the power and influence of the cult. -Pete (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on Betrayal of Trust, by Laurie Garrett resolved. Jayen466 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The book by Louie Garrett seems unsuitable as an encyclopedic source. It dates the attack to the day before the election (in fact, it was over a month prior). Garrett is the source for the sentence about the group lacking the sophistication to produce a drug-resistant strain that was queried above (since removed). In addition, Garrett claims Wasco County had a population of 21,000 and that 751 represented 9 percent of total population. This seems mathematically wrong; wouldn't it be 3.5%? Jayen466 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Her name is "Laurie" Garrett, and the source is very satisfactory. Here is the full cite:
    • Garrett, Laurie (2000). Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. New York: Hyperion. pp. Pages 540–541, 544. ISBN 0786884401.
    The book is used as a textbook in graduate-level epidemiological coursework. The section on the Rajneeshee bioterror attack includes interviews with key officials that responded to the incident. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Cirt, I was in a hurry, and just about to leave the house with my wife. To recap (the following are verbatim cites from the book):
    "by September 24 more than 150 people in rural Wasco County, Oregon, were violently ill. In the sparsely populated county of 21,000 people such a sharp increase in gastrointestinal cases drew attention ... By the end of September, 751 cases of acute gastroenteritis had occurred in the county, representing 9 percent of the total population." (p. 540) How can 751 people be 9 percent of a total population of 21,000? (We have that "9 percent of the total population" figure in the article.)
    "And on the eve of the county election, hoping to make hostile voters too ill to go to their polling booths, the Rajneesh followers put the bacteria in dressings at salad bars ..." (p.541). We know from many other sources that the election was in November and the attacks occurred in September.
    "It took a year of intense study for Skeels's team ... to figure out what happened." (p. 541). There is no mention of the September 16, 1985 press conference, in which Osho accused Sheela of this specific crime, and which led to the reopening of the long-closed investigation, a full year after the crimes had occurred.
    "When Skeels and his FBI raided the Big Muddy Ranch a year later ..." (p.541): They did not raid the Ranch, there were invited in to investigate as part of the press conference announcement.
    These are all essential facts of the case, and they are all inaccurately presented. In what sense does that make this book a WP:RS? To be fair, the other facts sourced to the book in our article don't sound particularly contentious, but it might be worth cross-checking them with more reliable sources and/or finding an alternative cite. I'll have a look. The nine percent figure, however, should be taken out. Jayen466 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 9 percent figure must be using the 751 figure, but something else and not 21,000. "eve of the county election" the phrases "on the eve of" means, closely before an event, it is not literal. The book is certainly a WP:RS and WP:V, and the above information is all accurate. "There is no mention of the September 16, 1985 press conference, in which Osho accused Sheela of this specific crime, and which lead to the reopening of the long-closed investigation, a full year after the crimes had occurred." -- That is conjecture, we have been over this multiple times, there is no evidence to suggest directly that it was Osho and only Osho that led to the investigation into the ranch. Where do you have this source to back up this claim that law enforcement were "invited" to the ranch? Cirt (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you have this source to back up this claim that law enforcement were "invited" to the ranch?
    Cirt, there is the New York Times NEWS SUMMARY: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1985:
    Controversy has again visited the Oregon desert commune that recruited homeless people from around the country last year in what some residents said was an effort to stack the voting in local elections. Ma Anand Sheela, a key adviser to the commune's guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, has departed amid several allegations by the guru that are being investigated by six law enforcement agencies. The guru also contends that Miss Sheela was responsible for activities that have angered surrounding communities.
    James S. Gordon (1987), ISBN 0828906300, p. 181, has the following on the September 16 press conference: "Rajneesh announced ... Sheela and her fascist gang had poisoned the three people closest to him ... poisoned Mike Sullivan ... and the water system in The Dalles. In addition, he suggested, they might have been involved in the salmonella outbreak in The Dalles the previous year ... He demanded that state and federal authorities investigate his charges and bring "Sheela and her gang" back for trial. Federal and state law enforcement officials were overwhelmed and overjoyed. They had been laboriously building immigration, land use, and church-state cases, which they believed were solid ... But ... none of them had the kind of bulletproof case that Attorney General Frohnmayer said he wanted. Even if indictments were handed down, trials held, and convictions obtained, the appeals could have gone on for years. It was by no means certain that they would ever reach the goals toward which their efforts were increasingly to be directed: the removal of Rajneesh from the country and dissolution of his Oregon commune. And then, all at once, the man on whom they had set their sights had given them more ammunition than they had ever imagined available. The authorities, Oregon congressman Jim Weaver said, were looking for a good "stool pigeon" and now "we got the biggest one of all, the Bhagwan himself." They quickly organised a task force ..."
    (The author of this book, James Gordon, was named by President Clinton to chair a White House Commission a few years ago.)
    In addition, the news conference is mentioned in Carter p. 230, as well as in FitzGerald (who, as you'll remember, said it had quite an effect). Other papers like the Los Angeles Times reported too. At first, people were skeptical and did not believe the charges made against Sheela. Convinced? Jayen466 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And this really is a very comprehensive book on public health history and epidemiological case studies of events such as this one, and a reliable source. Laurie Garrett is a Pulitzer prize-winning author. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Pending a bit more investigation into the context of the source, I have removed the "9 percent" info. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but other than for that one thing with the "9 percent" info, Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garrett is extremely suitable as an encyclopedic reference. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A continued back-and-forth discussion of an individual source's usage might be better for the article's talk page, so as not to take up too much space on this FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In any event, I checked and all other instances of the usage of this source as a cite at the end of sentences in this article are appropriate. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Jayen466 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Okay, it appears that use of this source has been resolved, at least as pertaining to its current usage in the article at present for the specific cites used. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seth Carus pointed out, both in his section in Tucker's Toxic Terror and in his own "Bioterrorism and Biocrimes", that "The case is often cited in the terrorism literature, but the accounts are usually inaccurate and always incomplete." Since the article makes heavy use of precisely this literature, I'll do some more cross-checking on the refs. If it's for FA status, it really has got to be right. However, I don't expect to find much to quibble with; I am confident what we've got is 95–100% there. I'll make any further comments in this regard on the talk page. Jayen466 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, sounds good. Glad to hear that we are 95-100% there. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revised the Investigation section to remove duplications and straighten out the chronology. I have also added info from a couple of sources. Please have a look through. Jayen466 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note; the lead is normally slight on citations as it summarizes text which is cited in the body of the article. Why does this sentence in the lead need eight citations?
    • The incident was the first bioterrorism attack in the United States, and the single largest bioterrorist attack in United States history.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
    And why aren't the eight citations in the body of the article, discussing that it was the first, rather than in the lead? In fact, why are there three citations on numerous statements throughout the article? Also, the link checker shows this as a dead link:
    Re the broken link: I've removed the reference for now and put the document up here for viewing: [40] I suppose if we have it in the article at all, it should go to Commons. What is the situation with local government documents? I guess we would have to write and ask for permission, as well as confirmation of authenticity.
    I agree that the number of cites seems excessive in places. In a few cases, though, the sentence wording used in the article draws on multiple sources, each of which adds another detail that is not present in the others. Will have a look as to which cites are dispensable. Jayen466 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sentence wording draws on multiple sources, how is synthesis avoided? Shouldn't each portion be separately sourced and attributed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently going through the article to remove multiple cites where one is sufficient to cover the entire content of a sentence. Once I've done so, I suggest we can look at the remaining sentences with multiple cites in detail. I can also place individual cites for sentence portions, as you suggest. Jayen466 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 17:27, 18 March 2008.

    Rokeby Venus

    [edit]

    Only known nude painting by Diego Velázquez. Short, tight article. Co-nom with Johnbod, much help from JNW, Modernist, and Outriggr. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think it is comprehensive enough yet:
      • I think it is comprehensive now. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is little on its influences or its influence except in the lead and image captions. Titian's Venus of Urbino probably deserves a mention. Manet's Olympia too maybe (though that's obviously influenced by Venus of Urbino as well)
      • The Times piece on Richardson gives some other interesting facts (and some contradictory ones-they say that it was brought to England in 1806 by Wellington) such as the estimated cost of repair after the attack was a whopping £100 (chiefly due to the fact she used a sharp knife and didn't hack it about too much).
      • "Nudes in contemporary Spanish art" could probably do with retitling as it also covers other areas of Europe, literature and fashion. It also seems to contradict the earlier "unlike Velázquez, Goya clearly painted his nude in a calculated attempt to provoke shame and disgust..." since the same attitudes are said to have existed in Velázquez's time.
      • Isn't one of the breaks with traditional depictions that we only see her in reflection? I can't think of an earlier piece that did this (though I may just be forgetful)
      • There are some contradictions (or at least a lack of clarity): "an image of self-absorbed beauty" v "it is clear nevertheless that Venus is looking outward at the viewer of the painting"; and "pink ribbons" v "three colours: red, white, and grey" v "contrast with the dark blacks...and with the brown of the wall..." (white is separated from grey and black isn't?).
    It won't take much to push it over the line though. Yomanganitalk 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Self-absorbed" is in a quote; I have pointed out the discrepancy in a note. We have a "mainly" for the 3 colours - and that one is actually a faded mauve has been added.Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See me below re earlier ones in mirrors. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments From the really picky department:
      • (This one is REALLY picky) The Smith, Charles Saumarez ref, the date of publication isn't wikilinked like the other refs are. (Very picky, I know.)
      • In the Bibliography section, Braham, Allan. The Rokeby Venus. 1976. is missing a publisher.
    Don't know where that came from. Its hasn't been used, my me at least, and I can't find anything on Google or the electronic liabaries. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elegant solution! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Braham was an NG bod;he revised MacLaren's Spanish catalogue - no doubt a booklet etc - not needed now anyway)johnbod
    All web links worked fine. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Picky people most welcome here, don't worry. Thanks for the minute disection. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (confl) Comments Oppose for the biting, for these motivations, for the references.** Is the section Nudes in Spanish art in pertinence with the article? / Support - now it's too good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no, no, and no. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (confl) WP:BITE. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Mojska, that was a poor attempt at humour. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking the links of the page I note that http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6287%28200102%29143%3A1175%3C91%3ATFOOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage is a forbidden link. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a convience link to the JSTOR link for a print journal article. It's merely for convience for folks with online access to the JSTOR database, the reference itself is correctly to the print version of the article. (It's the Fernandez, Angel Aterido. "The First Owner of the Rokeby Venus". The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 143, No. 1175, February, 2001. pp. 91-94 reference). Ealdgyth | Talk 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You what? Its what? Forbidden? Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now I get the point. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BITE (2). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only apoligise to you once Mojska; after that, if you don't take, I just don't care, and I loose interest. Whatever. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not actionable, no samples of unreferenced text, bite is not a valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an English - Scottish in fact, William Buchanan - dealer bought it first. Added.Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The figure was significantly altered during its completion - sounds odd. ..before completion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by casliber (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 mar 2008 (UTC)
    Has been reworded. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    L. Cirlot (dir.), National Gallery, Col. «Museos del Mundo», Tomo 1, Espasa, 2007. ISBN 978-84-674-3804-8, pp. 128-129 according to the ES wikipedia article (which also suggests Italian painter Lavinia Triunfi as a possible model) Yomanganitalk 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the eroticism of both the Sleeping Venus and the Venus of Urbino, I'm not sure the 'athletic' form description works anymore. Although the Rokeby Venus turns away her form doesn't look all that different from the Giorgione or the Titian. Actually Botticelli's Venus was pretty hot too. Modernist (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "athletic" is pushing it a bit. She's a little more svelte than either of those two and Rubens' is fairly chunky in comparison to all three. The Spanish WP says he turned away from the "exuberant flesh" of Titian and Rubens towards something more reminiscent of classical sculpture which I think puts it quite nicely. Yomanganitalk 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Phrasing along the lines suggested by Yomangan would be much better, though a corroborating source would still help. Also, I think that: In addition, Velázquez's showing of Venus as a reclining nude viewed from the rear was a first in art history, and was borrowed by many artists of the 19th century. would be strengthened with a cite. Don't know that I'll find any smoking guns, but I will look. JNW (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: Eliminated the 'athletic' sentence altogether, per comments by Yomangani, Modernist, Johnbod, and myself; svelte nudes occurred in classical art, Botticelli, and as a matter of course in the North (Cranach, Van der Goes). More specifically, maybe a point can be made that this was a physical departure from the Baroque nude, but a cite would be in order to back that up. Also, softened the 'first in art history' claim with more moderate phrasing, supported with Clark cite. JNW (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points:
    • "It is likely that the goddess' face was heavily overpainted during the 18th century" - not in Carr or MacLaren I think, & contradicted by implication by them and Portus.
    Gone. Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right in fact I now notice Maclaren (n 1) says a 1966 cleaning specifically disproved this earlier theory. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they purely seen in reflection? Do tell. I could only think of Ruben's Venus at a Mirror, and you can still see most of her profile in that one. Yomanganitalk 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry, the several examples (mostly prints) are for her pose; for a mirror only the NGA Titian (which he says is a copy, unlike them) is mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm going to hold back for a moment to see how the article improves. It seems slightly thin on critical and compositional analysis, though I wouldn't object, in itself, to the brevity of the article, which seems appropriate for this much simpler painting than Las Meninas.

    A few points:

    • artists who painted licentious or immoral works were often excommunicated, and banished from Spain. I think this requires an example or two.
    Indeed! For now, I will go with "could be", which I can reference. Banishment had a max of 1 year - no wonder the country went to the dogs! Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sensed a need for more discussion of the distinction between the courtly or noble attitude to art and that of the authorities or the Inquisition who were throwing people out of the country and censoring things. Were the two elements ever in conflict? The contemporary Spanish attitude toward paintings of nudes was unique in Europe. Though such works were appreciated by some connoisseurs and intellectuals within Spain, they were generally treated with suspicion. I must say, that strikes me as probably true in some other parts of Europe.
    I think this was largely for show, in that there was a blind eye policy among the elete people that mattered. What the King hung in his secret chambers was his business, and what he chose to look at in the small hours was not important to the religious authorities, long as it was known to the plebs. Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More added on this now. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Rokeby Venus is the only surviving female nude by Velázquez, and one of only two such paintings in 17th-century Spanish art, which was often censored by the Spanish Inquisition. What was the other one? (Flicking through my books, I can see one there by Alonzo Cano, painted about the same time, showing a nude woman from behind, though she is standing. Is this the one, or have I accidentally stumbled on an extra one?)
    For me, this statement comes under "likely to be challenged". Actually, I hereby throw down my glove and challenge it. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O/S The dodgy Taschen Hagens claim it is the only surviving Spanish nude painting pre-Goya. MacLaren & Carr both say C17 Spanish nudes are "rare", so we had better go with that. MacLaren mentions Cano nude drawings, but yours is definitely a painting? Where is it, do you know? I now see Erika Langmuir also says this is the only surviving Spanish nude painting pre-Goya in her very reliable NG guide. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the Cano on page 188 of Brown's Painting in Spain, 1500–1700. I've now uploaded a different copy of it to Commons: Image:Christ's Descent into Limbo, by Alonzo Cano.jpg. I think "rare" covers it safely. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - not exactly what I was expecting! "portrait of a nude" is what was meant, i think, but we can leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an almost documentary interest in the form and detail of European costume in the second quarter of the seventeenth century". This point by Veliz doesn't seem related to the picture, since the comparative issue is nude painting, surely, not depiction of costume.
    I added this early when I was struggling to track down sources. I agree it is too broad and off topic, but maybe if Johnbod could decide whether to trim or cut compleatly. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't like it. V was interested in costume too (I mean, look at Las Meninas). I don't think painting nudes is a contrast with painting costumed figures except in the most banal and incidental way. And the paragraph leads on to a final point (nudes could also be controversial in France) that doesn't particularly follow from its beginning, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Booted into notes - if people don't like it there, by all means remove. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nicely out of the way there. qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the Correggio there? It is not mentioned in the text. I think a Rubens might be more appropriate, especially one known to have been in Spain at the time.
    I switched it for a Rubens. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What an excellent choice! qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The painting is rumoured to depict a mistress Velázquez had while in Italy, who is supposed to have borne his child. I think it is best to lay out the origins of rumours, so that the reader can judge their value.
    I've added a para on this under description. The fact of the child is accepted, and he is documented in legal records from the time as Velázquez's son. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While numerous works, from the ancient to the baroque, have been cited as sources of inspiration for Velázquez, in many ways the painting represents a pictorial departure. The article makes a case for its being a departure in Spain, as far as subject matter is concerned, but I don't feel this point is followed up analytically. In what way was it a pictorial departure? qp10qp (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified in the lead and inh the article body. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Portus covers the 2nd point in detail. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

    Support: Although I still hope my unstruck points will be addressed, the article has improved so much that I can now delightedly Support. It's been wonderful to see all hands on deck: the article is now more comprehensive and nuanced, and the new images have given a wonderful boost to its interest and cogency as a whole. qp10qp (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Methinks we coronated the Virgin a bit soon. The inclusion of this image was based on a possible resemblance of models, which has now been upgraded to something that sounds a lot more authoritative. It's possible, and I can see the likeness, too, but unless there's a cite for this, it is our speculation, and I recommend removing the image (parenthetically, I know from my own experience that archetypes emerge subconsciously, and, especially in idealized images like these, different models can take on pronounced similarities). Thoughts? JNW (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Yomangan has moved to address this. Nice work! JNW (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is cited in the text, although, as it says, to MacLaren who does not put much store in it, but many others do. I think the caption wording is a little strong though, and should be toned down. Unfortuntely the image is stretched rather, which distorts the face. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've toned it down and duplicated the ref in case it was missed in the text. With the indistinct reflection in the Venus claiming a striking facial resemblance was a bit over the top. An earlier version had a sentence suggesting that Venus' face was overpainted during the 18th century but it was removed as unverified. Yomanganitalk 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that's much better. See above re the overpainting. I changed the date to match the Prado. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for explanations. I did miss the ref. in the text, and yes, the mirror image is a bit ambiguous to go on. I will see if I can find a ref. for 18th century overpainting, but I don't recall such. JNW (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the duplicate ref. in the caption of the Coronation with a ref to Lopez-Rey, which I think well summarizes the discussion. Alternative thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now combined note. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added this to Legacy - The sense of believablity that is conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear, is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman: Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863. Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, it is similar to our view of the goddess Venus's face in the mirror, in the painting by Velázquez.
    I'm wondering if we should add the Olympia to the article. Although it would probably take the article to a different place. Modernist (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relevant, given Velazquez's impact on 19th century realism, but it would be a plus to bolster the comparison to Olympia with a ref; back at my studio I have the catalogue from the Velazquez/Manet show, which I might not be able to get to for a few days. Maybe we can find a good cite elsewhere (here's one, for starters, and rather juicy: [41]...I've since added it.) I don't mean to be a pain cite-wise, it's just that there are so many possible comparisons, it's nice to have the bridge between these masterpieces be airtight. Uncertain about the addition of another image. Do other contributors have strong thoughts on this? JNW (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree, but don't feel strongly. It is reasonable to suppose Manet saw a reproduction in the 6-odd years between the Manchester exhibition & the Olympia & we know he was a big Velazquez fan, but I'd be happier if the connection was documented. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have been kindly asked by Ceoil [42] to offer my advice concerning logic, flow, coherence and structure. I read the article line by line, and (unfortunately for my fame as a peer-reviewer who can find flaws everywhere!) I have not much to suggest concerning these issues. It looks to me as a comprehensive and well-written article. Any suggestions I make in the following lines are probably nothing more than personal preferences and desperate attempts to find flaws in places where there aren't any! So, after offering my full support, I just remark:
    • "The painting remained in a series of private rooms in private collections until it was exhibited in 1857 at the Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition, along with twenty-five other paintings at least claimed to be by Velázquez; it was here that it became known as the Rokeby Venus." This is in "Legacy", but it could also be in "Provenance" as a part of a comprehensive history of the painting.
    All the owners of the rooms are covered in the provenance; this is about exposure rather than ownership. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we go into many details, but after the "vandalism" the restoring of the painting was it an issue? I mean was it something easy not worthy to mention or are there any interesting for the reader encyclopedic details? This is what I was writing before I read more carefully and I saw the sentence "However, all were successfully repaired by the National Gallery's chief restorer Helmut Ruhemann." If there aren't any more interesting and "salty" details on the restoring, it seems fine to me.
    • "The sense of believablity that is conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear, is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman: Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863.[48] Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, it is similar to our view of the goddess Venus's face in the mirror, in the painting by Velázquez." So, was Manet actually inspired by Velasquez or are there some similarities that create the impression of a "paraphrasis"? It is not that clear to me. And if Rokeby Venus was indeed a source of inspiration, why don't we have an image of the painting in the "Legacy" section which (the poor one!) is the only section with no painting!
    Discussed just above. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the painting (Olympia), - a few hours ago, with caption.Modernist (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cits 19 and 20 provide sources for the same assertion ("It has been claimed the model is the same as in as a Coronation of the Virgin and Las Hilanderas, both in the Museo del Prado, and other works." "It has been suggested that the model used here was the same as that used in the Venus."). They could be merged into one citation.
    Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. I enjoyed finding and including the Lopez-Rey ref, hence the possibility that I overlooked its redundancy. If it needs to go, slice it altogether. JNW (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think the combined one is better; MacL calls the idea "fanciful", which I think is unfair! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Rokeby Venus was intended as a pendant to a 16th-century Venetian painting of a recumbent nymph in a landscape, reversing the pose and moving the setting indoors." Is this cited somewhere within the text? Sorry if I did not notice. And is this info in the lead the only answer we get to the question "Why Velazquez did this painting?"?
    It is citeable - I'll dig it out. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation with the pendant (last seen in a sale in 1925) has I think been complicated by the recent Coronel discovery, so i'll soften it. It's illustrated in Portus, but its not clear from his oblique references at which periods the two were together. Claim reduced, & removed from lead to lower down. Now added to again from Langmuir.Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nudes in 17th-century Spain" is very interesting and well-written sections, but to the eyes of some readers it could look like a long digression. Have you also though that it could also be a very interesting separate article per WP:SS?
    Better here I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure about the placing of the photo of the Borghese Hermaphrodite. Was Borghese Hermaphrodite an inspiration for the painter? Why then I see no mentioning of it in "Inspiration"?
    It is mentioned, but only named in the note; some of this could perhaps be moved upstairs. The caption & this section reference the (deemed) influence to K Clark & the NG catalogue. The placing of the photo allows comparison, which seems useful to me, plus filling that awkward TOC gap. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brought up into text now. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially increased the size of the image, then decreased it, its back now as a generic thumb, what about 300px? Any opinions? Its an enormously important image and influential element to the Venus. Velazquez had to be thinking about it. Modernist (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in an FA they all should be unforced, per the MoS. I have my setting at 350px, so 270 was a decrease for me. I agree it's important. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just checked it out with my setting at 300px, I'm usually at 180, although now I am keeping the MoS unforced idea in mind, - it's beginning to look like a FA to me. Do we change all the various image sizes or are some ok like they are, the Goya and Olympia are at 300px, while some of the others are at an array of differing sizes? Modernist (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MoS they should all change - for once in an art article I don't think that will cause much crowding! Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The feminist writer Lynda Nead has observed that although "the incident has come to symbolize a particular perception of feminist attitudes towards the female nude; in a sense, it has come to represent a specific stereotypical image of feminism more generally"." The quote needs citing.
    Anyone? Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't continue, because I'll find more trivia things!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very slight oppose mainly to a few small quibbles about quotations and prose. There are a couple of questions below that if you can't answer, won't affect the ability to support this article.
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drop at note at User talk:Brighterorange asking him to run his dash script over this article. It'll fix all your -'s to n-dashes without you having to do it tediously. And thus will make MOS-philes at FAC happy. DONE & he has done it.
      • Did Edward VII become Patron (as only one) or just a patron of the fund? I'm not sure if there is just an a missing or if he was the only patron.
    Patron is a title often used to attach royals to charities without tying them to specific work. To look at their website history it should be P. QE2 is now "Patron", per her website. Changed. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (question of curiosity) Okay, if the records of the missing/lost/destroyed nudes mention "a reclining Venus", Venus and Adonis, and Psyche and Cupid, enquiring minds want to know how we get four? Or what is that last title???
    A mistake -3 others (it gets confusing, as there were 4 others until it turned out recently one of the Coronel ones was the Rokeby Venus. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the description section, should Goddess be capitalized? I have no idea either way, but I'm sure someone knows the correct answer. I ask because it looks odd to me.
    I removed the G on the second use of the word. There might be a case for adding one to the first use. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might give a quick context to Pentimenti, perhaps "ghost images of earlier outlines" or "barely visible traces of a previous composition" so that the reader doesn't have to leave your excellent article to figure out what it is.
    We don't normally. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might give the first sentence of the Inspiration section as "Paintings of nudes and of Venus by Italian, especially Venetian, artists influenced Velazquez." thus avoiding the dreaded passive voice. It's just a suggestion however.
    Changed
      • Okay the third sentence of the second paragraph of Inspiration is WAY too long. I got lost in the twists and turns somewhere. Consider breaking it up.
    trimmed. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (question of curiosity) Do we have a title for the painting that was hung together with the Rokeby Venus? Curiosity again, here.
    As it says, it may be a Venus, or a Danae. Paintings at this period did not have fixed titles as such, just subjects, when these can be worked out.
      • I believe you need a direct citation of the quotation in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Inspiration section. I know you say the person who said the quote, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you need to give the location of it.
    Prater page no. needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • the "an excessive taste for lower-class women ..." quote (while great!) needs a citation on it.
    not Carr:217 Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refed - fuller quote even better I think! Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation on the quote in the third sentence of the third paragraph of Nudes in 17th Century Spain.
    Covered by the next ref.
      • Same for quote in the first sentence of the third paragraph of Vandalism.
    Already marked O/s above. Now doneJohnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent article, and I quite enjoyed reading it. Will be glad to support once the above issues are cleared up (minus my curiosity questions!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still like to see direct citations on the quotations I mentioned, but I'm not such an MOS maven that I can (or will be) bothered to go hunt through the guidelines to see if they are required. It's not worth the bother to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—This is so good. Just a few little things I noticed:
      • "principal precedents"—pr pr (main?) DONE
      • I've copy-edited a few sections: some intrusive and unnecessary commas and a few other trivials. OK
      • "It has been claimed that the painting depicts a mistress Velázquez is known to have kept had while in Italy, who is supposed to have borne his child"—has this been mangled by cut-and-paste? DONE
      • MOS doesn't proscribe, but I can't cope with single-digit closing digits for ranges (1642–4). Two is good. ALL DONE by Sandy-G?
      • My US dictionary says although is better in formal registers, and I'm sure the same is true throughout English. DONE
      • Check that we do need items such as love to be linked. Maybe ... SOME DELINKED
      • Velázquez's, but then "goddess'; I'm inclined to ignore the fusty rule that mythological names should have just the apostrophe (Venus'), and to insert apostrophe-es after all. That's just my opinion, though, so it's up to you.
    Venus, goddess and Velazquez now all converted to 's.Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a few instances of noun + gerund, which are ungrammatical and clumsy (the result of the artist having made corrections ... --> the result of the artist's corrections ...).
    That one was changed; any others? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 1 shows on search. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image size looks right - consistent. Modernist (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WHATS LEFT - I make that 3 now 0 citations still needed; I'm not sure there's anything else. Many thanks to all the reviewers! Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All my earlier comments have been addressed, and it's now a cracking article, but I think the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead needs generalising in the lead and expanding in the body: there is detail in this sentence that is omitted or even contradicted in the "Inspiration" section. I'd also still like to see something on the early 20th century claims it wasn't by Velázquez even if it is just a footnote (it's interesting to see how a painting is scrutinized when it first comes to public attention). Yomanganitalk 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the lead now has too much detail there. Also the controversial history of the painting is not mentioned in the lead. I don't have anything on alternative attributions beyond MacLaren's denial quoted above (is that in a note? - maybe). Well done finding the Pendant - it certainly doesn't look like a Tintoretto to me though! Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt attributions now added by Yomangani. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I find some problems with flow that weren't as prominent when this started. This article has been very heavily revised since the FAC began.
      • "Description" really ought to come before "Provenance". If you're new to the painting, I don't think "Provenance", being the first section, gives you the basics that will draw you into the rest of the article.
      • This paragraph introduction/topic sentence doesn't work: "It is clear that Venus is looking outward at the viewer of the painting.[26] Intertwining pink silk ribbons are draped over the mirror and curl over its frame..."
      • As mentioned above, the lead feels a bit forced. The third paragraph's "While numerous works, from the ancient to the baroque, have been cited as sources of inspiration for Velázquez..." restates the second, and in general the para is weak.
      • I don't know what revision other copy-oriented reviewers looked at, but they might have noticed:
        • "The Rokeby Venus is the only surviving female nude by Velázquez; such works are very rare in 17th-century Spanish art,[2] which was actively policed by the Spanish Inquisition, although nudes by foreign artists were keenly collected by the court circle." Sentence snake.
        • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the mid 19th-century" - the hyphen is in th wrong place.
        • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The conscientious modelling and strong tonal contrasts of his earlier work is here replaced by a restraint and subtlety which would culminate in his late masterpiece, Las Meninas.[12]" -- is --> are, italics
        • Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The credibility conveyed by Velázquez posing his Venus from the rear and in depicting the persona of a real person and not an ethereal goddess is paraphrased in Manet's stark portrayal of a woman, Olympia, that shocked the Parisian artworld in 1863.[60] Although in the Manet, Olympia gazes directly out at the viewer, the mirror view of the Venus's face is similar to that in the painting by Velázquez." Surgery needed here. The passive voice is probably not warranted, and there is a general way in which this is written that makes it so the reader has to be doing a lot of work to follow it, if you follow. :)
        • Done, but not perfect. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I'll go attempt to help with some of these minor edits. :)
    • This is an excellent collaboration. Nice work! –Outriggr § 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All points above seem cleared, though Note 6 needs formatting, & what is "roudond" in the Rubens caption? Flemish? The Maja now looks smaller to those of us who see the world on max image size. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done (though "roudond" ought to be a word, I feel!). Are we there now? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 17:27, 18 March 2008.

    Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is close to featured status, and my own biased eyes prevent me from seeing what needs to be fixed. So, that's where you come in. It got a favorable GA review, and a fellow user indicated it was a good article, potentially featured worthy. So, here I am, and, as I say, here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Source formatting issues resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ah, Hink, something is really off in your citations; did you by chance copy them from another article and get the URLs mixed up? See my edit summaries. It's not possible to mix up the current Venezuelan gov't with its leading newspaper (not even close), and at least one of your URLs doesn't match the title given and seems to be the wrong article. Based on the errors I found, you may need to see what went wrong there. There's also a mixup in author and publisher on cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went in and added publisher information on top of the author information given. (except for the Spanish language ones, I'm at sea as far as Spanish goes, but they looked to have publisher information) Double check that they are correct Sandy or Hink? Ealdgyth, Talk 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, a couple now look like they were meant to have web sites listed, but they don't? Current refs 5, 6, 8, 23 and 25. (Mea culpa again, Sandy, on the job learning!) Ealdgyth , Talk 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Several are from a newspaper archive that is through my university, meaning they can't be cited. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh boy. Sorry, Sandy, I should've looked at it more. Thank you very much for reviewing it, though. OK, I'll go from top to bottom.
      • Regarding the failed verification, that was a simple, stupid little mistake where I put mph instead of miles; the link confirms the mile and km I put in the article.
      • Regarding the usage of {{cite news}}, I thought that it was acceptable to put the publisher as author, but now I'll know not to do that in the future.
      • Regarding mixing up the citations, I'm not so sure. For example, this site says "ElUniversal.com" right toward the top of the page, which is why I thought the newspaper was the author.
      • I double-checked the references, and I fixed the broken link.
      • I'm not sure what is the problem with "The combination of rainfall and winds...". Does that have to be fixed still? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you mean to say this? The combination of rainfall and winds destroyed 21 houses and blew off the roof of several others, affecting 1,376 people and of which 80 were left homeless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. You and me both will learn here... My mistake too for not noticing the errors. Ealdgyth , Talk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Very well written, and wow! I can't believe how much information and how many sources you found! Juliancolton The storm still blows... 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very well written and sourced. The article includes a very impressive amount of information given its relatively limited subject matter. I saw two very minor potential issues:
    • At the end of the lead, does this The name Ivan was later retired due to its severe effects. mean that the name was retired because of its effects in the Lesser Antilles and South America? I'm not sure if that's what was meant, but that is the impression I got from reading it. (I could be wrong, and I'm not trying to downplay the hurricane's effect elsewhere, but I was pretty sure the name was retired because of the storm's effects in Florida.) This isn't a big deal, I just wondered.
    • In "Preparations", this sentence: Early in its duration, the National Hurricane Center consistently forecasted Ivan to track further to the north than in actuality. probably needs to be cited.
    Chalk up #35 Hink, *ding* and great job. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I got the first one (simply removed "due to its severe effects"), and the second one isn't a problem. The entire paragraph is cited to the TCR, and that statement does appear there (in the "Forecast and Warning Critique" section). I have the chalk ready for #35, and, rest assured, I have #36 planned :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Comments: The prose is of the quality I have come to expect from the Tropical Cyclones project and from Hurricanehink in particular. I only found a few minor issues that should be easy to reconcile.[reply]
      • I think unless the name of an island includes the word "island" you would say in rather an on. In Grenada. On Easter Island.
      • "At the time its tropical storm force winds extended..." Comma after "time" for readability.
      • "Early in its duration, the National Hurricane Center consistently forecasted Ivan to track further to the north than in actuality." Suggest rewording.. it reads like you are saying "early in the National Hurricane Center's duration".
      • "the hurricane warnings were dropped to tropical storm warnings..." Is that normal language for storm warnings? Or are the warnings reduced?
      • "All of Grenada was left without power or working water." Probably running water?
      • "An estimated total of 18,000 people..." You can just say "An estimated 18,000 people..."
      • "Several indirect fatalities occurred in the aftermath of the hurricane, primarily including senior citizens." You can eliminate "including".
      • In general, "See also" shouldn't include anything that is already linked in the article. Probably not needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot. I got all of them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:44, 17 March 2008.

    Discovery Expedition

    [edit]
    previous FAC (23:25, 7 March 2008)

    I am renominating this article because the single opposer from its previous candidature is satisfied that all issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed and is now prepared to support. A copyedit has also been completed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To me, Sources are books etc that I have actually used in compiling the articles and to which there is at least one citation in the text. Further reading is other general books on the topic which I have not cited as sources. That's why I've divided them. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      "Some polar chroniclers date the Scott–Shackleton antipathy from this point" Did I miss something? Was the anitpathy mentioned previously?
    Perhaps I should have said "the later Scott-Shackleton antipathy". Will edit accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a book review of 'Diary of the "Discovery" Expedition to the Antarctic Regions, 1901-1904' by Edward Wilson, which includes a nice image a page from Wilson's diary from 9 January 1902. I assume there are no copyright issues. Could screen-capture if desired. Am still looking in JSTOR for more stuff, and still looking at the article. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See your talkpage concerning this Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After its return home it was celebrated as a success, despite the need for an expensive relief mission to free Discovery from the ice...". When I first read this, I automatically assumed the relief mission occured after the return... thinking that the presumably empty ship was somehow valuable enough to warrant that action. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the text eventually makes it clear that Discovery did sail for home, but I see what you mean. Perhaps "...despite having needed an expensive etc..." will clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes. Plus add "and its crew" ;-). Ling.Nut (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as the previous opposer mentioned above, all my concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Another fine article, and since I was upbraided by Sandy for missing the last FAC I'd better support now. Couple of minor points:
      • The "later Scott–Shackleton antipathy" isn't proven is it? They were rivals in the race to the pole, but apart from the hearsay and gossip-mongering there's no actual evidence of bad blood even at that point is there?
    Oh, yes. Scott extracted a promise from Shackleton that his Nimrod expedition 1907–1909 would avoid McMurdo Sound, which Scott considered his own field of work. Circumstances forced Shackleton to break this promise. On Shackleton's return, Scott preserved the public civilities, but his private letters to the RGS show his real feelings. Scott's greatest supporter Edward Wilson never spoke to Shackleton again, and Scott's Terra Nova diaries contain various caustic and unfriendly references to Shackleton. They weren't buddies any more!Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wild's total of five exceeding that of anybody else - does that still stand?
    No, I meant more than anyone during the Heroic Age & have altered accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yomanganitalk 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Some copyedit issues:

    • In the map caption, the Blue line would benefit from an associated date range, like the Red and Black lines.
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in search of the North-West Passage" - a link would be beneficial here
    Linked Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but other favoured candidates had either aged or were no longer available." - well, presumably they all aged :)
    As indeed have we all. I've altered it: "had either become too old in Markham's view, or..." Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "praised the scientific accomplishments of the Scott and his colleagues." - of Scott and his
    Yes Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Vince memorial cross, erected on the Hut Point promontory." - this image caption is not a full sentence and should not have a full stop
    Removed Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "others from a supposed earlier fall-out during the southern journey" - falling-out
    Yes Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two parenthetical unit conversions need commas in big numbers: "a route up to altitude 8,900 ft (2670 m)" and "a height of 7,000 ft (2100 m)"
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Dry Valleys in the Western Mountains of Victoria Land were an important geological find during the expedition's Western Journey." - 'western journey' is inconsistently capitalized
    For consistency, I've removed capitals from all references to western journey or western mountains Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A general endorsement of the scientific results from the navy's Chief Hydrographer (and former Scott opponent) Sir William Wharton, was encouraging." - drop the comma
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In particular, the glorification by Scott of man-hauling as something intrinsically more noble than other ice travel techniques,[85] led to a general distrust of methods involving ski and dogs" - drop the second comma
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He took a larger and more experienced scientific team, he avoided his ship being trapped in the ice, he took a ski expert and made his men acquire some proficiency in skiing." - and he took a ski expert
    I've altered the wording Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "But he replicated the general shape of the earlier expedition–its size, its multiple aims and its formal naval character, and above all retained his ambivalence regarding dogs, at least until it was too late to affect the expedition's outcome." - This isn't really a 'but', as it's at least partially consistent with applying lessons learned.
    The "but" is the divider between the positive and negative factors. He learned and acted positively in some respects, as illustrated. But he failed to learn other lessons, and didn't act. That's the sense I am seeking. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. That said, this sentence and the previous one still bother me; they are a notch less professional in tone than the rest ("He took..., he avoided..., and he took..." and starting a sentence with "But").
    I've done a bit of rewriting here. The first sentence replaces a "took" with an "employed", and the second sentence no longer statrs with "but". I have in fact restructured this sentence and divided it in two. I have also added a third explanatory sentence. I hope that this improves the text and makes things clear. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the scurvy was particularly rife in the Ross Sea party during 1915–16" - and scurvy was particularly devastating to the
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one quotation that uses ellipses several times; most are correct, but one instance needs spaces before and after.
    Dealt with below by YoumanganBrianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All four ellipses in the quotation are quoted verbatim from the source? So Scott's official instructions were riddled with ellipses, and these are not ellipses indicating omitted text in the quotation? Or are these ellipses of omission as presented in a secondary source? Maralia (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My source was not Scott's actual instructions, but the version of them included in Ann Savours's book as cited. This gives one ellipsis, after the words "winter in the ice". The other ellipses are my own and are surrounded with spaces. My interpretation of the style rule is that the one in the Savours text does not require spaces. I am willing to be over-ruled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree with your (and Yomangan's) interpretation of MOS in terms of not altering the style of the quoted ellipsis. However, as to the the other ellipses (yours): per WP:ELLIPSES bracketed ellipses for omission would be preferable, as they would distinguish the quoted ellipsis from your own. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm confused by your reference to a bracketed ellipsis, and the WP:ELLIPSES page isn't any help. When you say "preferable", does this mean I have the option to leave things as they stand? I'll willingly adopt the form you prefer, if you can tell me precisely what that form is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Is the preferred form: "directed to [...] an advance to the western mountains" etc? If so, I understand, I think Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not being obtuse; I'm just used to speaking in shorthand :) The expected form is ellipses delimited by a space (text ... text); but bracketed ellipses (text [...] text) are suggested for some situations. I'll quote the relevant part:
    An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension.
    What I'm getting at is that putting your ellipses in brackets, as in my example above, would distinguish them from the explicitly quoted ellipsis. Maralia (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've bracketed them. It looks neat. I'm happy with this Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for a really interesting read. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your careful attention Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the ellipsis is unspaced in the original (i.e. the text is elided in the original) then it should remain unspaced here. Yomanganitalk 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had written up a last-pass list of small remaining issues, and inadvertently closed the window before submitting. Hopefully I can remember them all here:

    • "Western Journey" remains capitalized in one image caption.
    • Two images captions - for the Ross image and the modern McMurdo Sound shot - are not complete sentences and shouldn't have full stops.
    • The caption for the inside image of the Hut either needs hyphen->endash or rephrasing.
    • Many of the descriptive footnotes have no end punctuation, but some do.
    • The footnote "Although most authorities, including Scott, Wilson and Shackleton, give 82°17 as the party's furthest south others, including Fiennes and Crane, give 82°11." needs an additional comma after 'south'.
    • Footnotes 88 ("Shackleton's performance convinced Scott") and 91 ("See Beau Riffenburgh's history") have minor quirks in formatting.
    • The Further reading entry for Discovery Illustrated needs a comma between last and first name for the author.
    Maralia (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All these have now been attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple more:

    • The footnote that begins "This expedition was financed by" ends with "Nevertheless it is listed as British by SPRI." SPRI is not mentioned in the article, so it needs some context, or at least a link.
    Done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The straightforward footnotes are perfect, but in the ones that also include descriptive text, the actual reference is tacked on to the end of the text in a variety of ways. Currently I see:
    • : Riffenburgh, p. 36
    • – Max Jones, p. 289
    • . See Fiennes, pp. 33–34
    • , according to Preston, p. 113.
    • . Preston, p.36
    Can you tighten this up? Ideally I'd prefer the last format, for harmony with the 'plain' footnotes (although, note that there is a missing space between p. and the page number).

    Maralia (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All amended per your preference Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I've dropped the ending full stops on footnotes 63 ("Lashly's recorded comment") and 88 ("Shackleton's performance convinced Scott") as it appears you meant to, in line with the others we discussed above. Congrats on an excellent article, and thank you for being so receptive to my nitpicking. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: I've seen stuff recently in the news about various countries wanting to claim various sections of Antarctica. I wonder if a sentence or two in the "Some consequences" section explaing how (if at all) this expedition has impacted that controversy (and who can claim what) might be relevant? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interesting subject, but I don't think that issues relating to territorial claims in the Antarctica continent can really be considered as consequences of the Discovery Expedition. They arose many years and many expeditions later, and I believe that the question properly belongs to a different article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) Support. That was my last reservation: I was wondering if some modern consequences had been overlooked. Good job on an excellent article! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved image placement ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK there. The MOS guideline says it shouldn't be done without a compelling reason; that picture can really only go on that paragraph, and it can't be right-aligned without making the ToC ugly (unless we flip the ToC to the right, which is also controversial). So I'd suggest this is an acceptable case. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't agree; Brianboulton and I have now changed the offending images from left to right (or moved from direct below the header) and I see absolutely no negative impact to the TOC, article or otherwise. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with the penguins, but I'd have preferred Ross on the left - he's looking away from the article now. I don't feel so strongly as to make an issue of it, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose for this, but I should point out that this change now makes the article conflict with two of the suggestions from the WP:MOS#Images: alternation of images to the left and right, and having people's images look into the body of the article. I agree the penguin image is better in the new location, though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this "alternation of images to the left and right" suggestion? It explicitly says "Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment", no? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromise: I've returned Ross to the left, but lower down. It doesn't do any significant damage to the text, and Ross is now looking into the article. So I make that zero violations. Can we agree? Please? Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think this is fine now. (ЭLСОВВОLД: I was thinking of this suggestion in that section: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" which I assume they make for aesthetic reasons.) Mike Christie (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks fine. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:44, 17 March 2008.

    Defense of the Ancients

    [edit]
    previous FAC 1 / previous FAC 2 withdrawn

    Nominating again (the previous FA I removed per request since I had a bunch of FACs on me plate.) --David Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, I have found no notable and reliable sources about controversies. The only thing sorta kinda close is internal competitive issues, but those don't fit the scope of a general encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, "popular culture" sections are strongly discouraged in articles. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As with above, no reliable sources. Anecdotally it's the most played game variant on Warcraft III, but I couldn't give you hard numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks comprehensive. FightingStreet (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—1a. These examples from the lead show that the entire article needs a copy-edit:
      • "It is a team strategy game focused on hero combat." This sentence breaks the flow of the lead and just seems out of place. Part of it can probably be integrated into another sentence.
      • "The objective is to destroy the opponents' base using one's own Hero along with allied heroes and allied AI-controlled fighters called "creeps"." "One's own hero" is a bit awkward in an encyclopedic register.
      • "Sharing concepts with role playing games, the player levels up their hero and uses gold to buy equipment in an effort to best the opposing team." "Best" is a bit odd in an encyclopedic register; try "defeat" or something similar.
      • "The map was developed with the World Editor of Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, but was updated upon the release of The Frozen Throne." Change "but" to "and", since it adds on the previous clause. "Upon the release of" is somewhat awkward and flabby, but it may be unavoidable.
      • "While there have been many different variations on the original concept, the most popular version at tournaments is DotA Allstars,[3] which has been maintained by several authors over the course of its development." Change "While" to "Although", as it is more accurate and crisp. "Many different variations" is flabby; try just "variations" or, if necessary, "many variations". "Over the course of its development" can probably be tightened or even chopped entirely.
      • "Since its release, Allstars has become a feature at several worldwide tournaments, including Blizzard Entertainment's Blizzcon and the Asian World Cyber Games, as well as the Cyberathlete Amateur and CyberEvolution leagues." Chop the first clause (would it have become a feature before its release?). Are there any other worldwide tournaments that the map has appeared in? If not, you can chop "several" and do some slight restructuring to avoid misleading the reader.
      • It's a good article, but it just needs some polishing. — Deckiller 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your concerns have been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I performed a copy-edit throughout; it should be passable. — Deckiller 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ok, I know games, but not that much about Warcraft III. When people say "map" in the context presently used in the article, I think like I think "2forts" or "de_dust" are maps to Team Fortress and Counterstrike respectively, in that they replace the layout of the game but do not change the game rules. However, as this article is written (and given the apparent popularity of this "map"), a Warcraft III "map" not only includes a change of location, but would also suggest that custom units, AI, scripts, events, and so-forth can be created within some programming language, making this more like a total modification of the game? I would make sure that even if "map" is the right word to use in the Warcraft III context, that you first fully explain what this means in the article, and if it can be helped, to avoid the use of "map", replacing it with "modification", if how I'm reading the article to mean it like that is correct. --MASEM 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warcraft III calls all custom scenarios created "custom maps". While I do believe it would be perfectly reasonable to call it a mod, it does not (as far as I know) change any element of the game via hacks, et al: it's simply custom content built in a Blizzard dev environment. In any case, I've never seen a source that refers to it as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better suggestion then is "custom scenario" since, based on reading the relevant articles for Warcraft III and the editor, it definitely is a new scenario, and as noted, that implies a different type of modification for the standard "video game layperson" than "custom map". --MASEM 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been changed throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That reads much better per my concern above. --MASEM 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed concerns Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - several sources seem questionables, and in several places there is some OR taking place, particularly in the final section. Almost no context is given to explain what it is, and appears to be written from the view of someone very familiar Warcraft. I'd also question the notability aspect, and whether an article that doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines should be an FA article. Of concern as well is the article has been AfDed no less than 3 times. I honestly wonder how it could pass GA as being stable less than a month after its last AfD. Collectonian (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point out which sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 4 is a web forum posting. Ref 5 is a change log, which is used to indicate there is one put with each release (how does the existence of one with the current release support that statement and does that matter)? It is also used to source the statement that a hero was created from the "model-to-hero" contest? How so? Nothing in the change log mentions the contest or seems to support that statement at all. Side note: That same sentence is also incomplete, which would seem to indicate the article is still in need of a copyedit.
    Reference 7 is the same as ref 5, except its another version posted on someone else's site. At least 5 is the official one. Its again said to support that statement about the creation of the hero, but still doesn't actually do so. Ref 8 is another forum posting. Even official ones should be used very cautiously, and as that one can only be viewed by logged in users, I do not thing it can be a valid source at all. No one can confirm who isn't a member of the site. And a forum posting is being used to source an entire paragraph?
    And that's just the first paragraph, the history and development, of which I would expect to be the most easily sourced from quality, reliable sources. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as far as sourcing ease, you'd be wrong. :P I'll dig up the archive.org changelogs, which takes care of all the blog issues except for your issue with the DeviantArt link. I'll message you when I've made the changes, it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added in the changelogs, apparently they were all stored on-site after all, and the deviantart ref is now supported by the changelog, so I see no reason it should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see how the change logs support the statements they are referencing. Nothing in them says "this was created by a fan" or anything like that. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the source for "Numerous variants were created based on the original, but Allstars became the de facto standard." Is this statement necessary "Each release is accompanied with a changelog." since few releases are not? Also, refs 4 and 7 are still forum postings. Collectonian (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rephrased and sourced the statement you were talking about. As for the two references you’re talking about: Forum postings are going to be as good as it gets. Eul only posted his bit about making the map open source there, but it’s vitally important to understanding the history that he did. As for the other reference, it’s also a forum posting, but it’s where the AI writer posts. Both of these websites are/were where the development of the game occurred, and as they are both authors it falls under WP:SPS. While I would be happy to have better sources for them, I think since they qualify as “experts” in the sense that they are the developers, it fits criteria for WP:V. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in The War Center's forums marks it as being an "official" forum and the site itself has nothing showing industry support, which would be the only way it could be an exception. While I agree, the development is an important aspect of the game, it seems the only significant information is coming from a forum posting and by referring to the user name of "Eul." Ditto DOT All-stars, which is not only not an official forum, but also requires registration/log in to even see the forum posting. "Teams also fight computer controlled units and defenses." is an aspect of gameplay and should be sourceable from elsewhere. If other sourcing can not be found, those aspects probably need to be removed. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed all the 'questionable' content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has Collectonian been asked to visit concerns about reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the above change, yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Maybe add a note with the first mention of Eul that the developers are only referred to by their codenames (supported by source 3). Would Reception be a better name for "Recognition and popularity"? Development might need a little expansion to include a quick explanation of Warcraft III and its background, as the article seems to presume people know what that is. It would also allow the moving of the source from the first sentence of the article into the article body. In general, a lead shouldn't needs sources as it is a summary of the article proper. Collectonian (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a line about what WCIII is and how custom maps are made; the source has been moved down and addressed in the main body of development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed concerns ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have done a complete copyedit of the article, which I hope will address 1a concerns. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better, but there are still some lingering issues that can be tough to catch (such as a redundant sentence: "Each team has a base in an opposite corner of the map. Players on the Sentinel team have their base at the bottom left corner of the map, while the Scourge team are based in the top right corner." I'll finish it up. — Deckiller 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I clarified the comments you left in gameplay as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support like one of Fuchs' previous works, it's short but comprehensive, well-written and referenced. Enough to receive the FA promotion. igordebraga ≠ 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose. I've played this map (my favorite character was the panda) for a couple of months in the past, and even though this article is well written and explains the gameplay of this map well, there are many parts missing. What about a brief explanation about the different modes of the game? About the different heroes? What about Roshan? Why isn't it mentioned that players can control summoned units as well as their heroes (and not just the heroes themselves)? I'm sorry, DotA rules and I wish I could see it over the main page, but this article is far from being a features one. YemeniteCamel (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GAMECRUFT. All the things you suggested go beyond the level of summary that we intend to provide, especially in our best works. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, even if you're right (I'm sure you are, as I'm not an expert in English Wikiepdia's writing rules), this article is still not on a par with the rest of the featured articles in the English Wikipedia. The article, as it is now, is not significant enough to have that shiny star at the corner of the page. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please explain how it's not "on par", making specific reference to the FA criteria at WP:FA?. Without an actionable comment, your oppose is meaningless. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not comprehensive and not of appropriate length. It is too short. As I said, I'm really FOR this game, but the article is just not enough. You can't simply deny my oppose (or name it 'meaningless'), as you cannot deny a vote in elections. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't deny it personally, but the FAC director or his delegate are more likely to if you don't name specific things that can be improved. You've said it's too short; that's a start. What, exactly, would you like to see changed? As far as I'm aware, all the notable information sourceable to reliable sources that is available on DOTA has been added to the article. If you are aware of other information, please say so, and we'll try to add it. Simply saying "it's too short" is like saying "I don't like DOTA" (I know you do like it, but it's an example), which again is an invalid reason to oppose an FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not really good at knowing what's missing, but I'll try my best, and maybe I'll try and look at Age of Mythology for ideas...
                • Spin-offs section. There have been many clones around bnet, I've played some of them, so why not mention them? There should be (in my opinion) a mention of Roshan (just as there are some paragraphs about the ghosts in Pac Man, and I don't think it falls in WP:GAMECRUFT). Maybe the "Recognition and popularity" should be split, because it contains information about world championships and competitions (even though it 'shows' on the way how popular the game is). Maybe the game has been reviewed by large gaming sites? It should be added if so. What about Blizzard's reaction to the game? After all, I know some of my friends bought WC3 and played only this game, so it's rather notable. I think that notable versions of the game should be noted, (and not that I remember any version like that right now), that included major changes.
                • Let me explain myself a little. I come from the Hebrew Wikipedia, and they are very strict there. The featured articles there are near perfect. I want that atleast the articles , about subjects I like and are about to be featured, are great just as the top articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could the article do with some expansion? Yes, but the line between expansion and cruftifying the article in this case is very narrow. A further consideration is the lack of reliable sources that talk about the heroes, modes, et al besides just a general “here it is” on the official site or forums. Given that these sources would not fall under the provisions of WP:SPS, I feel that it is better to err on the slender side. Wikipedia is not the place to post all the heroes, because someone who hasn’t played the game isn’t going to give a flying fuck about a list with no reliable context. As for Roshan, et al- once again, no reliable sources. I could respond to the Hebrew wikipedia bit, but that would be off tangent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me for not buying the "no reliable source" arguement. If we go on your way, as "someone who hasn't played the game isn't going to give a flying fuck about..." then I would rather say that this someone isn't going to give a fuck about this entire subject. Anyway, it isn't something unusual for VG articles having an explanation of characters, heroes and units in it. Just saying "no reliable source" and "someone isn't going to give a fuck" are not arguements I agree with, (However, I did agree with H2O's arguements) and they don't really help promote the article's status. I understand the need for sources, but AFAIK, the heroes' list is found in the official site (very useful one). So isn't it a reliable source? (And yes I know that simply linking to that site is OK by you, but then again we can make the entire article a link to the different sources, where the game is explained just the same...) YemeniteCamel (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it this way. The article currently states that there are ninety heroes, with advantages et al (this is sourced to the Heroes Database.) What more are you looking for that doesn’t go into game-guidish minutae? “These include Panda”? “There are heroes termed by ‘carry’ heroes, et al”? You either go into way too much detail, or its stuff that cannot be sourced because no reliable sources talk about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can note the different types of heroes - Agility, Intelligence, Strength, and write about the attributes, perhaps.
    And still, I don't see any reason why feature this article if something is missing from it. Whatever the (good) reason the info is missing for, if there is lack of info, the article can't be featured. Maybe a DotA book will be published, and then you could write about all that "unsourced" information? Heck, all these talkings about DotA made me want to play it again. Northrend, here I come! YemeniteCamel (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In case Sandy wants to close this up, I have left notes on both Elco and Collectonian’s talk pages about their issues and I am waiting for them to respond. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note, David. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, Elco is unfortunately sick and busy in real life, so he may not get a chance to reply. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I think there's an awful flu going around, and I suspect it's hitting not only WP:SIGNPOST, but also a couple of FACs (haven't seen Karanacs (talk · contribs) this week, and she has several outstanding opposes plus her own FAC up). We can wait; the mainpage should reflect our best work, and a few days won't matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Perhaps look over the prose again to tighten it up. Some examples of issues I spotted.
      • "The objective of the scenario is to destroy the opponents' base using a hero, along with allied heroes and allied AI-controlled fighters called "creeps"." See the ambiguity?
      • "Created by a mapmaker known only as Eul, Defense of the Ancients is a new game scenario..." I'm not sure "new" works here.
      • "...who was succeeded by IceFrog after the release of version 6.x." Clause doesn't fit well with the rest of the sentence. Might be better to separate them. Would be nice to have a clearer explanation of this "succession". What does that mean?
      • "he added a feature" Since IceFrog is presumably anonymous, are we sure it's "he"?
      • "Versions with artificial intelligence scripts to control heroes have also been released." Don't understand what this entails...what do these "scripts" do?
      • "...it has replaced Counter-Strike as the most-played game." Maybe I'm missing something, but the sources don't seem to support this statement. Are there figures I'm missing? Also, can this map be described as the "game" that has replaced Counter-Strike (if this is indeed true)? BuddingJournalist 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've addressed all your grammar, etc. issues. I also rephrased the CS statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This article needs more coverage of the Basshunter song and the resulting storm of press coverage on the game. It's the #1 reason for people to read the article, and deserves more than a trivial mention. User:Krator (t c) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "storm" of coverage, actually. I did have a source in Dutch which noted a rise in interest, but it went offline and I can't get a copy of archive.org. Doing google searches for the song only turns up singles charts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a storm of coverage, in Dutch, at least. My mainstream newspaper de Volkskrant covered the game, for example. User:Krator (t c) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And if they did, it's not online at their site. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:44, 17 March 2008.

    The Guardian of Education

    [edit]

    This article on the first successful periodical dedicated to reviewing children's literature in Britain is as complete as it can be. I had originally thought of leaving it at GA status and waiting for more scholarship to be published on the work before nominating it for FAC. However, that may be many years in the offing and the article meets the featured article criteria as they are currently laid out. Little scholarship has been published on this important journal, unfortunately, so any imbalances in the article are reflections of the published scholarship. The article has been peer reviewed. Thanks in advance for the constructive criticism! Awadewit | talk 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support Sweet cuppin' cakes, Awadewit, we’re going to have to give you the “FA-a-day” nickname pretty soon, eh?
      • Does the “Founding and structure” section have representation in the Lead? Also, “Fairy tales” has a full section, but receives only a passing mention (“such as the undesirability of fairy tales”) in the Lead. The former is more at issue than the latter.
        • I tried to summarize the article as a whole rather than section by section. I can add more to the lead if you think it is necessary, but I think the summary is more elegant when it is holistic than when it is so obviously represents the article's sections. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For all the discussion of content, impact and underlying considerations this is, ultimately, an article about a periodical. In addition to the necessity that a Lead stand on its own, it seems content from "Founding and structure" (being important enough to have its own heading, after all) should indeed have representation. I've no doubt you'll be able to maintain eloquence. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've expanded the lead. Many of the details in "Founding and structure" are represented in the lead in only the most general terms, however. I think this is best as information such as circulation numbers and the structure of the periodical are best described in the article itself. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weasel word: “described as a ‘shrill’ critic by some modern scholars”
        • It is only "some" that describe her as shrill and it is not necessary to list them all in the text. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We hit this snag in Lessons, but context is different here. Inclusion of all such critics would be unnecessary and absurd. Providing one or two such scholars with “for example” or “such as” phrasing would alleviate the problem. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You already know that I don't think that every instance of "some" is a weasel word. What I have done is add more to the quote from Grenby, essentially including the offending section in a quotation and adding references to the defunct view of Trimmer in the notes. There is no reason to give such an out-moded view equal time in the prose. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That resolves the issue. I don't consider every use of "some" a weasel word; there are other instances of "some" in the article that are fine. The underlying issue pertains to what you mention below: someone using this article as research. When all we have is "some", we can't reasonably discern the the scholar's identity, their credibility, the context, etc. It seems, if the opinions are important enough to receive a mention, they ought to have a level of accessibility. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the position of reference 32 (not after punctuation?)
        • That is correct - the reference refers the reader to an article about the first effort to review children's books in Britain. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Non sequitur? Inline citations should follow the closest succeeding punctuation, no?
            • I actually thought this was a helpful citation. The citation at the end of the sentence is for the material in the entire sentence while the citation in the middle of the sentence (related to the issue of the "first") is an interesting article on the first effort to review children's books. For someone using this article as a way to do research, it is an incredibly helpful article. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article says “Edited by … Sarah Trimmer”, but later prose implies she was the sole author/contributor. Is that the case?
        • She was indeed the editor - as the "Founding and structure" section explains, she also included extracts from educational texts in the Guardian, so not every word in the periodical was written by Trimmer. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That she was editor is perfectly clear. What should be better articulated, however, was from whom the prose in Guardian originated (e.g. in addition to editor, she was also the principle author?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have now added this sentence: Trimmer herself wrote all of the essays listed under her name and all of the reviews, but she was not the author of the texts she extracted. I am wary of saying she was the "principal author" since no study has been undertaken of the percentage of originally-authored material that makes up the Guardian. It could be that the large extracts dwarf Trimmer's own contributions. Hopefully, though, this sentence will clear up any confusion. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to admit, I'm at times conflicted with your articles' style. The writing is beautiful and absolutely “brilliant prose”, but that criterion seems so at odds with an encyclopedia which, in my experience, should almost be starchy, dry and mundanely factual. Kinetic words like “flood” and “tumultuous” seem somehow out of place. I suppose this isn't actionable, but I'm just throwing it out there in case others have suggestions/comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm pretty sure these descriptive words can all be supported. For example, the 1790s was the decade of the French Revolution - I don't think it is controversial to describe that as "tumultuous". The number of books published in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth increased dramatically, which is why I described it as a "flood". I can get you the statistics, if you like, but scholars of the novel and children's literature all remark on this dramatic upsurge in printing. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't focus on those words, as they were merely quick examples (indeed, tumultuous and flood are technically appropiate descriptions in the sense of their meanings). The idea is more precise, less colloquial (for want of a better term) choices exist. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess I am confused - I always try to avoid writing in a colloquial style and I wouldn't consider descriptive adjectives colloquial. They may less precise than giving the publishing statistics or describing the French Revolution, but the article must sacrifice precision in some areas that are not the focus of it. That is what I have tried to do - offer precision on the topic itself. One cannot, of course, precisely describe everything. However, I don't want anything to be so vague that readers cannot grasp the point of what I am saying. The only way I can really address this issue is for you to point out individual examples. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again for all of your help! You know how much I value your careful reviews! Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    karanacs concerns addressed Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning toward support. I did have a few minor quibbles, but the article on the whole was excellent. I understand that you may not be able to find some of this information, but I thought I would ask anyway.
      • I'm not used to seeing dates like that in the lead for anything except biographies. Is that normally done for other subjects? I'd rather see it incorporated into the prose, but if it's common practice this way....
  • Thanks! Awadewit | talk 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and appears comprehensive. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I just have a few questions and comments, but it has no effect on my vote.

    • Following the sentence "she was intent on protecting Christianity from secularism as well as evangelicalism, particularly as the latter manifested itself in Methodism", details are given about the secularism part (Rousseau, the French Revolution, etc.). Could a few sentences be added on how she intended to protect Christianity from evangelicalism (Methodism)?
    • Unfortunately I have included all of the information that is available on how Trimmer tried to protect Christianity. There is just not much published information around. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side comment, there are some difficulties using the word “evangelicalism” and the wikilink to the article. The word has very different meanings depending on context. In modern US usage it means a very conservative non-denominational Protestantism, while historically it meant mainstream Protestants which would include Lutherans and Reformed churches. And I guess there are meanings in between. Because of the ambiguity, perhaps it would be better to just mention Methodism? Or how about “evangelical awakening” or “revival movement”?
    • I think it is important to link this word, as most people are not familiar with it, and it is the right word for the time. Perhaps we just need to find a better link? I have now linked it to History of Evangelicalism - perhaps someday that article will improve. At least currently it has a little paragraph on the 18th century. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a better link. Someone seems to be working on the article as it was only recently created. I guess words will always be moving targets. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume Grenby used the word “fundamentalism”, but I think that word also has problems in usage. Originally, fundamentalism was a very specific grouping within conservative US Protestants in the 19th century early 20th century. The word has taken on a wider meaning now, but seeing it in the context of religious movements would make it appear as an anachronism. I would suggest “…illustrated her conservatism”.
    • Grenby does use "fundamentalism". I would prefer to retain it, since it has a more precise meaning than "conservatism", which I am already uncomfortable using, since it has so many different meanings (even at the end of the 18th century). Ah! Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's just me. When the word is used in a modern context, I know that means extreme religious groups of any type. And when it is used in a past and/or history of religion context, I think of the Five fundamentals. But when it is used in the context of Trimmer, I get confused and I am not sure what it means. Ah, words! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well such words are never that clear. All I can say is that I tried to put it in context. For example, it is surrounded by a discussion of Biblical inerrancy. (I know it is no equation!) Awadewit | talk 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a quote that states, “she agreed with ‘Rousseau’s key idea,…’”. Was the quote from Grenby? If so, would it not be better just to paraphrase it?
    • Yes, it is from Grenby. I thought that quoting this was a good idea because it was stating what Rousseau's "key idea" was - not something that is agreed upon, let me tell you from painful experience! I have now indicated in the prose that this quote is from Grenby to dispel any ambiguity. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be good to restructure the sentence, ”She disliked them because they endorsed…”. Initially I made a wrong connection with the conjunction. I read it as “She disliked… and she suggested…”.
    Yes, that's fine. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned “her negative review of the works of Edward Kendall did little to dampen the sales of his works”. Since you mentioned Kendall, you may want to add who he is and what were his significant works.
    OK! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent quality as usual! --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Questions, Looking at the subject on a more technical side:
      • How many issues were published in total?
      • and how many pages did the average/typical issue contain?
        • I could count all of the pages in each issue and figure out the average myself, but I can't say I'm excited about this. Also, I only have access to a modern copy, so I don't even know if such page counting is meaningful. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm just interested in a sense of scale. Like, a 5-page pamphlet or a 50-page journal, one-paragraph blurb reviews or 5-page detailed reviews? The 400 total reviews over, say, 30 issues would mean about 13 reviews per issue. Will they let you scan an image of a cover? --maclean 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've already read many issues and I can tell you it is not easy to describe them. Some reviews were one line long and some were several pages. I really don't know what to do here. There wasn't a standard form for each issue beyond the three sections I've already described. Oddly, the copy at my rare books library is from 2002, so scanning an image would not be helpful. I'm planning on asking someone with access to an original to scan one, but that person is not a Wikipedian and a librarian, so I thought I would ask post-FAC. I wanted to say "wouldn't it look better if...." Awadewit | talk 13:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • did they print double-sided?
      • just kidding.
      • I think the monthly/quarterly publication schedule is worth mentioning in the lead.
      • Looking at its library reference (OCLC 9276407) it mentions that "J. Hatchard" was the publisher. This article doesn't mention him. --maclean 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great literary historiography, as usual. My one concern is that it may go overly into Trimmer's views, which are already covered in her biography, but the new material that's here certainly qualifies for FA. Beyond that, this line, "The reviewing of children's books was taken seriously for the first time in The Guardian of Education," could be made stronger as an opening line it it were changed from passive to active voice, but this is only a suggestion on my part. Ameriquedialectics 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already tried to rewrite the Trimmer page to reduce the duplication effect. I would, of course, like to have more on the periodical itself and less on Trimmer, but I am hampered by the fact that the published scholarship on the Guardian focuses almost exclusively on Trimmer.
    • That passive sentence is a paraphrase from a source and I think if I reworded by adding "consumers, reviewers, and authors" I might be performing original research. It doesn't actually list those groups in the text, but I know those are the groups from my other reading in the field. (However, might be able to deduce those groups from other point made in Grenby's introduction.) What do you think? Awadewit | talk 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how that addition would fit in. I was thinking of something along the line of, "The Guardian of Education was the first periodical to take the review of children's books seriously," or "...to take children's books seriously," or "...to seriously review children's books." Starting with something about "consumers, reviewers and authors" might seem overly complicated, to me. Ameriquedialectics 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I was trying to integrate two suggestions from this review! Trying to make life complicated. Yes - see new version. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good;-) Ameriquedialectics 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

    Jack Warner

    [edit]

    Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it appears to be well presented, well documented, and reasonably comprehensive. The article benefited from the detailed feedback of several reviewers, whose comments can be found in the peer review archive and on the article talk page. I did not create this article but played a significant role in expanding it. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, twelsht (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - well-written and compelling read. A few minor points:
    • "Polish-Jewish" or "Polish Jewish" – it varies.
    Done Thanks for pointing this out! I referred to a couple of style guides; they recommended dropping the hyphen, except when the compound is used as an adjective. This seems to be an appropriate usage. -- twelsht (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bartering to trappers" (selling to, but bartering with, surely?)
    Done
    • Duquesne Amusement Company, - what did the company do? I presume film distribution but it's not explicit.
    Done
    • My Four Years in Germany – you mention they acquired the rights but then jump to saying that they followed up [its] success. What happened in between?
    Done Good point! I inserted a sentence that confirms the film was a critical and commercial success. The article no longer jumps from Warner Bros.' purchase of the film rights for Four Years in Germany to an overview of projects developed after this film's success.
    • Warner's "right-hand man" – not keen on the scare quotes.
    Done Agreed. I'm overly fond of them.
    • Darryl F. Zanuck – Why did he resign and where did he go?
    Done Good catch! The fact that Zanuck went on to form a rival studio is certainly worth mentioning.
    • In the Pre-war and war years section, the backfill sentences about 1917–1918 might be better in the past perfect (had secured, had featured, had produced etc).
    Done
    • "Angered by the perceived ingratitude of television actors, the studio head never overcame his disdain for the new medium." – the logical connection between these two isn't quite made.
    Done The revised sentence should make more sense--I hope.
    Done The elipses are now appropriately spaced.
    • "As the decade of the 1950s progressed" – odd redundant phrasing. And again "the tumultuous decade of the 1950s" later.
    Done Agreed. I removed the first phrase, along with the whole sentence. The second phrase now reads, "the dislocations of the 1950s." I wanted to suggest that Warner survived the changes that swept the film industry during that period, not the tensions and uncertainties of the postwar era.
    • "chased Jack with a 2 x 4" – what's a 2 x 4?
    Done Americans identify wooden planks by referring to their dimensions. (A common size is 2 feet X 4 feet.) This term is probably unintelligible to many people outside the United States, especially considering that the rest of the world uses the metric system. "Wooden plank" will tell the reader everything he or she needs to know.
    I know this bit has gone now, but just as a note, 2x4 would be widely understood in the UK as well. We're a bit schizophrenic when it comes to metric measurements. As an example, miles and yards are still the official units of distance on road signs. And if you tell someone your weight in kg, you'll likely get a blank look. 4u1e (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (2 inches by 4 inches, btw!)[reply]
    • I take it that Ben Kamelson and Ben Kalmenson really are different people?
    Done Sadly, they are one in the same. Kalmenson is the correct name.
    • "where the unconscious studio head lay packed in ice" – unfortunate phrasing :)
    Done Most unfortunate :)
    --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments all sources look good
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done This is a valid point. I haven't been able to corroborate this story because it doesn't appear in any of the other sources. This statement added little to the article, given that the tension between Jack and Harry is described in passages that are reliably documented. I removed the statement and reference.-- twelsht (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was the Here's Looking at You, Warner Brothers" documentary run on Turner Classic movies? Perhaps a bit more information so folks can look it up
    Done For the sake of greater reliability, I replaced this citation with one drawn from a text reference. -- twelsht (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Thomas' biography of Warner includes a detailed overview of the conflict between Jack Warner and his son. I removed the less reliable NNDB Web site in favor of a citation that refers to Thomas's bio. Thanks for pointing this out! -- twelsht (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the web links are still live. Ealdgyth
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While he was a staunch Republican," - would prefer 'although' to 'while' (which left me wondering if a party change was to follow)
    Done
    • "family of Polish Jewish immigrants." - 'Jewish Polish immigrants' would be slightly better, with Polish clarifying immigrants, or 'Jewish immigrants from Poland'
    Done Good point. I settled on 'Jewish immigrants from Poland'.
    • "joined him in Baltimore" - contextualize (+Maryland)
    Done
    • "After two arduous years in Canada, Benjamin Warner and his family made the long trek back to Baltimore." - did they...walk? :)
    Done It's possible, but unlikely :) I settled on "returned".
    • "He persuaded the family of the new medium's possibilities" - one doesn't really persuade of something
    Done
    • "Between 1928 and 1933, Zanuck would serve as Jack Warner's right-hand man" - this is awkward amid past tense
    Done
    • "the newly formed Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences" - link AMPAS please
    Done
    • "he raided contract players from rival studios, in some cases, offering to double their salaries." - drop the second comma to avoid ambiguity over what 'in some cases' modifies
    Done Good catch!
    • "The Bette Davis quote ends with "to make money..." - is there a reason not to end this "to make money". ?
    Done Not a good one:)
    • "In July of 1956, Jack, Harry and Albert announced" - you've used serial commas elsewhere I believe
    Done
    • "At the same time, Jack expressed pride in a letter of condolence he received from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower." - 'in' is awkward here since it allows interpreting 'expressed pride in a letter' an alternate meaning
    Done
    • "Meanwhile, Lehmans and the film's director, Mike Nichols," - Lehman
    Done
    • "Upon its release, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?" - Woolf
    Done Yikes!
    • "In November 1972, the film musical opened" - 'the film opened'
    Done
    • "disregarding a Jewish custom that required a child to be named after a deceased relative." - Isn't the custom that a child not be named after a living relative, not that it must be named after a deceased one? Check this please.
    Done
    • "In the wake of Nixon's defeat to John F. Kennedy," - defeat by, or loss to
    Done
    • "After losing his way in the building that housed his own office, Warner was forced to retire." - was he forced to retire, or did he choose to?
    Done This isn't clear. The revised sentence avoids comment on Warner's role in this decision.

    I'll address your other recommendations as soon as possible. I appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Early years section confuses me. Jack was born in Canada. His parents were born in Poland, then his dad came to the US, then his mother and Harry and Anna came to Baltimore. Two of his older sisters and 'his older brothers Albert and Sam' were born in the US. They moved to Canada for two years. They moved back to Baltimore, then Youngstown, where Sadie and Milton were born. This is all very confusing; who are the mysterious two older sisters? Can you clarify where/when the middle 4 were born? When did they go to Canada, and when did they return? Can you move Jack into the chronology? I realize you may be working with limited information, and I don't want to weigh the section down with tangential information, but I'm having a hard time understanding what's already there. If you can clarify what is and isn't known, I would take a stab at tweaking the section.
    Done I agree that this section was a confusing read, and specific references to Warner siblings who were not involved in the studio added to the confusion. I hope the revised version is more reader-friendly. Thanks for pointing this out!
    I made additional changes to this section so that it draws more attention to the mogul brothers, in general, and Jack, in particular.-- twelsht (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'see also' link should be in a See also section.
    Done
    • Why not list his first wife and his son in the infobox? His career was so lengthy and stable that I would fill out the Occupation and Years active fields, too.
    Done Good point! -- twelsht (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an entry for children and included the name, Jack M. Warner. I should mention that there is some confusion surrounding this name. Warner's son was popularly known as Jack Warner, Jr., despite the fact that he bore a different middle initial. I made a note of this in the "Personal life" section and went on to refer to him as "Jack Jr." I hope that I handled this situation appropriately. -- twelsht (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have slightly refactored my comments above by striking out & hiding resolved ones; the remaining issues are unhidden above. I have a few leads on images; will keep working on it. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible vandalism
    Note: Please know that a user who has been blocked in the past has edited this article in a questionable manner. Among others, this user has re-added citations that refer to dubious Web sites and inserted redundant statements, e.g., "Warner was a womanizer." While I have reverted this user's most recent edits, he or she may continue to edit this article. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with removing that content, even if it is sourced. It's distracting and it contains unnecessary detail. The article contains enough detail about his womanizing without it. Someone must have a chip on their shoulder. You are able to revert all of the other user's edits in a single step if you "undo" while looking at the larger diff. Royalbroil 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is good to know! I'm not sure whether the user intended to vandalize this article. I do know that his or her changes flew in the face of reviewers' recommendations. I left a message on the user's talk page explaining why I reverted his or her edits. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user found a credible print reference for the anecdote he or she contributed to the article. Problem solved. -- twelsht (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from 4u1e. Great article. A few minor points remaining:

    • 'His 45-year career was lengthier than that of any other studio head' - I'm still not clear if this is the longest of all time - if it was, can we re-word to something like 'As of 2008, his 45-year career is the longest of any Hollywood studio head' (I'm guessing that we don't know whether any (for example) Bollywood studio head has served longer.)
    Done Good point! I specified Hollywood. The reference for this statement is Thomas' 1990 bio of Warner. Perhaps the sentence should read as follows: "At the time of his retirement, and for decades later, his 45-year...." Any thoughts on this would be welcome. -- twelsht (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, strictly what you're saying that 'as of 1990, Warner was the longest-serving studio head in Hollywood', which reads fine, but almost 20 years have gone by since then so it's not a great statement to make. Are there any more recent sources you can use for this? 4u1e (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I think about it, the less concerned I am that the source is almost two decades old. I overlooked that Warner was the last of the traditional Hollywood movie moguls. The destruction of the old studio system in the 1950s resulted in the retirement or resignation of most, if not all, of his rivals; and current Hollywood studio executives do not wield the sort of power that Warner and his fellow moguls took for granted. I'll revise the sentence so that it points out that Warner had the longest career of the Hollywood moguls; in the absence of new moguls, that record is likely to stand. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'He was the only co-founder of Warner Bros. Studios who was born in Canada' Feels a bit clumsy - is this needed at all, or can it be dropped?
    Done I added this statement to draw the reader's attention back to Jack Warner. This section devotes a good deal of space to other members of the family, and I was concerned that Jack had been lost in the shuffle. That said, I agree with your characterization of the sentence as awkward. It interrupted the flow of the paragraph, and the section is stronger without it. -- twelsht (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a question of personal taste, but I really find having a ref after each sentence distracting. Since you are using a small number of high-quality sources, there is scope for just having one or two refs at the end of each paragraph to cover its content. You wouldn't actually be losing any information by doing so. Just a thought.
    Ungoing I've reduced the number of references in a few sections. There's more work to be done in this department. -- twelsht (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote from Bette Davis: 'We become father and child,' Is 'become' correct?
    Done Good catch! -- twelsht (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'anti-Semitic pograms' Pogram or Pogrom?
    Done Another good catch! -- twelsht (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Moreover, the brothers' attraction to film vehicles critical of German militarism' perhaps 'attraction to filming'?
    Done I had some difficulty with this passage because the Warners' attraction to films critical of German militarism predated their move to producton. Perhaps films is less awkward and more inclusive. -- twelsht (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just after this, you mention 'Four years in Germany', introduced in virtually the same words as previously. Perhaps move this mention to before 'War Brides' and word something like 'As well as My Four Years in Germany, Warner Bros. had in 1917 obtained the rights to...' etc.
    Done I had trouble incorporating this information into one sentence, because War Brides was a film the brothers distributed, while My Four Years in Germany was a Warner Bros. production. So, instead, I mentioned My Four Years in Germany in the previous sentence and removed the redundant description of its theme. Thanks for catching this! -- twelsht (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also mention that I previously peer reviewed the article, so I could be seen to have some personal stake in it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 20:38, 15 March 2008.

    Rotavirus

    [edit]

    I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have worked on Rotavirus for four months and now I think it is ready. I have been fortunate to have received a lot of help and guidance from very experienced editors and contributors whose names are on the article's Discussion page. (Although this does imply support and any remaining issues are probably all my own work). The WP:MOS has been followed throughout and the images are my own and have been donated freely to the project. The article is stable and the subject is not controversial. The article is written from a neutral point of view and all facts are supported by in-line citations from reliable sources, of which free-content material has been used when it has been possible. In structuring the article I have been mindful of the great variety Wikipedia readers and have placed the more technical/difficult material at the end.--GrahamColmTalk 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (as layperson) Oppose for now Overall the article is pretty good. I did some copy editing, and listed out some stuff to fix below. -Ravedave (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Organization - I think the article structure needs to be reorganized. There are several very short sections which could probably conglomerated. I think that epidemiology could be higher. Look at the AIDS article perhaps?
    The article has been restructured many times following the suggestions of other editors and consensus reached. To do this would be going around in circles. Can you be more precise as to what can be conglomerated?--GrahamColmTalk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Dehydration is more common with rotavirus infection than with most bacterial pathogens, and is the most common cause of death related to rotavirus infection,[27] but most children recover from the infection.[28]" - "but most children recover from the infection" seems tacked on, especially since children aren't the topic of the first part. I'm not sure how to refactor it.
    Yes, I agree with this and have changed the section accordingly.--GrahamColmTalk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Symptomatic reinfections in children are often due to a different rotavirus A serotype." - WHy is the word "children" needed in that sentence? Shouldn't that apply to all ages?
    Yes, I agree with this too and I have deleted "children".--GrahamColmTalk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please have Prognosis cover the actual prognosis, currently the section just covers complications. Though this section could maybe be lumped in with another
    In the well managed child the prognosis is execellent; I can't think of anything to add.--GrahamColmTalk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the external link a left over reference?
    No, it's an excellent free review article written by an expert.--GrahamColmTalk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This virus has been a problem on cruise ships. That should be mentioned.
    Thanks for this and I'll address each in turn except the last point: it's Norovirus that cause problems on cruise ships, rotavirus doesn't.--GrahamColmTalk 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized my mistake after I hit submit, so I did a quick google and came up with decent number of hits so I left it. Looking at google again it appears that most of the results are just incidental. -Ravedave (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham, don't rush to restructure it. I'm not opposed to changing the structure if it helps, but I'd like to know how combining sections will improve the article. Which are candidates for combination? Epidemiology needs to come after transmission at least but other than that, its location in the article seems arbitrary to me so what is to be gained (or lost) by moving it? AIDS is not IMO a good example of article structure to copy and the two viral subjects could not be more different. Rotavirus has taken the WP:MEDMOS suggested sections and the shortness of some of these is to do with the simplicity of the subject (virus/disease) rather than lack of material or (necessarily) incorrect breakdown of sections. Perhaps some specific suggestions could be made before radical change? Colin°Talk 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunate side note brought to attention through this FAC: AIDS needs to come to featured article review for a much needed tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny. There aren't any other viral FA's are there? Another reason I thought restructuring might be needed is that some a couple facts were being repeated in different sections. This is normal, but it's good to eliminate it when you can. I'll come back tonight with more details on what what I think needs to be re-arranged. -Ravedave (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Influenza, Tuberculosis and Poliomyelitis. Colin°Talk 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging of treatment and prognosis is good enough for me. -Ravedave (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I reviewed this throughout January and February and Graham has dealt with all my concerns. My edits have been minor. This is a comprehensive and well-sourced article on a simple virus and disease that few will know about but nearly all of us have had. Only a knowledgeable enthusiast like Graham could take a diarrhoeal disease to this quality level. Well done. Colin°Talk 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments all resolved, sources look fine
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unsure if you should be using abbreviations for the various journals in the references or not. Consider this a question, not a concern.Tuberculosis uses abbreviations, but Exosome complex does not, which isn't much help!
    The citations were imported from PubMed using a tool which avoids spelling mistakes. Better to have abbreviations than mistakes I think.--GrahamColmTalk 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Sandy already set me straight on this one (grins) It's just odd to me (the history major) to see abbreviations in a bibliography. No worries though, different field, different conventions. Ealdgyth
    Everything resolved, unequivocal support. delldot talk 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a couple comments, nothing serious to prevent me from supporting:
      • Under history, could the images be right-aligned? I think the MOS discourages left-aligning images at the beginning of sections, and in certain sizes of window the bottom image displaces the header below.
    Done.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could tighten up the wording a little by changing "newborn children" -> "newborns".
    I've left this.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Journal article titles should only have capital letters for the first word, words after a colon, proper nouns, etc.
    These were all imported using a tool which avoids typos (other)FAs use this method.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it'd be better for them all to be consistent. The tool's just going to copy whatever it draws the info from. Plus, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style says "Do not capitalize every word of the article title—only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash" (emphasis theirs). Not a big deal, I'm just saying. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've fixed this.--GrahamColmTalk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one is so minute, I'm embarrassed to even be bringing it up, but some of the journal abbreviations have periods and some don't.
    Can we ignore this? --GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, obviously I'm not going to oppose based on it. But would you object to me going through and making them all consistent myself because I really am that neurotic? delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I find them all?--GrahamColmTalk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Rotavirus infections rarely cause other complications in the well managed child for whom the prognosis is excellent" would have a different meaning from "Rotavirus infections rarely cause other complications in the well managed child, for whom the prognosis is excellent." Which is it? Maybe this sentence could be reworded, since it makes you do a double-take?
    Changed.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's another left-aligned image right below the header under Epidemiology.
    I've left, (in both senses of the wrod), this one.
    Moving it caused a problem with the Table and I'm not v.good at Tables.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This is partly explained by seasonal changes..." It's better to avoid starting sentences with this, because it's not always clear what the antecedent is.[43]
    Done.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not so much that the this begins the sentence as that its antecedent isn't clear. You could correct it by using one of the fixes recommended in the link I provided before. Again, this [erk!] is an incredibly minor issue. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed this; any better?--GrahamColmTalk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! delldot talk 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't MOS discourage latin abbreviations like e.g.?
    I don't know, but I changed them anyway.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any more precise wording that can replace important in sentences like "Rotavirus are an important pathogen of livestock..." and in the lead? Important isn't that informative.
    Yes, I've deleted/changed most occurrances.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if this is too picky, but since humans are animals, "All seven species cause disease in animals" seems to contradict the previous sentence. Maybe "non-human animals" or "other animals"? Or should we just assume the reader can figure this out?
    Changed it a bit.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images under Structural proteins are pushing down lower sections and making whitespace. What do you think of right aligning these images?
    I moved them, but it caused even more whitespace, so I moved them back.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's kind of a shame to have a See also section with just two links in it. Can these two be integrated into the text? This is another very, very minor thing.
    I think Norovirus belongs there because folk often confuse this with rotavirus. To be honest, I'm not a great fan of See also sections.--GrahamColmTalk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm the same way. Guess not much can be done about it in this case. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: I really like this article because it is concise, and worded well for a general audience. There are a couple of sentence structure issues - I attempted to fix one, and hope I did so without incorporating any errors! The section on genotype/serotype I'm struggling with - I think it probably just needs a good copyedit. I see you're not too keen on reorganising sections again Graham, but I wondered if Prevention should be adjacent (or incorporated) to treatment? And in the Epidemiology section, the term "seroepidemiological surveys" is introduced without defining what seroepidemiological means. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been reorganised more times than a Rubik cube and, although not dismissing the suggestion entirely, I'm v. reluctant to do anything major at this late stage given the positive responses above. The genotype and serotype issue confuses even the experts and no doubt it will be rationalised by them before long - best leave it for now. I will define seroepidemiogy. Thanks for the comments. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support because I like the content and importance to a wide audience. I still think the wording needs a little tweaking and some words need wikilinking on their first mention, but I've seen much worse. Good luck! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:41, 15 March 2008.

    French Texas

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. This is an interesting period of time in Texas history, and I believe the article meets all FA Criteria. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Some points, none of which are sufficient to stop me supporting:
      • "Explorer René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle intended to found the colony" is confusing, since one naturally parses the comma as ending the name. I see from his article that he's often referred to as "Robert de La Salle"; could we just call him that, and let the linked article explain his full name?
      • Am I right in thinking that Francois should use a cedilla: "François"?
      • Can you check that you're using words for numbers consistently? Per WP:MOSNUM numbers under ten are typically spelled out using words; above that you can choose as long as you're consistent. The sentences starting "The ships carried almost 300 people" and "During the 58-day voyage" both mix words and numbers; MoS suggests consistency within a list. "52 men in 5 canoes" is another example, later in the article.
      • "Within several weeks of their departure" doesn't sound natural to me. I'd suggest being specific if you know the number of weeks, and just deleting "several" if you don't.
      • "To fill the gaps left by desertion": you haven't mentioned desertion to this point; is it known how many people deserted? If so it would be good to give the number.
        • The sources don't mention a specific number of men, but I've rephrased the sentence to say To fill the gaps left after several men deserted because I think that makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "led to an inability to find the Mississippi": I think this is a blurry way to phrase it; don't you mean that it led to them not finding the Mississippi, rather than an inability to find it? How about "Due to a combination of (etc.) the expedition failed to find the Mississippi"? Maybe that particular phrasing isn't right, but I think your current wording needs tweaking.
      • "Although Beaujeu delivered a message from La Salle requesting additional supplies, French authorities never responded": do Bruseth and Turner give any idea of the reasons for the French attitude? It seems callous to modern readers. I assume it's because the cessation of hostilities with Spain meant it was not politically possible to aid the settlement, but it would be nice to say something parenthetical to that effect if the source supports it.
        • That particular doesn't make the link. Other sources have said that Louis didn't want to send help after the two countries made peace (that is cited earlier in the article), but didn't tie it directly to Beaujeu's message. I wonder if it would be better to just remove the sentence about Beaujeu? Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, maybe another way to handle it would be to extend the sentence earlier in the article. Currently it reads "Shortly after their departure , France and Spain ceased hostilities, and Louis was no longer interested in sending La Salle further assistance." How about changing that period to a semicolon and adding "the colonists twice sent requests for aid over the next two years but their requests were ignored". Then you could drop the "Although" from "Although Beaujeu delivered". Alternatively, leave the first sentence as it is but cite that source too in the second sentence, and say "but France, now at peace with Spain, never responded." Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article on prickly pear doesn't say anything about eating them causing fatalities -- do the sources you have elaborate on what caused the deaths?
        • The sources don't expand on that at all. The prickly pear article does say that if you don't peel a prickly pear fruit (called a tuna), then the little spines on the outside can lodge in your throat. My guess is that this could cause your throat to swell up and make you suffocate, but I don't have any real info that this is what happened here. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Spanish response" section jumps back in time relative to the narrative above it, and I think it should be clear in the opening sentence that this is the case. For example, you might change "La Salle's mission remained secret for a year, until" to something like "La Salle's mission had remained secret until 1686, the year after it had arrived. In that year former expedition member" etc.
      • Very good point. I've fixed this. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support with a few questions:
      • Expedition section, second paragraph, the first sentence, I'm unclear why it was important that Spanish Florida be separated from New Spain? Did the French monarchy want that? I have dim memories of college history professors droning on about Spanish and French rivalries in the early modern era, but I will freely admit I get bored with anything past the Renaissance so I'm a bit fuzzy on when the French were happy with the Spanish and when they were mad. Perhaps a bit more context might help the lazy folks like me.
      • Just a personal preference, but I generally try to limit the numbers of footnotes per sentence to two unless more than that are strictly necessary. I saw three on the third sentence of the third paragraph of the expedition section. More than two looks like you're trying to overwhelm. Not enough to oppose, just something I noticed.
    Very interesting read. Those were my only quibbles, and they are really more questions than anything. When are you going to bring Spanish Texas to FAC? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewritten the paragraph on La Salle's proposal for the colony, and I think it makes much more sense now. I agree with you in general about the citations, but each of those three represents a different piece of information in the sentence, so I can't reduce any. I didn't see a way to reframe the sentence to eliminate one of them.

    As for Spanish Texas, I haven't yet found a PD map of to represent its borders (because they were quite different than modern-day Texas) and I have zero ability to create maps myself. I'm holding off on bringing that article here until I can find one. Know any good mapmakers with free time? Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Leaning towards support This is an interesting article on a forgotten place - this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia unique! Well done. Although my knowledge of "Texas" history is not that good, this article certainly seems comprehensive in its treatment of a "failed settlement". Here are my suggestions for improvement:
    • Since archaeologists have been working on the excavation, I'm wondering if there are better sources than news stories to use for the "Excavation" section. Have they published in peer-reviewed journals about their findings yet, for example?
    • Sorry, I missed this question. I checked Google Scholar and didn't see any articles about the fort excavation. There were several about the excavation of the Belle, but since I'm Nothing appeared in a search of the archives of the American Journal of Archaeology or Archaelogy Magazine either. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is entirely sure of where La Salle travelled when he was in Texas, nor of the exact route they took in the Gulf of Mexico. Historians have speculated that he travelled to certain areas based on accounts from some of the Native American tribes, but since exact paths are not known, I'd rather not speculate too much. 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Whenever possible, I would name the particular Native American tribe concerned. It is more precise.
    There are a few instances where I knew the tribe name and did not include it, and that was because the previous sentence had explicitly mentioned the tribe. In the other instances of the term, I haven't found a definitive answer to which tribe. Should I change the first set (the second sentence says Native American after the first sentence identifies the tribe)? Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea of allying with the native population had first been suggested five years earlier by Diego de Penalosa, a former governor of New Mexico who had fled to France after being targeted by the Spanish Inquisition. - This sentence is just kind of sitting there. Could you explain why the idea wasn't taken up at this earlier moment? It would help integrate this fact into the historical narrative.
    • I suppose we don't know how much money the expedition cost?
    No, I haven't found any record of that. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details of the voyage were kept secret so that Spain would not be aware of its purpose, and La Salle's naval commander, the Sieur de Beaujeu, resented the fact that La Salle would not confide in him. - Why are these two facts in the same sentence? Is there some connection I'm not seeing?
    La Salle would not confide in the commander where they were going. I've made that more clear in the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before they left, local sailors warned that the Gulf currents flowed east, and would carry the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it. - Before they left where, exactly?
    clarified in the article Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before they left, local sailors warned that the Gulf currents flowed east and would carry the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it. - "corrected" how, exactly? Could you explain the intricacies of the navigational issues a bit more?
    Ack! Navigation is not my forte. I'll check my sources and see if there are any details. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked in the source again, and this is what it says At French Santo Domingo, sailors more familiar with Gulf waters than were Spanish mariners had warned La Salle of the powerful eastward flow of Gulf currents toward the Florida Straits, a tug that unless counteracted would carry him off course. Accordingly, in sailing toward his destination, La Salle compensated for the current, in fact, overcompensated. I can find a book on navigational issues and write a sentence about compensating for currents, but would that be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS? That always confuses me. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it is language of "powerful" and "tugging" that makes the quote seem clearer - it's easier to visualize what is happening. Perhaps no change is really needed - it just seemed a bit vague. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed this to be more clear (hopefully): sailors warned that strong Gulf currents flowed east and would tug the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it
    • Beajeu, having fulfilled his mission in escorting the colonists - escorting them where? Across the ocean?
    Yes, that's been clarified now.
    • The men found a source of salt nearby and constructed a community oven. - Living in the twenty-first century has deprived me of some knowledge. This is confusing. :)
    I've added a wikilink to salt dome, and modified to "and then constructed". Does that help? If not, what information do you think is missing? (I think I've been reading too much about this time period, b/c this makes sense to me.) Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm terribly sorry, but I still don't understand. How did they cook with the salt exactly? Awadewit | talk 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I understand where you are coming from. The two things really didn't have that much to do with each other–they were just two things that the men did. I've removed the sentence because it doesn't add much and does have potential for confusion. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In early June, La Salle summoned the rest of the colonists to the new settlement site. - summoned from where?
    added "from the temporary campsite" Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The men befriended the native peoples, asking for information on the locations of the Spaniards and the Spanish mines, offering gifts, and telling stories that portrayed the Spanish as cruel and the French as benevolent. - What "native peoples"? This is quite vague and a little old-fashioned.
    The books don't say which tribes these were. I've changed to "the local Native American tribes", but I'm not sure that is any better. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Two links are broken according to the tool above and when I tried to click on all of them from the article.

    This was a pleasure to read. I did some copy editing as I was reading, but there was certainly very little to address on that front. This is a well-written article. Although I think the top-most map could be improved, the images are all well-chosen and are all in the public domain. Awadewit | talk 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Some copyedit issues:

    • "what is now Inez, Texas, (USA)." - drop the second comma please
      • Done
    • "Explorer Robert de La Salle intended to found the colony at the mouth of the Mississippi River, but inaccurate maps and navigational errors caused his ships to instead anchor off the coast of Texas near Matagorda Bay." - I think a little more context would be beneficial: many readers won't know that the mouth of the Mississippi isn't in Texas
    • It appears from the De Leon drawing that there were multiple cannons when the site was rediscovered; however, in the lead and once in the body, these are described as 'cannon'. Throughout the rest of the article you have used 'cannons' as the plural; either there was one and the image caption needs correction, or there were multiple and the mentions of 'cannon' need to be corrected to 'cannons'.
    • "Although La Salle had requested only one ship, on July 24, 1684, he left La Rochelle, France with four:" - dropping the second comma or relocating the date would avoid ambiguity (this could be read as he requested the ship on July 24)
    • "After hearing that the captain had ordered the ship to sail forward after it had struck a sandbar" - "Upon hearing" would avoid the awkward after...after
    • "1.5 leagues from its mouth" - can you add conversion for this, or was it too variable over time? If nothing else, the link could be minorly improved to League (unit)#France. French units of measurement#Length is relevant but not terribly helpful either.
    • " between 700 and 1200 pounds" - add a comma in the big number please
    • The image caption "This map of Fort Saint Louis as of 1689 was drawn by Alonso De Leon. It marks the river, the structures, and the location of the cannons." would benefit from a little more context - the image appears before the text about De Leon, so it's not clear who he is or why he drew a map. Also, his name could use a diacritic here.
      • reworded to "This map of Fort Saint Louis was drawn by a member of the Spanish expedition which discovered the French colony in 1689. It marks the river, the colony's structures, and the location of the cannons" Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Large sections of the hull were intact. Usually, the warm water of Matagorda Bay would cause the wood to deteriorate, but the ship had been buried beneath thick mud, "essentially creating an oxygen-free time capsule in fairly shallow water"." - "Usually...but" is kind of weak. Suggest "Large sections of the wooden hull were intact, protected from the damaging effects of warm salt water by layers of muddy sediment which "essentially creat[ed] an oxygen-free time capsule."
      • I like your wording and have changed the article accordingly Karanacs (talk)
    • In the footnotes, only one of the retrieval dates is wikilinked for formatting.
    • In the References please abbreviate the publication location 'Lincoln, Nebraska' to 'Lincoln, NE'.
    Thanks for a really interesting read. It's nice to be brought back to reality with the occasional article about actual events :) Maralia (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My concerns have been addressed. Note that I tweaked the sentence you revised per my earlier suggestion (the one about the anaerobic environment preserving the hull of the wrecked ship) to move the end punctuation outside the quote, since my rewrite truncated the original quote. Maralia (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't thought of this, but it's a fair point. Perhaps having LaSalle expedition II redirect to Fort Saint Louis is the better of the two solutions. Mike Christie (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing how the fort itself is only an artifact of the expedition and only incidentally the subject of its own article, I would think LaSalle expedition II would be the better title for it, but I am ok with a redirect. I would think an article titled "Fort Saint Louis" would be mostly about the physical site, as opposed to a sweeping depiction of colonial history. Ameriquedialectics 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard this called "La Salle expedition II", so I'd hate to name the article that. I think the confusion is that Fort Saint Louis was the name of the colony, not just the name of the main building. I could see renaming it to French Texas (currently a redirect to this article), as that would fit with the naming pattern for other periods of Texas history (Spanish Texas, Mexican Texas, etc.). Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look around the net, and there doesn't seem to be a universally agreed-upon way of referring to the events of the 1684 expedition... I suppose the fact that LaSalle was looking for Louisiana might have something to do with it; his wiki-bio refers to the Louisiana_expeditions. To me, the best outcome might ultimately be to make this material part of LaSalle's biography, but completing that would be a longer project. In the meantime, I'm ok with parking this at Fort St. Louis if that's what people want. Ameriquedialectics 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    French Texas would work, might I also suggest Fort Saint Louis colony? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    French Texas would be fine with me. Sounds catchy. Ameriquedialectics 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the article to French Texas. I'm waiting on Sandy's input before I make any changes to this FAC, which is why it still says Fort Saint Louis. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:46, 14 March 2008.

    noitulovE

    [edit]
    Peer Review (17:23, 26 January 2008)
    Previous FAC (23:46, 23 February 2008)

    I wrote up our article on noitulovE back in November, and it's been listed as a Good Article for several months. A few months later, I applied for a Peer Review, but got zero comments. With this in mind, I put the article up for FAC, but again received little interest, and failed to push the article through. I'm hoping it'll get a little more attention (positive or negative) this time around.

    It is—bar none—the most comprehensive resource on the topic, online or offline, and is by far the best article on a television advertisement currently on Wikipedia. There're no guidelines on how to create an article on such a topic, so I've cribbed heavily from guides on writing about television episodes and films.. I'm hoping to use the article as a template for other such articles down the line, so I'd appreciate any input on any aspect of the piece. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Just a comment, we generally like to start the first sentences of articles with the basic information (who they are). In other words, save the "award-winning" bit for the final paragraph, which, per WP:LEAD (see Content of the Lead), should contain all the things that made the subject notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Superb article. --maclean 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - that's ok. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 10:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I thought it was a great article last time, all my comments were addressed last time, and it was just a shame it didn't attract more reviews. Glad you brought it back, and happy to support. Carré (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: first of all, I definitely agree that this is the most comprehensive article about a television advert, hands down. All of the bases are covered (description, pre-, post- and production, awards and legacy, etc) and it is certainly well written and, frankly, intriguing. I watched the commercial (linked from a handy-dandy EL) once before reading the article and then twice after reading it. Loved it. Anyway, a few small comments to go along with my enthusiastic support, but great work! María (habla conmigo) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    • Is it known who the actors are? This stems mostly from my own curiosity.
    • It was directed by Daniel Kleinman, produced by Kleinman Productions, with post-production contracted-out to Framestore CFC. Missing a transitional word. "...and produced"?
    • Daniel Kleinman is linked in the lead, but not in the body when he is first mentioned (Pre-production), whereas other subjects are.
    Linked up Kleinman. Grammar error was left over from an earlier revision, now fixed-up. As for the actors, I've searched high and low for names for either the actors or the graphic artists behind the storyboarding without success, and sending e-mails to AMV BBDO can thus far be accurately described as akin to throwing letters down a well. I'm glad you enjoyed the ad - I first saw it right before a screening of The Aristocrats I was dragged to by my then-girlfriend. To be completely honest, I enjoyed noitulovE more than the feature. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and no, this is not an unsubstantiated support. I had issues during the last nomination that were addressed. I have not found additional issues. The prose meets 1a and I believe this is a comprehensive, well-sourced article about a pop culture topic. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:46, 14 March 2008.

    Neptune

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    User:RJHall has greatly improved this article since its last nomination and I think it is now ready for an FA. Serendipodous 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    According to article stats, RJHall is the main contributor; is this a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. He's not around right now, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Serendipodous 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I've been contributing a few (mostly copyedit, formatting and talk) for the best month to this article. And I think it finally meets everything. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Upon doing extensive research on Neptune, this article gave me everything I needed in a clear, well-cited, and detailed manner. Excellent article, deserves featured status ASAP. Teh Rote (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Only read up to the Naming part, but it's very well done. But a comment:
    • Though still a student at the Berlin Observatory, Heinrich d'Arrest suggested...

    His name is rather random in my opinion; give a bit of intro for him. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support another great solar system achievment. And now all planets get featured status. igordebraga ≠ 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—I believe the article is FA worthy, but I'm a little biased so I won't say "support". The one issue I had was an inability to access any issues of Icarus. So I wasn't able to dig up much information on core models or internal convection. Otherwise though, I think it is reasonably up to date and comprehensive. Thanks for your support and any corrections you may find.—RJH (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I don't mean to sound flippant - but this article is 'out of this world'! All the extrenal refs check out, the images are great. What's not to like? --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flummoxed; the same issues have repeated in every recent planet FAC, when these items have been covered before. FAC is not Peer review, and these issues could be cleaned up pre-FAC. Is Voyager 2 italicized or is not? Publishers are missing on sources, endashes are incorrect in citations, there are MOSNUM and dash issues in the text, missing conversions, and incorrect use of bolding. You don't have to correct endashes manually; it's a simple matter of asking Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script. See WP:GTL, templates are incorrectly placed at the bottom of sections, they go at the top: For a timeline of discovery dates, see ... What is this: Because of the distance of Neptune from the Earth, the angular diameter of the planet only varies from 2.2–2.4″;[5][8] ... ? No consistency in citation formatting, no consistent biblio style. Please review recent planetary FACs and correct the recurring issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to clear things up in peer review, but peer reviews very seldom get any responses at all. Serendipodous 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, it would be nice if PR worked better, but it often doesn't work so well. At a minimum, we should take care of this stupid problem with formatting on space probes. Italicize them or not; blue link them or not. Let's decide on something. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, believe it or not, I did have the citations looking pretty consistent at one point. =) However, a number of changes have been made since that time, so I went through and massaged the templates again. I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent biblio style; all of the books use the same templates (down in the "Book references" section). I changed the >>″<< to arcseconds; I hope that clears up the angular diameter issue. (Otherwise I'm not sure I understand the problem.) I attempted to clean up the other issues.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might need a cite for that. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Serendipodous 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only to two decimal places; I don't think we need to be that finicky. Serendipodous 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Support -Ravedave (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, thank you, thank you for having a ref on the pronunciation, that's so rare to see.
      • Shouldn't it be "Neptune's trident" rather than "a stylized version of Poseidon's trident."? I know they are synonymous so you might as well use the namesake name.
      • "After reviewing the documents, some historians now suggest that Adams does not deserve equal credit with Le Verrier." - Why?
      • The Energy generation section could be better arranged (the 2nd paragraph should probably go 1st, but they probably need to be merged) It also contradicts itself - "the outermost part of its atmosphere, is at an anomalously high temperature" - "the upper regions of the atmosphere reaching a low temperature of 52 K. "
      • "In 2007 it was discovered that Neptune's south pole was about 10 °C warmer than the rest of Neptune which averages approximately −200 °C." - At which level? [44] That source seems to say the tropopause.
      • "Before the arrival at Neptune, it was hypothesised " - The arrival?
      • Orbit and rotation - "Neptune will return to its original heliocentric point of discovery on July 12, 2011,[60] when it will have completed the first full orbit since its discovery in 1846." - Isn't that saying the same thing twice?
      • That same fact is repeated in Observation
      • "the seasons last for four decades" Earth or Neptunian decades?
      • The rings aren't mentioned in the lead
      • Why does 'exploration' skip right to Voyager 2's last flyby, and not cover the earlier 1986 run?
    Fixed your issues, except for your last comment. There was no "earlier 1986 run" at Neptune. You're thinking of Uranus. Serendipodous 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. However, I think the energy section still needs more work. The atmosphere goes Very hot, cold then hot again, right? Right now the paragraph describes in this order: Middle, bottom, extreme top. You'd think it would go from top to bottom. Don't expect the readers to know that the exosphere is outside of the troposhpere etc. I appreciate your efforts so far but that paragraph really needs a good re-arranging and some re-writing/ -Ravedave (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed your main issue. If you still feel the atmosphere section needs expanding, let me know. Serendipodous 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Support)
      • Need a cite for Neptune's ring mention in the lead
      • You might want to explain how Neptune is the furthest planet instead of Pluto

    Oops. ^

    And that's all I found --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Serendipodous 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still: within the lead ...

    Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, Voyager 2, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. ... Neptune has a faint and fragmented ring system, which may have been detected during the 1960s but was only indisputably confirmed by Voyager 2.

    Is Voyager 2 italicized or not? See WP:ITALICS, ships are italicized, are spacecraft?
    I just went through an italicised every instance of the term. I personally believe that Voyager 2 should be italicised, if for no other reason than it is italicised in its main article, and at the very least, Wikipedia itself should be consistent. Judging whether or not a craft should be italicised is difficult, because many sources follow a policy of not italicising anything, ships, spacecraft or even movie titles. I have, however, seen many instances of the names of spacecraft being italicised, so yes I think if it is Wikipedia's standard practice to italicise the names of ships and space shuttles, then spacecraft names should be italicised as well. Serendipodous 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an acceptable citation, Wiki is not a reliable source: 102. ^ See the respective articles for magnitude data. Missing publishers on citations, example: 89. ^ Boss, Alan P. (2002). Formation of gas and ice giant planets. Retrieved on March 5, 2008. Endashes and minus signs still not addressed; I fixed a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    brightorange just ran his en-dash bot, so I suppose it is fixed. I will check the sources a bit later today. Samuel Sol (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    About ref 102, it is just a note since putting one ref for each object brigthness would be a little too clutered. So what do you think it is better, remove it altogether or making one ref for each? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it.—RJH (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    About that, I think it would be better to go with the more concise one but supportive and go one for each. Unless that gets in the way...
    I added one a while back. See here. Serendipodous 07:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely written, but you need a couple cites for the facts, such as the discovery of the Kuiper Belt relating to Pluto's questionable planet status. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Please. How much longer? Serendipodous 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you pinged Ravedave and is his Oppose resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now. But (and here I ask merely for information) when someone makes a complaint about another article, and another person addresses it, is it not the first person's responsibility to follow up? If said person decides not to return to the discussion, the issue can't have meant that much to him/her in the first place. Serendipodous 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've asked someone to revisit, and they don't, just leave me a diff on the FAC so I'll know. (I'm pretty sure that is part of the WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the time in Minnesota?--GrahamColmTalk 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 7:53. I just put the Kid to sleep. I will re-reivew right now. -Ravedave (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:46, 14 March 2008.

    Final Fantasy XI

    [edit]
    previous FAC
    • The previous FAC's improvements have been implemented, such as replaced the images and added more appropriate ones, filling out the lead, added a score chart to the reception section, restructured parts of the article, and also trimmed and bulked up some sections with references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Several references used in the articles point to a Wiki (not a reliable source). References 17, 18 and 50 are not presented properly (a template like Cite web could be used). Image:ChocoboridersFFXI.jpg has been tagged as too big to meet the fair-use criteria. The reception section may be a bit too small for a game which is seen as popular and has four expansions. Sales figures and information about Japanese reception should be added (did Famitsu review the game?). FightingStreet (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have addressed all your concerns, please let me know if you have others. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Looks good now. FightingStreet (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The game never got a 40/40 from Famitsu yet editors refuse to remove that false information from the article. Article fails both accuracy and stability. FightingStreet (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We corrected the questionable review, so it passes accuracy, unless you can point out other flaws. And how does it fail stability? Massive improvement of an article is not a sign of "unstability", in fact it is encouraged to make articles Featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the collective editors involved discussed this on the talk page? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    How do you know that? Do you have that issue of Famitsu? The Prince (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have it because it does not exist. FightingStreet (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion started at Talk:Final Fantasy XI#Famitsu score. Talk it out guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Support The correct Famitsu score has been found and added. FightingStreet (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support! I am just unsure how to justify it, like what would it illustrate that would make it necessary? I'm not sure how to word it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Setting", of course. As the FUR of the Spira image says: "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like". igordebraga ≠ 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Map Added, with very strong rationale. :) Cut, not strictly necessary image. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The organization is kinda different from other video game FAs, but it works pretty well here. This was a good read and I must say this is one of the most in-depth, yet still concise, "Development" sections I've ever read. A few things jumped out at me that I think will help improve the article.
      • In the second paragraph of "Gameplay", the sentence "There are 32 worlds (a cluster of servers) available for play, and one world used by Square Enix" seems a bit off to me. More specifically its meaning wasn't blatantly obvious. Is a world a cluster of servers or are the 32 worlds a cluster of servers. Also, this is a minor point, but what does Square Enix use the one world for?
      • Another minor point, in the "Interface" section, "the game also provides a method for him or her to communicate within the game (although it would be significantly slower than having a hardware keyboard input)." Though I can see how it might be helpful, the portion in parenthesis seems unnecessary.
      • In "Basic gameplay", the term "enmity" doesn't seem to be as defined as well as "claim" is defined. I don't know if this is within FA criteria, but an interwikilink to wikitionary could solve that. Sandy, is that something that could be done?
      • The "Crafting and hobbies" section seems a bit more detailed than necessary, especially since there is an article for the gameplay of Final Fantasy XI.
      • Also in the "Crafting and hobbies" section, the auction system is mentioned before it is explained in "Game economy". I'd suggest moving it down to the "Game economy" section, as it doesn't really add much to "Crafting and hobbies".
      • The "Audio" section could use a few more citations
      • In the "Reception" section, there is a small two sentence paragraph about the Rise of Zilart that looks a bit out of place by itself. I'd either add a bit more content or combine it to the paragraph before it.
      • In the "Critical reaction" section, should Computer Video Game Magazine be Computer and Video Games?
      • Another minor point, could an image of some of the merchandise be added? If not, no big deal.
      • Some of the citations make use of the "year" parameter instead of the "date" parameter to display the date of publication. I believe the date will now automatically link the date if it is in YYYY-MM-DD format. I also believe that format is preferred so that an editor's preferences can display the date in their regional format.
      • Ref 90 is missing a publisher. Also some of the publishers could be wikilinked. Like PlayOnline, IGN, Gamasutra, etc. I don't know if this is prefered or not, but I think it helps a reader check references.
    My list may be a bit long, but most of these are minor points that are for fine tuning. I'll check back once they've been addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Graphics removed, please the WP:FAC instructions. Also, there is no sig attached to the "done" indications, so they have no meaning to me unless I step back through the diffs. Done is not done until the reviewer strikes the comments; graphics aren't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striked out some of my comments that have been addressed. I'll give the article another read after the last few comments have been addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I think I have fixed everything you pointed out, included added two references to the audio section. And instead of a merchandise picture, which I couldn't find, I added a picture of the composer that was free use. Let me know if there are other concerns! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addition comments: The article is really shaping up nicely. I really like how it is structured; there are tidbits of out-of-universe info sprinkled throughout the "Gameplay" section. And it is much more condensed too. After giving it another read through, there are a few more things that popped out at me.
      • In the "Expansions" section, the Chains of Promathia part states, "On August 16, 2005, the day of the expansions release, a bundled version was released on DVD called 'The Vana'diel Collection'". The release year is listed as 2004, but the expansion was released in 2005? Also, what was bundled in the collection? Was it Rise of the Zilart and Chains of Promathia? Was it Chains of Promathia and the original game?
      • In the "Audio" section, is Distant Worlds a song title? If so, then it should be in double quotes and not italics per MoS.
      • This one isn't that big of a deal, but since "Promotion and merchandise" is so short, you may want to consider moving the content to "Awards and legacy" since the last paragraph of the legacy is about adaptations/merchandise. Just a thought, I like trying to consolidate smaller sections into larger ones. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    All fixed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is merchandise "legacy"? FightingStreet (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I agree that merchandise should generally have it's own section, I felt it was a bit small to stand on its own, especially with mention of written adaptations right above it. Also, merchandise is a type of legacy; related products descended from the original intellectual property. Just look at Star Wars memorabilia. If others disagree with the edit I did, they are welcome to undo it. I certainly won't oppose the article based on a minor point like this. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Support: All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the article meets the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well-written, and meets style guidelines. Also, in my opinion, it is probably one of the best VG articles on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Ok, completely rewrote the prose of the article, it looks a lot better now. Let me know what you think! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Criterion three issue: Image:Vanamap.jpg does not appear supported by WP:NFCC#8, as it does not significantly contribute to our understanding. The existing prose of “two main landmasses with two smaller islands flanking them, which in turn are surrounded by small islands” is perfectly adequate to facilate understanding. Earlier request for more images has no apparent basis beyond personal preference and no consideration of Fair Use implications. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut it, if it was strictly necessary it would already have been in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought that as well; after all, it isn't even in Vana'diel. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I've now put the picture on Vana'diel. Might as well use it for something. FightingStreet (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm going to do a “thorough” review. If I could have ca. 24 hours (I suspect it will take substantially less time, however) before closing action is taken, it would be appreciated. Here are some 1A issues from the lead alone (maybe do a CE before I do a complete write up tonight?):ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First sentence says: “is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game”. Do you mean “massively popular” or is “massively” not meant to be an adverb?
        • I guess that's the acronym, huh? What grammar school flunky came up with that? In any case, not this article's problem.
      • Commas needed, e.g. “on May 16, 2002 and…” should be “on May 16, 2002, and…”, “in April 2006 as the system's…” should be "in April 2006, as the system's…"
      • Awkward phrasing: “progress through the storyline of the three nations and 4 expansion packs”. Do you mean storyline encompassing/unfolding over/etc? Also, “As of 2006 there are currently…” It’s 2008. There’s nothing “current” about a 2006 figure.
      • Redundant phrasing: “hundreds of quests available in the game” (as opposed to in a book?) and “total of over 500,000 users”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we are still reviewing, I doubt they will close it on us. I made the corrections you noted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, that Sandy can be a loose cannon. ;) Actually, I hadn't seen that she had outstanding comments. I'll review tomorrow, as RL has intervened. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I hear my name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, folks; I'm ill and busy in real life, so I'm just briefly popping in and out of Wiki. A thorough review, it seems, is not in the cards (I'd just be incoherent anyway). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is a very well-written article, although I have a few concerns with it before it goes to FA.

    • The caption "Chocobos were a much requested addition to the game" is a bit misleading. In it of itself, it is unsourced, as the article states that chocobos raising and breeding was a much-requested feature by gamers.
    • I don't understand the presence of the Uematsu photo; he scored most of the FF series, and his pic is not featured in most Final Fantasy or even most "Music of Final Fantasy ..." articles.
    • The article lacks a picture that depicts any sort of combat whatsoever.
    • The table describing the game's expansions looks a bit bulky. Much of the data looks sloppily arranged. Much of the info that would be helpful (that there are new jobs availible for expansions 1, 3, and 4, that Wings of the Goddess is supposedly a return to the Crystal War theme, etc.) is absent, whereas some of the info that is present (Mog Locker increased to 80 slots, Gobbiebag quests 7+8 added, etc.) are unnnecessary as per WP is NOT a guide.

    (Oh, and BTW ЭLСОВВОLД, the "massively" in MMORPG is a adverb is used to modify the adverb "multiplayer" which in turn directly modifies the term "role-playing game," so the grammar is fine ;) ) —Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, fixed the Chocobo image, I was trying to use fewer words in the caption, but its much clearer this way. Also, I didn't include a battle image as there is no separate battle screen, and it would be basically the same as the two images shown already. Also, we wanted to include a free use image, and the composer is notable, as he is one of the most famous video game composers. On the expansions section, your right that is probably the weakest section now, I'll start filling it in and let you know when I finish :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, expansion section trimmed and then re-filled with info on what was added in the expansions. Also, added more development info to the article and some references. At this point, all fixes have been fixed :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deckiller said (above) he wanted to give it a pass; is he satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure exactly when he's on spring break, this week? Next week? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • A monster is "claimed" the moment a player performs any offensive action upon it, including, but not limited to attacks, usage of offensive job abilities, and casting an (offensive) spell. – I don’t understand this sentence. And why is the word offensive in brackets?
    • Players obtain in-game money known as gil by defeating a type of monster called Beastmen, though, unlike previous Final Fantasy games, this monsters leaves only small amounts. – This monsters?
    • One such minigame is fishing, where players can measure their strength against the fish they attempt to catch. Another is Clamming, where players collect as many fish or sea creatures as possible without going over their bucket's size limit. – Fishing is not capitalised, but Clamming is. Why?
    • Sony launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign to promote Final Fantasy XI and the hard drive add-on that it was the first game to require and utilize. – What does this mean?
    • Having also been released on the PlayStation 2 as well as the personal computer, it became the first cross-platform MMORPG ever created. – Shouldn’t it be mentioned that it was also released for the Xbox 360?
    • IGN called it a well done but unoriginal game, and in fact with only Japanese servers running North American players were forced to play with already much more experienced Japanese players; all the quests had literally already been beaten. – The second part of the sentence doesn’t seem relevant to IGN’s review.
    • The parameter “designer” in the VG infobox contains too many people. Only the most important designers should be included. The Prince (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, addressed your concerns, and have some feedback:
    • As to what to cut from the designer section in the top box, I don't see anything to cut. The jobs they have are very specific, and most of them are very famous in their fields, be it music, game design, etc.
    • As to mentioning it is on the Xbox 360, the fact that this game was released on it is mentioned over half a dozen times in the article.

    Thanks for your comments! :) Let me know if you have any more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Looks good now. The Prince (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:09, 13 March 2008.

    Barthélemy Boganda

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article because it meets the Featured Article criteria. Boganda was a priest turned politician of Oubangui-Chari which became the Central African Republic under his leadership. He's quite an interesting character, so I hope you enjoy reading the article. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I enjoyed reading this, but there seem to be several grammatical errors, for example: In the first sentence, the author has written: "... was the leading pre-independence nationalist in Oubangui-Chari, which would posthumously become the Central African Republic under his leadership." As far as my understanding of grammar goes, I always thought that only a person, rather than a country/place/thing, could be awarded anything posthumously. Also, the image of Barthélemy Boganda is copy-righted and unlicensed. Surely a problem for a FA? --Slicedpineapple (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Posthumous" just means "after death". The official declaration of independence was granted after Boganda's death. The phrasing may seem a bit awkward, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Also, the image of Boganda was licensed under fair use. Check the image if you want to see the full FU rationale. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence is in fact awkwardly worded as to make one think that "posthumously" refers to the death of Oubangui-Chari rather than of Boganda. If this were the case, it would be a mistake of diction rather than of grammar. I've rewritten the sentence to make it clear that we are talking about the death of Boganda. --MagneticFlux (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment on the picture issue: there is no explicit need for FAs to have at least one uncopyrighted/released image. It is indeed preferred, but sometimes they may just be impossible to come by. I note that there have been FAs who made it to the main page without any free media, and they appeared there without an image. For Boganda, this may not actually be the case: if unable to find another image (and unable we may just be), we could feature the article with an image of the Central African flag, as it was designed by Boganda and is thus closely connected with the article. Just a suggestion. Dahn (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Superb. I wanted to find a flaw with it, but it was impossible. I'll try harder for the sake of it, but I cannot picture finding something which would in any way make this article less FA-worthy. Great job, Biruitorul and Nishkid. Dahn (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, perhaps just one small issue: references 11, 15 and 30 expand on some issues, but the sources that could verify them are not specified. Could something be done about this? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Something was done, and kudos to both editors. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, and thank you. Two more suggestions concerning the CAR Constitution, both of them minor. I was able to find an online English-version of the 1994 CAR Constitution in word format - it is not the same legal document, but the text about Boganda appears to be identical. The whole thing is available from this database kept by the University of Pretoria Centre for Human Rights, so perhaps you could add the link in the article. My other is that the, whichever doc the link for Constitution leads to, it is probably best if it is not embedded, and has a link to the source and the publishing date etc. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just hate embedded links, and the MOS frowns on them. It's no big deal, but consider how nicely copyedited the rest of the article is. I tend to agree with you on the constitution edition issue, which is why I did not include it among the references that needed a citation. I would go as far as to say that you needn't even have a link to it - the text is bound to be the same in any copy. However, if you opt for a link, I say it's best for the article if it is assigned a publisher and a date. Unreliable sources may republish reliable texts, and we should not be sending readers to them or granting them attention - I'm not saying this is the case here, though I think that a link to Pretoria Uni is better than one to a news site that we know little about. Also, all links may rot. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you may sleep easier! Biruitorul (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Dahn (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the author of the bulk of the text, with many thanks to Nishkid, Aldux, Dahn, Ceoil, MagneticFlux and others who have helped raise this to the FA level. I believe it meets the criteria and also makes for an interesting, edifying read on a figure most readers probably will not have heard of but will be glad they did, which was my reaction five months ago when I first read about the man. Biruitorul (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - ISNA. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. [Light copy edit] Very well put together, and an interesting read. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Some copyedit issues:

    • "His uncle, the father of Jean-Bédel Bokassa, who would later crown himself as the Emperor of the Central African Empire, " - his uncle, whose son Jean-Bedel Bokassa would later crown himself as...
    • "a grassroots movement of small African producers, teachers and truck drivers" - in a list where one item has an adjective, it's better to present that item last in the list; placing the adjective first makes it hard to distinguish whether it modifies all items in the list
    • "quasi-religious political movement/party" - slashes are, to use a technical term, icky; can you find a way around this one?
    • "than among evolué townsmen" - link evolue please
    • In the first paragraph of "Increasing popularity", the last sentence ("In this period he divided his time between his coffee plantation, his emancipation work and new political positions.") would be better placed before the description of the 1954 incident.
    • "Thus, after December 1, 1958, when Boganda declared the establishment of his Central African Republic, the name was thereafter applied only to the former Oubangui-Chari." - thereafter is redundant with after
    • "Michelle Jourdain may also have been implicated" - either she was implicated, or she wasn't!
    • "According to Titley, there are good reasons for suspecting her involvement in the plane crash." - who on earth is Titley? His full name is mentioned in the next sentence, but there is no explanation of who he is. Unless he's a prominent scholar on the subject, it's better to just mention what he said; if he is worthy of mention, please tell us who he is.
    • "Boganda's design for the Flag of the Central African Republic. He combined the red, white, blue of the French tricolour with the Pan-African colours: red, green and yellow." - missing 'and' plus the article does not use serial commas; should be "red, white and blue".
    • "Boganda's death and its aftermath are strongly suggestive of being part of a larger French tendency to try and continue economic domination by ensuring that compliant leaders came to power in its former colonies." - this prose really does not do the rest of the article justice
    • unaddressed thus far.
    I rather like that sentence myself: it helps place his death in a wider context (French meddling in Africa, which continues to this day, even - especially - in the CAR). Maybe the French didn't kill him, but they certainly benefited from his death, and the fact is that throughout the ensuing decades, the big man in Bangui serves first and foremost at Paris' behest. (Also, it's not just the CAR - see Chad (where France just helped prop up a dictator) and Ivory Coast (more meddling).) Biruitorul (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. What I object to in particular is "Boganda's death and its aftermath are strongly suggestive" (a death can't really be suggestive of anything), and "suggestive of being part of a ...tendency" (weak prose, passive voice), and "try and continue" (weak prose). Perhaps 'The events surrounding Boganda's death are strongly evocative of prior French efforts to maintain economic domination by ensuring that compliant leaders came to power in its former colonies." Maralia (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded to "The events after Boganda's death are strongly evocative of prior French efforts to maintain economic domination by ensuring that compliant leaders came to power in its former colonies." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, how about "other" rather than "prior"? Boganda died in '59, but that was only the beginning. French meddling in CAR (and other African countries') internal affairs by propping up strongmen and eliminating leaders hostile to French interests was quite big in the ensuing decades and, as I just noted, even happened last month. Biruitorul (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why only "The events after" - aren't you really trying to say that his death itself could have been part of French efforts etc? I'm fine with "other French efforts" instead of prior. Maralia (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence only suggests French involvement in placing compliant leaders in positions of power. There was no mention of the French removing people from office and replacing them with puppets. That's why I didn't include "surrounding". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boganda forms part of a group of African political leaders" - he doesn't form anything; perhaps is recognized as
    • Yeah, still awkward. Stands, rates, ranks? Maybe "Boganda stands among a group of African political leaders"? Not sure I'm thrilled with that, but it's slightly better.
    That works for me. Maralia (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever is responsible for the prose in this article deserves commendation; it is very well put together, and almost entirely devoid of the miniscule 'fits and starts' that often result from group writing. Thanks for an interesting read on a subject entirely new to me. I look forward to supporting once my concerns are addressed. Maralia (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a collapsible box around my resolved comments; only the above remain. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support This is a great article and I look forward to more from this team :) Maralia (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Precisely. Sorry, if it sounded like an objection. While it is not at all present in FA criteria, at least for me it did not look great having an "External links" section with just 1 link. My support stands, even if that section itself is gone. - KNM Talk 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:09, 13 March 2008.

    England national football team managers

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because User:The Rambling Man and I have worked to bring it up from its origins as a contender for FLC (hopefully) to FA standards. Along the way, there have been two useful Peer Reviews, as well as much useful input from the football WikiProject. Constructive criticism most welcome. Dweller (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments

    A very good article just few issues before I can support

    • "the manager's rôle expanded to take in all elements - from the selection of hotel and training camp venues!" an em dash should be used instead of a common dash
    Done. Someone got there before me. Thanks Peanut. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For example, in 2008 Fabio Capello brought with him four Italians" this does not read very well in my opinion maybe use "appointed four Italians"
    OK. I'll go with that. He did "bring them with him" but it's irrelevant and obscurist. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "national significance in England" considering that the article is based on England mangers isn't "in England" redundant?
    I don't think so, because of the confusion over "national" vs England or the wider UK --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There is also repeated comment that the length of the English season" this reads uneasily I would change it to "There are repeated comments that the length..."
    Changed with pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink Premier League in the national significance subsection
    Agreed. Oversight. Nice one. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the England manager's job being described as the "impossible job". change to "an impossible job" as it currently implies that it is the hardest or only impossible job
    Hmm. I believe it is called "the impossible job". I'll check. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, source 3 implies and source 10 confirms. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He managed England to win the..." this reads uneasily I would advise changing the wording
    Ugh, yes, good spot. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "David Beckham scoring a needed equaliser against Greece deep into injury time" needed doesn't read very well, I would change it to "crucial" or "vital"
    I suspect something's been hacked by accident there. Should read OK now. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all I could find wrong with the article, which considering its size and scope is impressive, so fix these minor issues and I'll support. NapHit (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, thanks very much for your time and analysis. The article's better for it. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A fantastic entry. The work on this has been nothing short of outstanding. Full marks to TRM and Dweller. All my issues were addressed at Peer Review, so I will give it the undoubted support it deserves. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment two minor things, but I know you'll fix them anyway :-D -
    • "In 2000, the Sun launched a The Sun campaign promoting a donkey as the new England manager." quick tweak needed there
    Ooh! How embarrassing, thanks! --Dweller (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll do that now, too. --Dweller (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all issues addressed, engaging and well written article - good work from the both of you! Nanonic (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update from Dweller: Thanks for the comments. I might be able to start responding today, but I rarely edit at weekends. Most probably, I'll get to them tomorrow. Thanks again - and keep them coming. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support..I've created a monster with the circumflexes...oh well, looks good. Might have been nice to include any available information on the job's salary but that may not have been accessible. Nevermind as not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Interesting one. IMHO, any comments about salary will be speculation by the media, so I'm loathe to include. I'll see if TRM has a different opinion, tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always dead against salary stuff (just as I usually tend to shy away from transfer fees) because anything that's been reported is, well, exactly that, reported. I'm certain we don't know the ins and outs of contracts, win bonuses, qualification bonuses, is there any source which definitely describes the remuneration of an England manager exactly? I doubt it... I'll side with my co-author here, it's more likely to be speculation than fact... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably my ignorance of football in the United Kingdom that makes me unsure about those two websites, so forgive my ignorance! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent comments. Square football removed - not RS and not needed anyway. Englandfootball online also not RS - replaced with a FIFA source. I'll sort the citations too. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All comments have been responded to. Anyone wishing to add any more is more than welcome! --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, I'm amazed with the detail, passion and good prose that I sometimes read in these football articles. I know v. little about football, but perhaps I should get out more and go to some matches. On a more prosaic note, I think the circumflex is not needed—but leave it for now.--GrahamColmTalk 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

    The Last Temptation of Krust

    [edit]
    previous FAC (17:13, 1 March 2008)

    Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. The article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9). It had a prior FAC discussion, and all points from that discussion were addressed. After that FAC discussion was closed, the article also has undergone a bit of copy-editing. I believe it meets the criteria, and will do my best to address comments as they crop up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - fits the bill. I was the initial GA reviewer and since then the page has been built on and built on. Certainly complies with FAC criteria, perhaps even beyond that. Rudget (?) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fail Writing needs major work from top to bottom. Also, why does the production section start in media res? We need more context and explication of its significance. There is too much here that is just dressed-up trivia. More context for the Canyonero spoof - yes, a parady of a ford ad - ok, which one? Link please. And references? And can we get some secondary material from proper advertising and marketing journals that reference either the spoof or the ads it is spoofing? Need some proper depth here. A further issue, the flow is wrong: William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer discusses a scene from the episode where Krusty incites members of his audience to burn their money.[19] Although Homer tells Marge to give him all the cash in her purse, she instead gives it to Lisa and tells her to run home and bury it in the backyard. Irwin called this an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children.[19] Aside from how badly written this is, we should note these kinds of elements in the lede, instead of simply a plot summary. Canyonero is ref'ed in the lede in its in-universe context. Instead, as a very memorable spoof, its real-world significance should be underlined. Etc etc etc... Eusebeus (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you for this feedback, I'll do my best to address these points and note it here after I have done so. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cirt, I still oppose but here's something to include perhaps: the Canyonero spoof coincided with an increase in "guerilla marketing" campaigns against SUVs.

    Similarly, the group Earth on Empty promotes its ‘National Anti-SUV Parking Ticket Campaign’ through mock parking tickets (to be placed upon SUVs) noting the ecological and safety effects of those vehicles in comparison with passenger cars, and admonishing their recipients that ‘failure to pay attention to your own behaviour is hazardous to everyone’ (Earth on Empty, 2005). Even the popular animated television series ‘The Simpsons’ joined the anti-SUV fray in 1998, featuring a mammoth vehicle called the ‘Canyonero’ (marketed with the jingle: ‘Twelve yards long, two lanes wide/Sixty-five tons of American pride!’), which promised to help the family transcend its mundane station-wagon existence but instead brought only misery.

    • I cut down that long bit from the (Irwin) source, to just a simple mention that Irwin referenced the episode in his book - if readers want to find out more detail they can just check the cite for the detailed source info. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I just checked that link, loaded right up real fast for me, so maybe that was just a fluke. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See contribs for Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Addressed comments by Buc (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there was more emphasis on Reception and Production in a previous version of the lead that was longer, but after the review process from the prior FAC, peer review, etc, the lead was actually cut way down. But, if you feel that Reception/Production info should be there, I will add a brief summary of that back into the lead. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, in response to this comment by Bole2 (talk · contribs), I have added more summary from the Production/Reception sections to the WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jay Leno reprised his role as an animated version of himself on 24 July 2007, in a special animation segment when Homer appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to promote The Simpsons Movie. In a released statement, Homer said "I understand I'm doing a monologue, I hope it doesn't involve talking." Homer appeared alongside Leno in his opening monologue "scooping up a new 'Duff & D'oh-Nuts' flavour". The Tonight Show was Homer's "[only] publicity appearance" to promote The Simpsons Movie." Nothing to do with the episode.
    • "The Last Temptation of Christ, whose title was previously spoofed in "The Last Temptation of Homer" also nothing to do with the episode.

    Buc (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thanks, will address these points shortly. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "The Last Temptation of Christ, whose title was previously spoofed in "The Last Temptation of Homer" also nothing to do with the episode. -- Removed this sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "Jay Leno reprised his role as an animated version of himself..." -- Per the FAC comment above from Bole2 (talk · contribs), I went ahead and removed this entire paragraph and accompanying image. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The episode first aired on 22 February 1998, and includes a cameo appearance by comedian Jay Leno..." spilt into two sentences.
    1. "The episode first aired on 22 February 1998, and includes a cameo appearance by comedian Jay Leno..." spilt into two sentences. -- Done. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer references a scene from the episode as an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children." Not sure this counts as reception to the episode, it's not clear from this if they liked the episode or not.
    1. "William Irwin's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer references a scene from the episode as an example of Marge's passive resistance, her moral influence on Lisa, and her value as a role model for her children." Not sure this counts as reception to the episode, it's not clear from this if they liked the episode or not. -- Done. I shortened this to simply mention that Irwin cites an example of the episode in the book to illustrate something, brief enough to be in Reception section. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Persuaded by Bart to appear at a comedy festival organized by Jay Leno, Krusty's old-fashioned and dated material fails to impress when compared with other, more trendy comics also appearing" could be split into two maybe even three sentences.
    1. "Persuaded by Bart to appear at a comedy festival organized by Jay Leno, Krusty's old-fashioned and dated material fails to impress when compared with other, more trendy comics also appearing" could be split into two maybe even three sentences. -- Done. Split into 2 sentences, as recommended. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stanley Cup mentioned in Production but not in Cultural references.
    • Could do which a small c/e. I'll see what I can do myself.
    • Production section seems a bit short.
    • "The title is reference to the controversial novel and film The Last Temptation of Christ" in the lead but not mentioned later.
    1. Stanley Cup mentioned in Production but not in Cultural references. -- Not sure what the purpose would be of mentioning the exact same info in 2 different subsections of the article - there is not much more to say on this except for the brief mention already given, and there isn't more discussion of this in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's clearly a cultural reference. so why not mention it? Buc (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How would you mention it in such a way so as not to be a dup reference to what is already mentioned in the Production section? Cirt (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove it from the Production section. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I have removed this info from the Production section, and moved it to the Cultural references section, in response to this FAC comment from Bole2 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Could do which a small c/e. I'll see what I can do myself. -- My thanks to Indopug (talk · contribs) who has already done some great c/e on this article, as have others, but of course any more copy-editing would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot summary in the lead doesn't quite cover the whole episode.
    • "The episode was received positively by critics". Really? Every single one?

    It is very close to FA status though. Buc (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. "The title is reference to the controversial novel and film The Last Temptation of Christ" in the lerad but not mentioned later. -- Done. This was removed. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not quite what I had in mind. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, but it is clearly not really needed, is sort of WP:OR anyway, and it does directly address your above comment. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Production section seems a bit short. -- If you know of any other sources that discussion production info on this episode, be my guest and feel free to add it to the article. This is pretty much all that was in the DVD commentary, and I do not feel that the article's FA candidacy should be held up just for that. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The DVD commentary is not the only place you would find info about the Production. Buc (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, in working on this article I have looked through many different databases in attempts to find more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. In all of those sources, I found info from secondary sources for many different parts of the article, but the DVD Commentary was really the best source for the Production section. But if you know of another WP:RS/WP:V source to expand the Production section, I'd be glad to have that addition to the article, and your help would be much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not totally necessary. But it's something to work on even if it gains FA status. Buc (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well thanks for noting I had addressed your other points, above - and I will continue to look for additional sources that discuss this episode, specifically for sources that discuss production of this episode, just not sure I will find much more or that there are many more to be found out there. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Plot summary in the lead doesn't quite cover the whole episode. -- Done. - Added a teensy bit more to the plot summary in the lead, now it looks adequate. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "The episode was received positively by critics". Really? Every single one? -- Done. - Removed this phrasing. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose Nearly there, (Sorry, I place this as a place holder only really) - I agree with Eusebeus in that the importance of the Canyonero (one of the most memorable bits of the episode really), really needs to be highlighted WRT to SUVs and marketing etc. I would have thought this worthy of a subsection in Cultural references at least summarising why SUV advertising is controversial and which ad is being parodied. Even a sociological mention of celebrities 'selling out'. This needn't be long but solves the 'in-universe' proble, which I feel there is still a little too much emphasis of in the article. However, nearly there and good work otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will do my best to address this, but unless we can find secondary sources that specifically make the type of analysis/comparisons you are talking about, this type of section almost seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. But I will see what I can do. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a good deal more about the Canyonero, will continue to add a bit more info from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a statement on which model Ford was plugging and when the ad was aired would be good. Looking better though. The context needn't solely come from Simpsons=related material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will continue to work on this a bit more and will let you know if I need some help or have exhausted secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your Support. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it fair to call Leno's role a "cameo" appearance? He has a fairly significant role in the episode.
    • After going on a drinking binge, Bart and Jay Leno bathe Krusty in the Simpsons' house, and he decides to announce his retirement. This sentence needs to be recast. It sounds like Bart and Leno were out drinking, when it was just Krusty.
    • At his retirement press conference the audience finds his tirade against modern comedy hysterical, and he returns to comedy with a new style and appearance and complains about commercialism. and..and..and Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should probably write an article for Bruce Baum.
    • What role did rock festivals have in the inspiration for this episode? Comedy festivals - sure, that makes sense. But I don't see the connection to rock festivals. (Unless we're talking about festivals that contain a bit of both comedy and rock.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stereotypical jokes were allowed because the writers convinced the network censors that viewers would understand it was simply emphasizing Krusty's dated comedic material. What's the antecedent for "it"?
    • The paragraphs in the "Production" section just don't flow very well. Each is just an assortment of facts, with no topic sentences or unifying ideas. In the first paragraph of that section, we bounce from Krusty's outdated jokes to the NHL to Krusty in the bathtub.
    • The second paragraph of "Cultural references" could probably be split up into two: one paragraph about in-universe elements of the Canyonero, and another paragraph about analysis/commentary.
    • The Washington Times, in its review of the season nine DVD, noted: "Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno". Shouldn't we mention the author of the article? The "I" in the quote is not the newspaper, but the writer. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Is it fair to call Leno's role a "cameo" appearance? He has a fairly significant role in the episode. -- Done. Removed "cameo", probably best, as Zagalejo (talk · contribs) is correct, it isn't really just a cameo appearance. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "After going on a drinking binge, Bart and Jay Leno bathe Krusty in the Simpsons' house, and he decides to announce his retirement." This sentence needs to be recast. It sounds like Bart and Leno were out drinking, when it was just Krusty. -- Done. Fixed wording in this sentence to be clearer. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "At his retirement press conference the audience finds his tirade against modern comedy hysterical, and he returns to comedy with a new style and appearance and complains about commercialism." and..and..and Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. Adjusted wording to remove dup usage of word "and". Cirt (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. We should probably write an article for Bruce Baum. -- Yes, someone probably could make a case for notability in an article about Bruce Baum, but not having an article on a topic tangentially related to one article that is an FA candidate should not preclude that particular article's FA candidacy, in my opinion. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. It just seems a little incongruous to say that he became popular after the show, and still not have an article about him. (If I have time, though, I'll see if I can put an article together.) Zagalejo^^^ 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. What role did "rock" festivals have in the inspiration for this episode? Comedy festivals - sure, that makes sense. But I don't see the connection to rock festivals. (Unless we're talking about festivals that contain a bit of both comedy and rock.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. This was specifically mentioned in the DVD commentary, re: the influence from both "rock" and "comedy" festivals. However, as this was perhaps unclear to the reader, and not really necessary, I removed both instances of "rock". Cirt (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. The paragraphs in the "Production" section just don't flow very well. Each is just an assortment of facts, with no topic sentences or unifying ideas. In the first paragraph of that section, we bounce from Krusty's outdated jokes to the NHL to Krusty in the bathtub. -- Perhaps you could help and edit the wording somehow to flow better? I was simply listing particularly relevant comments from the DVD commentary, they are not necessarily all directly related to one another, but are production notes that would be interesting to the reader and thus belong in the "Production" section. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. The second paragraph of "Cultural references" could probably be split up into two: one paragraph about in-universe elements of the Canyonero, and another paragraph about analysis/commentary. -- Done. I have split this paragraph into 2 paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "The Washington Times, in its review of the season nine DVD, noted: "Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno". Shouldn't we mention the author of the article? The "I" in the quote is not the newspaper, but the writer. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -- Done. I adjusted the wording in this sentence to include the name of the author of the review. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note

    There are still a few more points in the above FAC comments here that I am planning to address and note here, as well as a little bit more info I'd like to include from secondary sources, as requested by a couple editors. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - unexplained "supports" are a matter for the courts concern. This is looking much better - it will probably need a final copy-edit when the last references are added in and the flow has been tightened up, but the article is much stronger. Many kudos to Cirt for his work and receptiveness to the proffered critical comments. However, I am dismayed that this article, when first nominated, garnered so many votes to promote given the clear need for improvement and the problems that needed to be addressed. Perhaps editors feel that somehow TV episode articles don't merit much serious consideration beyond remedial copy-edit concerns, but if so, that is highly regrettable. All featured articles should merit serious consideration and the throwaway support votes above come across as rather mindless. This particular instance seems to reinforce the recent discussion of what is wrong with the entire FA process and suggests that we need to fix a broken process. Eusebeus (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: All of the "Support" comments have come from editors that have not been significantly involved in the editing process of this article. One editor was the article's initial GA Reviewer, and others had reviewed the article in a prior FAC. Simply because they did not write out long drawn out statements in multiple paragraphs explaining their reasoning for their "Supports", does not mean that their sentiments should be discounted in any way. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eusebeus, 1) this discussion would be more appropriate at WT:FAC (please move it there), and 2) the process is "broken" if you see an article promoted over significant or actionable opposes. Has that happened here? Please take this discussion to WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, I will - an RfC is in order probably, although I have no interest taking the lead on that. But I think propriety is served pointing out directly where promote votes seem to fail to live up to the standards of FA. This way the editors in question can respond directly to my being such a *$!@*&^ douche about it and point out how wrong I am. Anyway Sandy, I appreciate the work you do here on FA. You must have a goddam ton of edits on FA alone and your views carry as a result a lot of weight - that's obvious so no need to get too hot and bothered. But the process is broken, yea. Clearly. Otherwise, we would not have such Creampuff Caspar MilqueToast promote votes like the ones on this (and other) FAs. Eusebeus (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes and no, the other thing to take into consideration is that I am sure Sandy and Raul are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of many reviewers. Your note was one of the reasons I made sure my comment was an oppose until addressed. Also, some others have chimed in subsequently with other copyediting-type issues, which is good. Part of the problem is I think not a conscious one, in that some reviewers might be unconsciously less critical of prose not having seen some really good examples. I find the same thing happens in sporting articles as well, however generally someone manages to pass by to give it a grilling. I suspect odd ones 'get-through' from time to time without having a proper prose massage but they may be rare. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments—The writing is reasonable (probably good enough to pass FAC WRT Cr. 1). I see curly quotes, which MOS proscribes. Ellipsis dots not always spaced correctly. Some of the final periods are wrongly located in quotes that start within a WP sentence (see MOS). Unsure whether the double-hyphen interrupter within a quotation should be made into an en dash (I would). Apart from these trivials, I can't see anything to get worked up about, except that the content itself is aggressively trivial. Eusebeus, it might be preferable to let go your annoyance: far worse FACs are let through in a torrent of superficial "Support"s. Tony (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Tony1 (talk · contribs) for your comment - I will take another look and see if I can't do some more fixes with some of these minor quotation issues. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of my comments were addressed. My only remaining concern is that some of the paragraphs in later sections (like production) seem somewhat unfocused, and could use smoother transitions between ideas. I said I would work on it, and I'd like to, although I haven't figured out exactly how to tackle that problem. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: all these people went through, and WP:PUNC fixes are still needed throughout, unless I'm mixed up (maybe I am, because Tony wouldn't usually miss that, pls check). Example: ""Among the 22-minute gems found in the set, I most enjoyed ... [Krusty's] work with Jay Leno".[22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence was worded differently before, but someone else reworked it. I will take another look through the article to see if I can find and fix these minor WP:PUNC issues. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please be more specific? I took a look at that sentence, and the punctuation looks fine. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression (from previous comments by others in prior FACs I have participated in) that, with this example the quote is not a fully quoted sentence, and thus the punctuation goes outside the quotation. In some cases I am starting to get the feeling that this is a personal preference, because in different FACs it seems like editors are giving conflicting criticisms about the placement of punctuation as related to quotes. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going by the wording at WP:PUNC: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)." I could be off, but I think there is some mixup on when punctuation is in or outside of quotes. It's not a big issue, but perhaps review with Tony1? Epbr123 used to pick up this sort of stuff, but he's gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the "sense" of the quotation? This seems to be something subjective and subject to interpretation. I had previously gone through the article and fixed quotation punctuation with regard to partial-quotes having punctuation outside the quotes, and fully quoted sentences with punctuation inside the quotes. I will now go back through the article again, and make changes with regard to your latest comment here. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I went back through the article and made punctuation adjustments re: last comment by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). If other editors come along and ding me for these new adjustments, I was doing my best to incorporate the part of WP:PUNC cited by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), above. (Again, I feel that this quote/punctuation/WP:PUNC stuff can be very confusing, and is often subjective and subject to interpretation - but nonetheless, I did my best to address these comments and made some changes.) Cirt (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

    Tyrone Wheatley

    [edit]
    previous FAC (00:07, 6 February 2008)

    The prior FAC was closed during my efforts to respond to advice. I think I have been making progress and would appreciate feedback to help take this article to featured status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking much better, but Sandy brought up some sourcing issues last time that I see are still awaiting resolution.
    • Note, TonyTheTiger, when you ping all of the previous supporters, you should also ping the previous opposers, to avoid canvassing allegations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, issues addressed and article copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a and other issues. I strongly suggest a copyedit by an uninvolved editor, preferably one who is unfamiliar with American football. There are a lot of minor prose issues throughout; I found several just in the lead. Please have the whole article copyedited, not just the examples below. There is also a lot of language here that comes from American sportscasts and sports journalism ("war-room"?) but it is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia audience. I called out some examples below, but this is where the non-football copyeditor will be a benefit. :)[reply]
      • I hate to say it because I see you struggled with it in the previous nom, but the lead is too long. I empathize because it's hard to determine what is expendable when you have worked on the article. May I suggest asking a third party to read the article and suggest trims?
        • You may have notice the lead is of the format where the first paragraph summarizes the entire article and two through four add a bit more detail. Obviously it could be shortened to just the first paragraph in the extreme or a summary of that if you like. The article seems to be long enough for four paragraphs and people had stopped objecting to the WP:LEAD's length prior to you. I don't really think you can prepare the reader for the current article by removing much more, but suggestions are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reference in the lead to "athlete of the year" reads like that is an everyday thing anyone should be aware of, like teacher or plumber. Is this in reference to a specific award? If so, name the award specifically and not generally.
      • There is way too much jargon in the lead - please imagine a reader who knows nothing about American sports or the collegiate system of "all-whatever" teams, "first teams" and so on. The whole section would be baffling.
        • In truth the problem is that Tyrone Wheatley is a slightly lower level athlete than would usually get a WP:FAC depth article written about him. Winning the Big Ten Offensive Player of the year is just a slight shade below say winning a Doak Walker Award or Heisman Trophy. Thus, it has no link to use for it. I think an award like that is still notable although a WP:WPBIO or WP:MICH reader might not know what it is. WP:NFL and WP:CFB readers would know it. All-American and All-Big Ten are notable things that probably belong for an athlete of this level of accomplishment. If I were writing an Archie Griffin or Michael Jordan article they would have similar amounts of jargon, but would emphasize linkable awards. Its a little tough on guys who were never All-stars (All-Pro/Pro Bowl for football) because their jargon is slightly less notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In college, he was a first team All-Big Ten Conference athlete on Big Ten Champions..." What do you mean by "on Big Ten Champions"? Is that a TV show, or...? I went to a Big Ten school and I still don't know what that means.
      • "In 2007, Wheatley began his football head coaching career at his high school alma mater by taking them to the state playoffs..." Rewrite.. it reads like that's the very first thing he did when he got there. Got in a bus and drove them to the playoffs.
      • "He ranks among the all-time rushing leaders..." First mention of rushing. What's that? To me and you it's a common term because we might watch football, but we can't take that for granted.
      • "He was All-Big Ten in either football or track..." He was on the All-Big Ten team, but he wasn't All-Big Ten itself.
      • A "tardy dawdler"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Suggest something less Victorian.
      • "In Oakland, his popularity and talent emerged as he both led..." Don't split "he led" with "both". There are many of these throughout the article.
      • Writing about a season record as "to go 9-2" is too informal.. too sportscaster-ish.
      • More: "he ran track"
      • In the Early Life section, you first say that Wheatley watched over his siblings and cousins until he became a professional athlete, but a few sentences later you say his guardianship continued while he was a professional athlete.
      • The passages about Leslie Mongo get too informal. Why refer to Mongo as "Leslie"? You also slip into referring to Wheatley as "Tyrone".
      • "He decided to move Leslie to New Jersey for school and opportunities." Such as?
    More later.--Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I provided a copyedit for some of the article from the bottom up. I hope others can help with the lead and first couple sections. I remedied much of the extra long sentences and some of the jargon (and idioms). It is unavoidably number-heavy. --maclean 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I'll be giving this article a thorough copyedit over the next week before making my final judgment. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My name is Doug Drinen. I am a mathematician and a sports fan, so it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I am obsessed with football data. I collect it like some people collect stamps. I've been doing that for years now and the result was, up until now, an extensive but extremely unorganized collection of dozens of files spread across a few different computers and not connected in any way. Recently, I decided to organize it and make it available for public consumption. The result is pro-football-reference.com, which I believe is the most complete and most organized collection of football data on the web.

    This article looks ready to promote as soon as this is dealt with, by removing the unsourced statements or sourcing them to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sports Illustrated once described Pro-Football reference as "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy." (Adam Duerson. "Welcome sites". Sports illustrated. March 27, 2006. page. 63. Available from Newsbank.) I've used similar sites for basketball articles, and I've never had any problems, at least as far as statistical information goes. They're far more reliable than the Sporting News registers (like this), which are always full of typos and missing information. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

    In Rainbows

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    Nominator I'm nominating this article on Radiohead's latest album for FA, after a somewhat premature previous nomination. Now, however, I believe it meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to your comments. Atlantik (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment
    • Lead: Self-released discbox - as in the discbox released itself? Make it a little clearer, or maybe even the mention is unnecessary in the lead.
    • The announcement of details about the album led to media attention centered around the band's decision to first release the album online as a digital download for which fans could decide the price they paid. - That sentence seems unnecessarily long and wordy; simplify.
    • Mention that Donwood is a longtime collaborator.
    • Link photographic etching? What is a "bath" here?
    • LInk hippy rock appropriately
    • "Just before the digital download release of the album, the band decided not to use the cover." - but isn't that the current album cover?
    • Link do-it-yourself, server.
    • No mention that the album was released at 160 kbps bitrate?
    • I'd say include a few more positive reviews (maybe one more). If the album had an 88%, the article should include reflect that as per WP:NPOV. Right now there are 5 positive and 3 negative reviews. Also, surely better opinions than a Canadian tabloid can be sought.
    • 2LP / 2CD - why no spaces?
    • I've removed a few but check for overlinking, especially in the publisher's section of the cites. Link only first mention of a publisher.
    • Make sure to format all the cites properly, I just found Radiohead Said to Shun Major Labels in Next Deal - it should be in quotes, all magazine article titles should.
    indopug (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed all of the issues you mentioned, except for the one about the Province's review - it's the only one I could find (surprisingly) that compared In Rainbows and OK Computer in any sort of terms at all. I wouldn't mind removing it, though if you think it would violate RS or feel very strongly about it. Atlantik (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really necessary to compare the two albums? I don't think so. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there seems to be a sort of consensus, I've replaced the review with one from the AMG. Atlantik (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still see plenty of issues with the formats of the citations; "The Wire: Radiohead - In Rainbows, pg. 63" - is that right? There are plenty of cites where the article names aren't in quotations. Why does "Radiohead Returning To The Road In 2008" not have an external link? "Radiohead Said to Shun Major Labels in Next Deal" - why italics? indopug (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that Wire review needs to list the author, if it is available (it should be; I'm pretty sure they always name the author). Page number isn't necessary as long as it's clear what piece in the magazine is being cited. Also, ref-69 (Brandle, Lars, "Radiohead Returning To The Road In 2008", Billboard.com) is missing a link and proper formatting from the looks of it. Go through all the footnotes and make sure they are formatted correctly. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the citations, but I don't have access to the issue of The Wire, as I found that quote from the Metacritic compiling of album reviews. Atlantik (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see if I can find it. My work has a Wire subscription, and I think my library keeps the magazine in its catalogue. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the issue. The magazine's website for some reason doesn't list details for that month's issue (but lists details for issues before and after). You might want to contact the magazine and ask them for the relevant sourcing details. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. A very well-written and well-sourced article on a seminal recent album. Writing articles on albums and songs that have received this much attention and discussion can be somewhat difficult because there's so much to process and cover, but I feel that the article does a great job of covering the album in an encyclopedic way. I would advise Atlantik make one final run-through to check all the sourced information, because I noticed during the album's physical release there were other editors adding lots of information that occasionally misconstrued the sources cited. Once that's done and the issue with the Wire review is taken care of (and probably expand the lead a little bit; it definitely needs something about the music itself), I'll be happy to give this FAC a full support vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've worked on your recommendations; could you could read the fixed lead and make any suggestions? Atlantik (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is fine now. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Full support now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise the links look live through the little tool at the top. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The first issue - linking the first instance of each magazine's mention - is now fixed, as is the external link to the blog. Pitchfork Media, though, is a notable indie rock reviewer, so its inclusion is pretty merited. Atlantik (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To Ealdgyth: Pitchfork Media. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankee much for educating me! It helps a bunch when folks link to Wikipedia articles on websites or magazines so folks can gauge a site easier. Thanks! Every bit you educate me means less questions later....Ealdgyth | Talk 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support - dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Initially, the album's commercial success was unclear as the band declined to publicise their Internet sales numbers." - But did they ever publish these numbers? And if so, how were they?
    • Ref 2: [46] doesn't cite the statement being made.
    • "Although the band had written several new songs by this point, little came of the recording sessions with Stent, which ended in April 2006." - reference for this statement?
    • "The band also played larger music festivals such as Bonnaroo and the V Festival; they headlined both lineups of V[9] and played a 28-song set at Bonnaroo, their longest live concert in years." - move ref 9 to the end of the sentence for easier readability. Also, something about the sentence bugs me...not sure what about the prose is bad, but yeah...Also, the next sentence could do with a source...
    • "The song "Nude", which" - previously wlinked in the last section
    • "Yorke, commenting on the band's relationship with EMI" - you've been quoting Yorke until now, so you don't need to name him again
    • "The staggered online release of the album began at about 5:30 GMT" - Might want to say the date too
    • The discbox description should be in past tense
    • Ensure past tense throughout the Sales section
    • Can the track listings and personnels go in columns?
    • IMO none of the external links are necessary.
    • I've deleted the Times editorial, but I think the remaining links, to Metacritic, the label's official album site, and the Yorke/Byrne Wired interview should stay - if you or anyone still disagrees, though, I'll remove them. Atlantik (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The metacritic link is already used as a ref (#56). You're OK with the 2nd one, but the interview could potentially be used for referencing/adding content. And having an EL section with only 1 is odd IMO. Anyway, up to you, I'm supporting anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support --Laser brain (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]
      • As a general rule, don't begin sentences with the word "this" in reference to a previous concept. For example, "This was attributed to difficulty regaining momentum after their break..." Instead, say "The delay was attributed..." or similar.
      • You qualify the first mention of Yorke with "frontman" but not the first mention of Greenwood. Don't make readers click the wikilink just to see that is he Radiohead's bassist.
      • "The tour, their first in several years, played in smaller venues such as clubs and theatres." The band played in the venues, not the tour.
      • "On the tour, the band included songs they were working on in their set." Reword, please.
      • "Recording, in contrast to their deadlocked 2005 sessions, were productive..." Take out the clause and you have "Recording were productive..."
      • Your use of ellipses in quotes is in consistent. Sometimes you have three periods with a space after, sometimes three periods unspaced, sometimes two periods.

    --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have an issue with pre-qualifying band members in this case and that's why I didn't bring it up myself; the members of Radiohead are in many cases multi-instrumentalists, so pre-qualifying them as guitarist or bassist may neither do justice to them nor be accurate. indopug (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, how about a generic term like "band member"? My main issue is that I had to click Colin Greenwood even to find out rudimentary information. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced all the ellipses throughout, changing them to the MOS' recommended (...) style, if that's what you were calling attention to. Atlantik (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite right, read the page again :-) It's three unspaced dots with spaces on either side, no parentheses, take note on when to use an nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Atlantik (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your most recent edit on the article's page, the specific instance was put in with this edit. I've checked through the article, and I'm pretty sure that WP:PUNC is followed throughout the rest of the article, with the period inside the quote mark only when it was part of the original sentence. Atlantik (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, Atlantik! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

    Royal Blue (B&O train)

    [edit]

    Self-nom. The Royal Blue had a number of historic firsts in railroading and was a major influence on the industry in America and the world. I feel it's ready for a FAC review. JGHowes talk - 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    • "FAC Review" did you coin that just now? I've heard of FA Review, Peer Review, but not FAC Review.
    • Thanks for linking to Pennsylvania Railroad - I had no idea it was such a powerful company.
    • I find it very strange that it is both train and train line, that no mention of the "end" of the trains (what happened to them? moved to another line?), and no mention of the end of the line in the lead.

    --Kiyarrllston 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now, mainly because I find it thoroughly confusing that the article is named as though it's about a single train, starts out describing a single train, yet goes on to cover the entire train line. Admittedly I'm a ship geek, not a train geek, but there has to be a less confusing way to present this. Also have some copyedit concerns:

    • "(originally, the Royal Limited)" - no comma necessary
    • "between New York City and Washington, D. C." - there is no space in D.C.; also, it's causing a line wrap in the middle of the abbreviation
    • Italics are really inconsistently applied to train names and train line names.
    • "In the 1890s–early 20th century era" - this is really awkward
    • Better, but I still dislike 'era' here, and for that matter also in "During the 1937–1958 era" and "the 1890s-era Royal Blue Line". It's not really proper use of the term; even in colloquial use an era is a period of time characterized by something, not merely a sequence of years. The "Victorian era" makes sense; the "1837-1901 era" does not.
    • "with Gold leaf trim" - no reason to capitalize gold
    • "Prior to 1884, both the B&O and Pennsylvania Railroad used the independent Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad (PW&B) between Baltimore, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for their New York–Washington freight and passenger trains." - second comma unnecessary
    • "However, the new line presented problems in Baltimore" - 'however' doesn't add much here
    • "Powered by high-drivered 4-6-0 locomotives" - explain for us train morons please
    • Better - but can 'high-drivered' be explained also?
    • The beginning of the 1918-1920s section's text is, for me, hidden behind the left-hand Mount Royal image.
    • Image placement is at odds with MOS in a few places; I somehow didn't pick up on this during my first read. First, it's a no-no to place an image on the left side immediately after a section header (because it disassociates the text from the section header). Secondly, sandwiching text between images isn't advised (and is probably the reason this particular image is overlapping text). Basically, try to start a section with a right image, then stagger the next one left, etc.
    • "The B&O responded by introducing diesel locomotives, air conditioning, and streamlining" - streamlining should be linked somewhere
    • "the first nonarticulated road diesel" - the what?
    • The last image, Mt. Royal Station in 2007, is really not a great shot especially at thumbnail size; the perspective is really confused by the stairs and lights on the right side, and overall it's kind of distracting.
    • The jury is out on this one. It might be less jarring if the 1961 picture was placed near it for comparison.
    • "pulled by new EA diesel locomotives" - EA?
    • "Although all of B&O's Washington–Jersey City passenger trains had been fully dieselized by September 28, 1947, no new equipment was introduced on the Royal Blue in the postwar period." - I don't understand the 'although' here; it seems that if they'd been dieselized by war's end, further new equipment would indeed be less necessary.

    I didn't quite make it through the full article on this pass; when you're ready to address my comments above, let me know and I'll revisit. Thanks for an interesting article (and a train article feels particularly apropos as I just finished reading Anna Karenina, too!). Maralia (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: I've made several edits to address all of these issues, except for the 2007 Mt. Royal Station image which I feel is interesting because it relates the historic rail station to the present day appearance. However, it can certainly be deleted if you think it's too much of a distraction.JGHowes talk - 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More: I've replaced the 2007 Mount Royal Station image with a cropped version. If still not suitable, then I'll remove it JGHowes talk - 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copyedited the latter part of the article; crossed out addressed concerns above; left comments about a few lingering issues; and added a couple new issues. As to the big issue of what exactly the article is about: unless I'm really missing something, this article is about the Royal Blue Line. While it also covers the flagship train named Royal Blue, the article is truly about the line, yes? If so, the article should be moved over the redirect at Royal Blue Line, it should be categorized in Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines, and the very beginning of the lead should focus on the line, not the eponymous train.
    In RE your note at my talk page - THS must be interesting! For the record, I'm a ships girl, though :) Maralia (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Many thanks. You'll note I hastily corrected my gaffe on your Talk page :o) More edits have now been made to address these points. I've also reworded the Lead to clarify that the Royal Blue train is the subject of the article, and the B&O just used the term Royal Blue Line eponymously only until 1917, dropping that term for its New York service thereafter. Only the Royal Blue train survived in a 1935-1958 reincarnation. (added): If further rewording is needed to clarify that aspect, your suggestions would be most welcome. JGHowes talk - 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay; I had to think over the train vs line thing. (It may be straightforward to train aficionados, but it's Greek to me. Actually, worse; I know some Greek.) I went to WP:TRAINS looking for guidance. I think the latest lead rewording is working for me now, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Articles about named passenger train services style guide seems to indicate a preference for the name Royal Blue (passenger train).
    The rest of my concerns above have largely been addressed, so I've dropped a collapsible box around them. Remaining:
    • The 1961 station image sandwiches text between it and an image on the left. I just don't think there's a compelling reason for the 1961 image to be in the 1918-1920s section.
    • A few other images seem to be 'out of order'. Why not put the 1937 image in the 1930s section, and put the 'final run' image in the '1950s and the end' section?
    • In your latest round of edits, you replaced dashes in some hyphenated words (mid-1930s, non-articulated, 8-car) with endashes; why?
    The crop of the current station image is a big improvement. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My concerns have been addressed. Note that I tweaked the navigational footer template for sentence case in the header, and for italics on train names. Well done! Maralia (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Sources themselves look good, but they need page numbers for the citations, so that folks are able to verify the information easily. Currently, all the references lack page numbers. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]
      • "It was also the eponymous name used by the B&O between 1890 and 1917 for its improved passenger service between New York and Washington launched in the 1890s..." A bit awkward.. how about: B&O also used its name between 1890 and 1917 for its improved passenger service between New York and Washington...
      • "Beginning in 1917, former Royal Blue Line trains were renamed: the Royal Limited inaugurated..." Is there a comma missing after "the Royal Limited" or am I misunderstanding the sentence?
      • "Diesel-powered" should be with a hyphen, not an en dash. There are more of these throughout.. "non–articulated", "'Martha Washington'–series", "8–car".
      • I think the use of the term "Pennsy" is too informal, especially when it only pops up once in the whole article.
      • In the Scheduling and equipment section, "1890s—1910s" should have an en dash, not an em dash.
      • For the time table, rather than having the footnote preceding it, put the source in the table as a footer row. See how this is done in Saffron. --Laser brain (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply by nom: All of the above comments have been addressed, except for: (1) one citation still needs page numbers; and (2) move of free images to Commons. I'll attend to those today. These suggestions are greatly appreciated. JGHowes talk - 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe these have all now been fixed. JGHowes talk - 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:26, 11 March 2008.

    Pattern Recognition (novel)

    [edit]

    A novel by science fiction writer William Gibson published in 2003. I've been working on it for a couple of months. It now meets all the FA criteria. maclean 06:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Echo
    Resolved copyedit concerns from Maralia

    Oppose as it's in need of a fair amount of copyediting:

    • "to seduce the Japanese man who knows what the watermark code." - there's a verb missing here
    • "Cayce, along with an American computer security specialist, Boone Chu, hired to assist her, travel to Tokyo" - travels
    • "Two men attempt to steal the code but they escape back to London." - who 'they' is could be clearer
    • "Meanwhile, Blue Ant hires Dorotea who reveals that she was previously employed by a Russian lawyer in Cyprus to be hostile towards Cayce in an attempt to make her refuse the job tracking the film clips and it was her assistants who have been following her and attacked her in Tokyo." - runon sentence, and 'be hostile' is strange
    • "Cayce strikes a deal with him: she buys a Curta calculator for him and he will find the email address to which the watermark code was sent." - and he finds
    • "There Hubertus, Stella and Nora’s uncle Andrei, and security employees Wiktor Marchwinska-Wyrwal and Sergei Magomedov, are waiting for her." - drop the last comma
    • "Over dinner, they reveal that they have been spying on her since she posted to a discussion forum speculating that the clips may be controlled by the Russian Mafia and let her track the clips to find any security breaches in their distribution network." - runon sentence
    • "She works as advertising consultant by using her psychological sensitivity to logos and advertising and an interest in marketing trends and fads." - it's unclear what the last phrase relates to; it reads as an item in the list of what she's sensitive to
    • "with the British military intelligence." - with British military intelligence
    • "as he squats near Poole with Gypsy group." - a Gypsy group?
    • "Cayce's search for her father and Damien's excavation of the German bomber, symbolize the historicist search for a method to interpret people’s actions in the past." - drop the comma
    • "something that may have been influenced with Gibson coming to terms with the loss of his own father." - influenced by
    • "find meaning or detect pattens." - typo patterns
    • "a designer of embassy security system," - systems
    • "Following this line of thought Gibson raises the question about how the future will view today's society." - the question of
    • "One critic points out that the marketing agency, Blue Ant, portrayed in the novel, is" - One critic points out that the marketing agency Blue Ant is
    • "Gibson's product positioning language and Cayce's analysis of consumerist trends shows" - show
    • "will impact the lives of people in the remote places who will manufacture the logos" - will impact the lives of the people in remote places who will manufacture the logos
    • "an example of post-millennial science fiction, which have stories set in the "technocultural future-present"." - 'fiction...which have stories' just doesn't work
    • "Some reviewers justify the novel as science fiction by saying that the genre has increasingly become about illustrating society's inability to imagine the future[5] and that the knowledge and use of technologies, that were once considered advanced or academic, are now commonplace within society and its vernacular." - 'justify' isn't quite the right word here, and the phrase set off by commas is awkward
    • "Gibson said that the only science fiction elements are "The Footage and Cayce's special talents"" - reduce cap on The
    • "In Fredric Jameson's review he notes that with this novel Gibson is moving away from using technology as the determinant of change like he did in his previous works, to using culture." - weak prose
    • "but with neither the character, nor the reader knowing" - drop the comma
    • "and if there is one, whether it is real or conspiracy" - and, if there is one, whether
    • "Gibson use of name-dropping brands" - Gibson's; this applies to the next two sentences which begin in the same fashion
    • "Pattern Recognition includes many" - italicize the book title here and in the following sentence
    • "In common with Gibson’s previous work, Paul Di Filippo found the following in Pattern Recognition also:" - 'also' is redundant with 'in common with'
    • In the Reception section, every newspaper and journal is in plain text, but they all should be italicized. Examples: USA Today, the Globe & Mail (which should be The Globe and Mail), The Village Voice, The New York Times Book Review, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Library Journal.
    Please don't despair at the length of my list here - these are just copyedit issues; I've no problems with the content, so these should be quick fixes, and I'll be happy to support once they're cleared up. Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wah! You scared me, I thought I was alone in here. --maclean 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed some now. Will continue in a few hours. --maclean 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Boo! Take your time; I have to go try to sleep off the flu :/ Maralia (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I went through it all. Let me know what you think. --maclean 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)Well done addressing all those fixes so quickly. Only a handful left:

    • "With an interest in marketing trends and fads, she works as an advertising consultant by using her psychological sensitivity to logos and advertising." - better but still funky. Perhaps "She uses her interest in marketing trends and fads, and her psychological sensitivity to logs and advertising, in her work as an advertising consultant."
    • "One critic points out that the marketing agency Blue Ant portrayed in the novel is" - 'portrayed in the novel' is superfluous
    • "spent nine weeks on the USA Today's Top 150 Best-Selling Books" - drop 'the'; it's just 'USA Today's'
    • "Gibson's writing has been positively received by science fiction writers Dennis Danvers, Candas Jane Dorsey and Rudy Rucker." - you have used serial commas elsewhere, so this should be 'Danvers, Candas Jane Dorsey, and Rudy Rucker.'
    • You added italics on all the publication names except Library Journal. Maralia (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support my concerns have been addressed, in record time too :) Maralia (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I have copyediting concerns with this article. I've posted some notes about the first paragraph of the body to the talk page; here are some more comments.
      • The central theme examines; I think this needs to be reworded; themes examining things is an uneasy metaphor. You could say "the theme is the examination of", for example.
      • Similarities with [...] were identified. Make this active: "Critics have identified similarities" or something like that.
      • He traveled to Tokyo in 2001 preparing for this new novel means that he prepared while traveling to Tokyo; I think you need "to prepare", which implies that he prepared when actually in Tokyo.
      • Using this email address Cayce makes contact with Stella Volkova, the sister of the maker of the film clips. Cayce flies to Moscow to meet Stella in person and watch Stella’s sister, Nora, work. So is Nora the maker of the clips? If so, make it "Stella Volkova, whose sister Nora is the maker of the film clips" and then "and watch Nora work" in the second sentence.
      • where the film is rendered: what does this mean?
      • Your summary of the plot ends with the Russians surrendering some data; to someone who hasn't read the book this doesn't sound much like a climactic moment. Can you state the way in which the books ends or resolves tension? E.g. "As the books ends, the Russians surrender the data [ ... ]" or "The Russians surrender the data [ ... ] and the book ends with Cayce about to begin further research into her father's disappearance". (I made that up; I just wanted to give you an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for.)
      • Benjaminian I think requires at least some inline explanation; it's incomprehensible to almost every reader without following the link. It's also not clear if you're quoting the novel or a critic; it appears to be a critic but I think you should clarify.
      • similar to lonelygirl15 also needs a short explanatory phrase inserted. "similar to" seems to be wrong usage to me; how about "gain a cult following, in the same way that the interactive web video releases of lonelygirl15 have done in the real world". However, I am not even sure this really needs to be there -- the parallel is drawn in a Business Week article, which is not a great source for literary analysis. The parallel is drawn in a quoted email from a "friend of a friend" of the columnist. I think you could just cut this, though since it's a comparison rather than a conclusion it's not that big a deal.
    I'll stop there for now and will try to come back to this once you've responded. I do think you could use a third party copyedit from someone with a literary background. Mike Christie (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for these explanations, they are very useful. I knew the reference was weak so I had the lonelygirl15 part brief (though there's a lot of supporting commentaries in blogs, forums and boards). Its because the lonelygirl15 thing happened well after the book came out there has not been a lot of retro-active analysis, just in these commentaries. But I did find a brief comparison by a Washington Post columnist, so I switched the ref and expanded. --maclean 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I tackled that Benjaminian description. That wasn't easy. --maclean 05:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out my comments above; I'll have another look. Can you fix that first paragraph too? Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments:
    • The footage, released freely to a global audience with a lack of time or place indicators, has also been contrasted to the novel written under contract for a large corporation and which uses liminal name-dropping that definitively sets it in London 2002: I've copyedited this slightly, but I'm not sure I understand it. Is the novel in this comparison Pattern Recognition? If so, I don't understand the sentence since Pattern Recognition is also set in Moscow and Tokyo; if not, I don't know what it refers to.
    • The article uses present tense to discuss critical response; I started to change some of this and then stopped, realizing that it's quite a substantial change. I can see why you do it, because the individual reviews still exist, so it's reasonable to say "Toby Litt writes that ..." and so on. However, you then have to use present tense for the introductory statements too: I just changed "Critics find" to "Critics have found" because "Critics find" implies that the critics in question are still at work on those reviews. The problem is that "Critics have found" contrasts oddly with the following "Toby Litt writes". I think it would be better to change all these statements to past tense.
    That's all I have time for at the moment; I may be able to come back to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tenses are not my friends. I asked previously about this and was told that For reviewers comments, the present perfect and the present simple are both acceptable: "Jones has written..." or "Jones writes...". With certain phrasing, the past simple might be appropriate: "In 2004, Jones wrote..."[48] Following your line of thought with "Critics have found", I think the Jones has written... would be most appropriate. --maclean 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Weak support. I am still not entirely comfortable with the tenses, but I see no other significant problems. I'll be curious to see what Skomorokh has to say; it looks as if he is going to review this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant oppose. The extensive use of be-verbs leads a lot of the interpretative statements regarding theme and such to seem overly definite. For instance, "The novel's central theme is the examination of the human desire to detect patterns or meaning and the risks of finding patterns in meaningless data," may be arguable, but for a writer as deliberately vague as Gibson I don't think it can be stated so definitely as a matter of fact. I would try to substitute the various be-verbs with "involves" or some other active terms to make the writing more lively and precise. Ameriquedialectics 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good for a start. I will look around the article a bit more before switching to support. Ameriquedialectics 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't oppose, but I can't support. I don't think it's ready. I read the reference provided in the text for the statement about the central theme, and the way it's represented here seems to go over the intentions of both Gibson and the reviewer, as he says: "The central idea of the novel is plainly stated. 'Homo sapiens is about pattern recognition... Both a gift and a trap.' " [49] Gibson, through his use of the "be-verb" in that quote, suggests pattern recognition is something fundamental to humanity, rather than something desirable as an object in itself. As I remember reading the book, pr was something everyone was confronted with, Cayce most obviously, but not in a desirable sense. Pattern recognition wasn't in itself something that was sought after, it was the way people found meaning in things. Ameriquedialectics 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would this be better: The central theme throughout the novel involves the natural human propensity to search for meaning with the constant risk of apophenia. By "natural human" I mean fundamental to humanity rather than specific trait to individuals and by "propensity" I am referring to an inclination rather than a conscious desire. --maclean 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still iffy about it. I think that statement is better, but I'm still not sure if that was what WG was getting at. To over-analyze that one quote, he is talking about humanity on a species-level, and says as a species pattern recognition is what humanity is about, rather than simply a propensity or a thing that people do because they want to. The recognition of patterns is central to the cognitive process, and this is what makes us both recognizably and recognizable as human, Gibson suggests. By saying this is "both a gift and a trap," he seems to me to be alluding to Faust, and I think the novel is about the exploitation of pattern recognition for capital gain, and all the hubris that implies.... Actually, he not so much as implies this as hits us over the head with it by calling the seducer figure "Hubertus Bigend." Of course, this is all original research on my part, but I would feel better about it if there were more academic citations to back up the statements about pattern recognition as a theme, rather than commercial reviews in any case. Ameriquedialectics 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:

    • I've not run across http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/ used as a source before (I don't do much work in modern stuff), is it considered a reliable source for listings of radio programs?

    Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Okies, striking as it's taken care of! Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It was originally referenced to bbcworldservice.com listing but it went dead (see Epbr123's comment above) so I switched it to this. Now I see the original listing is at bbc.co.uk so I just switched it to this. --maclean 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Comments[reply]
      • The fair use rationale for Image:Pattern recognition (book cover).jpg is not properly completed.
      • The novel summary in the lead is a little jarring - Cayce has a psychological sensitivity to symbols, and he's seeking creators of film clips. Can you connect those at all?
      • Can you link "postmodern" in the lead to postmodern literature?
      • "Before writing Pattern Recognition the author, William Gibson, had published seven novels (one co-written) and numerous short stories since 1977." Missing comma after Pattern Recognition. I would drop "had" and make it "beginning in 1977".
      • "Pattern Recognition was written between 2001 and 2002 while Gibson was living in Vancouver, British Columbia, and released in February 2003." Don't use commas to separate clauses that don't stand on their own. Check over the whole article for these, please.
      • "He did not travel to London or Moscow but used interviews with friends and internet resources to inform himself." Well.. "inform himself" is clunky as it suggests of what? Suggest "to research the locations" or similar.
      • I know this isn't your fault, but it seems odd that there is a Wikipedia entry for Hubertus Bigend but not for the main character of the novel. When I saw that wikilink, I traced back looking for the one I'd missed for Cayce.
      • Why are London, Moscow, and Tokyo wikilinked in the plot summary but not earlier?
      • In the Characters section, you have Bigend listed as Cayce's "foil". That is borderline interpretive.. is there a source? There is also nothing in the plot summary that indicates that label.
      • The quote in the Pattern recognition heading shouldn't begin with a lower-case letter.
      • In the Memory of history heading, you link Curta calculator for the second time. I'm not crazy about linking things twice - if you must have it, at least fix the linking to a redirect.
    --Laser brain (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:30, 10 March 2008.

    Odyssey Number Five

    [edit]
    previous FAC (01:26, 10 February 2008)

    I think all the past issues have been addressed. Here we go again!

    Odyssey Number Five is the most successful Powderfinger album, and also the first to chart in the United States. This article covers all major aspects of this topic, and has FA-quality prose, in my opinion. I am happy to make changes per suggestions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:30, 10 March 2008.

    Soprano Home Movies

    [edit]

    Self-nomination
    Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite The Sopranos epsiodes as a Featured Article Candidate because I think it qualifies. I modeled it after the Pilot (House) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost) articles. Although not as long and comprehensive as the latter, (because there simply is more information about Lost than The Sopranos) I think it covers all important aspects and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article looked like this before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I know that the ratings part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that. –FunkyVoltron talk 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peer review closed after three days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So…? –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, , Opark 77 helped me with copy-editing, which was the main thing, and I also did the automated review and made some changes accordingly.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I made some changes. In the lead, actors' names are given in parentheses, but this is not consistent with the rest of the article so something needs to be changed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done I changed the production section so it's now consistent with the lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the supporting and objecting section close to the top of the main FAC page, it says, "Graphics are discouraged as they slow down the page load time." –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved content issues from Steve T • C 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on content:

    • The lead section makes mention that the episode is "the first episode of the second half of the show's sixth season, the thirteenth episode of the season overall." I know what this means (the season was split; the episode was the midseason premiere), but I don't think that someone unfamiliar with the show's broadcast history would necessarily understand this. Could use some minor expansion to explain the point.
    • The critical response section contains snippets of reviews in the style of "The Star Ledger gave the episode a positive review [...]" and "Entertainment Weekly was impressed with the midseason premiere [...]"—these should be reworded to name the writer; these aren't the opinions of the publications, but of their nominated reviewers (e.g. "Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly was impressed with the midseason premiere [...]"). The statement that the episode "was generally well-received by critics" could also be considered original research, as it is an editor's subjective summation of the critical response. It is perhaps unlikely that this will be challenged, but still see if it can be cited; maybe Metacritic has something.
    • You cite IMDB, TV.com and Television Without Pity user ratings. These are uncontrolled user votes which are unreliable for this purpose due to votestacking and skewed demographics. See this article for a good examination of the latter.
    • I'd like to see something more on the episode's international reception if you have it, but it's not a deal-breaker.
    • No mention of years in the awards section. Ten years from now, an editor shouldn't have to follow the link to 59th Primetime Emmy Awards to find out when it received these honours. Also, does the fact that it was submitted by the makers for the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series and Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series Emmys, yet was passed over for actual nominations, even warrant mention? It feels like padding.
    • Some facts are cited in the lead which don't need to be (facts which are cited later on in the article don't require these additional citations). For example, the number of viewers the episode garnered. Check the others.

    Just a quick drive-by review, but I hope this helps. All the best, Steve T • C 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to addressed these concerns. No international reception though...that's tough.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed the lead stuff. It's addressed now. Yes, I think Emmy submissions are notable enough to be included in the awards sections. They're the Oscars of television, after all.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead still cites content which is cited later on in the article ("calm, contemplative storytelling"), but I've struck out those you've dealt with. I'm still unsure that the makers' submitting the episode for consideration in Emmy categories for which it ultimately failed to receive nominations is particularly notable (it's their own opinion on the episode's worth, rather than a third-party's), but there's no harm leaving it in I guess. All the best, Steve T • C 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed last citations in lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck more issues. Steve T • C 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments on content:

    • Upon examination of the citations, there are a couple which are incorrectly used. An example is the one I already mentioned above, with regard to the IMDB, TV.com and Television Without Pity user ratings, which are used to cite the claim that the episode garnered a favourable fan response. Others include citing the episode itself (perfectly legitimate in some circumstances) to support the statement that the working title for the episode ("A Few Kind Words") refers to "something Tony says his father used to say was all he wanted for his birthday." This would be classed as synthesis; unless the makers or a reliable third-party said it, we can't.
    • The statement that the episode was "the first episode of the final pod of episodes to be produced [...]" is fine, but I'm unsure of the use of the word "pod". Is this an specific industry term? Is there a better word which can be used which is known to more people ("batch" maybe)?

    All the best, Steve T • C 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the stuff about fan reaction; after all that's not necessary. Replaced "pod" with "batch," which was what it initially said anyway. Someone changed it to "pod" and I just assumed that's some industry term meaning the same thing. It's impossible to find any reliable sources for the working title, however. The real title was revealed through the schedule on the HBO website, which is not archived.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out. Steve T • C 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And finally, removed the stuff about the working title reference. It now only says "The working title for the episode was "A Few Kind Words." The episode was listed under this title..."–FunkyVoltron talk 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed criterion three concerns ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Three fair use images are being used. WP:NFCC#3A states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole” and NFCC#8 states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic”. How do two images of the back of Tony by a lake significantly contribute to our understanding of topic and/or plot? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's actually Tony in the one picture and Bobby in the other. I think both pictures enhance the article because they provide visual commentary of the article and illustrates crucial, memorable scenes of the episode. I think both are somewhat iconic, at least to the episode. "Soprano Home Movies" is the only episode set by a lake and, as such, both help identify the episode. Of course, they could be removed, no biggie. But people who have seen the episode...will remember those scenes. –FunkyVoltron talk 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I’ll buy that an “iconic” scene has merit (having not seen the show, I’ll take your word for it). My concern, then, is that they’re visually quite similar; I’m not convinced that the two together contribute significantly more than one alone would. If we can meet half way and just remove whichever you consider to be the less memorable of the two, my concern will be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Removed the picture of Tony sitting by the lake, kept the Bobby pic (which is also the last shot of the episode and very memorable).–FunkyVoltron talk 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved copyedit issues from Maralia Maralia (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I fixed a few typos. There are some remaining copyedit issues:

    • "a number of awards nominations" - award nominations
    • The actors' names in parentheses in the lead really make for impossible reading.
    • "In a flashback to 2004, a neighborhood teenage boy witnesses Johnny Sack's arrest and Tony's dropping of his gun in the snow as he fled the scene. The same teenage boy later picks up and fires the gun." - fled->flees, since this is all present tense
    • "The two then fish on the lake in a boat." - this sentence stands out as much weaker prose than the rest.
    • "Tensions are amplified when, over Tony's objections, Janice relates a childhood story of their father and mother; and reach a crescendo with Tony's hurtful remarks about Janice's looks and past promiscuous behavior." - the two halves of this sentence aren't joined very well; perhaps Over Tony's objections...;tensions reach a crescendo when
    • "and attempts to drive off drunk in his SUV but reverses into a tree" - he's not attempting to drive off drunk, per se
    • "and Bobby sets off for Montreal to do the murder." - prose; 'do the murder' is weak.
    • "was the first episode of the final pod of episodes to be produced" - pod of episodes?
    • "and the lowest ratings for a The Sopranos premiere episode" - please, can we not just say 'for a Sopranos premiere episode'?
    • What I was getting at here was this: 'a The Sopranos' is awkward and not necessary. Likewise with "It was the submitted The Sopranos episode".
    • Wouldn't FBI in "has been picked up by the FBI" be better linked to FBI on The Sopranos?
    • There are also a load of redundant interwiki links. Examples: David Chase is linked 5 times; New York is linked 4 times; the main characters' names are linked in the lead, in the following section, and in the section after that. Maralia (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to address these concerns, tell me if it's not enough. English is not my first language so brilliant prose...is not something I'm liable to write. Removed redundant links. Kept those that are in different sections, though, since that's not against any rules as far as I know.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the last paragraph of the lead, trying for better prose. I crossed out done stuff above, elaborated on one issue, and added another. I still have a bone to pick with the redundant interwiki links. There is a value to repeating some links occasionally, but not on every occurrence just because there's a section break after the previous link. Common sense applies. David Chase is linked in the infobox, three times within the article text, once in the references, and once in the navigational footer. Matthew Weiner is linked almost as much, except he's not in the footer. The Sopranos is linked in the lead, twice in the nav footer, and 3 times in the text. There is no value in linking United States multiple times, nor DVD. Maralia (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote your rewrite a little. The focal point of the episode is not actually Tony's birthday, it's the weekend spent at the vacation home. Shortened instances of The Sopranos to Sopranos. Removed every interwiki link in the world! Changed FBI to FBI on The Sopranos. Everything should be OK now, unless you're not pleased with my rewrite of the last paragraph of the lead. See anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Your rewrite of my rewrite was good, except for the awkward phrase "details a weekend series protagonist Tony Soprano" (just too many nouns) and a subject/verb agreement problem. I've fixed both, although the former is admittedly a really kludgy fix. I'm satisfied on the linking issues now. Maralia (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised someone hasn't pointed out that Vincent Curatola as Johnny Sack DOES actually appear in this episode. In the flashback. Heh! Can't believe no one caught this since it's an obvious contradiction in the article. Well, I fixed it now. I also added the name of actors in parentheses who are not listed in the lead to the plot summary.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First caption is just a nominal group—fine; but the second caption is a sentence, so needs a final period.
    • Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle praised the episode, writing "the series remains as vital and interesting as ever [...] There may be no better (or realistic) way to go forward into this Sopranos swan song."[12]—In the original, is "ever" followed by a period, or other punctuation? Looks as though it should have. The ellipsis dots need to reflect this. See MOS. Final period after the closing quotes (see MOS and fix throughout for quotes that start within WP sentences).
    • Why the bold in Ref 2? Tony (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns addressed. In Tim Goodman's article, "ever" is not followed by a period or other punctuation. The bold ref is because it's the episode in question.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looking good, even though I'm not a Sopranos fan ;) Just a few things:
      • Do we really need all that linking in the plot summary? I'm pretty sure people intellectual enough to find their way onto a webpage about a Sopranos episode (let alone be interested in reading it) would know what murder, karaoke, a DVD and a firearm were.
      • "This was an idea of executive producer/co-writer Matthew Weiner, whose sister actually used to tape-record him as a child" - any use for that 'actually' in there?
      • "In preparation for shooting the episode, series creator David Chase held several rehearsals" - I'd personally label him executive producer, not series creator, in this context; that seems to be more relevant.
      • "The scenes in Montreal were actually filmed in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn" - how about 'the scenes set in Montreal...' just for clarification?
      • As above for "Filming of the scenes in New Jersey and the Soprano residence took place..."
      • Maybe cut short the only Ratings sentence at "same number of viewers" - the episode name begins the sentence and isn't really necessary to repeat.
      • Any reason why the writers are listed as "Diane Frolov & Andrew Schneider and David Chase & Matthew Weiner" in the infobox - that is, separated by &s and ands?
    • Otherwise, a pat on the back, well done! •97198 talk 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed concerns. Kept most links in plot summary; I think it's OK. Settled on "series creator/executive producer" for Chase. Writers listed like that because they're two writing teams who collaborated on the episode. Left the ratings section unchanged unless you absolutely feel like it's necessary to change it.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kept ratings section. See above.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. That source is reliable because it's a notable screenwriting blog featuring podcasts with many screenwriters, in this case episode co-writer Matthew Weiner. There really is no other way of obtaining that information online because no one cares about the writers....just the damn actors and their private lives. See? If that's not enough...I'll remove it and shorten the production section as a result. The other one...I really don't know. I just used episode lists I found that still listed the episode under the working title. It's pretty hard, not to say impossible, to find truly reliable sources here so bear with me. As for the punctuation...sigh, I'll try to get down to it. See anything in particular, like a section, that's in special need of attention?–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And this one, which also appears to be a blog: 'Sopranos Final Titles and Dates'. Steve T • C 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some thing as above.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Funky, I pointed you to a blog that says it's written by someone named Jeff Goldsmith; you replied that it's reliable because it discusses co-writer Matthew Weiner. What makes Jeff Goldsmith's blog reliable? Please focus on WP:SPS and specifically explain the use of these sources, including links and info that substantiate the reliability. I can't see how a commerical cheap TV site can be reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I explained to you that the blog contains actual interviews with screenwriters. If they're not reliable just because they're on blogs...I really am at a loss. If you look at the article, most of the reviews are blogs too, the only difference is that they're blogs on magazine and newspaper websites. I don't see the logic. In fact, I would say that creative screenwriting is more reliable than any interview or article with the writers because it's an unedited interview with a writer. That other site simply is not reliable but it's the only thing I could find. I guess no one has to know about the episode's working title.–FunkyVoltron talk 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm not being clear enough :-) On Joe Blow's blog, with no idea who Joe Blow is or whether he's a complete fraud, how do I know the interview is real? On a magazine or newspaper site, I have their reputation behind the blog interview. If I don't know who Joe Blow is, why should I trust him to represent the interview correctly? What makes him credible, what is his journalistic reliability, what is his fact-checking factor ? Who *is* he, anyway? We don't use self-published sources unless they are from experts published in the field: see WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really can't explain it any better than that. So there, I removed all that stuff. Anything else?–FunkyVoltron talk 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's no need to go that far. All you really have to do is present evidendce that Creative Screenwriting Magazine, and therefore the blog of its senior editor (Mr Goldsmith), is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. It shouldn't be too difficult; the magazine itself has received coverage in other notable publications, so looking through those links might be a good start. Steve T • C 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuhgettaboutit! It's not worth it. It's just a largely irrelevant piece of trivia anyway. Because the production section was spreading so thin, I added some other stuff that's referenced.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Steve :-) Eighteen Eagle Scout points coming your way for demonstrating an understanding of WP:SPS and providing a clue to the needed info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:30, 10 March 2008.

    Bernard Fanning

    [edit]

    Bernard Fanning is the lead singer of Powderfinger, and has been since shortly after the band's formation in ~1989. He has also released a highly successful independent album. While this article isn't the longest, it does cover all aspects of the topic, in my opinion, and is well written, thanks to extensive peer reviewing. That said, I'm happy to implement any suggestions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep - errr, I mean Support - As a contributor, which only happened by accident, since I didn't intend to spend so much time editing and contributing to this FA drive, I'm confident the article comfortably meets all of the necessary criteria for Featured Article status. It's comprehensive and thorough, well written and fully referenced. There's a chance more things could be added to this page over time, but no article on Wikipedia is a finished work, and that includes Featured Articles. That said, I'm sure some adjustments and implementations will be encountered through the course of this FA, but I support the promotion in the current state, nevertheless. --rm 'w avu 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A well-written and well-sourced article, with the finesse of a FA. Passes my criteria for a Featured Article, but (and much more importantly), passed the necessary requirements and criteria from a Wikipedia standpoint for a FA. The work that will take place after it's designation will only help to build up the article even further. Jmlk17 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few comments (and I know it's rather awkward to do this, considering I've worked on the article a little bit, but I'd prefer to let you decide what to do):
      • (In Powderfinger return) It mentions "sixth studio album", "the new album", "their album" and then finally the name of the album. Why not something like:
        Throughout 2006, Fanning had hinted towards Powderfinger ceasing their hiatus to release a sixth studio album. Recorded in Los Angeles, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence was released on June 2, 2007. The title of the album came from a chapter of Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster, a book that Fanning had read during recording.
      • (In Style, technique, and influences) "more important than "showing off my chops""; should be "showing off [his] chops".
      • (In Style, technique, and influences) "Fanning has stated: "The thing I love most is writing songs"."; is this really necessary as a standalone? Could it possibly be worked into another relevant sentence?
      • His philanthropic acts under Personal life are more to do with the band playing at charity concerts rather than his own acts. This should be merged into the Musical career section, I think.
      • I don't really think the image under Discography should be listed there... if anything, a better image of him performing on the tour should replace the one of him performing in London in the "Powderfinger return" section.
      • Would you consider a merge of the "Independent singles" and "Independent albums" into one subheader titled "Independent work"?
      • (Infobox) "Piano, Guitar, Percussion, Harmonica"; lowercase, and in birthdate / place, what about a {{flagicon}}?
      • The lead seems... insufficient. I think it should touch on some of the main points of Powderfinger's career in addition to Bernie's solo releases (which aren't mentioned yet).
        • I suck at leads, but I gave it a shot. How is it now? dihydrogen monoxide (H20)
          • Looks alright, however, I was thinking of making a mention of Tea & Sympathy and other bits and pieces of his solo career, and bits of Powderfinger's career as well. I'll make an attempt later.
      • "John Collins (bass guitar) and Steven Bishop (drums)"; change, to something like "John Collins and Steven Bishop, who later became the band's first bass guitarist and drummer".
      • (In Powderfinger return) Perhaps split it into two paragraphs, the first pertaining to Dream Days, and the other to other events of Powderfinger (i.e., ARIAs, ATGD, others not included). With the tour, I think the main purpose is to promote the efforts of Reconciliation Australia to reduce the 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians, and also, to "show [that] both bands are behind the idea of reconciliation", although it only mentions the latter (it appears that the former is the most important of the two).
      • Ref #22 needs to be formatted like the rest, i.e., remove Powderfinger Central as the publisher, remove URL and convert to {{citation}} (I think it's the one that I missed).

    That should be it. Spebi 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking the time to review this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Brisbane Times is stil not italicized in the references, and now some weird things (like Powderfinger FAQ are). Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Brisbane Times isn't a newspaper; it's an online news resource. I'll fix the Powderfinger FAQ one (the work= parameter does that). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • I'll say to start that I'm struggling with 1b (comprehensiveness) because the lead and article itself are quite short. That being said, however, it is difficult to identify what might be missing. Has this been researched only with Web searches? Has someone done a library search on LexisNexis for print sources? For example, how about a heading on public image. You state in the article that Fanning is "a powerful individual in the public view of the Australian music industry." It follows that there would be sources detailing this image that could expand the article.
        • I'll forward you to Peripitus' comments below, which focus on this; some more should be added in the process. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did a basic search this morning and came up with a LOT of articles about Fanning that you don't use here, mostly because they are not available online via free web searches. Billboard Magazine, Sunday Telegraph, The Sun Herald, and many more. My concerns about criterion 1b are affirmed in this case. It would probably be prudent to collaborate with an editor that has access (usually through a school or university) to things like Academic Search Premier, Lexis Nexis, etc. to get more sources and flesh this baby out. Alternately, you can usually bug librarians at local libraries (not sure how this works in Australia). --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Powderfinger the only band Fanning has been in? The dates seem to match up.. he went to college, dropped out, joined Powderfinger. I just ask because it's unusual for a musician to hit it big basically on their first try - would like assurance that the article is comprehensive about his musical history.
      • The allegation of plagiarism (which is quite serious in many countries) requires a reliable, independent source.
      • Check over the article for stylistic but ungrammatical comma use. Do not use commas to segregate clauses that are not complete sentences on their own. Example: "Middleton accepted the offer, and became the fifth member, joining Jon Coghill..."
      • Are there no personality clashes in the band with Fanning, considering his status as a "vocal and prominent" member, solo album/tour, etc?
      • The beard statement at the end seems rather trivial, not to mention confusing since he's wearing a beard in neither of the photos in the article.
      • The table layouts in the Discography need consistency and style fixes. Can you put the Powderfinger albums in a similar table even if you don't include notes? Also, the visual cues are unclear that you put "albums" and "singles" in different tables.
        • Hmm...generally, if there's a discography article (like Powderfinger discography in this case) then albums are just listed, while independent stuff is kept in full discog format. If you don't mind, I'll keep it like that. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the visual cues? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm okay with the Powderfinger discography. To clarify about the others - it took me a few seconds to realize that you had put albums in one table and singles in other, because the only thing indicating the separation is the table column labels. Column labels are a form of "visual cue", or something that tells a scanning reader what information to expect. Normally tables require more than colmun labels - they need a table head that describes the table, or subheadings above each table that describe them. This is mostly a subjective issue though, so it's not a dealbreaker. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work so far! --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks heaps for reviewing! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (only on 1b - comprehensiveness), I'm mostly content that it's about a broad as possible but there are perhaps a few more things that can be written about.
      • Perhaps a mention of his politics (noted as left leaning (ANDREW, Kelly, The Dominion Post, 12th October 2007)) - take note of the stance over Black Tears with his quote "The trial of the policeman that was charged has gone ahead and he was acquitted. In terms of that issue, that's out of the way, but the whole idea of Aboriginal people in custody dying is certainly not out of the way. And Aboriginal people being treated like shit in Australia is certainly not out of the way either,". Note that he's stated as seeing this as a moral rather than political issue.
      • Perhaps more on why Powderfinger drifted out of the picture for few years....the above Andrew Kelly article also states "His solo album was written after the break-up of a 12-year relationship".
      • He also wrote a long piece on respect/reconciliation for/with Aboriginal people - Various News Limited papers including "The Sunday Mail", 08/07/2007....gives a good rundown on his thoughts leading to the writing of Black Tears

    - Peripitus (Talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks as always mate. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that stands out to me is the lead section; at its current size, it appears to be a lead of a good article, however, I really think it needs some expansion to ensure that it accurately summarises the whole article. Could it include one or two sentences about his early life and his introduction to music; could it mention a bit more about Powderfinger, or mention his top singles from his solo career? Perhaps another relevant statement could be added to the first paragraph, then you could split the style and technique stuff into its own paragraph and expand the newly-created second paragraph with further details about his career with/without Powderfinger.
    • Also, does Fanning have a Wikiquote page? I'd suggest linking to it if there is one. Spebi 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:18, 8 March 2008.

    Typhoon Paka

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I need something to do :) I wrote much of the article within the past year, and I believe it passes most of the FA criteria. I'm not perfect, and I might have missed something, but I'll gladly fix it if you point it out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It looks pretty good, but there are a couple minor things;
      • Paka also caused light damage in the Northern Marianas Islands, and overall the typhoon caused no reported fatalities. Those two ideas have little to do with each other, and I think they should be seperate sentences.
      • Upon entering the western North Pacific Ocean, tropical cyclone warning duties transferred from the CPHC to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), and the JMA first assessed Paka as a 65 km (40 mph) storm. Maybe I'm wrong, but should "duties" be more encyclopediac as "responsibilities"?
    • But for the most part, it looks good. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:28 1, March 2008 (UTC)
    • Notes: see WP:DASH and WP:MOSNUM, these endashes should be unspaced: Paka dropped 250 – 300 mm (10 – 12 in) of rain. Also, these: an estimated 30 – 40 percent of ... Also, please be consistent throughout the article with use of either % or percent (see WP:MOSNUM). The line above this one uses %. Incorrect use of bolding in Aftermath. The external link checker (see top of FAC) identifies a dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the points you have raised, is there anything else you have noticed. Seddon69 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:18, 8 March 2008.

    Lessons for Children

    [edit]

    Self-nomination At the urging of Elcobbola, who provided a thoughtful and careful GA review of this article, I have decided to nominate this article for FAC. While not much has been published on Anna Laetitia Barbauld's Lessons for Children, I believe that I have managed to track down the majority of the scholarship on these eighteenth-century children's books. Whatever imbalances exist in the article (such as the large "Reception and legacy" section) reflect the imbalances in the published scholarship. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Most interesting and well written. Just a few minor points:

    • This phrase in the opening "because of these books and their works" reads as one phrase and I had to reread it to give the clauses their proper meaning.
    • The sentence on Ellener Fenn and Richard Lovell Edgeworth in "Reception and legacy" might be better as two sentences.
    • It really needs a better explanation of how her approach differed from the 'emergent cultural construction of Romantic childhood' near the end as I was unable to work out what this meant which made it difficult to see quite what her detractors were complaining so bitterly about.
    • It's better. I think I get it now but speaking as one who knew nothing of this before reading your article, it takes a bit of thought to understand it. Imaginative adult tales of ancient glory were preferred to a carefully worked out programme of understanding the physical world around you. Is that it? A brief article, even a stub on the 'Romantic child' would be excellent. I would certainly have clicked on it.Fainites barley 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - that is it. I am reluctant to write a stub because I like to write semi-decent start articles before posting them and I don't have time to do that for such an abstract topic right now. However, I will add it to my growing list of "requested articles" and try to create something in a few months. Awadewit | talk 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struggled with the ending. I decided to go with a "this is where the scholarship could go" ending. Do you have any other suggestions? I'm frankly at a loss at this point. I've tried several and this is the latest incarnation. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a look at the others. Fainites barley 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an idea. How about her response to those particular types of critics, (if she was in a position to make one that is) ? Then the last paragraph and poem. Fainites barley 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She didn't exactly make one. You might consider her response to Johnson that she kept publishing, but I haven't seen that interpretation published anywhere and she didn't respond to the personal letters of Lamb and Coleridge because she didn't know about them. Attacks on her poetry became quite vehement when she published Eighteen Hundred and Eleven and she didn't publish anything of her own after that. The Romantic criticism of her work basically grew and stood unchallenged until very recently. Awadewit | talk 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So she probably never really knew what the Romantics thought of her and everyone carried on using her books anyway. Fainites barley 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She knew what the Romantics thought of her poetry and her children's books were popular, but not well-respected among the literary elite. (Children's literature occupies a similar place today - children's authors are rarely accorded the same kind of respect given to other writers.) Awadewit | talk 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; gripping little article about a subject that ought to be better known.Fainites barley 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: an eloquent and thorough discussion of an influential (if under recognized) work, easily satisfying the FA criteria. There’s a strangely satisfying irony to the quite scholarly treatment of a work of such simple prose. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Awadewit. A couple of comments:
      • The sentence Lessons not only teaches literacy, it also introduces the reader to "elements of society’s symbol-systems and conceptual structures, inculcates an ethics, and encourages him to develop a certain kind of sensibility". splits the thought between unquoted and quoted material, with the first verb "introduces" being the article's voice, and the other verbs "inculcates" and "encourages" in quotes. The sentence's voice suffers! Is there a way to fix this?
      • The theme of restriction in Lessons has been viewed both positively and negatively... I wasn't sure that I was supposed to be familiar with the theme of restriction when I reached this sentence. Is the prior paragraph speaking to it, or other parts of the article?
      • All other year ranges use two digits at the end, except "(1802–1806)". I'd have changed it but I'm not sure if "we" like "(1802–06)"?)
        • I think that it looks a little silly and is hard to read. I wanted to make the lifespan of the periodical very clear. However, I won't stop you if you change it. :) Awadewit | talk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "instead of being fed with Tales and old wives fables"—did their happen to be an apostrophe in this quote? :)
        • The quote is correctly transcribed. Lamb wasn't too careful. :)
    • I do see how the flow is maybe affected by the limitations of the scholarship available, but it's still featurable! –Outriggr § 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:18, 8 March 2008.

    Grover Cleveland

    [edit]

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States. After a peer review and an extensive re-write and expansion, I think old Grover is ready to be featured. Coemgenus 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC), self-nom.[reply]

    • Support. I've long been meaning to learn about this period of American history, so I read the article to educate myself. It did not let me down: I found it an absorbing and comprehensive read, well written and sourced (though I would advise more consistency in the bibliography, with some publication details further filled out). Congratulations to the main editor for the hard work that has clearly gone into this. qp10qp (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:18, 8 March 2008.

    Huldrych Zwingli

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. This article is about a Swiss Reformation leader. I hope to add to our religion-related FAs and also bring some topic diversity on a non-anglophone subject matter. RelHistBuff (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - What a worthy goal and how well you have executed it! I knew very little about Zwingli before I read this article and I certainly garnered an excellent introduction to him from this page. Although I don't know anything about Zwingli scholarship, I can say that the sources for this article are reputable and carefully documented. Also, the images are well-chosen and all either in the public domain or released under a commons license of some sort. Here are my tiny suggestions for improvement:

    • I assume little is known about his family? It would be nice to mention them beyond their names, if they were significant in his life.
    I have several 19th century sources (Merle d'Aubigné, Hottinger, Christoffel, etc.) that describe his family and early life in great detail: mother's name was Margaret Meili, how the young Zwingli lived as a shepherd's son, how he listened to his father's conversations with the elders of the parish, how the uncle loved his nephew like his son, etc.. None of these details are in the modern sources, not even his mother's name. So I didn't include them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Alas. Those proverbial nineteenth-century anecdotes. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his publications, he noted corruption in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, promoted clerical marriage, and attacked the use of images. - "attacked the use of images" in places of worship, perhaps?
    Yes, that's correct. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The religious factions of Zwingli’s time debated vociferously regarding the merits of sending young Swiss men to fight in foreign wars mainly for the enrichment of those in power within the cantons. - This is wordy at the end, but I can't think of a better wording right now.
    I shortened it slightly, but there is probably a better way to word it --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each time "the church" was mentioned, I kept wondering if it should be "the Church".
    I am not sure myself. I think the answer is in WP:MOSCAPS under the "Institutions" section where there is an example using an university. Here the analogy would be "The Roman Catholic Church offers..." and "The church offers..." which would be considered correct. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at a grammar book (The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers) right now which states that capitalizing the shortened form is a good idea in order to distinguish from the generic use of the word. Here is their example: "The Democratic Party has always been the dominant party in this country. However, recently other political groups have begun to encroach upon the Party's territory." I ask this because I have frequently seen England's Established Church referred to as "the Church" in order to distinguish it from a more general "church" and I wondered at times in the article if the Roman Catholic Church was being referred to as "the church" when it might more clearly be referred to as "the Church". Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also tend to favour "the Church" for the same reason; I am used to seeing it when referring to a specific church. But it does conflict with the MOS. I will capitalise it for now and I will leave a question with our MOS expert. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (gasp) The MOS is incomplete!? Awadewit | talk 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (-: Hee, hee. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article switches between BE and AE at times - it seems to be mostly BE, but occasionally I saw some AE.

    That is probably not surprising. I originally learned English in the US, but I have been using BE for quite a while now. Roger Davies and DrKiernan caught and corrected some of my spellings. I will try looking again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked to borrow Roger Davies' eyes again for filtering the AE. He caught "center". Was there anything else? Some AE idioms might have crept in. I speak in AE, but I have a tendency to write in BE. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I thought there were some others, but I've become so mixed up myself perhaps I'm just imagining things. :) Awadewit | talk 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His motives for doing this are not clear, but his sermons used exhortation to achieve moral improvement, in agreement with Erasmus. - The "in agreement with Erasmus" clause is a bit unclear - how exactly was Zwingli agreeing with Erasmus?
    I hope it's a bit clearer. Gäbler used the phrase "Erasmian reformed Christianity" and that Zwingli had similiar goals ("moral and ecclesiastical improvement") to that movement. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, yes. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scholars do not agree on the process of how he developed his own unique model. - I would say immediately after this what the major theories are. Outline them in a few sentences.
    Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! These kinds of statements are very helpful for the uninformed reader. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1519, when Sanson arrived at the gates of Zürich at the end of Zwingli's first month of his pastorate, parishioners prompted Zwingli with questions. - wordy
    Hopefully better now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The essence of the mass and its sacrificial character was also included as a subject of discussion. - This probably needs more explanation for the lay reader.
    I added another sentence. It is described again in the Theology section (from a different source), but I don't think the redundancy hurts the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so either. Sometimes readers have to read things several times, anyway. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it more accurate to refer to "communion" as the "Eucharist"?
    Hmm, there are probably differences of opinion on this. In lay usage, "communion" is used almost exclusively. "Eucharist" is found in more advanced discussions. The reason I used "communion" in describing Zwingli's new liturgy is partly because that is what is written in the sources. Also "communion" has connotations of being more limited so it is appropriate to use it to describe Zwingli's simple liturgy. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - I just wanted to check that there wasn't some esoteric difference I was unaware of. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His later writings continued to show characteristic differences from Luther - such as?
    Added one example from Stephens. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Crucial example! Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (English titles are those of Stephens, Introduction, pp. 171ff.) - I would move this information to a footnote.
    Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web citations need a publisher and any foreign-language sites need to marked with the appropriate language.

    Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are supposed to mark external links that are in foreign languages - I went ahead and did that. However, I'm not sure if the source was in Swiss German. If it is, I'm not sure what the template is for that. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I missed that one. The source is written in High German. Schwyzerdütsch is rarely written, although I was rather shocked recently to find an Alemannic Wiki exists (see Zwingli article in the Zürich dialect). --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is well-written overall. I found a few wordy passages and tried to fix them on my own. Another pass by a fresh pair of eyes would probably improve the prose still further, but the article is already clear and flows well from one section to the next. Well done! This article was a pleasure to read. Can I talk you into John Calvin? Awadewit | talk 07:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your support, comments, and copyedit! I will address your comments over the next few days and respond line-by-line above. I have considered Calvin as a future project as I have access to some good sources where I am located. As I live in a non-anglophone country, that has been my major limitation in my choice of subjects to work on. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I suggested Calvin! I thought he might be a good project for you and he is so important! You can start working on a featured topic of important Reformation figures. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    8-o <--emoticon, big eyes. Now that is a tough WP:FT project. Calvin could get controversial, but I think FA is potentially reachable. However, I would have to decline participating in Martin Luther. That one went through a wrenching NPOV/OWN war which caused a very good contributor to leave Wiki. Some of the editors there are, umm,... rather scary. Very sad. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad, especially since he's such a crucial figure and deserves a good article. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I did participate a few times and then I saw the mob delisting it. Maybe after a while they will go away. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Section break

    Support after issues addressed. Great work! Oppose for now, based on a few quibbles: Will be very happy to support once these are clarified.

    Resolved concerns from Ealdgyth
    • Life section, early years subsection. How do we know his father and uncle disapproved of him becoming a dominican?
    I added the cite. Potter said, "News of this was heard in Wildhaus by his parents and by his uncle with marked disapproval." --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection. I'd like to see some sort of citation for the last sentence of the second paragraph. It's not a requirement, however, it just looks a bit odd that it doesn't have a source citation.
    Added cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection. Third paragraph, I'm unclear how the first sentence is connected to the second sentence. Also, when did he actually take holy orders and when was he consecrated a priest?
    The "characterised by inner growth and development" phrasing is from Gäbler. I guess it is his shorthand for "characterised by scholarly studies, humanist correspondence, and an encounter with Erasmus". According to Potter, he was apparently ordained by the bishop of Constance on 14 September, but he adds in a footnote that no record has been preserved. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection, third paragraph. Is Glarus the canton or the capital of the canton? I'd assume the capital, but might be best to make this explicit.
    The wikilink pointed to the capital, Glarus, but I added "town of". --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection. The way you've worded "The Swiss Confederation was embroiled in various campaigns with its neighbours: The French, the Hapsburgs and the Italian papal states." leaves the impression that there were more than one papal states and that there were papal states not in Italy. Maybe try "The French, the Hapsburgs and territories of the popes in Italy"? I'm not sure that is the best way to phrase it either.
    I capitalised "Papal States" and dropped "Italian" --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, Zurich ministry subsection, second paragraph. You bring up Hofmann, then leave him hanging for most of the paragraph before bringing him back up at the end of the paragraph. Consider moving the first information on Hofmann closer to the rest of the information.
    Moved the text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection, third paragraph. When did Sanson come to Zurich? I know you say January, but which year?
    Added year. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, Zurich disputations. I think it's safer to say that "the unrest between Zurich and the bishop continue"
    Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection. I'd suggest linking iconoclastic in the third paragraph.
    Wikilinked. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section and subsection, third paragraph. The sentence "An invitation for the 26 October 1523 disputation was sent out to the Zurich clergy and the bishop of Constance as for the first." is incredibly muddled. I'm not sure what is trying to be expressed here. As for the first what?
    Yes, I don't how that mess of a sentence came about. Probably I had too much wine that night? Fixed now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MUCH better. It makes sense now! Ealdgyth

    The sources look good to me. All in all, a very nice article. I too suggest trying Calvin next! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for your comments. I will answer your comments line-by-line. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck through the ones taken care of. Were you wanting more sources/information? I have a few books on the Reformation, if you'd like I can look through them. They aren't as strong on the pre-Calvin Swiss Reformation as I'd like, but there are a few. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking for something on Bullinger, but I think I got enough now in the Legacy section. I have posted a question to the help desk and I think the photo of the Münch relief might get deleted from Wikimedia Commons. The photographer had other photos of Chagall stained glass that were deleted for similiar reasons. Thanks for the heads-up. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got an answer back from the help desk. It seems the law in Switzerland allows one to take pictures in public places and the pictures can be published. See on commons page. So it looks like it is possible to bring the Münch picture back. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Being a photographer, I know what is up with US law on that sort of thing, but had no clue on Switzerland. Better to be sure than to be wrong. Struck through that one. Just a tiny quibble on the Bullinger stuff and looks like it's good to go for me! Ealdgyth | Talk 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

    Trafford

    [edit]

    Self nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the FA criteria; I think it's better than a GA, although with few similar articles to compare it to (in fact I haven't come across any above a B-class) this article is attempting to set a standard. Even if reviewers don't feel the article meets the FA criteria, I think that issues raised could be quickly met. Thanks in advance for any input and constructive criticism. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved criterion 3 issues from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first image has replaced the second and a fair use rationale has been added, I'm still working on getting the image resized though. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether NFCC#3A applies to multiple occurrences of the same image (although I suspect it does), but you may wish to remove the crest from the infobox to avoid redundancy. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The redundancy is part of the reason I uploaded the second image. I think it should remain in the infobox as it's in the infobox of all the other metropolitan boroughs. It could be removed from the Coat of arms section. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly an option, as well. My recommendation was made with the idea of keeping the image next to the related text, but either way works. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image has been replaced with a smaller one. I'm wondering if either has to be removed? They're not very close together in the article. Just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A very strict reading of the policy would probably say one needs to go, but I think common sense can prevail here; the images are not being used gratuitously. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've not had time to go through this in detail yet, but a couple of quick comments..
      • The article discusses the rise in population around 1850-1870 but there is no discussion (that I've seen) of the fall since 1971.
      • There seem to be a lot of lists which may be better as prose eg parishes & unparished areas, parliamentary constituencies etc
      • I've not seen the icons used for places of interest before & these may need a key or some other explanation.
      • In education are any parts of the Universities or FE colleges within the area?
        • Trafford College has been included, don't think there are any university facilities. Nev1 (talk)
      • Reference 9 seems to include both "Salford Quays & Trafford Park. Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service Ltd" & "Trafford at GMeP.org" which may be a formatting issue?
        • This is done to make sure there aren't long lists of references cluttering up the text, although it's not strictly speaking necessary here. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A good example of how this is supposed to work is reference 16, the last reference in the geography section. This combines four sources that would other with give an unsightly string: "...4.0% of the borough's population.[16][17][18][19] The civil parishes are...". Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If another editor wanted to reuse one of these refs eg to cite the stats for one parish how would they do it?— Rod talk 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've spread out the first instance, but I'm leaving the second. An editor could do it same way as if it was a string of references, just pick out what they need. Then all they'd have to do is put <ref></ref> around it an it would work fine. The same formatting is used in other FAs and hasn't caused a problem. In fact it was at the Altrincham FAC that the idea was suggested. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to look at the article in more detail asap.— Rod talk 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments A few more minor concerns:
      • Sale and Stretford are wikilinked twice in the lead para & there is inconsistency in the linking of these elsewhere.
        • In the lead the links actually lead to urban districts as well as settlements, so it only looks like repetition. Some excessive linking has been removed, but I'm sure there's some still about so could you be more specific? Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hadn't spotted the urban district bit. In geography, City of Salford is linked twice. In "Localities within" (which I'm not sure is needed) & Electoral wards links to Stretford, Urmston etc which have already been linked above are linked again - but if this section is staying I would probably leave them linked for completeness. Stretford, Sale & Urmston are linked again in coat of arms. Urmston is linked again in places of interest. In education Stretford is linked again. Sale is linked again in religion.— Rod talk 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the history section should Toponomy come first?
      • Geography - should the units for ht above sea level have alternative units? This sentence is also not referenced.
      • Most parish councils don't have planning powers (only advisory) are these different?
        • This has been clarified, the source said involvement in. Nev1 (talk)
      • Was the town hall designated grade II in 2007 or renamed?
      • The years of conservative, labour & no overall control of the council are unclear
      • The first sentence of the population change paragraph is a bit convoluted & could be clarified
      • Does ref 55 apply to all the stats in the first para of economy?
      • Do you have a source for Trafford Park being the worlds first planned industrial estate? (when I lived in Slough the same claim was made there)
      • The first sentence of places of interest appears to repeat itself
      • Should it be Dunham Hall or Dunham Massey Hall - both are used (in the same sentence)
      • The sentence re SSSIs could be shortened/simplified
      • "about 21.2 square miles" seems pretty exact to me
      • "Dunham Massey Hall and Park" is linked to Dunham Massey, but "Dunham Massey Hall" is left as a red link & there is mention of its "its stables and carriage house" in two separate places
      • Neolithic & Roman occupation are mentioned in history, but it is only in "places of interest" that bronze age artifacts get a mention
      • Should "Lottery Heritage Fund" link to National Lottery (United Kingdom)?
      • Manchester Storm; in 2006-07 they finished sixth - in what? local, national international?
      • In Education - Trafford appears to have been ranked 3rd & 5th in the same year - might need clarification

    Most of these comments are minor and could be fixed fairly easily.— Rod talk 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - a lot of work has gone into answering my questions & clarifying some sections, therefore I can now support as I feel it meets the FA criteria.— Rod talk 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Agree with Rod. My only qualm is some of the short paragraphs in the "Places of interest" section which could be merged or expanded. Also, check if the section order is consistent with other FAs (I've just got this feeling it's not...). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Faultless referencing but reading through all the facts and figures is tiring. I would have preferred to see a more narrative, engaging style rather than just a presentation of bald numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's only so much that can be done with statistics to make them interesting, I think part of the problem is the amount of statistics. Could you highlight particularly where it could be improved? The GA reviewer suggested putting some of the data in the Economy section into a table which would be easier to read and make comparisons but would be a problem to fit in. Any suggestions? Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
      • The lead seems on the short side to me. In the third paragraph, you summarize the important items in Trafford. Does it seriously boil down to sports teams, a mall, and one museum?
      • "Trafford has one of the best records for education in Greater Manchester." Either "one of the better" or "the best".
      • I admit this Yankee is confused by the various terms used to describe localities. In the lead, we establish that Trafford is a borough, and it includes towns. In the next paragraph we learn that it also includes urban districts, which I understand to mean government entities rather than physical places. Maybe. Later, you include two lists of localities where you include all of the aforementioned towns and urban districts (plus more), but not the rural district you mention in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As pointed out earlier, the list of localities probably isn't necessary. It could be removed since it admittedly doesn't add much to the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I do like it, and I think it's relevant to helping the reader understand that Trafford is not just a "city" but rather a conglomeration. I would just love the terminology to be a little more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps part of the problem is that urban and rural districts are no longer in use. They are only mentioned because they are historically relevant. Although Bucklow rural district is not mentioned in the list of localities, the settlements within it that became part of Trafford are. A one sentence explanation about urban and rural districts has been added to the Governance section. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would wikilink the first mention of MPs or write it out. In some places, this means Military Police.
      • "In 1974, on the formation of the new Trafford Metropolitan Borough, Trafford Council was created to administer the newly formed borough." Make more concise. Maybe "In 1974, Trafford Council was created to administer the newly formed Trafford Metropolitan Borough."
      • Tables of data need sources. See how this is done in Saffron for example.
      • There are en dashes in the text that should be em dashes. Please see WP:DASH.
    More later. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: inconsistent dates, some uses of ... at the end of the 2006–07 season ... and others of ... the Conservatives have been in control 1973–1985, 1988–1994 ... decide whether to use final two digits or four digits consistently. Not sure how to fix double punctuation at ... including Altrincham F.C., Flixton F.C., and Trafford F.C.. I'm frustrated at the constant references in UK articles to Grade I, II and III buildings; please define or give some context to those terms for the uninitiated. Is there a wikilink? The article gives us no clue what these terms mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Listed building should provide the required information.— Rod talk 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The date format should be more consistent now and more wikilinks have been spread throughout the article linking to the listed building page. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In the "Electoral wards" table there is a column with "code" at the top. What does the code mean? Could some explantion of what the code is used for be given? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look and can't find what they're used for, an educated guess though would be that they're used for administrative purposes as I've only found the codes used in lists of statistics etc. As such they really don't inform the reader about anything so they have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 19:57, 6 March 2008.

    Neilston

    [edit]

    I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have some experience in taking settlements to FA status, and believe this article meets the criteria. Neilston, which conforms to the WP:UKCITIES standard, has recently gained GA. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutral: complete, but the article needs the section culture and more images. --jskellj - the nice devil 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe these are barriers to, or requirements for FA status. There are elements of Neilston's culture dispersed throughout the article; there is little point repeating this material again. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The content looks good, but I recommend a copyedit by a third-party as the prose is a bit awkward in places. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did a copyedit and made some improvements where I thought I could. Some points:
      • "Following its period of rapid industrialisation, in 1904 about 400 mill houses were constructed..." - for a community of only a few thousand people, that is a lot of houses for one year.
      • Is there something wrong with ref 41 (East Renfrewshire Council. Neilston Leisure Centre. eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk. Retrieved on 9 January 2008.)? It sends me to a blank page except for two links, neither of which go anywhere.
      • In the lead, the opening sentence is fine, but rather than using the opening paragraph to describe its relative position, I would go for some more descriptive details that characterize the subject, like population.
      • In my (North American centric) searches on this subject, all I could find is stuff on its football club, 18-19th C cotton industry, and its webcam (which made international news![55]). --maclean 05:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (too all): Thank you ever so much for this feedback so far. I guess from the neutral, cautious comments so far I'm struggling with the "wow factor"! I'll try to address this and some of the other issues raised. As Maclean25 states, there is little material about this online, and I've really struggled. There is one book published about it specifically too! It is a very banal place which is why I real quite pleased with it, but failing to get across the hard work! I'll see what I can do. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I am getting a little suspicious about this place. You mention how "very banal" it is, and their webcam is famous for showing how "dull" it is, and their web address is "nothingtoseehere.net". Either it is a paradise they don't want to share or a secret testing ground they don't want to expose. Regardless, the article has what I've come to look for in the UK city articles. Thank you for the "Public services" section. --maclean 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment leaning towards support. Article looks great generally. Just some comments on the handling of the "History" secition material
      Some toponymists suggest Neil was a General of King Haakon IV of Norway, who, fleeing from the Battle of Largs (1263), was overtaken in this locality and put to death. According to the custom of the age a burial mound was erected over his grave and the locality ultimately received the name of the General.[4] Others find Neilston's origin in a stone erected over a supposed Highland chief, named Neil, who was allegedly killed at the Battle of Harlaw (1411), during the reign of Malcolm III of Scotland.[4]
      If Neilston appears in the Paisley Registrum in 1163 (I don't have access to that cartulary atm), then that's it. The other suggestions from tertiary sources have to go or be confined to a footnote, though the legend is perhaps worth retaining as such [rather than as a serious suggestion]. Another serious difficulty with Others find Neilston's origin in a stone erected over a supposed Highland chief, named Neil, who was allegedly killed at the Battle of Harlaw (1411), during the reign of Malcolm III of Scotland.[4] is that the battle of Harlaw took place three and a half centuries after the reign of Mael Coluim III!
      mentions that the Anglo-Norman[6] knight, Robert Croc of Crocstown (Crookston)
      Barrow, you may have seen, mentions Nigel de Cotentin as the "probable" source of the name. I should add that for historico-linguistic reasons this place-name is either exonymic when first used or the founder was certainly not called Neil (i.e. Niall), but Nigel. The period in which 1163 falls is still the first generation of English language use in the area. If you think of Dufnalstoun as a parallel, the name in mid-13th century Beauly charters name for an entirely native settlement, the other possibility is that the owner was called Niall but was "displaced" by Croc or another mercenary knight fitz Alan had brought from England. Just a historical comment there! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I think I've addressed most of these issues, except the toponymy of Neilston. Every source about the history of Neilston (which is a very limited number!) has something about this, and though I've not lived there since childhood, it is something of local importance (which is odd I know). However I think it's inclusion is worth keeping not so much in this capacity, but in discreditting some of the older theories which plague the history books (One guy thought the Battle of Harlaw was at Neilston's Harlaw Damn!). I hadn't noticed the material on Nigel de Cotentin; I had the source very breifly and it was a massive book! Nothing about this appears in Discover Barrhead & Neilston, although the book has about 15 paragraphs in total - 12 about Barrhead! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I think it's still imbalanced. The Paisley thing should definitely be in the first one or two sentences. The legend is good to have perhaps [I like that sort of thing at least], but don't think you should have it presented as a serious possibility ... the Paisley charter really does debunk it [unless there is some other argument or evidence regarding the charter's authenticity that is!]. No "toponymist" (a toponymist is different from a guy writing on a toponymic subject, who could be anyone) would currently argue that Neilston derived from anything after its first attestation (that would be regarded as absurb), and you have suggest in the present tense. If you don't trust me on that, email Simon Taylor or another actual toponymist of Scotland. The sources you use here (save Barrow), aren't likely to be reliable in this material, which requires more specialisation and bibliographic knowledge than these authors are likely to acquire for the broad topics they're interested in. I'd also drop the universally; it's both not verifiable (you can't check every piece of writing that's gone through the press!) and not true, as Neil is a different name than Nigel, and the most credible source you cite says "Nigel". Anyways, don't let those comments detract from your sense that this is good work. It is very good work! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • In the lead, there are en dashes that should be em dashes. WP:DASH.
      • The last sentence in the lead seems a bit of "recentism" for an encyclopedia article.
      • You probably don't want to wikiling "Neil" unless it is to a specific person who the town is believed named after. Since it's unknown, don't link.
    Sorry, more later. --Laser brain (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article has been improved, and I did some copyediting to eliminate the last of my prose concerns in the history section. Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose for now. I think the prose needs serious work, especially in the history section, and I have questions about one of the sources.
      • The prose in the history section needs a little work. There are some areas of short and stubby sentences, and other areas where the prose needs to be tightened (example only: "A person by the name of Christian Shaw" should just be "Christian Shaw...")
      • Lots of weaselly-type words. "is said to have been ", "it has been put that". Either say who said it, or take out the wishy-washiness.
      • Lots of use of "<subject> being the..." Why not is/are/was, etc? This has led to at least one incomplete sentences ("; East Renfrewshire Council being the unitary local authority for Neilston.")
      • Need a citation for "Compared with the average demography of Scotland, Neilston has low proportions of people born outside the United Kingdom, and people over 75 years of age."
      • "Midge being a corruption of Madge" -- what does Madge have to do with Mary?
      • need a citation in Landmarks section for " Crofthead Mill is Neilston's largest and oldest cotton mill, dating in part from 1792 but predominantly 1880 after much of the original building was destroyed by fire."
      • Is it really important that the sports section lists the anthem and colors of the football club, or is there better information about the club that could be added here?
      • Is this a reliable source? It looks like anyone can submit information. http://bobbinsandthreads.co.uk/neilston_mill.asp

    Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • OK, I'll try to address each point made:
        • The prose in History is fine, but by standards only (!). I'm not a strong copy-editor, so if there are any specific issues you could point to I would be greatful.
        • Re "it has been said", I put that in per some feedback obtained here. I'm not sure how to go about stating the point. I've removed the "it has been put that" however, and on reflection agree it was un-needed. Are there any other examples?
        • Could you point to specific examples of the "Z being the..."? I know I've put this a few times but I think this may be symptomatic of requiring an additional, third-party copyedit (it has had one already mind!).
        • "Compared with the average demography of Scotland, Neilston has low proportions of people born outside the United Kingdom, and people over 75 years of age." was cited in the comparison table, but per your feedback, I've doubled up the citation, to make the source clearer.
        • Midge is from Madge which is also a derivation of Madonna (Mary). I wanted to say "Midge is a local form of Madonna" but I can't find a source that makes that so explicit. Can you advise?
        • Re citation for Crofthead mill - I will try to obtain this (it is from somewhere, I just haven't made the citation totally clear).
        • I'd be inclined to keep the kits and anthem. The Farmer's Boy is actually an anthem for the village! I just can't find a source to assert that claim! The best I have about it is the football connection. I don't think it's an objectional statement to include, and also think it adds context for the image too.
        • bobbinsandthreads.co.uk seems to be reliable upon scrutenisation. The material that is added is personal experiences and anecdotes (here) rather than the hard dates and facts that appear on the main page.
      • I hope that helps for now. I'm pleased with the feedback and would be grateful if you could respond to some of my queries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with random people being able to put information on a website is that we have no idea how accurate it is. I don't think Bobbinsandthreads.co.uk can stand as a reliable source -- it is self-published and should not be used.
        • Can you find a source that says Madge is a derivation of Madonna? Then you can say that Midge is a nickname for Madge, which is a derivation of Madonna. Otherwise, I'd remove the parenthetical sentence, because I think it will confuse people.Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - Perfect GA, incomplete under a cultural aspect, but well-referenced. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean or what part of the FA criteria or manual of style you're looking at specifically. Do you mean a "Culture" section? There are aspects of culture already mentioned at length and it doesn't make sense to repeat them in a new section. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: there are problems throughout with WP:MOSNUM#Precise language (for example, the word today is used frequently. What is today in a dynamic encyclopedia?) Also, please review WP:OVERLINKing of common terms known to most English speakers. For example, what value is added to the reader by linking the word granite? Undefined jargon in the lead (Category B listed building); if I need to click somewhere to find what that is (and the article doesn't tell me), does it belong in the lead? The external link checker (see the top of the FAC) also yields three dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is excellent feedback, thanks. I think these issues are symptomatic of having, broadly, written the article myself, with little input from others. Of course, there are likely to be issues where I know what is meant or implied, but others with an alternative, international perspective may not...... I have removed all instances of "Today", which you were right to point out, and also delinked granite. Could you point to any other issues that you think are holding the article back? I would very much appreciate it if you did. On the issue of deadlinks, I'll try to fix these. I know one is hard to replace, but I have a cached version for what it's worth. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Of the references nothingtosee.net is the weakest; it appears to be self-published blog. Unlike the other self-published sites it doesn't have a review mechanism and it's being used to support claims of which the author has no direct first-hand knowledge. Why is the minister Alexander Fleming celebrated? There's no indication of why he is notable. DrKiernan (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the feedback and copyedit. It is much appreciated. I believe I've now explained Fleming's notability (apologies for missing this out). I did have reservations on nothingtosee.net, but made a call to use it with another source (bobbinsandthreads.com) as it didn't appear to be open source and the claim I'm trying to assert in the article is known to me locally (no excuse I know). I'll try to search for a better reference, but a cusory search with Google doesn't come up with anything yet. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 6 March 2008.

    Duncan Edwards

    [edit]

    I only initially began work on this article because I happened to be in Dudley and decided to kill some time photographing places associated with the player, but now that I've spent some time on it I reckon it's up to FA status. I modelled it mainly on the existing FA on Gilberto Silva, and it's been through a Peer Review, so I await the judgement of the greater community....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

    Fanny Imlay

    [edit]

    Self-nomination - This is an article about Mary Wollstonecraft's first, and less well-known, child. It has been peer-reviewed by Ruhrfisch, Roger Davies, and Qp10qp. I believe that it meets the FA criteria. Awadewit | talk 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed, but "-ize" is not exactly in favour; it seems switching to "-ise" would assist readability, albeit minorly so (id est, people won't have to stop to wonder whether it fits). It's by no means a deal breaker (I've already supported), and the last thing I want is another English language debate. You English-speaking types need a Duden. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The opening sentence uses the word "illegitimate" to describe Fanny Imlay as being born outside wedlock. Should Wikipedia use a judgmental term like this, or am I being too sensitive? It is a commonly-used term and perhaps isn't Wikipedia's place to judge how appropriate it is to use. That said, English is not controlled in the way that French is controlled by the Académie française; there is no rule saying that this is the term to use in this context. Is it a legal term? It could easily be replaced with "born outside marriage", or something to that effect. The article Illegitimacy describes the term as "once commonly assigned", does this make it appropriate within the context of a 19th century biography to describe her legal status? --Oldak Quill 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought up this and related issues in reference to the family tree (I wanted to make it as non-judgmental as possible). I'm not sure that "born out of wedlock" is any less judgmental, as it implies that being born within wedlock is the "right" way to be born. :) "Illegitimate" is common and easily understood, I think. However, I'm open to other suggestions that are less POV. I just haven't been able to think of any. (The word is historically appropriate.) Awadewit | talk 01:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: could you make the quote When you were hungry.. into a blockquote? it is forced into the right half page in IE, leaving a white gap.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

    If (magazine)

    [edit]

    A science fiction magazine that ran from 1952 to 1974. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support—It appears to satisfy the FA requirements and I could not find any major issues. It's a fine article on a subject that I enjoy, and the editor(s) seem to have done a good job of digging up the facts. There were a pair of sentences that seemed overly long, and they changed subject in mid-stream. (The sentences begin with "In a 1975 retrospective article, Gold..." and "Pohl also bought A.E. van Vogt's...".) I think they could be readily broken into smaller sentences. Finally, what is a "slick format"? I didn't see an explanation, so I think it could use one. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've split both sentences, and added a parenthetical explanation for "slick". Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1961, the editorship of both If and Galaxy was taken over by Frederik Pohl. Why passive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No sufficiently good reason. Changed to active voice. Mike Christie (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that would be a huge topic -- the template lists only a fraction of them. Even "defunct sf magazines founded in the 1950s" is probably close to fifty magazines. Maybe some subset could be found; it would be fun to do. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think perhaps the lead is a little too specific - the publication information seemed a bit too specific for the lead. For someone unfamiliar with the day-to-day history of 1950s SF publishing, it was not an "amazing tale". :) I would cut the lead down to two paragraphs.
    I've thought about this, and I would like to keep it as it is. I do understand that there is a welter of detail there, but the magazine has both a publishing and an editing history, and they really need to be told together, even in the lead. Is there specific information you think should be cut? Or does it just seem too long? Mike Christie (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who knows only the broad strokes of SF history, I felt slightly overwhelmed by the list of names, almost all of which were unfamiliar to me. However, if you think this is the best way to present the material, I certainly accept that. You are the expert here. :) Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you add identifying tags for as many people in the article as possible (e.g. Larry Shaw)? Again, this is just a courtesy to readers unfamiliar with this world of writers and publishers.
    I've done this for a few -- del Rey, Shaw, Knight, Pohl -- but in some cases, such as Ejler Jakobsson, I'm not sure what people were doing prior to the mention in the article. Jakobsson worked as an editor at Popular Publications during WWII, but I have no references that mention him from that time until UPD acquired the Galaxy Publication magazines in 1969. In some other cases I think the context is enough, or else the person's notability at the time is actually derived from the role described -- for Judy-Lynn Benjamin, for example, I believe the job she was hired for gave her her start in the field. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide a brief characterization of the stories you mention, especially the ones lacking wikilinks? Just a phrase or two indicating what the story is about? This will also help readers get an idea of what sorts of stories were published in the magazine.
    I've linked several, and added a description of the Blish per your comment below. I was also able to find a useful comment about the Niven story "The Coldest Place" in one of the refs. I'm a bit reluctant to do this generally as I would have to summarize the primary sources, and I'd rather find descriptions in the secondary sources; Ashley does do this but not for every story. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the desire to use secondary sources, but I think providing a phrase that describes the topic of the story would still be helpful, even if it has to be sourced to a primary source. It would really help readers understand what was being published. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've added a few; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better - thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind the long "Publication history" section, but the style on Wikipedia tends toward subdivided sections. Is there any way to add subsections to this section?
    Done; let me know if that works. I left the introductory paragraph above the subsections as it simply sets the scene. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The beginnings of science fiction as a separately marketed genre can be traced back to the 1920s, with the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback. - Would this more accurately be "American science fiction" or "English-language science fiction"?
    I don't think so, though I'm open to persuasion. It's certainly true that sf as a genre emerged in the US, and fairly quickly after that in the UK. However, the alternative formulations you give would imply that sf as a separately marketed genre in other languages can't be traced back to the American 1920s pulps, and I don't think that implication is correct. It was the emergence of sf as a genre in North America that led to the replication of that genre (as a marketing phenomenon) in other languages. I can't cite any scholarship on this, and in fact would be interested to know the ways in which genres differentiated in different ways in various languages, but I don't think it would be a controversial statement to sf historians. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something about it seems a little off to me - what about H. G. Wells or Jules Verne, for example? Perhaps more emphasis needs to be laid on genre in the statement, as these novelists are often granted pride of place in histories of SF? Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "as a separately marketed genre" was added in a previous FAC to address a similar concern. You're quite right that it's genre that's the issue here. The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia gives a possible narrow definition of genre sf which excludes anything published before 1926 (among other limitations). However, they also use the word "genre" in referring to Wells and his contemporaries, so the word "marketed" is also key -- prior to that time there was not a self-conscious genre than knew it was different, there were merely writers who wrote what would later be termed science fiction. I'm confident that the statement's correct, but it's evidently not clear enough. A parenthetical clause such as "(even though writers had been using science-fictional ideas for many decades before that time)" might help, but that's a long and clunky way to break up that sentence. The whole sentence is a preparatory remark to set context, and I don't want to make it longer. How about making it "Science fiction began to coalesce into a separately marketed genre in the 1920s, with the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback."? Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like "Although science fiction had been published before the 1920s, it did not begin to coalesce into a separately-marketed genre until the appearance of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback." - or something like that
    Done, using your version, which let me add the exact date quite neatly. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the second paragraph of "History", please specify which "New York's" are "New York City".
    I'm not sure what the best thing is to do here. Ashley doesn't say, but I am certain they both refer to the city, which is where the publishing offices would have been located. I can't change it with reference to a source, but I didn't think it was ambiguous. What do you think should be done? Mike Christie (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're sure Ashley meant NYC, I would make it NYC in the article. We want to be as clear as possible. Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done -- I think the second reference is enough; it immediately clarifies the first use. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Entries came in from writers who were later to become well-known, including Harlan Ellison and Roger Zelazny, but the first prize was won by Andrew J. Offutt. His story, "And Gone Tomorrow", - The "but" almost seems to imply that Offutt did not become well-known. I would reword it.
    Reworded. It was a bit repetitive as it stood; clarifying that has cleaned it up. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The success of the competition in stimulating interest in If may have been a factor in Quinn's decision to move to a monthly schedule with the March 1954 issue. - awkwardly worded
    Yes; fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1957, American News Company, by far the largest distributor, was liquidated. - The largest distributor of what? Science fiction magazines?
    They were a magazine distributor. I would link to an appropriate article, but I don't think there is one. They were a tremendous force in the 1950s market and before; they could kill a magazine they didn't like for some reason, and I've seen multiple references, only half-humorous, from sf writers, describing them as a Mafia. (Frederik Pohl's autobiography refers to the 1950s distributors as all having retired to Palermo.) If you published a magazine you had to get it to the news stands, and the distribution network was the middleman that did this. Distributors only show up in magazine history where they have an economic impact on the industry, as the liquidation of ANC did (itself quite an interesting story). I don't really want a digression long enough to explain all this, so I just added "magazine" to the description, hoping that that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a footnote explaining all of that? It's interesting and helpful! Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a short explanatory footnote in. I hesitated over characterizing the distributors, and finally decided I had no reason to -- it's not really relevant here. Mike Christie (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pohl paid lower rates for the stories he bought for If than for those destined for Galaxy - Do we know how much writers were paid for their stories?
    Pohl says it was a cent a word for If, and a cent and a half per word for Galaxy, when he took over. I put in the If rate, but not the Galaxy one; he subsequently went through some complicated manoeuvres with the publisher and soon raised the rates at Galaxy to three cents a word. Would it be useful to add that in? That's a big difference in rates, and of course writers prioritize where they send stories by the rate they'll get. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add in the difference, yes - it's huge! :) Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • and several of the stories Pohl published were directed at a younger audience, such as James Blish's Welcome to Mars. - What does "younger" mean in this context?
    What we would now call the YA, or "young adult" market. Blish's novel was about a teenage genius who built a spaceship in his backyard and is joined there by his girlfriend after she reads his blueprints. This is not serious sf intended to be thought-provoking, such as The Dispossessed or Childhood's End; it's entertainment. I've reworded it a little -- the clause order didn't seem right, so maybe that's clarified it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add the details you mentioned here - they will also liven up the article a bit. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we link to a wiki as a reliable source, particularly given this? (I see that it is used as a reference a few times.)
    Disclaimer: I'm an admin on that site, though it's a long time since I've been active over there. I think this one is OK: the Wiki itself doesn't contain any data except index links into the database. The database is not open entry -- it used to be but that was stopped a while ago, and now all data entry has to be approved by an administrator. So I don't think it's quite self-published. It also has a third-party verification feature -- data can be marked as verified by other editors. Another key point is convenience -- if I were not to link that, I could cite everything it gives by reference to the issues themselves. Readers, however, will find it very convenient to have access to the index if they want to look at the contents of the individual issues; not everyone has a complete run of If sitting on their shelves. Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the information is not necessarily verified by anyone with expertise in the field, right? It's only verified by other random people? I don't know if that is enough for a SPS. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's essentially correct, though the random people have to be approved by bureaucrats, of whom I am one. The RfA process is visible here, for example. I no longer promote editors over there; I am not involved enough. The people voting act as a filter to verify that the nominee is submitting accurate information; they have to have made quite a few accurate edits to the database before they are approved. I've removed the footnote to the Pohl summary biblio; it is duplicated in the Nicholls/Clute. The other footnote actually references all the individual issues as a source, and adds ISFDB as an index link. See below, on Phil Stephenson-Payne; where I suggest we ask a third party; would that be a good idea here too? Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a third opinion would be a good idea. These are tricky questions. You mentioned SandyGeorgia below - I agree that she would be a good person to ask. She concerns herself with this issue and knows the policies well. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per qp10qp's suggestion at WT:FAC I've changed the language in the ISFDB reference to make it clear it's for convenience only. If you still feel it should go, let me know and I'll cut it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good solution. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this one is OK too. Locus is the leading trade magazine of the sf field and is a highly-regarded source. The particular source used here is Contento, who is one of the top bibliographers in the field. His entry in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF says his books are "essential tools of reference". I believe these were published in hardcopy by Locus Press for many years; I never owned one, but the online bibliographies are a standard research tool. I must admit I don't know what the relationship is between Contento and Locus; he is listed on the masthead of a recent Locus with the title "Computer Projects". Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This bibliographic source also appears to be self-published - does it meet the criteria for a self-published source? Is there no better source to use?
    This one is trickier. It is definitely self-published. The only information I am using from it is the name of "Clifford Hong", the editor of the semiprozine version of If. The site is similar to Contento, and in fact some of Contento's material is hosted there, but the focus is different and the author, Phil Stephenson-Payne, hasn't accumulated quite the resume that Contento has. It is a widely-used reference website. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is that a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of. The only other possibility is a copy of the magazine itself, and I don't have one. If it were $10 I'd pick it up, but I don't want to pay $50 for it. If you don't feel this is acceptable, I can cut Hong's name from the article. I don't think it's controversial, given that the two (possibly non-RS) sources do agree with each other, but I'm OK with cutting it if you feel that's necessary. Another option would be to ask a third opinion -- perhaps Sandy, who has spent a lot of time thinking about reliable sources at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick note: I've just discovered that Phil Stephenson-Payne is now hosting the Contento anthology index! Does that change the reliability of either one? Mike Christie (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and I've actually just had to cite that for Pohl's 1964 anthology Best Science Fiction Stories from If, which is mentioned nowhere else. So this isn't a facetious question now. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't access that link for some reason. By the way, the rare books library at my university has almost all of the issues of If. If you want, I can probably pull up the specific issue for you. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Contento anthology mention Hong? (I don't think that just hosting a reliable database makes the rest of the site reliable. We want to know if the Hong information specifically can be verified in a reliable source.) Awadewit | talk 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Contento doesn't mention him, as far as I can tell. (I fixed that link by the way; it should work now.) Yes, if you could see if your library has that issue that would be great -- it's the only issue I don't have, unfortunately. Do you think you could cite your index? Or the issue itself? Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the specific issue number? Awadewit | talk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the September/November 1986 issue, per this link to an ISFDB page which I've just realized gives me the name "Clifford Hong". So if the ISFDB is OK, but Phil Stephenson-Payne is not, then I can use this link instead to get his name. If you need the volume and issue number, well, the prior one (December 1974) was volume 22 number 8, so this could be 22/9, or 23/1, or possibly 1/1. The title is "Worlds of If" according to the ISFDB record. Thanks for doing this. Mike Christie (talk)
    Ack! Sorry, I misread the catalogue entry - we only have up until 1961 (all of that vandal-fighting at Joseph Priestley distracted me). We'll have to find a different solution. Awadewit | talk 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found an entry in Contento that references Hong and have cited to that, so I think we're OK now. Thanks for the offer, anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done! This is a solid article. The fair use rationale appears convincing to me and the charts are a helpful addition to the article. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit | talk 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: this is the type of article I like to see featured: defunct and/or under-known topics that, thanks to a thorough and careful discussion, can “finally” get some exposure to a larger audience. The article is interesting, concise and well-organized. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Many years ago, I read the issues of this magazine cover-to-cover -- so I'm glad to see this considered as a FAC. More to the point, I do have a copy of de Camp's Science-Fiction Handbook (published 1953), which includes a comprehensive & reliable survey of the SF market & major authors up to the early 1950s, & which may contain some useful facts for this article. (If is mentioned in the book, along with many other now-forgotten periodicals.) (It's been a while since I read it.) Any interest? -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please! If there's anything you don't want to add directly, if you could add it to the talk page I could figure out how to integrate it. I went through quite a lot of reference works, and found a lot of mentions, but mostly they just commented on individual stories rather than on the character or popularity of the magazine itself, so any more info would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks great! I second the statement about Locus being a reliable source. It is one of the magazines you turn to for SF news, and should be considered reliable as a source. And Mike, I have Science Fiction of the 20th Century by Frank M. Robinson, which briefly discusses If if you want a bit of variety in your citations. I don't think there is anything new in it, but it is another source if you're wanting it. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; if you find anything interesting there, please let me know, on my talk page or the article talk page. Thanks; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls let me know when you're satisfied on Llywrch's and Ealdgyth's sources; it's nice to have the best possible oldid in articlehistory, "for posterity". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've integrated the material from Ealdgyth (with some help from Orangemike). Haven't seen anything from Llywrch yet; up to you if you want to wait a bit -- if you don't I'll just merge if/when the info shows up. Mike Christie (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

    Flea (musician)

    [edit]

    Flea is the bassist and founding member of Red Hot Chili Peppers. His musical career spans nearly twenty-five years and everything during that period has been meticulously compiled and added to this article. It was transformed from a shoddy, and quite frankly embarrassing, article to what I hope is Featured Article material. This is a collaboration between myself and Grim-Gym, who has no internet access at the moment. That has ultimately delayed this article from arriving here, but I decided to nominate regardless (I truly have no idea when he'll be active again, much to my displeasure). I'm hoping this article will join another collaboration between Grim-Gym and I, John Frusciante, as a Featured Article. Please do not hesitate to identify any flaws, inconsistencies or problems you can find; all comments, questions and concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. Check external links. NSR77 TC 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

    Holden

    [edit]
    previous FAC

    I am re-nominating this article as all previous concerns have been addressed. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done: I have re-uploaded the file Image:Holden logo history.png‎ without the duplicate logo. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite see the advantage of using <ref name=Robinson>Robinson (2006), p. 1</ref> over <ref>Robinson (2006), p. 1</ref>. What are the benefits of using this kind of formatting? OSX (talk • contributions) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Never mind I worked out what you were trying to say. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this mean that the man opened a new company, or that the company bought an existing company and folded it into J.A. Holden & Co? " J.A. Holden incorporated a new company in 1919, Holden's Motor Body Builders Ltd (HMBB) specialising in car bodies."
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Both Ford and General Motors provided studies to the Australian Government to produce "Australia's Own Car"." - this makes it sound like the studies would produce Australia's Own Car. And what did they mean by Australia's own car?
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume that GM was chosen by the government, but that might need to be explicitly stated, or, at least, the transition between the two paragaphs in the 1940s section should be improved
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sentence sounds like a promotional ad, and should be sourced directlyt "During the 1950s, Holden dominated the Australian market by offering buyers a combination of style, comfort, performance, economy, and value that no competitor could match"
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first paragraph of the 1950s section has some flow issues. It talks about being good at dealing with rural areas, then drifts off into production capacity, then goes back to rural areas
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Chairman and managing director Mark Reuss currently heads" - add an as of please, since we don't know when this sentence was written we don't know what "currently" means/meant
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of the sources have publishers listed
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    53-55 were written by John Mellor, but I assume he isn't the publisher. Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the publisher is John Mellor Pty Ltd, but it has just been shortened to John Mellor. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The source was not publisher by a magazine, but it is giving credit to scanned images not included in the online version. The correct publisher has now been included. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles that come from The Age need to have that listed instead of/in addition to Fairfax Media
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspaper names in citations should be italicized. I know it's picky, but that's the standard. Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This website is not a mirror. The motoring section in the Daily Telegraph is called "CarsGuide", and the online versions are published on the CarsGuide website and not the Daily Telegraph site. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I would also have to disagree with you on this one. I had doubts over http://www.globalautoindex.com/ and have replaced this source, but all the others are reliable sources. We're not exactly quoting controversial information here, just the history of an Australian automaker. Any even remotely controversial facts use top-quality sources. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the biggest question here is who puts the information in there. Can anyone enter the information? Are there editors that verify, etc? If not, then these are considered self-published sources, which are generally frowned upon. Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are not self-published. The information published on the AutoWeb, WebWombat, Carsales, GoAuto and Next Car sites is written by journalists. If you read on, you will see that many of the other article published on those sites have authors, but some of the older sources tend to lack authors. The only one I am not sure about is http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The phrase "Production continued with minor changes until 1953, when the Ute was replaced by the facelifted FJ model" is a bit confusing. It seems to suggest only the ute was facelifted and not the sedan, which doesn't fit well with the rest of the paragraph. In the 1980s section: "infeasible to convert the six-cylinder engine to run on unleaded fuel, the Nissan engine was chosen" should probably read "existing six-cylinder engine." A few concerns over criterion 1a in some parts of the article; e.g: "Holden introduced xx model" is repeated quite a few times in the 1960s section. VectorD (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no other key people for the infobox?
    Not really, no. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the image in the Exports section be moved to the other side; I don't particularly like the way the font is forced to the centre of the screen
    It could yes, but when I tried it the image doesn't line up with the table on the right so it looks really messy. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the "2006 sales and production" table be updated for 2007?
    The 2006 data is the most recent data released by Holden. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the See also section necessary? Surely you can link to List of Holden vehicles somewhere in the infobox, plus navbox etc...?
    Removed, and now included in the Template:Holden timeline. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support : I agree with your call on Commodore model designations but I note that every mainstream Holden from 48-215 to HZ now gets a mention on the Holden page except for the FC. That seems a bit odd. Cheers GTHO (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose : As much as I would like to give my support after all that hard work, there are a number of issues that I’m not comfortable with.
      • 1940s
      • “…….while GM's was a three-page list of the members of parliament and what each member would receive in "financial aid"’’. This sounds like straight out bribery. I think it may need a little extra explanation.
      • “The 48-215, also unofficially called the FX, was launched in 1948” I feel that it should be pointed out that the 48/215 was marketed simply as the “Holden” and was the first car from the company to use the name.
      • No mention of ongoing Chevrolet, Pontiac, Vauxhall production.
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1950s
      • Reference to the introduction of the Panel Van has been omitted
      • “Production continued with minor changes until 1953, when the Ute was replaced by the facelifted FJ model. The FJ was the first major change to the Holden.........” This is confusing as it could be assumed from this wording that the FJ was only a Utility
      • “……the FE, was launched in 1956, and offered as both a station wagon and a sedan”. No mention of the ongoing Coupe Utility and Panel Van body styles
      • The FC intro has been omitted
    Done, however, I have not added information regarding the facelifted FC model. Your right, we "cannot cover the introduction of every facelift of every model" and the Australian-made cars count too. This kind of information is better suited to a History of Holden models article. The Holden article should summarise the model history, making mention of only major updates like the VT, VY and VE models etc. Does the VX Commodore's new taillight lenses and revised headlight design really warrant a mention? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1960s
      • The EJ intro has been omitted and thus no mention made of the first Premier
      • “…….and the first two-door Holden, the Monaro” Ignoring utes and vans, the HB Torana was the first two door Holden. The Monaro was of course the first two door Holden coupe.
      • The HA Viva intro (1964) should be mentioned before the HK intro (1968)
      • No mention of the end of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Vauxhall production
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1970s
      • The LC Torana reference implies that it was available only as a six cylinder model
      • “The series included a new prestige brand, Statesman,” I think this needs more explanation given that it was the first "Holden" not marketed in Australia as a "Holden"
      • No mention of HJ, HX & HZ upgrades
    Done, however, I don't believe the HJ, HX and HZ updates are notable enough to warrant their inclusion. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1980s
      • The caption on the VN Calais photo implies that it is a photo of a “VN Commodore”
      • No mention of the WB series intro
      • No specific mention is made of loss of market leadership. Pretty big news I would have thought.
      • No indication of how serious GMH’s 1980s financial problems really were. I seem to remember terms like “closure” and “bailout” being used. Also very big news.
      • No mention of the end of Statesman, Ute and Panel Van production
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 12:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1990s
      • “Holden re-introduced its defunct Statesman brand in 1990, this time under the Holden marque, as the Statesman and Caprice respectively” Holden revived the Statesman name, but not the “brand”. Also the grammar is a little shaky as “respectively” implies two changes, ie x & y became Statesman and Caprice respectively.
      • “Another returning variant was the Commodore utility” This implies that there had been a Commodore Utility in the past and that the new release (the VG Holden Utility) was marketed as a Commodore Utility. Of course neither are correct.
      • The Vectra’s local production demise is recorded, but not its commencement
      • The VP, VR & VS Commodores upgrades have been omitted
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 00:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2000s
      • “Holden had already established close research and design links with Daewoo, with whom it exported the large Statesman model”. Daewoo didn't “export” Statesmans.
      • The VX Commodore has been omitted.
      • The intro of the VY seems to be out of place, i.e. it is included after various mid 2000s developments.
      • “By 2006, Holden had replaced the Commodore with a new all-Australian VE model”. This implies that the Commodore is no longer with us.
    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 00:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate that this article cannot cover the introduction of every facelift of every model but I feel that at least the mainstream model changes should be covered here (eg EK to EJ). Cheers, GTHO (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done OSX (talk • contributions) 06:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

    Paleolithic-style diet

    [edit]

    Self-nominator Phenylalanine (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you propose the content in lists be reorganized? In my eyes, this information cannot really be presented in another clear manner, as the alternative seems to be long, ungainly sentences. Kakofonous (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support author has addressed all of my concerns Rankun (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A table could help. Cheers. Trance addict 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added tables. I hope it's ok. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm removing the tables. They take way too much place and they just don't look good (see [57]). --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I shortened the bullet lists a bit. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose Although the article is well-balanced the Lead is not, with just a couple of sentences at the end giving a contrary view; the tone of this section comes across as prescriptive and advocatory. This may have arisen because the Lead is too long, or is it missing some qualifiers such as controversial, thought by some to be and so forth. I see no problems with the body of the article; it is well written and cited and most importantly, IMHO, it is interesting. I'll watch this space and revise my opinion accordingly should future edits address my concerns.--GrahamColmTalk 11:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the lead paragraphs as per your suggestions. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The Lead is much better and now reflects a well-balanced, informative and neutral article. --GrahamColmTalk 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (PS. you were right about the tables, they didn't add anything). Best wishes. Graham.[reply]
    • (Belated) Support. As the person that passed this article as a GA (see talk page) a little while ago, and having seen it get even better since I passed it, I definitely think this article is of FA quality. Kakofonous (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comments, a good start and well-written, but some issues need to be addressed:
      • When I finished the lead, I felt the question of "who" was not covered. Who invented and/or popularized this diet? Worth mentioning in the lead.
      • I've now made it through Theory and History, and still no "who" except the opinions of some professors. Am I to presume those are the inventors? The History section has passive voice sentences that obscure the subject when the subject is definitely of interest. "One of the first suggestions ... was made in a book published in 1975." Made by whom? "In 1985, a key paper on Paleolithic nutrition was published..." Written by whom? "This was followed by a book..." See where this is going? Yes the reader can follow the footnotes... but they don't unless they are verifying something. Even then, they don't know if the source cited is primary or secondary.
      • The organization of the "Medical research" heading seems a bit odd to me. In that heading, I was also looking for the research that refutes the diet. I know there is plenty of it later on, but surely some of it is medical research? Consider grouping "for and against" items together.
        • I rearranged the sections to make it clear that the "medical research" section discuses the research in the context of the theory, i.e. from the point of view of the proponents of the diet, how the research is believed to support the theory. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed the section heading to "Interpretation of medical research" and edited the text accordingly. --Phenylalanine (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reasons why I think the medical research section should be separate from the criticism are the following:
        • "The appropriate way to structure criticism may depend on the style of the article. In articles on people, places, things, etc., it can be very useful to integrate criticism into the article. In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with criticism of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook." Wikipedia:Criticism
        • "Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created." Wikipedia:Criticism --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As with other modern dietary trends like Atkins, etc, I would expect a heading on how this diet is being propagated in popular culture. Are people writing books named, Lose 50 Pounds Fast with Paleolithic Diet!!! and such? Infomercials? I'm not impugning the diet or comparing it to Atkins, but there have got to be people out there trying to make a buck on this.
        • It appears that there are a number of diet books with a similar "evolutionary" theme (see [58] and [59]), but most are not strictly "paleo" (based on amazon reviews). The authors mentioned in the article are the ones that seem to be the most notable advocates of "Paleolithic diets" based on the press coverage of the diet (ses "further reading" section). I haven't read the other diet books and I hesitate to mention them without some media coverage. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I moved the links from the "see also" section to the "History" section, as they deal with the history of the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lists of foods, you don't put commas at the end of list items. Ditto for the periods on the last items.
      • There are hyphens throughout the article where there should be en dashes, and at least one en dash that should be an em dash. Check WP:DASH.
        • I looked through and corrected the en -> em dash problem, but could not find hyphen problems. All of the hyphen-uses (ahem) I could find were used to combine words. The common hyphen problem (namely using hyphens for page ranges) didn't seem to be present. Could you elaborate on what you found? Kakofonous (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to say it, but you have a dish pictured at the top of the article that typically uses bread or bread crumbs in its sauce, which I think is contrary to the diet you are writing about.
      • The food pyramid diagram is not very usable. As it appears in the article, the captions are illegible. Even at full size, it is hard to read. I think readers should not have to click the image to read the captions - they should be clear in the article.
      • I'm just not sure about the images of the cookfire and the hunter-gatherer guy. They seem gratuitous. --Laser brain (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MoS notes, resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I got the request to take a look at this article and Sandy also asked me to verify the things she'd found. I'll try to get to this tonight or first thing in the morning - it sounds like an interesting subject. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose for now. I think the article has issues that need to be addressed, but I don't think it is awful. I haven't finished reading it yet (and won't be able to until tomorrow), but here is the first half of my comments.
      • The first sentence in the lead is incredibly long. I would split this into two sentences.
      • Watch for redundancies in the prose. For example, "In support of Paleolithic-style diets, advocates argue " -> critics would not be arguring in support of the diets, so you could simplify to "Advocates argue"; second example: "On the other hand, critics of this " -> Critics are naturally at the opposite end of advocates, so you don't need to specify further.
      • All of the images are right-aligned. This should be varied a bit so that it draws the eye in more.
      • I think the history section should not start with passive voice. This is the main focus of the article and should use more active voice to be more compelling...."Gastroenterologist Walter L. Voegtlin was one of the first to suggest...."
      • The history section has three very short paragraphs. I would suggest these be combined into one.
      • "In recent years"...as we don't know when the sentence was written, it's unclear when "recent" was.
      • It is jarring to the eye to see sections that contain only a list. I'm not sure what the best way would be to redesign the Permitted and Restricted foods sections, but this just appears off, especially since the list entries can be long.
      • Was it known whether the Paleolithic people cooked their food? I think it would be worth noting whether the diet is actually following Paleolithic practice there or not.
      • Are there any statistics on how many people follow this type of diet? Is it primarily a US fad, or is it popular in other parts of the world?
        • I can't say for sure, but I don't think there are any statistics. My best guess is that it's most popular in the US, then in Europe. If I find any hard evidence, I'll certainly indicate it in the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "are believed to have fundamentally altered several key nutritional characteristics of Paleolithic diets" - I question this wording. The new foods did not change the characteristics of Paleolithic diets (we weren't in Paleolithic time anymore, right?0, but the diet of people changed.
      • The external links section needs to be trimmed. I'd keep the list of full-text articles and lose the rest.
      • The See Also section needs to be trimmed as well. If the researchers have published important enough research, they should either be named in the article or as one of the sources in the references section. (Melvin Konner's article doesn't even mention the diet.). I also think that Evolutionary psychology does not need to be linked here

    Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for Sandy's concerns, the lead capitalization looks fine to me, and the italics issue appears to be resolved. I agree that the "(white bread)" part of the caption needs to be removed; it doesn't add anything to the caption. Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed a few places where quotations were not immediately followed by a citation. Although I assume they were covered by the next citation, there should always be one immediately after the quote too. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 00:37, 4 March 2008.

    Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

    [edit]

    This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed multiple times by myself, Awadewit, Scartol, Finetooth, Casliber, Galena11, Cuchulainn, and so on and so on. The consensus is that it is more than ready. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself.

    Nominator Wrad (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I have been following this page for a few months now. It is a well-researched and well-written article on a major work of literature. In my opinion, it meets and exceeds the FA criteria. Excellent work by the editors! Awadewit | talk 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: fantastic article about one of my favorite works. Well written, exhaustively worked upon, wonderfully referenced, etc, etc. I see no issues and I had a long read through during lunch. Great job. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Read this over, FA is beyond question the status it merits. A bit more literary criticism than history for my liking, but that's not relevant to the article's quality. Very well done! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite yet.
      • The explanation of the Cottonian Library is sketchy; if we're going to mention Cotton's shelf numbers, we should explain them: tenth manuscript of the highest shelf under the bust of Nero, IIRC.) A little sorting would produce a paragraph, in chronological order, about the history of the MS, including the date of writing.
      • The poem quite specifically describes the pentacle as a Christian symbol, not just a Solomonic one; since this is counterintuitive, it ought to be mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond. I haven't read any scholarly article making the point that the two are counterintuitive. Jewish and Christian symbols are intermixed pretty frequently, especially in Arthurian legends such as the Holy Grail. I just hesitate to add a statement saying it is counterintuitive without a source. The reference to it as a Christian symbol lies in the poet's description of the five fives of Gawain, which are discussed in the "Numbers" section already, so both interpretations are mentioned in the article. Scholars seem to connect the five fives more with number symbolism than with the Pentangle itself, and we had to make a choice where to put that information, so we sided with the scholarship. I hope this helps. Wrad (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Looks fine. I fixed a few more dashes. Should be good now. Wrad (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:37, 4 March 2008.

    Reactive attachment disorder

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has achieved GA status and subsequently undergone peer review. As far as I can ascertain, FAC criteria have been met. It is a somewhat obscure and under-researched area but I believe the article fairly represents the current state of knowledge. Fainites barley 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am not a clinical psychologist, and this is not my area of expertise. I find this article to be a commendable effort to bring order out of the chaos that surrounds attachment theory and diagnosis. In order to be successful in this, the article absolutely must make a series of careful distinctions (enumerated below). I think the authors did succeed quite well in this critical task, though it resulted in more length and detail than one would ideally see in such an article. To be specific, the article needs to distinguish:
    1. attachment disorder from insecure attachment styles,
    2. inhibited from disinhibited attachment disorder,
    3. problematic child behavior from an actual psychological disorder,
    4. so-called "attachment therapy" from mainstream therapies for RAD,
    5. the ICD-10 from the DSM-IV-TR definitions, and
    6. all the various elements that go into the differential diagnosis.
    As it stands now, I think the article did well on all counts. Furthermore, I think it is essential that Wikipedia provide this high level of clarity to an area that is sadly notable for its lack of clarity. If any of these essential distinctions are removed or softened, then the article will fall short of what Wikipedia must provide. In short, I support the article for Featured Article status. —Aetheling (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    If it helps, this is the license from the image page "According to the legal licence of the source site the use of the image is permitted presuming credit is given to SXC". Fainites barley 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did see that, however they go on to contradict that statement. Since it isn't a crucial image (it looks like it got deleted anyway) I would recommend pursuing a free image if you must have an image. That is really a separate point, though - does this article need a decorative image? --Laser brain (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird isn't it? Anyway - I've put in a different one from Wik.Commons. If people think its better off with no image I'm easy on the subject. the previous one was much better though. Fainites barley 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: I've have been reading it and it looks good. I'm a complete non-expert in psychology (this is psychology, right?) so this is all new to me and I may be slow.
      • In the lead, CAM should be spelled out. Perhaps bring the term forward, so the paragraph is not oriented at mainstream criticisms of CAM but focused on defining the non-conventional approaches to RAD.
      • "or the sequelae of maltreatment.[29]" - sequelae is beyond the layperson. [60]
      • "Their Practice Parameter states that the assessment of RAD requires evidence directly obtained from serial observations of the child interacting with his or her primary caregivers and history (as available) of the child’s patterns of attachment behavior with these caregivers, plus observations of the child’s behavior with unfamiliar adults and a comprehensive history of the child’s early caregiving environment including, for example, pediatricians, teachers, or caseworkers.[3]" - is a really long sentence. Can it be broken up?
      • POV concern: I'm concerned about the approach to Attachment therapy. It is obvious that the writers of this article don't like it. The tone/language used in "Treatment" is dismissive of the therapy, and sometimes extreme. For example,
        • "All mainstream prevention programs...are based on attachment theory" - "All"? why is the word "all" necessary?
        • "There is considerable criticism of the use of attachment therapy, a form of treatment (and accompanying diagnosis) for supposed attachment disorders including RAD, that is largely unvalidated and has developed outside the scientific mainstream.[91]" - the provided abstract of the source uses much more neutral tone: "therapy is a young and diverse field, and the benefits and risks of many treatments remain scientifically undetermined. Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists."
          • Originally it said 'considerable controversy' but that was objected to. I'd be happy with controversy. The mainstream in this area is almost entirely critical of attachment therapy - meaning the non-mainstream form of therapy, its theoretical base, methods of diagnosis and methods of treatment. The Taskforce report is about that 'subset' of attachment therapy which is commonly known as 'attachment therapy' as opposed to it being a descriptive term. Naming is difficult because the names of these therapies change quite quickly. The phrase 'attachment-based therapy' started to be used by some more mainstream theorists in an attempt to distinguish themselves. I could send you the entire Taskforce report if you like. Here's a chunk from which that line in the abstract is taken:
            • "Controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects. Although focused primarily on specific attachment therapy techniques, the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these techniques, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents. The controversy deepened after the death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker during a therapy session in 2000 (Crowder & Lowe, 2000), and a number of child deaths occurring at the hands of parents who claim that they acted on attachment therapists’ instructions (Warner, 2003). Criminal charges have been brought against some attachment therapists and against parents who claimed to be using what is known as attachment parenting. State legislative actions banning particular treatment techniques have been proposed and passed (Gardner, 2003; Janofsky, 2001). Professional organizations have published warnings (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2003). Despite these actions, and others, some of these concerning practices have remained entrenched within networks of attachment therapists and foster or adoptive parents who advocate their use." Fainites barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for the explanation. I can appreciate the troubles this must pose. How about this for wording: Outside the mainstream programs exists attachment therapy, a subset of techniques used for diagnosis or treatment of what are thought to be general attachment disorders, including RAD. They focus on regression and catharsis, accompanied by parenting methods which emphasize obedience and parental control.[92] It is aimed at adopted or fostered children with a view to creating attachment in these children to their new caregivers. The techniques can vary from non-coercive therapeutic work to more extreme forms of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques, of which the best known are holding therapy, rebirthing, rage-reduction and the Evergreen model. Developed outside the scientific mainstream,[91] attachment therapies have little or no evidence base and are largely unvalidated. Critics maintain that these therapies... - it just rearranges some of the points so it first defines what we are referring to by saying "attachment therapy", then presents the criticisms. --maclean 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Critics maintain that these therapies are not within the attachment paradigm, are potentially abusive,[93]..." - "potentially abusive" in what way? leaving it undefined like this is careless.
          • Its sourced. It comes after the sentence which reads "extreme forms of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques". Does it need more detail than this? There are some dead children plus there have been various other abuse cases involving attachment therapy and AT parenting techniques. The classic form of attachment therapy is "holding therapy" which is frequently physically coercive and confrontational. I could put in more detail but I would have thought mention of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques was enough.Fainites barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would like more detail. As someone with little/no knowledge of the field, this term sticks out like a sore thumb. From reading the article, the disorder doesn't seem very dangerous. How can the therapy be abusive? It is a very broad term. I would like to see a fact laid down (like a child died during therapy as a result of x technique, or a more common 'abuse') to back up the claim, not just a footnote. --maclean 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tell you what - why don't you read Attachment therapy and Candace Newmaker and then say what more detail or explanation this article may need on AT from the point of view of a reader who may never have heard of it. RAD itself is pretty severe. The problem with AT is that ATers define alot of things as RAD which aren't RAD. Their therapy can involve enforced holding or lying on a child which can include enforced eye contact, knuckling and tickling the ribs, pressing a fist into the abdomen to release 'visceral rage', licking the face, making the child kick their legs to the point of exhaustion - all while being shouted at and required to express feelings the child may not have but is told they have. One of the deaths came from a child being wrapped in a blanket whilst therapists leant and pushed against her to simulate rebirth. She died of asphyxiation whilst they shouted 'quitter, quitter' at her, she having already vomited and repeatedly pleaded for air. Another death involved laying on a 4 year old and pressing the fist into the abdomen. I'm not suggesting these therapists mean any harm. There is a coherent if flawed theoretical base to what they do - its just not a theoretical base thats accepted or recognised by the mainstream. Try these video clips. [61], [62]Fainites barley 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, thank you for the info. It was informative. I can see there is a lot behind this. Since this is a point that invites elaboration, I would be satisfied with a wikilink to Attachment therapy#Notable cases like "can be [[Attachment therapy#Notable|potentially abusive]]", if that is alright. --maclean 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "potentially abusive" is a) sourced and shouldn't have other material added to it, and b) refers to alot more than just the cases that lead to a childs death. So what I've done is linked "form of treatment" to the section on the AT page that describes treatment characteristics of AT. Fainites barley 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, with the introduction, where the therapy is denounced before it is defined. --maclean 07:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments:
      • In the lead, you suggest RAD refers to "disorders" (plural) but you go on to refer to RAD as "it" which is rather confusing. Is RAD a set of disorders or one disorder?
      • Jargon alert: Inhibited. Lay readers may not understand if this is a clinical term with a special meaning or if a dictionary meaning is implied.
      • "The criteria for a diagnosis of a reactive attachment disorder are very different to..." Different from.
      • "This led to efforts from the late-1990s onwards..." Don't begin sentences this way - readers don't necessary know what "this" is referring to.
      • "All mainstream treatment and prevention programs which target RAD..." Use that instead of which.
      • "Caregiver responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment, which in turn lead to internal working models which will guide the individual's feelings..." Ditto.
      • I'm not crazy about saying "See ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR criteria below" unless it's right below. This statement sent me on a scrolling mission and I was never sure I got where I was directed. Diagnostic criteria? It might be better to say, "See the Diagnostic criteria heading for more information."
      • Strange Situation procedure: It is first mentioned in History but not wikilinked and with a lower-case "p". When you mention it later in Assessment, it is linked and with an upper-case "P". Link the first mention, and make the name consistent.
      • The last paragraph in the History section is unsourced. At the very least, you need to source your statement that people disagree about the meaning of "attachment disorder".
      • You begin the Assessment tools heading with: "There is as yet no universally accepted diagnostic protocol for attachment disorder..." I believe this is the first time you have referred to the subject as "attachment disorder" and not RAD, and after you said the definition of "attachment disorder" is disputed. I recommend sticking to calling the subject RAD unless you have multiple sources that the terms are interchangeable since it is disputed.
      • In general, do not provide acronyms for terms you don't use again. An example is "Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA)" You don't use "PAA" later in the text, so there is no need to call it out. Just use the full name. There are several instances of this.
    I'm through Diagnosis but will have to pick it up again later :) --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done - except for a ref on confusion with attachment styles. I hope to find one - as this confusion is very common within attachment therapy and elsewhere. Fainites barley 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments There are direct quotations that are uncited (I marked these with {{citequote}}), a distinct lack of stating the obvious for the uninitiated reader and not enough disambiguation, for example on both: what the heck is the DSM and ICD? Psychology technical jargon needs to be explained better. There were also some MOS issues that I've tried to deal with myself. VanTucky 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the DSM and ICD thing, this is something that stopped me, too. I considered suggesting several solutions, but considered having them spelled out and wikilinked in the first paragragh of the intro to be the best strategy. Other solutions can include spelling them out is strategic locations, or wikilinking the abbrevations, or using adjectives like 'manual' or 'medical manual'. What do you think of these? --maclean 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean there's no article on the DSM? That's absurdity defined, considering how widely it's used in multiple fields (not just psych). I would say create a stub for it, or use the full name (not the acronym) and put medical manual after it. VanTucky 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders plus ICD (not spelled out in title). Plus many redirects from abreviation, eg. DSM-IV. I added the category for thse diagnostic systems to the article page. Mattisse 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the links, Mattisse. I pointed out that it's a book for VanTucky, because the quote is already attributed inline to the DSM, so another citation isn't needed :-) Also, WP:MOSQUOTE explains that blockquotes are reserved for long quotes, so I believe the text was correct before VanTucky's MOS changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet more comments
      • For the bulleted lists in the Diagnostic criteria heading, check WP:MOS for proper punctuation.
      • "Under ICD it is stated..." Can you just say, "ICD states..."?
      • Likewise, you say "Under DCM..." Is that common terminology for talking about these sources?
      • "The former of these is somewhat controversial, being a commission rather than omission and because abuse of itself does not lead to attachment disorder." Use first rather than former.
      • Through the Diagnostic criteria heading, you have said several times that abuse/neglect does not necessarily cause RAD but that it is usually the culprit. What are other causes? You suggest that some other factors might cause it but I have not absorbed this from reading.
        • The causes are presumed as stated - but the same behaviour doesn't always, or even usually, result in RAD. Tricky. Fainites barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under diagnostic criteria it says "persistent disregard of the child's basic emotional or physical needs or repeated changes in primary caregiver that prevents the formation of a discriminatory or selective attachment that is presumed to account for the disorder. " It only doesn't necessarily cause it because a carer can behave in this way without producing RAD in a child. Fainites barley 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the Differential diagnosis heading, you don't mention it until the end and it is not linked or defined. I would mention it at the beginning as well so the read doesn't have to get to the end to discover why the heading is so-named.
      • "Common features of these lists such as lying, lack of remorse or conscience and cruelty..." Reword.. it sounds like you are saying the lists themselves exhibit these traits.
      • Okay, what I'm getting from the Alternative diagnosis heading is that "attachment therapists" are using these wacky checklists and misdiagnosing children with RAD. However, some questions emerge from this assumption that are not answered. Foremost, who is an attachment therapist? Is this a form of psychology or something more akin to a social worker? Do all attachment therapists use these checklists? Do some use the correct criteria and therefore make correct diagnoses? Also, who are the critics you mention twice?
        • Attachment therapists call themselves attachment therapists - or they did until there was a major Taskforce Report in 2006 slating the whole thing. Zeanah called it a cottage industry. It started in the 60's/70's based on Zaslow of autism fame who used physical coercion and enforced eye contact to break through autists "defences". This was taken up for problematical adopted or fostered children in a form of therapy, usually 'holding therapy'. It has had a sort of life of its own outside the mainstream. There are some psychologists but most are not. Some are those LCSW's who do mental health. They make more use of DSM criteria now, but many still continue to use the checklists. I could give you links to loads on the web if you like. Have a read of Attachment therapy. The critics are just about everybody mainstream who researches in this area. The main ones are cited here. I believe where I have said 'critics' the criticism is cited to either the Taskforce, o'Connor et al. Prior and Glaser or Zeanah etc. Should I name them aswell as cite them? Fainites barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there no other alternative methods of diagnosing RAD?
      • In the Developments heading: "This is parallel to RAD in its inhibited and disinhibited forms..." Again, beginning a sentence this way is vague. What is "this"? Please check the whole article for more.
      • "Disrupted attachment is not covered under other approaches to disordered attachment..." I'm unclear what this means. Do you mean the way they are diagnosed or explained?
      • What is an "identified attachment figure"?
      • You mention "Zeanah" here but who is it? In your notes, you variously cite Zeanah CH, Zeanah CZ, and Zeanah C. Are those all the same person?
      • The last sentence of the Developments heading lost me. Frightened expression? If you are citing a study or experiment, more background is needed.
      • "RAD has never been reported in the absence of serious environmental adversity yet outcomes for children raised in the same environment vary widely." Okay, now we find out that no one has ever been diagnosed with RAD who didn't experience environmental adversity. So then, what is the basis for saying earlier "Under ICD it is stated in relation to the inhibited form that the syndrome probably occurs as a direct result of severe parental neglect, abuse, or serious mishandling." Does that mean that researchers still aren't sure what causes it even though every case has had certain environmental factors?
        • This is what ICD-10 says. DSM on the other hand requires a history of pathogenic care. Its not a fully researched area and there are likely to be changes in the next round of ICD/DSM. Unforunately, at the moment, what we've got is what we've got. Fainites barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The difference between the institutionalized children and the control group improved in the follow-up study three years later, although they continued to show significantly higher levels of indiscriminate friendliness." Meaning is unclear here. The difference improved? Does that mean it was greater or less? Also, instead of they, repeat the group you are referring to.
      • "A 2002 study of children in residential nurseries in Bucharest, using the disturbances of attachment interview..." Earlier, the DAI is capitalized and we are given an acronym. Reuse here. Suggest rewording - it sounds like the children were using the interview, which isn't strictly what you intended, I'm sure.
      • Another mention of DAI in reference to the US studies. Use our acronym.
      • I have noticed mixed use of verb tense in referring to studies or research. Here, you say "The first, in 2004, reports..." and then you say the second study "attempted". If I recall, other references to research use the past tense. I'm not sure which is correct but you should be consistent.
      • In reference to the second US study, you say that a number of the children didn't fulfill the criteria because they had a preferred caregiver. Is that a criterion of RAD, or of the study?
      • "It has been suggested by some within the field of attachment therapy that RAD may be quite prevalent because severe child maltreatment, which is known to increase risk for RAD, is prevalent..." It is? What is their basis for saying that severe child maltreatment is prevalent?
        • Hmmm. This from the Taskforce again on attachment therapy. Its what they say is said. Then they say they don't agree with it. Again - estimates of high prevalence among adopted/fostered/maltreated children are common on attachment therapists websites - and indeed on Wiki when they controlled all these articles. I don't really think it would be appropriate to link to AT websites though so I've taken it from the Taskforce as a secondary source. Fainites barley 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There are few data..." Awkward phrase. Can you say there are few studies instead? There is little research? Or is that not the same meaning?
      • "Assessing the child's safety is an essential first step which determines..." Use that instead of which.
      • "In 2005 the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry laid down guidelines (devised by N.W.Boris and C.H.Zeanah)..." Ah, our friend Z. again. Spacing in names.
      • General comment about the Treatment heading: You mention alternative diagnostic methods, but are there alternative treatment methods as well? Are the people using those unorthodox checklists also using unorthodox treatment methods?
      • Under the Course heading.. what's a "longitudinal" study?
      • For the See also heading, don't list things that are already linked in the article (like DAD).
    Overall, this is a very good article. I know nothing about psychology and I finished this article feeling like I could have an intelligent conversation about RAD. There is a touch of jargon but it's probably appropriate for a general encyclopedia reader. I've tried to point out when it isn't. I'm not far from supporting, but I think you need to fix the items I've mentioned. --Laser brain (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. Mostly done - except as indicated above. Will have a go at the rest. Am looking forward to the intelligent conversation. Fainites barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - I'm noting this as I think the minefield of layout and proportion of what material needs to be in the article has been (much to my pleasant surprise) negotiated successfully. Full kudos for doing so. There is a nice well-defined section on Attachment theory which highlights well its odd relationship to the conceptual groundwork of RAD. I am too bleary eyed for prose issues outlined above but agree the notes seem to be valid and will remove the conditional bit when issues raised by Vantucky, Sandy and Laser Brain are stricken. But anyway, the *&%^$*$ hard bit is over. I am glad that I was wrong in presuming this one couldn't be laid out as such. Congrats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - my comments are in three parts above, but most of them have been addressed. A few minor issues remain but not enough to withhold support. I'm sure Fainites will address them shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still have a few nitpicks, mainly concerning prose and a relative lack of context in some sections.
      • Under "Assessment tools": "There is as yet no universally accepted diagnostic protocol for reactive attachment disorder, although the practice parameters for the new classification system proposed would provide the framework for such a protocol." Which new system? Is this the "broader continuum" described in the second paragraph of "Development"? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I've put the second bit in "Developments" along with the description of the proposed new classifications where I think it will be much happier. Fainites barley 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately you can't officially get the full text for free and although lots of texts describe it the only citation is to say you can get it on the jaacap website so I've put that in. I do have access to a copy on the web but I don't think its meant to be free content. No - it is free from jaacap. I've put it in.Fainites barley 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a problem with the book titles (specifically Bowlby, but others should be checked) in the References. I was surprised that books contained an & in the title, so I checked them out on the ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage, as well as Amazon, and I'm finding different titles depending on where I check. At minimum, none of them should contain an ampersand. Please review all the book titles and use the correct, formal title, no ampersand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. All done. I've put the original Bowlby publications in. The titles change slightly in later editions. The trouble is - its unlikely most people (or libraries) will have the originals which are now nearly 30 years old so the page numbers refer to the recent 1997 paperback reprint. Is that OK if it just says (1997 edition) or do I have to put in the full 1997 btitle, ISBN, publisher etc? (Have checked the other books too). Fainites barley 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the data that you put should agree with the page numbers you've provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Fainites barley 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:48, 3 March 2008.

    Oliver Typewriter Company

    [edit]

    Nominator Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nom restarted, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong oppose, 1c, reliable sources and recuse; I'll pass this nomination to Raul654 (talk · contribs). Discussion:

    There is a precedent of passing a FAC with blogs and self-published sources at Search Engine Optimization. In that case (some of the discussion was off-FAC), it was determined that the blogs and self-published sources did represent the most reliable sources available in that industry/field from the most recognized experts in the field. In other situations (for example, some past MoS discussions), Raul has said that anything that can be fixed should be fixed. In this case, the failure to use sources that meet our WP:V requirements can be fixed. The self-published, personal webpage sources that are used list sources that meet WP:RS, and those sources could be checked and used. We don't need to use non-reliable sources when better sources, that meet WP:V, are available.

    Even after several of the non-reliable sources I pointed out earlier were removed, almost one-third one-quarter of the sourced statements in this article are still cited to personal, self-published or commercial sources: (typewritermuseum.org, homepage.mac.com, geocities.com, and a commercial site). The reasoning given for accepting some of the self-published personal pages was that they list their sources. We shouldn't take their word for it that these sources are accurately represented; if they list their sources, we can use those original, reliable sources.

    A note to reassure elcobbola: Raul has disagreed with me many times in the past, and I have no problem if he overrides my oppose.[63] He's the FA director. According to some of his talk page posts, he has been very busy lately, so there may be some delay before he can get to this. Please be patient, as he may be busy. And so you won't feel that I'm singling out this article, in the past I've always lodged a strong oppose when I had sourcing concerns; I'm just not comfortable passing the article when I have 1c concerns, but Raul may decide that it's fine. Good luck! (Please thread and indent responses below my sig to make it easier on Raul to catch up here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck one, now removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated percentage above to reflect some sourcing changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiholism from Elcobbola
    • Forgive my posting here; I'm on my iPhone in the middle of Iowa, so my editing abilites are limited. I just wanted to request that the decision be delayed until at least this evening when I can respond properly. If not, I understand; I don't want to delay due process. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial response to Sandy's concerns Some of this will be redundant to be responses in the old nom, but reassertion seems appropriate. The commercial site is gone, so we’re faced with self published sources.
      • Regarding typewritermuseum.org and geocities sites:
    WP:SPS sets forth that such sources “may … be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications” (emphasis in original). The publisher/editor, Paul Robert, has authored published work including, among others, The Typewriter Sketchbook (ISBN 978-1-8479915-2-2), The Five Pound Secretary (ISBN 90-74999-05-0). Other contributors include:
    • Rob Blickensderfer (co-author of The Five Pound Secretary)
    • Darryl Rehr authored Antique Typewriters & Office Collectibles (ISBN 0891457577) and is former editor for ETCetera.
    I think this establishes the source as being written by established experts. The concern, then, is that, if the site lists sources, those sources (and not the site) need to be utilized. I think, however, that I disagree with Awadewits’ determination that sources are here. That page does not explicity identify itself as a source list for Oliver articles and I don’t see this page referenced on the pages utilized by the article. It appears to be largely a “further reading” list. That being the case, it can be reasonably determined that typewritermuseum.org is indeed the “primary” source, not derivative of other published works. Again, as it is written by experts as defined in WP:SPS, I believe it qualifies as reliable per WP:V.
    The same applies to the geocities site, the personal site of Will Davis. As a regular contributor to ETCetera, Will Davis is established as an expert. As the site does not indicate reliance on published works, it seems reasonable to treat it as a "primary" source. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, only two of the sources about which Sandy is concerned remain; each supports only one “item”.
    • The Geocities site is only supporting the cessation date. As Sandy has said, we need to use the best sources available to us. This is the only place I have ever seen a cessation date. British Oliver is almost entirely unknown to history; it had neither a unique design nor “successful” sales (it’s hard to be recognized by the populace when your product is, in a funny sense, confiscated by the government). People simply haven’t researched it, let alone published information. This is indeed the best, and only, source available to us. Although undoubtedly not optimal, it is not entirely unreasonable to consider it reliable given the context and my previous comments regarding the author and WP:SPS.
    • The homepage.mac.com is only supporting production dates and numbers for British models. Again, this information does not exist elsewhere. The cited page lists two published sources, one of which is from 1927 (i.e. before British Oliver) and the other does not contain the British information. The author’s statements on the page and especially this page strongly suggest that the British data are unique to this site (i.e. this, again, is the best and only available source). We need to consider context; these data are the result of what can be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate and sincere attempt to gather data not before collected. On a general level, the site lists sources and provides credit and copyright information, which, in addition to being very rare for a personal site, indicates a level of trustworthiness and reliability. As the only known source of this information, it may be appropriate to IAR, as exclusion of the data would be a detriment. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to mention that I have finally gotten around to typing up my material from the library (see article talk page) and scanning some other material and emailing it to Elcobbola. Hopefully this well help resolve any remaining issues. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflit)

    • Support I looked for the commercial links. O.K. http://homepage.mac.com/sljohnson/typewriter/oliver/oliver-3.html is not the best per FAC standards but I don't think all should be rejected out of hand. There are many extremely interesting references. The article is actually interesting and I wanted to read it. (That is not too common for feature article. My last favourite was Bob Meusel and I was the only one that voted for it.) This article is a breath of fresh air. To my eyes, this article is a clean, concise and unpretentious article. I appreciate that. Plus it is nicely laid out. Mattisse 02:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:29, 3 March 2008.

    Princess Helena of the United Kingdom

    [edit]

    Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been reviewed against the FA criteria by Mav (talk · contribs) and SGGH (talk · contribs), who made a few suggestions but confirmed that it was ready to be listed. Any further comments and suggestions will be addressed as swiftly as possible. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Please change the pronoun in the sentence "She also argued that it would reduce the already low popularity..." to the named individual concerned (I presume Alice). The previous sentence begins with Alexandra and the use of a pronoun is confusing. Please re-phrase "Helena gave an English version thoroughly alive"; that doesn't seem to make sense. Thanks—another great article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. I've addressed the confusing pronoun, as it was referring to the Crown Princess of Prussia. The second was a paraphrase of a quote, so it should be more clear now. PeterSymonds | talk 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: pls doublecheck WP:MOS#Ellipses, WP:MOS#Images on left-aligned images below third-level section headings, there's a red-linked image, and I saw a citation that is missing a publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. The images have been reformatted, and that redlinked image has been removed for the time being. It was on the Commons and was deleted, but I requested its restoration because the source was present and correct. The Heraldica ref has been properly formatted now (it wasn't added by me). What's wrong with the ellipses? From what I understand, the simple "..." is the most recommended way to format them? PeterSymonds | talk 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well-written and well-cited. One sentence is a bit awkward: "Therefore, the marriage horrified Alexandra, Princess of Wales, the daughter of King Christian of Denmark, who exclaimed: “The Duchies belong to Papa.”[24]" Maybe this would be clearer: "The marriage, therefore, horrified King Christian of Denmark's daughter, Alexandra, Princess of Wales, who exclaimed: “The Duchies belong to Papa.”[24]" Either way, I support promoting this article to FA. Coemgenus 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:29, 3 March 2008.

    The Beginning of the End (Lost)

    [edit]

    Hello, I am self-nominating this article on the fourth season premiere of the television show Lost, which appeared in did you know? on November 18, 2007. This article is part of the Lost WikiProject. Why am I not waiting for the DVD, which will have commentary, to be released? Because the commentaries for episodes 1x01, 1x02 and 3x01 are the worst in the world. Only one minute of each commentary contained useful information, which translates to one or two sentences in Wikipedia. The other forty-two minutes were occupied by Damon Lindelof and J.J. Abrams praising the acting skills of the cast (including the character of Michelle the flight attendant who had three lines: "Can I get you a refill?" and "You, sir, can I get you anything? Cocktail? Soda?" and "Coffee. Sure.") and Elizabeth Mitchell laughing at stuff that is not funny. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - thedemonhog strikes back! As usual, a great read, and as usual, a few things worth mentioning:
      • The numbers! Geez, they ought not to have so many (or as confusing) MoS rules about numbers! The only thing I'll bother disagreeing with is the mention of "17 episodes" in the lead, which can quite effortlessly be spelled out because it's a one-word number.
      • The filming location of "Oahu, Hawaii, USA" is also brought up in the lead - to me that's like saying Canada, North America. The full title seems a tad unnecessary but if there's some protocol that justifies its inclusion could we put some full-stops/periods/whatever-anyone-may-call-them in there (as in U.S.A. or just U.S.) which is enforced by some MoS subpage somewhere. I think.
      • In the third paragraph of the plot summary, I don't think Hurley is once referred to as "he". Could we change at least a few Hurleys in there to make it slightly more readable?
      • "Hurley imagines that Charlie is swimming outside the interrogation room and floods the room" - Charlie floods the room? Or Hurley floods the room? Some re-wording, maybe?
      • We also have inconsistent references to the "Oceanic Six" and "Oceanic 6". Either would be good.
      • In the first sentence of Production, maybe mention Jeremy Davies' full name as he's only previously referred to in the lead.
      • Second paragraph, Production: should Ben Linus be linked? It's a little pedantic, but all other names seem to be linked only once in the plot synopsis.
      • In Broadcast, there are several references to viewership rankings, such as "sixth most watched" etc. - IMO there should be at least one hyphen in there somewhere, maybe "sixth-most watched" or "sixth most-watched", maybe not "sixth-most-watched". Don't know. Thoughts?
      • "The first four episodes of the fourth season have been seen by TV Guide, who described them as..." Although it's how I'd instinctively say it, it seems like a publication should be referred to as a "which" rather than a "who".
      • Why is the statement "BuddyTV dubbed "The Beginning of the End" "the most anticipated season premiere of the year"" in the Broadcast section, not Reception. There's probably a good reason. Oh, and I guess it's only kind of reception if it's anticipation.
    • Again, my hat off to you, and hope all goes well. •97198 talk 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Do we need the cast listed in the infobox? They are literally relisted in the plot directly beside themselves. I don't think a single name is missing from either side.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The writers, director, airdate and title are also in the body of the article, yet the infobox is still used. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It just seems excessively unnecessary give the length of the cast and their repeated listing just to the left of the box. If it was only a couple of names, I could see that, but you list every guest star for the episode and then relist them in the plot. I would think that the plot is more pertinent given that their character names with them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Oppose, there are some copy issues, audience assumptions, and other minor issues that need addressing: --Laser brain (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose does not currently meet criterion 1a. Please get an uninvolved editor to copyedit for tone, grammar, comma use, mixed verb tenses, and more.
      • The names in the infobox should be separated by line breaks and not commas. Check the Usage heading for {{Infobox Television episode}}.
      • The "Portion used" field of the fair use rationale for Image:The Beginning of the End.png is not correct. A frame cannot be 40 minutes (the one for Image:They need you.png is correct).
        • Fixed.
      • In the Broadcast heading, you talk about the show airing at 9:00pm. Is that ET? Specify time zone. Also, you state that time slot is "prestigious" but your source doesn't back that up.
        • Fixed.
      • Check WP:DASH. There are hyphens in the article that should be en dashes and em dashes. Also, some dashes/hyphens have spaces around them and some don't.
      • You make several assumptions that the article reader will be familiar with Lost or arrive from other related articles. That's not necessarily the case - Wikipedia has a general audience. Assume that readers will go to the main article for details about the show, but provide them some context and make sure the narrative stands on its own. An editor who is unfamiliar with the show should check the whole article, but here are examples:
        • "The narrative takes place 93 days after the crash, on December 23, 2004." What crash? The one referred to in the next sentence? If so, reword for clarity.
          • Fixed.
        • The plot section immediately loses me as it provides no context. Right away someone is knifing someone who uses "the satellite phone". Then she dies. Then a cabin. A cabin on the freighter? A log cabin? Where are we? Then we move on to hallucinations? A dream? I dare not read further.
          • This came up at the FAC for the previous episode. I orginally had a background section but it has been removed. To quote Bignole: It seems to me that the article is giving an awful lot of important to the in-universe part of this topic. Like, do we need the background episode? The background information is equivalent to the plot of this episode. I mean, you don't see "Background" for Halloween II, a featured film article? At the current moment, all of the Lost episodes still have their own article, so ther isn't a need to recap all those episodes. We aren't ABC, it shouldn't be our job to "get the reader up to speed". That is what watching the show is for. I get that it's important to fans, but if you are going to explain what led to this episode you might as well explain everything on for the series. It's truly not necessary. If it was, does that mean we need a "Background" for the final episode of the entire series? That would be a pretty long recap … I don't think it's necessary, considering it could become very tedious is you want consistency. I think the problem is that it's an episode late in the series, and not something like a pilot that doesn't have backstory, or a Simpsons episode that has no continuity whatsoever anyway. Try reading the plot for the episode, and see if that summarizes the entire episode well enough. The way I see it, if someone is reading the article on the season 3 finale, they probably know the rest of the series anyway, or have atleast read all the preceeding pages.
        • Why do you refer to some characters by their first names and some by their last names?
          • It is by what they are best known by. There is WikiProject consensus for this.
      • There are some grammatically ambiguous phrases where you use general pronouns and nouns and it's unclear who or what you are talking about. Check the whole article, but here are examples:
        • "...but the survivors divide when they hear that they are not who they claim to be." Too many dubious they's.
          • Fixed.
        • "Hurley has visions of his deceased friend Charlie Pace (Dominic Monaghan), while he grieves over his death on the island." Who grieves over whose death?
    • Support - although a slight concern over the "They Need You" picture. Will (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have a few suggestions for prose improvement, but I am reluctant to do the changes myself. You don't have to explain (to me at least) if one of these suggestions is unactionable or otherwise a bad idea
      • The word "episode" is mentioned five times in three consecutive sentences in the intro
      • "The Constant" (four episodes later) takes place on December 24. I am already keeping track of the in-universe date inconsistancy via lostpedia, and I know it's not your fault, but the article is reporting a seemingly false date with "December 23" now.
        • This is a problem
      • It might be a good idea to specifically reference the Season 3 finale early in the plot section to give the non-die-hard reader more context (and a direct non-ref link)
      • "Hurley runs away, but finds himself in front of the same cabin. He squeezes his eyes shut and when he opens them, the building is gone and Locke appears." - doesn't get the point across why this plot detail is necessary, so either expand to explain (risky for OR) or trim
      • "After his escape from the island," - state that this is a flashforward in the narrative, because the plot really jumps at this point
      • Consider linking "Oceanic Six" (I know it's a redirect) because this seems like an important in-universe link for future episodes
      • I am always having trouble with reading "For example" in texts because it tends to sound like the editor is trying to support his own original analysis
      • "Hurley imagines that Charlie is swimming outside the interrogation room" - this is very hard to imagine for someone who has never seen the episode. Consider something like "When Hurley looks at the interrogation room's mirror glass, he imagines seeing Charlie swimming in water until he breaks the glass and floods the room"
      • "While casting characters, fake names..." - when I read this for the first time, I misinterpreted the word "casting" as an adverb/adjective(?) instead of a verb
      • "The character's surname was chosen by the writers after..." -> "The writers chose the character's surname after..."
      • "Filming took place began August 17" - which verb do you want to use? :-)
      • "Garcia felt "a little pressure" because he has the lead role" - tense
      • "swimming outside and breaking the glass" in two consecutive sentences
      • link episode 408 (the episode title was officially announced yesterday I believe)
      • episode/scene "shot" in two consecutive sentences -> one can be replaced by e.g. "filmed"
      • The first three sentences of the "Broadcast" section are all interrupted by semicolons. Consider eliminating at least two of them to get a better flow.
      • "Alan Sepinwall of The Star-Ledger commented that "I don't know if Lost is ever going..."" -> "Alan Sepinwall of The Star-Ledger was unsure if "Lost is ever going...""
      • "In reviews that were less positive than most" -> "In less positive reviews"
      • "rated the episode with three stars" - what is the maximum of stars?
    – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, but I agree with Will about the whole stunt double picture. Can we get a screenshot, maybe? THE KC (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Sure, I will get to that in a few hours. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note; the article has what appears to be a clear copyvio at a blogger.com source, sources aren't accurately identified (blogger.com isn't identified as the publisher there), and the external link checker says there's a dead link at calendarlive.com. Some of the citations list the publisher before the article title; others list them after. Please see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:58, 2 March 2008.

    Sea otter

    [edit]
    previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

    (Self-nomination.) Since a few months ago when it looked like this, the article has been rewritten from several quality sources, thoroughly referenced, re-illustrated with some beautiful photographs, restructured a few times, and faithfully wikignomed by several copyeditors and reviewers. I believe it now accurately depicts many dimensions of this fascinating and much-loved species. A very special thank you to Eliezg for providing sources, Russian translation, and high-quality feedback all along the way. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The paper was useful, thanks, and the quick answer is that the current version of the article does not disagree with the Marmi paper. However I understand where your question is coming from, so I'll explain the background: Until a day or two ago the article said, "The sea otter lineage diverged from the other Old World otters approximately 13 million years ago" which was sourced to a Koepfli and Wayne paper from 1998. Marmi's 2004 paper gives the divergence date at 10.1 to 7.5 mya. Both papers agree that the sea otter shares a clade with the Eurasian otter, African clawless otter, small-clawed otter, and speckle-throated otter, although they use different Latin names for some of these species.
    I would have put both analyses in as opposing views (as you did with Giant Otter), however there is a new Koepfli 2008 paper. It agrees that the five species mentioned above share a clade (along with two others which had not been previously evaluated). However it positions the sea otter as a sister taxon to the speckle-throated otter and says that these two lineages diverged around 5 mya. So on the weekend I removed all mention of the divergence date that (Koepfli 1998) and (Marmi 2004) seem to disagree on, and replaced it with an as-yet-uncontested divergence date of 5 mya between the sea otter and its as-yet-uncontested closest relative, the speckle-throated otter. There are for me a lot of unanswered questions about why the three papers disagree about dates to such a significant extent, however the claims that are actually in the article appear to be well-supported and so far not controversial. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: pls see this section of WP:MOSNUM regarding this text: ... up to 150,000 hairs per cm2 (nearly 1 million per in2). It was hard to find, but I think you need to say sq in? Review WP:PUNC throughout (sample, Latin word lutris, meaning "otter."[5]) Review WP:DASH, example: The sea otter's body is highly buoyant because of its large lung capacity - about 2.5 times ... (should be either endashes, which you use later, not hyphens, for example, later you have spaced endashes: the male biting the female on the muzzle – which often leaves scars on the nose – and sometimes holding her head under water). Review WP:MOSNUM on percentages, ( It must eat an estimated 25% to 38% of its own body weight ... is incorrect, but the next usage is correct, Its digestive efficiency is estimated at 80 to 85%, ... ) In the Physical characteristics section, the dental formula 3.1.3.1 2.1.3.2 is left hanging at the bottom, making it look like some sort of formatting error, can that be handled differently? More WP:MOSNUM, check throughout: ... from 24% to 60%, apparently depending ... Another WP:MOSNUM, no spaces before %, ... have been estimated to cause 10 % of sea ... check throughout. WP:MOSBOLD fix needed: Thus began what is now called The Great Hunt, which would continue for another hundred years. A few citations say Accessed on, most say Retrieved on, should be easy to make consistent. Ocassional inconsistency in date linking in citations, see Okerlund, Lana (October 4, 2007). Too Many Sea Otters?. Retrieved on January 15, 2007. Also, Barrett-Lennard, Lance (October 20, 2004). A few others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the detailed notes! I think I've fixed them all. Kla’quot (talk
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:58, 2 March 2008.

    Just like Heaven (song)

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. My fellow editor Ceoil (who's been to FAC quite a bit, sometimes in tandem with myself) has in the best sense of the word demanded I bring this article to FAC. It's short, but it fits the FA criteria, and has had input from other members of WikiProject Alternative music. So let's have at it, shall we? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The "Reception" section cites three reviews, but two are from AMG. The Melody Maker review is contemporary with the release of the song, but I believe the AMG reviews date at least five years and probably upwards of a decade later. Could you find at least one more review dating from the release of the song/album?
    Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually searching through the respective Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone reviews of the album, but they only mention the song briefly or not at all. I have a couple more places to look and I'm hoping to find at least one more. NSR77 TC 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceoil already searched back issues of NME and Sounds for reviews; they didn't review the single like Melody Maker did. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added as much as I could find. Hope it's enough. NSR77 TC 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, some minor details:
    • Is it The Cure or the Cure; both are used in the article.
    It's quite possible I missed one or two (you may want to check it again) but most everything was fixed. NSR77 TC 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include image of music video? (the dancing)
    Added the best one I could find. NSR77 TC 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include Dinosaur cover sample? (since it seems more important/better than the others)
    I'm not particularly supportive of the idea, but Wesley may feel otherwise. NSR77 TC 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • link Mascis and Dinosaur again. (quite a distance away)
    Linked. NSR77 TC 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Its lyric was written by the band's... The song's music was written by Smith" Some variation needed.
    Fixed. NSR77 TC 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indopug (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. NSR77 TC 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you can hear the chords quite clearly (they are simple barre chords, so it's obvious what he's playing and what the key it is). If you really want I can cite the Cure Greatest Hits songbook I own, but I don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably should. It couldn't hurt. NSR77 TC 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I mean tone-deaf/musically untrained folk (like me) couldn't make out them out. Shouldn't chord progressions/keys always need to be cited; considering you need a particular skill to be able to figure them out (much like, say, analysing a book)? indopug (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited it finally. Went on vacation this week so I didn't have my book on hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Greg Kot Chicago Tribune cite have an article name? indopug (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, no. The fan website that relayed the quotes only included the source, author and date. NSR77 TC 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Robert Smith forced himself to write music 15 days" - is a rather abrupt start. Maybe include the info about the alcohlism put the regime into context and also put "While recording for KM KM KM" before the forced regime in the sentence. And OMG, the word "goth" isn't used even once in the article! Surely the infobox's genre should be goth rock rather than the too-general alternative rock? indopug (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, gothic rock isn't used once in the article, but ""Just Like Heaven" isn't one of their out-and-out goth songs (unlike say, "If Only Tonight We Could Sleep" from the same album). About the most gothic thing about it is the chorused guitar line and Robert Smith talking about how the ocean stole his lady-friend (which, I imagine, didn't actually happen in the incident that Smith drew inspiration from). Alt-rock is as about as specific we can get with this song. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's essentially a pop song. Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me does consist of many songs that can be classified as gothic rock, but "Just like Heaven" is not one of them. NSR77 TC 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that even the correct/original single cover? Google images "just like heaven cure" gives a bunch of album covers without Smith's face. indopug (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object for copyediting concerns
      • Is "its lyric was written" normal British? I'd say "The lyrics were written".
      • The song's was composed by the band while recording in Southern France - get rid of the passive voice
      • has since been praised by - passive voice
      • Robert Smith devised a regime of forcing himself to write music - is there a reason not say "Robert Smith forced himself"? If his regime was noteworthy (e.g. he wrote music for fifteen hours a day or something), explain why, otherwise, just cut the extra words.
      • The track was further developed when Smith overheard Cure drummer Boris Williams play along to the track - repetition of track
      • Smith was inspired - passive voice
    • Nothing wrong with using passive voice here. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree on this one too. There are three uses of the passive voice in one sentence, one of which arguably can't be removed, but actually entire clause can be removed without losing anything - we know the track was developed because the article's about to tell us, and both of the instances of passive voice later in the sentence can be profitably removed. Nevermind, I've just done this one. It really is a major problem throughout the article though. Tuf-Kat (talk)
      • instruments were introduced in sequence, one by one - passive voice
      • Smith offered the instrumental. Smith later admitted he "it meant that the music - possibly a NPOV problem, definitely awkward wording. Is the point that he was being too commercially-oriented (i.e. selling out)? If so either, cite who accused him of selling out (or whatever), or state that he later regretted it for that reason (which is what I think it's getting at, but that needs to be implicit).
      • The song was completed quickly passsive voice
      • is built around an A-E-Bm-D chord progression that is used - passive voice twice
    • I'm not going to go any farther right now, but please give it a thorough copyedit, especially looking for passive voice (which should be nonexistent in most articles, but is occasionally necessary) and over-wordiness (e.g. "devised a regime of forcing himself"). Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if this feels like talking down - if you already know what passive voice is, ignore it Passive voice is when you reverse the normal order of a sentence - instead of "The song was composed by the band" make it "The band composed the song". You can also just ignore the passive/active thing entirely and just look at every instance of the verb to be (i.e. was, am, were, is, are, weren't, aren't, isn't, should be, would be, could be) - obviously, many uses are fine ("The band is British"), but many of them will be passive voice, and many of them that aren't will also be unnecessarily wordy constructions for other reasons, so just look for each use and see if you can find a better, more direct and almost always shorter, way of saying the same thing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. I didn't write ninety five percent of the prose, so I gave it fresh-eyes reworking. I think I've fixed everything you outlined above; if there's more, by all means. NSR77 TC 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It really does need more work. There's lots of excessive wordiness ("Just like Heaven" is written in the key - can just lose written, throughout most of the song, except for a change during the chorus when - you're about to tell us what the change is, so you don't need to tell us that there is a change), and I think the "Reception" section (and "music and lyrics") has too much repetition of the word "song", especially at the beginning of sentences. There's also still quite a bit of passive voice that can be removed (" was directed", "was also covered", "was released" several times, "was filmed"). Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the latter situation a passive voice is necessary to show when the record was released, the video filmed, etc. How else would you like things to be worded? We can't eliminate the passive voice throughout Wikipedia entirely, though I completely agree it is used excessively in this article.NSR77 TC 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it may be acceptable in parts of this article, since it's an article about the song, certainly the song needs to come first in many sentences. However, take the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Just like Heaven" was the third single released from the The Cure's - this could be Fiction Records released "Just Like Heaven", the third single from... - making the sentence shorter, simpler and providing more info (the record label isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body right now, which is also a problem, I think). I'm not a passive voice absolutist, so I'm not saying I'll object as long as there is any passive, but I don't think this article's style is featured quality. To give another example - The music video for "Just like Heaven" was directed by Tim Pope, who had directed all of the band's previous videos since 1982's "Let's Go to Bed". The video was filmed in England's Pinewood Studios in October of 1987 and essentially recreates the memory detailed in the song's lyrics, taking place on a windswept cliff. could be Tim Pope directed the music video for "Just Like Heaven". Pope, who had directed all of the band's previous videos since 1982's "Let's Go to Bed", filmed the video in England's Pinewood Studios in October of 1987. The video essentially recreates the memory detailed in the song's lyrics, taking place on a windswept cliff. -- this loses nothing and is simpler; it's also somewhat awkward, but that's because the original was wordy and vague, which the passive voice disguised - it could be even better as Tim Pope directed the music video for "Just Like Heaven", as he had for The Cure's videos since 1982. Filming took place in England's Pinewood Studios in October of 1987. Pope's video depicted the memory that inspired the song. (just remove the "windswept cliff", or make it part of a longer description of the video's look and feel, as it is currently too vague - it's not clear whether "taking place" is modifying where the video was filmed (which was apparently in a studio and not any sort of cliff) or where the original inspiration comes from or the "song's lyrics", which is the closest noun that that adjectival phrase could modify. Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be doing more fixes, but in general (as you said) I want to keep the song (and its video and single releases) as the main subject of each section. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Status check: Has Tuf-Kat been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think WesleyDodds has done his edit yet. Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing slowly. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. NSR77 TC 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further - just a couple more things before I support, the lead has variations of "single's release in 1987" in adjacent sentences, and I think a sample of Dinosaur's cover should be included (like how the "Teen Spirit" article has samples of covers). It'll help illustrate why Smith thinks its the definitive version of the song. indopug (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm kind of against adding the sample because there's plenty of fair use media as it is in an article this short. i think it would be a decent addition, but I feel it's pushing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Wesley. NSR77 TC 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also - Can an admin move the the article to "Just Like Heaven (song)"? Regardless of MOS guidelines, the song is referred to as "Just Like Heaven" in every single source cited, and given that that's what everyone else would expect the title to look like, leaving it as "Just like Heaven (song)" is ridiculous (For reference, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" has been moved to "Smells like Teen Spirit" and moved back twice--once days before it went on the main page--because media and academic sources always write it with "Like" capitialized, and it's silly of us to say it should be titled differently). This can be done after the nomination closes, so as to cut down on the trouble. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 17:14, 1 March 2008.

    Smallville (season 1)

    [edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it is a rather comprehensive article on the first season of Smallville. It pretty much looks like a much larger version of our featured television episode articles. I am also the primary contributor to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak oppose—1a. Examples:
      • "The first season centers around Martha and Jonathan Kent (O'Toole and Schneider) trying to help their adopted son, Clark (Welling), cope with his alien origins and control his developing abilities." "Centers around" should be "centers on".
      • "Clark has to deal with the meteor infected individuals that begin popping up all over Smallville, his love for Lana Lang (Kreuk), and not being able to tell his two best friends, Pete Ross (Jones III) and Chloe Sullivan (Mack), the truth about who he really is." "Meteor infected" should be hyphenated, "popping up all over" is somewhat informal, and "the truth about who he really is" should be tightened. Might want to use parallelism for flow.
      • "Al Gough and Miles Millar, co-creators of the show, devised several concepts to help establish stories from week to week." It's already mentioned that they are the co-creators. You might want to reword "help establish stories from week to week".
      • "Physical effects, make-up effects, and computer generated imagery became an important component of the first season." Should be pluralized to "became important components".
      • "Quick shooting schedules" sounds a bit odd - I can think of a few alternatives.
      • Just a side note - the tenses seem mixed in the second lead paragraph.
      • "The episode budgets had to be kept on a strict guideline, as the show frequently ran over budget in the first half of the season." First clause could be tightened a bit. Perhaps "The episode budgets had to be regulated strictly,"
      • "When the season first aired, the pilot broke The WB viewership record for a debut series,[5] and was nominated for various awards." "The" should be lowercased and unitalicized.
    • This shows that the entire article needs a quick pass; please find a copy-editor unfamiliar with the text. — Deckiller 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very nice work; I've only a few little things to raise:
      • The lead uses both "villain of the week storylines" and "villain-of-the-week storylines". Section 'Writing' uses former while 'Reception' uses both.
      • Why are some actors in parantheses beside their characters (eg. Kelly Brook) in the episode synopses while others are not?
      • John Glover links to a dab page.
      • "Doug Higgens, and his crew, built a fully functioning, three-story barn for the Kent farm." (a) Who is Doug Higgens and (b) should there be a comma after his name? And (c) why is he later referred to as "Higgins"?
      • "When filming got behind schedule..." "Got" is an ugly word - what about "when filming fell behind schedule"?
      • "By the time filming for "Jitters" was completed, three different directors worked on the project..." "Had worked", maybe?
      • "When digital effects were not an option, Mike Walls, the physical effects supervisor who began his Smallville career with "Leech", still tries to provide big effects." Seems to switch tense at the end.
      • Should there be one of those elongated-type-hyphen-thingies (sorry, haven't got a clue what they're called, but they're used to represent duration between pairs of dates - there's one in the infobox) in "1 January - 31 December 2001" in 'Awards'?
    • Hope the comments were useful. •97198 talk 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this more of a list than an article? Buc (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only part I see that even remotely resembles a list is the Episodes subsection. — Deckiller 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like Deckiller said, the only "list" is with the table itself. That's only because it is rather extrenuous to list every single director, writer, airdate, etc etc in the infobox, and then have one giant plot section. It's more organized to just have the table. I think you are drawing comparisons to Lost (season 2) (and the like) which are featured lists. That's because the majority of the information on those pages is what is on the list. Even the prose sections are nothing but prosed-out lists of the cast and crew members. They could easily be placed in a table as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But should it really be an article? As you say other tv series season article are FL. Why should this be any diffrent. The individual episode articles would cover the prose sections in the article in far more detail. Buc (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No they wouldn't. The entire purpose for my making this an article was because they can't support themselves individually. First, several of the episodes are not even mentioned because there was nothing to say about them period, while others only have a brief mentioning in maybe a certain section of the production. There isn't a single review on any individual episode outside of the pilot episode. Just because other season pages cannot be as comprehensive as this article, you want me to disband it into individual pages that would fail the notability guideline? Sorry, but that isn't a problem with this article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just read WP:NN, or WP:FICT. You need significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Well, those companion books are not "independent of the subject", so, though they are great for real world information they don't show notability. If you can find some professional reviews for those episodes, then we can talk. I haven't been able to find a single review, let alone enough reviews to constitute "significant coverage". The fact remains, the page works just fine as an article that comprehensively ties all the episodes together from a real world perspective. I'm not going to debate this any further, this page isn't new to anyone (it was the basis for all those FL season articles; it's been shown around as an example of how you can tie all the episodes together in a single page without it being confusing). If you choose not to critique the article per the FA criteria, that's fine, but the debate about "why isn't this just a list, and why aren't all these episode articles on their own page" is a moot point in my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - Shouldn't this be at featured lists? There are a bunch of Degrassi: The Next Generation articles up at FLC right now which have a very similar format to this article. indopug (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Buc posed the same question, and as Dec and I answered, the only "list" on this page is the table that contains the titles/airdates/director/writer/plot of the episodes. That's because there are far too many to list in the infobox. The difference between this article and the Degrassi list is that the majority of the Degrassi pages, like the Lost pages, contain information in prose that can easily be turned into list form (i.e. the list of cast and crew members). This article has production information. It looks identical to an individual episode article, with the exception being the table that holds the 22 episodes of the entire season. If those pages had production information (which isn't just listing all the people that worked on the show) then I'd say they need to be re-evaluated for article status, but, other than a reception section everything else on those pages is pure list information (which is not a problem, because you can have prose paragraphs on a "List of" page. The difference here is that the majority of this page is prose information, not list information).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I found only a few hyphen issues, but I am not even sure whether this is a MOS issue or personal preference. This TV season article is surely the best one on wikipedia, and it sets the bar pretty high for future season articles. – sgeureka t•c 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This is a great example of how television episodes can be condensed into a single manageable but comprehensive article, instead of having countless stubby little episode articles out of principle. It's well-sourced and attractive visually (like the colour scheme). Excellent work.  Paul  730 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Disclaimer: I dislike 'wedding cake' lists, where multiple articles are crammed into one sugary behemoth. The reception section caught my eye as having problems:
      • The record for highest-rated debut for The WB was broken... Passive voice, and I question the importance of this record on a channel that was only six years old.
      • The Nielson ratings sentence is unclear; why are Star Trek, Futurama and Ellen mentioned as being 'along with' Smallville? Are they near to it, above or what?
      • The Futon Critic doesn't have an article; are they worth mentioning? Maybe they don't deserve first paragraph prominence.
      • What ratings did the series US run end on? The use of averages obscures this.
      • Who are Jeremy Conrad and Rob Hedeldt? You can find out from the references, but you shouldn't have to.
      • The season recieved favorable reviews. This is contradicted by the third paragraph; add a 'mostly' or remove the sentence.
      • The section needs to have its quotations trimmed.
      • The BBC, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Entertainment Weekly 'reviews' are quite flimsy, single paragraph affairs. Is there nothing better?
      • No ratings information for places outside the US or DVD sales figures?
      • Shouldn't the DVD reception be seperated from the TV reception? The DVD reviews take things like extras into account, whilst some of the TV reviews are for the 'season so far'.--Nydas(Talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some I can fix, others I can't. I can clarify what you want to be clarified. As for The Futon Critic, not having an article on Wikipedia doesn't make something less significant. We don't use Wikipedia as a reason to support anything, that goes for non-support as well, but I can move its placement. The WB record is important to the WB, just because it isn't NBC doesn't make it less sigificant to the WB. I can't find info on the show outside of northern america, I've looked. I don't believe I wrote about the "DVDs". Most critics don't watch every show when it hits television, they wait till the DVD so that they can watch the entire show in one sitting (at least, this is what I find for shows that don't have primetime channels like CBS and NBC as their hosting station). I don't believe I noted anything about the DVD extras in the reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've reworded the opening sentence about the record. I didn't move the Futon Critic out of that first paragraph simply because the first paragraph is dealing with rankings, and not with specific comments about the show itself. It seems out of place with the critical reviews in the following paragraphs. I clarified the "Ellen, Star Trek" bit; the show was tied with those others. I can't find Nielsen ratings for "Tempest" (the season one finale). Well, I take that back...I did find a single source, but you had to pay to view the news article (see search result here). I've identified Jeremy Conrad and Rob. I added "mostly", and I've trimmed the quoted information some (I don't know how much you want trimmed). As for BBC and the rest, what you see listed on this page is about everything I could find (hence why it isn't extremely large). You're talking about a show that airs on a channel only viewed by an average of what, 6 or 7 million people; when you have shows on CBS getting twice that much. I've addressed the "US centric" ratings information. I don't know who keeps record of DVD sales, and I mean record of the actual numbers. I can find something like, "On September 9, 2003, Smallville was fourth on the sales charts", but that means nothing without a number to go with it. What if the number one DVD sold 5 million copies, but the number 2 only sold 400k copies?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support most of these TV articles go to FL instead, but I understand why this is at FA - you don't put individual articles on episodes, and all info is on the season article. Anyway, very detailed and referenced article, looks like an "expanded version" of the Pilot FA. igordebraga ≠ 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2008&oldid=202312122"