Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2005

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

self nom. This article has been through peer review where the only comments related to bold and link formatting. I've tried to include enough information on the company's history to give a thorough overview. slambo 13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Too much bold text in the lead 2) Metric equivalents absent. 3) "Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History" An inline external link should not be linked that way in the text. 4)Kennesaw, GA --> Please expand GA. 4) =Notes= should be a heading, not a subheading. 5) Matthias W. Baldwin and William Norris etc. who were they? Prefix the name with their occupation. 6) ...including nearly every railroad... Needs to be rephrased. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input. I've addressed the objections as follows:

  1) Unbolded all but the first mention of the company name, which is in the first sentence.

  2) Added metric conversions where appropriate using Google's unit converter.

  3) Removed inline external link.

  first 4) Expanded "GA" to "Georgia".

  second 4) Promoted "Notes" header to a level 2 header, the same level as "References".

  5) Noted the significance of Baldwin and Norris as "fellow locomotive builders" and noted the companies each founded.

  Your last objection is the only one that I'm not sure about. I'm open to suggestions for alternate wording. slambo 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  There's an attempt at rewording that sentence. Please review the changes. Thanks. slambo 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  including nearly every railroad reads more like a weasel term. I won't be free to review it till saturday.) I'll edit the text then if I'm not satisfied.) One more thing: those footnotes are pretty useless, it conveys no real information. Would you consider using inotes instead? I'll withdraw my objection for time being. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  The Moshein & Rothfus reference cited in the article includes a complete build list for all of the company's products, so exact numbers are available on what the company actually built, but I haven't seen a reference that lists every railroad that existed during that time. Yeah, it sounds a little weasely, but that's also how (IIRC) White described Rogers' industry penetration (I'll verify which reference I saw it in again tonight). On the footnotes, I used notation that I'd seen in other journals that mention the original references' authors and a page number (which is why it was originally a subheading of References). I thought that listing them immediately after the complete citations would be enough, but since it was unclear to you, it's likely unclear to others as well. I'll look through my MLA handbook for further suggestions on footnote citations; I was hoping to avoid reprinting the entire reference citation in the note. I'll also take a look at inote tonight. slambo 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Okay, I've taken some time to review inote and my MLA guide. The way I've presented the notes in this article is MLA style (in my 1999 copy, it's on page 305) listing the last name and enough information to identify the work being cited with the specifics for the note such as the page number where the information appears; the only real difference is that my first citation to each reference is in the References section immediately above the note texts rather than in the first note text. I've reviewed inote, but I'd rather not make this information invisible. So, my conclusion on the notes is to leave them as they are. slambo 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rather a lot of broken links. Tony 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm filling in data to clear out the red links as I find the information. slambo 14:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  After filling in a couple more red links, I did a quick count. There are 7 unique red links in the article text, four unique red links in the preservation table, and four in the footer navigation template. Considering the large number of blue links throughout the article (I didn't count the blue links yet), I don't think this number is excessive. If you've got information to fill in behind any of the other red links, I would welcome your input into those articles. slambo 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:
• I've copyedited and simplified the lead, please see if it reads better.
• use of dashes and special symbols are not recommended in the MoS.
• Some areas need a copyedit.
  • Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke, who later went on to form Danforth, Cooke & Company, also worked at the Rogers plan ordering of events.
  • Please use   between a unit and a number. 39 km/hr , 24 miles etc.
  • Hughes led the company until his own death in 1900. A year later, Jacob Rogers closed the Rogers Locomotive Company plant. In 1901, the year that Jacob Rogers died and the same year that the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) Check the flow & why did it close down?
• Unfortunately for Rogers, does the article empathize with Rogers?
• ALCO and Baldwin were too good at building --> too good? a more encyclopedic tone? Instead of wikifying, please specify the company.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see the comments mentioned in all the other updates on my watch list. I'm not sure if I'd say the lead was better, but a couple of ambiguities in the wording are now resolved. On the other comments...

• I've reworded Cooke's departure from Rogers into its own sentence at the end of the paragraph: "After Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke also worked at the Rogers plant. Like Swinburne, Cooke later went on to form his own locomotive manufacturing firm, Danforth, Cooke & Company,"
• I've added   where appropriate when stating measurements (this is a habit I'm trying to get into for my other editing).
• As to why the company was closed in 1900, my references don't give a reason. I suspect that it may have been solely to avoid absorption into ALCO, and there's a passing reference to that in my resources, but nothing definite. Moshein and Rothfus state: "In December 1900... Jacob Rogers closedthe works. After six months of rumors about new ownership, a notice appeared in the May 17, 1901, issue of Railroad Gazette announcing that the plant had been sold and would reopen as the Rogers Locomotive Works (RLW) with Reuben Wells as plant superintendent...." I don't have access right now to that issue of Railroad Gazette, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
• I've reworded the "Unfortunately..." phrase as "But Rogers was at a competitive disadvantage."
• The sentence is now a little long, but I've reworded the "too good" sentence to use "... held too much of a lead in manufacturing and selling ..."

I think that's all for now. slambo 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Some paragraphs in "1831 to 1856: Thomas Rogers era" too short Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  Could you clarify that? Which ones specifically? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? The shortest that I see is the last paragraph which still wraps around to three lines on my 1024x768 screen; other than that, the shortest that I see is still three sentences that wrap to at least three lines. AdThanksVance. slambo 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Pamri • Talk 07:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sverre of Norway

Self-nom. Peer review can be found here. I know it's lacking in illustrations, but those are very hard to come by Fornadan (t) 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There's another "Trek across Voss" here: [1] but it seems to be scanned from a black-and-white printing and may not be interesting enough to add to the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure, basically another interpretation of the same scene. A picture of one of his coins [2] would have been ideal, but those are of course copyrighted. There is a monument of him within walking distance, but I don't have a camera. Fornadan (t) 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on uncreative pictures expires within 25/50 years in Scandinavia and in the U.S. (the laws of which Wikipedia is subject to) it doesn't apply at all for pictures of two-dimensional public domain artwork. A picture of one side of a coin at least arguably falls under that case (read up on the Bridgeman ruling), we should check for precedents.

There are more picture opportunities if people are desparate for pictures. Location pictures are sometimes appropriate - there's one of Kirkjubøur at Commons. A picture of a manuscript of Sverris saga would also be a possible, though perhaps somewhat dull, decoration. But I wouldn't worry too much about lack of pictures - the maps help a lot. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, a very thorough treatment; a few suggestions, however:

1. The inline links might look better if they were moved to footnotes.
2. The relationship among Eystein Meyla, Sverre, and Haakon as Birkebein leaders should be via {{succession box}}, but I'm uncertain what the proper title would be.

Fixed the sucession box thing. Could you point me to a how-to for the footnotes? Fornadan (t) 11:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There are several different formats described at Wikipedia:Footnotes. I personally prefer the first (using {{ref}} and {{note}}), but you can use any of them. Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes are now in place Fornadan (t) 17:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 23:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent article a sucession box would be very useful. Support. Falphin 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there are a lot of red links. Could you fix some of them? Renata3 12:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've not had much time for editing lately. Will try to write some basic stubsFornadan (t) 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck with that. I think a short text on Sverris saga would be especially helpful for the readers, giving them a better idea of the historical sources for the events related in the article. I've watched you put a lot of effort into this article, Fornadan, and I hope to see more of your work in the future. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Will support article as is since I think it's very good. However I think it's a bit heavy on red links. Could you at least make the two red links on the lead stubs? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Felice Beato

self-nom When I first came across this article it was named "Felice A. Beato", but having done a lot of research on the photographer, I moved it to "Felice Beato", the name he is more accurately known by. I then added quite a lot of information that has recently come to light regarding Beato's life, clarifying a number of issues and filling in a lot of gaps. Pinkville 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Great work on this article, the references are especially impressive , but there are still some important problems. The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded. Somewhat ironically the article is also incongruously lacking in images. The article needs a picture of Beato, and should also include more examples of his works. In parts the writing also needs work. There are too many one and two sentence paragraphs, especially towards the end of the article. - SimonP 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support SimonP 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• If the article is on a 19th century photographer, can't we add lots of images with no copyright worries? Everyking 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Lead section is way too short. And it needs more images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Support. The concerns have been dealt with. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough on the lead and towards the end. As for the images, although Beato is a 19th century photographer - the copyright on his images is held by the institutions which own his photographs. Frankly, I'm not even sure the image I used (which I found on Wikipedia) is legal. Is it? I'm not clear about the use of his images. I know that the photographs in the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, for example, cannot be used (unfortunately). There is only one portrait of Beato in existence - Tony Bennett reproduces it on his site - again maintaining all rights. To compensate for the lack of images in the article I provided the extensive list of linked photographs at the end - but I too would rather see them in the article. Pinkville 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    While the institutions might claim copyright on the images, under U.S. law, which is what Wikipedia falls under, all of his images should be public domain. - SimonP 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the lead and other sections and I've added some images (thanks SimonP!). How does it look to you all now? - Pinkville 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the concerns of the above have been dealt with. I like it, Support. Broken S 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade

Self-nom. Recently went through a very productive peer review (available here, including summary of changes)—thanks to those who commented. I've been working on a number of articles related to the São Paulo "Generation of 1922," of which Mário de Andrade is the central figure. Chick Bowen 02:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object, and I do mean weak. The only thing I see that needs improvement is that the major works section should probably be turned into prose, rather than simply a list. Everything else looks fantastic, and I'm sure to support given that one improvement. PacknCanes | say something! 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd love to comply, but I'm not sure what you mean. All I intended for the "Major Works" section was a simple bibliography such as that in H.D. or Robert A. Heinlein (I bring those up only because they're FAs). I didn't call it bibliography only because it's not complete (and a complete bibliography would be difficult to assemble without a great deal of research). Can you be more specific about what a prose section on major works would include? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a personal preference more than anything, but given the precedent I'm going to change my vote and support the nomination. You're right, a complete bibliography does take time (although I think it would be well worth the time here, but it certainly isn't necessary to attain featured status) and the major works list is probably sufficient. My original intent was to get some rationale as to why those works were considered "major", although the more I think about it, that would probably turn the focus off of de Andrade himself and onto the works, which isn't the point of the article. So just ignore that comment...good work, and I'm glad to support it. PacknCanes | say something! 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the section in question further down and renamed it as "Partial bibliography." Chick Bowen 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Will support when it's fixed. It's a worthy article, but needs a copyedit. I've done the first page or so, and will return to do the rest. As well as correcting the language, I've softened some of the hype and removed the low-value chronological links, which, in any case, were inconsistently treated. (See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for the reasons.) Tony 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comments. I rewrote the two sentences in the lead that you had marked, and made them clearer, I hope ("organizer" referred mainly to the Week of Modern Art and Dept. of Culture position mentioned in par. 2, so I took it out). Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Chick Bowen 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mild support. I've gone through the rest: please attend to my inline comments. In particular, you might consider providing one or two sentences about his pioneering ethnomusicological (fieldwork) techniques. Specific reference numbers are required, sometimes with and sometimes without mention of the author of the source in the body of the sentence. This is how you increase the credibility of the information. 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Thanks particularly for your edits. Your inline comments are useful--I'll work on them tomorrow. Chick Bowen 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your advice on all inline comments. I've provided references as links to my "references" section. I also expanded somewhat the field recordings paragraph. I think it's improved. Chick Bowen 01:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The bibliography is well-organized and representative, even though it is not comprehensive. The snappy and crystal-clear prose, the proper ref/cite footnote formatting, the involved and analytical tone all considerably boost the article's FAC. The literary criticism component of this article is especially appropriate, especially the parsing of the Paulicéia Desvairada. On a more general (superficial) note, I like the well-balanced paragraphs and the placing of the works section between the early and late life sections (this is not always the case in other homologous articles on great poets). Great work. Just a minor note: maybe you should create a "Notes" section (like the one in the George F. Kennan article, and include small excerpts and/or quotations from the referenced materials so that readers do not need to consult those sources directly to authenticate that dovetail with your article's statements. If you don't want do this, it's no big deal at all. Saravask 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ATLAS experiment

Note that this article was called A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS when the featured article candidacy began. The name was changed in response to comments. -- SCZenz 04:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-nom. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so I imagine this may need some work before being ready, especially regarding readability by non-physicists. Please make objections, but please also check back to see if I've fixed them. I've worked hard on this article, and I plan to do more if necessary. -- SCZenz 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Object, lack of references. KingTT 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added some links to the technical proposal and technical design report. How's it look? -- SCZenz 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This looks like a rather well written article, but one of the conditions for FA status is stability, and this article is about a structure that will be completed in 2007, which says to be that at that time, the article will have to undergo some fairly big changes, have additions, that sort of thing. I'm not sure an article about such a thing qualifies for FA status, even though it is a good article. Is there precedent? Fieari 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article describes what it will be like when it's built. Thus there's no need for changes in that regard when it's completed, and there are very unlikely to be significant physics results that would be noted for perhaps a couple years after that. That seems stable enough as Wikipedia goes, doesn't it? -- SCZenz 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As for precedents, you might consider articles about currently-used software, like Firefox, that are likely to undergo major upgrades over the span of a few years; also biographies on still-living people, who may accomplish more stuff in the future. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the stability requirement refers to changes that may take place in a few years at all. From Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article: "'stable' means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". -- SCZenz 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

YES! Good job...Scott 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's very well-written, and the prose is a little tended toward the scientific side, but I think that's excusable since it's a scientific article; also, you're correct in assuming the intent of the stability criterion. That said, here's some stuff I'd probably do:
  • Merge the subsections under "components" into their parent. For example, rather than having three subsections of "Inner Detector", just make those one big section.
  • Following from the above, make sure to stay away from one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand them into something more substantial, or just merge them into a neighboring paragraph.
  • A few more references wouldn't hurt—maybe a newspaper or magazine article from somewhere? (This isn't necessarily essential, but it would certainly improve the article's case)
  • I'd like to see a little more somewhere in the article discussing exactly what scientists are expecting from the accelerator. Is it something that will verify experiments, or will be used to perform first-run experiments, or...?
• Good luck! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. PacknCanes | say something! 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi PacknCanes, I've addressed your comments as follows:
    1. Merging of paragraphs and smaller subsections is done. It does look better that way.
    2. I put in a magazine article, but pop articles on an experiment two years away are fairly rare.
    3. I'm not sure I understand your last point. The article is about the detector, not the accelerator, and it is an experiment. It is looking mostly for new things nobody has ever seen before. Can you clarify for me what you'd like to be changed in the article?
  • Thanks so much for your comments! -- SCZenz 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK...I was misreading it. I thought that the accelerator was going to be used to verify other experiments, rather than be the experiment itself. Sorry...science turns the brain into spaghetti sometimes...hope you don't mind. :) The PhysicsWorld article does lend a lot of credence to it, if only to verify that it really does have scientific value (not that I was doubting it, but it does help). Overall, very well-written, could still use a couple more sources but you're right, finding sources on something to happen in the future can be difficult sometimes. Weak support -- thanks for addressing the earlier issues. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I could cite articles in physics journals that mention what problems LHC can investigate, but likely nobody here would read them. And CERN is the world's largest center for particle physics; it seems reasonable to assume that information they host on physics experiments is accurate and credible. Anyway, thanks for your support. :) -- SCZenz 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think you really need another low-tech source, but it'd help, A possibility is something like a Physics Today article if there is one, which would be about at the same level as your Physics World one, or even a news brief type article from Science or Nature. I searched around a bit and couldn't find what I was looking for, but I thought you might know of one already. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't know of anything and can't find anything, yet, but I'll keep looking. For credibility's sake, I've also put a link to a review article from Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics in under references. -- SCZenz 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Ok, I found something in the New York Times, and put it in. -- SCZenz 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Excellent! That makes it much easier to comprehend, plus gives it an air of legitimacy. Support unconditionally. PacknCanes | say something! 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Good find. I like that there's now a range of places to go to read more. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is good stuff. I've copyedited it; please see a few inline queries I've inserted. I've no problem with the stability factor mentioned above. I agree with the comment above about short paras and subsections. Oh, BTW, why not go with the advice on the discussion page and change the gobbledygook title: 'ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS)' would be easier. Tony 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, "A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS" is the name of the experiment, and the gobbledygook is still in your version too, but it's not a big deal to me. Except that I'm rather frightened of technical difficulties in moving the article during the FAC proceedings. -- SCZenz 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Idea: it could be moved to "ATLAS experiment"... What do people think of that? -- SCZenz 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, 'ATLAS experiment' is much nicer, and will attract more hits, I think. Tony 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) PS Silly me: 'matter symmetry/asymmetry'—I guess it's obvious in retrospect! Tony 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How do I go about moving the article without screwing up this FAC? -- SCZenz 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just move this page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ATLAS experiment. It should automatically redirect everything else. Just make sure to check for double redirects when you move the actual page! PacknCanes | say something! 04:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It was more complex than that, but I think it's done now... Thanks! -- SCZenz 04:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. I made some comments some time ago on another page. The article has improved a lot since then.Count Iblis 12:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A really well-written article. I like the title change, and it's improved a lot with the comments here. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  • Too-short of a lead section for the topic, in my opinion.
  • Far too many quite-short sections and subsections. One-paragraph subsections and two-paragraph sections are too short.
  • Inconsistency with units. Example: Sometimes "cm", sometimes "centimeters". I believe the common units should be spelled out in text. Overlinking too; I don't think linking "cm" or "meters" is called for. Spell out numbers under 10.
  • Numbers and units should be separated with an   — see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Measurements

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can I have some clarification on what should be done and how i would improve the article? Specifically:
  • If you want the lead-in to be longer, what else should it cover?
  • The structure of the headings and sub-headings are very well-suited to making the topic clearer. What's the advantage in changing them because they're "too short"...?
  • Yes, the units should be consistent, and I'll unlink the SI units, but why should they be spelled out? Spelling them out in some places would be awkward--would uniformly using abbreviations be ok?
  • Spelling out numbers under ten would be a disaster for consistency, I'd end up saying, for example that the Inner Detector is "1.2 m by seven m". Can you suggest what I should do about this?
• Thanks for your comments. -- SCZenz 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lead-in: I could be flexible on this one. Ideally, I'd like to learn a little more about who is building ATLAS and why.
• Subsectionitis: Clarify and organize more through prose than through a lot of outline-style headings. This is a stylistic matter, but that is the style that seems to be preferred by most here.
• Spelling out units: The same Manual of Style for measurements page says "Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, 'a 100-millimetre (4 in) pipe for 10 miles (16 km)'".
• Spelling out numbers:Take it case-by-case, sentence by sentence. The example you give shouldn't be changed, but a sentence like "The inner solenoid produces a 2 tesla magnetic field surrounding the Inner Detector" definitely should. It's a matter of readibility.
• Caveats — I'm not a hard-core language wonk and some of the specifics here might be debatable. But I did find reading many of the numbers and units in the article awkward, so at least my heart's in the right place. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object Pretty much the same as grapes

1. Lead too short
2. "Background" - structure could use some work - maybe kill the subsections and write it out, maybe an intro, not sure
3. "Physics program" - I don't like the list here - is there a pressing reason why you need it? I think it should be written out...
4. "Components" - one-sentence paragraph lead-in
5. Some parts of it are hard for a layman to read - "straw tracker" etc. sections like that are pretty short anyway so a short explanation might be in order...

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Ryan Norton seems to be taking a Wikivacation or to have left altogether, according to his user page. :-( No edits from him since 10/22. I'm pretty confident that his objects have been addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's slightly annoying, but thanks for putting the note in. Out of curiosity, since this FAC seems not to be getting any more comments, how much longer does it sit here until someone acts on it in some way? -- SCZenz 16:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• After it's been listed for about a week, Raul654 usually comes through and promotes it if appropriate. The wait is agony, isn't it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed most of RN's and grapes' comments. Here's my update:
  1. Lead expanded to three paragraphs, with history and the general idea of the detector.
  2. Unnecessary subheadings in "background" removed, I think it'll be good now, especially with greater context in lead.
  3. There is a pressing reason why the list of physics goals is needed; these are six different things being looked for, and if I wrote it out as works it would still read like a list. Note that I could expand the physics program section substantially, but I am not sure this would improve the article. (Even in a FA, I ought not to be explaining all of the current mysteries of particle physics, or all of how to do data analysis; the article is about the detector.) Any comments on this?
  4. Components now has a proper lead-in
  5. Basically all of the detector systems are now explained in more detail, which incidentally makes them long enough to qualify as proper subsections (I hope). The exception is the muon spectrometer, which is of equivalent rank to the other components in the scheme of the detector, but about which there really isn't much more to say. It's still too short, but I think under the circumstances forcing a length increase or artificially merging it with another section would hurt the article.
  6. Units are fixed up as per grapes' suggestion.
• The upshot of all this is that I've added so much the article probably needs another round of copyediting. Please let me know what comments you still have! Thanks again. -- SCZenz 09:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent work; I've struck most of my objections above and don't think this article has much farther to go now. It really feels like a meal rather than a snack now. I did quite a bit of copyediting just now — better check that I didn't make any errors. A couple issues still:

1. (Minor) "The energy-absorbing materials are lead and stainless steel, sampled by liquid argon, and a cryostat is required around the EM calorimeter to keep it sufficiently cool." What does "sampled by liquid argon" mean? I thought maybe it was a typo, but wasn't sure.
2. I'm with RN on the Physics program list. I think the section should be removed, actually, and the list of physics questions ATLAS hopes to answer should be moved into the Background section. I think it would read better as list-like prose, but it's OK by me if it remains a bullet-list. However, if it stays a bullet list, the list items need to be cleaned up to each be talking about the same class of thing... right now the list reads in a choppy manner, with each bullet starting with a different part of speech.
3. (Very minor) I was a bit confused by the use of radians to measure the precision of the calorimeters; maybe this is an area that could be clarified for non-physics-people?

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I made more big changes, which likely means more copyediting. Here's what I changed.
  1. I reworded slightly the liquid argon bit; what sampling means is explained in the first paragraph of the calorimeter section. Is that ok, or is it still confusing?
  2. I've now substantially expanded the physics program section, after deciding that the details of what physical ideas are being looked for are pretty important to the experiment and how it's put together, and merited a better treatment. Please read it over and let me know how it looks, and also whether the illustration is helpful--it's complex, but conveys a pretty accurate sense of the things that physicists really have to look for.
  3. I wrote a better explanation of what the use of radians means, let me know if it's comprehensible now. Do you think I should put the numbers in degrees as well?
  4. I've also expanded the data systems section, and added more details about how analysis is done.
  5. The muon section I've still got no inspiration on; hopefully you'll forgive me one short subsection. ;)
• Thanks yet again for your help! -- SCZenz 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Enthusiastically Support this FAC now. Just a few comments now:

1. I still don't really grasp what it means for liquid argon to be the sampling material. That might be OK.
2. I think this sentence could use a little polishing: "The Higgs mechanism, which includes the Higgs boson, is invoked to give masses to elementary particles—in particular, explaining the differences between the weak force and electromagnetism." I think I know that interactions with the Higgs field are what give the elementary particles mass, but the relation between that statement and a lack of symmetry between the weak force and EM escapes me.
3. BLACK HOLES! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! Oh, sorry. :-)
4. Radians are fine, I was just suprised to see an angle and not a distance. The new diagram is good.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Really we need an article on particle showers and an expansion of calorimeter (particle physics) that would explain what's going on there better; but I don't think I ought to take up more space for it (since it would have to be a whole paragraph).
  2. I expanded somewhat better the situation with the Higgs mechanism; is it good enough now?
  3. Yeah, I almost put in an explicit statement that they're not dangerous, but that's discussed all over the place at Hawking radiation... ;)
• Thanks so much for all your help and support! -- SCZenz 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're are very welcome; thanks for making such good improvements during this process! I suspected something like that was going on with the calorimeter; that's OK. The change you made to the part about Higgs mechanism is good enough: I still can't honestly say I understand it, but it no longer reads like a non-sequitur. Finally, life was more exciting before Hawking: worrying about a micro-black hole slowly eating the earth out from its core was a good time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Question. I realize that the article isn't completely consistent on wikification, largely because I added a lot of new material before the previous uses of certain terms. Before I go through and make it consistent, I'd like some guidance. Should a term be wikified only the first time it appears in the article, no matter what, or if a term reappears again much later and is important should it be wikified again? -- SCZenz 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying it again, especially in a new section, is fine, escpecially if the linked material really helps in understanding the topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I disagree with Bunchofgrapes's response to the query about repeat linkings. Please see See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for WP policy. Many WP articles are overlinked. An analogy to repeat linking within an article is the spelling out of acronyms on each occurrence through an article, rather than the standard practice of spelling out on first occurrence alone. Tony 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links does say you shouldn't link more than once, then parenthetically although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence. There's room to disagree here, certainly, but I feel strongly that relinking a technical or obscure topic in a new section, when it was last mentioned more than a few paragraphs earlier, is good practice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think there are a few cases in the article where it would be very helpful. I will go through carefully and remove any repeated links for which this is not true. -- SCZenz 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps once, but not repeatedly; that might be irritating. Tony 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

Nominating Giano's masterpiece, the one article that's been calling out to be written ever since he started his series of Featured architectural pages. Long? Yes, but it would surely be destructive to amputate anything here. Note that all the individual architects (listed at the end) have been spun off into their own articles. Special thanks to the photographers Urban (on Commons) and Elgaard, and please bear in mind that Sicily with its stunning architecture welcomes rich American tourists! Bishonen | talk 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Wow, those pictures are beautiful. The text needs some work, however. For example "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural individuality." is awkward. "the newly fashionable neoclassicism" is clever, but the word "newly" isn't doing its job. The sentence "To fully appreciate Sicilian Baroque one has to identify one or more of the above characteristics, then appraise the composition as a whole, and then if the building postdates the late 1720s determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable "joie de vivre"." needs polishing. All this needs, I'd say, is a thorough copyedit by someone familiar with architecture but who hasn't yet read the article to put some of the "liquidity" into the prose and remove some of its "flourishes". I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Jkelly's comments regarding readability, which is an issue throughout the article. Suggest moving this to Wikipedia:Peer review for a tune-up, then resubmitting for FAC.--Lordkinbote 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. I'll Object until after it has had a good tune-up, but otherwise it is a very fine article on par with your own very fine articles, Bishonen! *Exeunt* Ganymead 04:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

**Comment. There have been some improvements, but there are what I would describe as unsourced aesthetic judgements remaining in the article. I left an example on the talk page. Jkelly 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have replied on the talk page. There are many footnotes, and many references. Giano | talk 22:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very nice images, but they've got a few problems:
  1. The image Image:Il gattopardo.gif has no source or copyright information.

     Now reuploaded as Image:Visconti56.jpg Is a screen shot, permitted, 1 per article. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

     Yes, copyrighted screen shots are permitted in articles. They are not required, and I see no reason to use a copyrighted, restricted-use image in what is otherwise a free content article. --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's gone Giano | talk 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The photograph Image:San giorgio ragusa ibla italy.jpg is licensed under the GFDL, but does not indicate who the creator is. It was probably created by the uploader, but this needs to be verified.

     If the uploader says its GFDL that's good enough for me, but I have asked the uploader to confirm. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The uploader "Giac" has now ammended this, and credited himself with taking the foto. Giano | talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:Palazzo Biscari..jpg is claimed as "public domain", but does not indicate a source.
     • Its an ancient dog eared print, probably 200 years old, owned by me and about 1000 others who have equally old copies. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
       • All right, so who was the artist? When was the print created? --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would immagine in 1715/16 - like many provicial prints. artists its unsigned Giano | talk 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that the description page has that information, it looks good. --Carnildo 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: The article is structurally sound and the pictures are exquisite. I have done some mild copy-editing to try to allay the concerns of those like Jkelly. However, feel free to add more liquidity to it where desired. :) Brisvegas 05:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support- I love the pictures, and I think it is an extroardinary aritcle. I'm not much on the first paragraph though. I'm not fond of the long list. If its neccessary thats fine, but I like prose better. Falphin 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I like prose better too, but these distinctions need to be listed clearly in order to stand out from the text, and then be explained in context within that text, and related to the images. Giano | talk 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - same grounds as Jkelly. Some particlar sentences demonstating the problem:

1. "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural identity."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The phenomenon that was true Sicilian Baroque lasted barely fifty years, but gave the island an architectural character that was to last into the 21st century."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The earliest examples of the Baroque style in Sicily were generally clumsy, ill-proportioned versions of what travelers to Rome, Florence, and Naples had seen."

altered

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "If the building postdates the late 1720s, it is advisable to determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable 'joie de vivre.'"

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "While each facade of Quattro Canti is pleasing to the eye, as a scheme it is out of proportion to the limited size of the piazza, and like most other examples of early Sicilian Baroque can be considered provincial, naive and heavy-handed, compared to later developments."

This is true Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "At this stage of its development, Sicilian Baroque still lacked the warmth, joy, and freedom that it was later to acquire."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "This is not because of a disdain for the masses, or an indifference to their heritage, but more a bunker mentality; for years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage"

Changed Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Still reads "For years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage". POV both with the "punative" taxes and the implicit assumption that the architecture should be preserved.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I fixed a ton of typos, grammar, and style problems, but there are still more to be fixed. Some things to remember: try to maintain the same tense throughout a sentence and, if possible, a paragraph. Don't start paragraphs with "Thus". The previous paragraph should flow into it, rather than it flowing from the previous paragraph. Also, try to cut down on the number of lengthy sentences and uses of "thus". Some of the sentences can convey the same thing with many fewer words. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:14
  • Brian, I'm sure Giano appreciates the advice and the genuine fixes, but IMO most of your edits are pure matters of taste that make no difference either way. (I don't want to get into minor squabbling on this page, but a few are actively detrimental, especially some, perhaps hurried, word order changes.) Also, this is a place where people put up their babies for scrutiny; criticism is part of the purpose of FAC, but please be considerate and polite when giving it. I honour your good intention and wish to help, though. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So I don't make the mistake again, which of my changes are detrimental? I went back and checked, and most, if not all, appear to be changes to fix verb use, wordiness, split infinitives, sentence structure, passive voice, etc. You don't have to go through the whole document, but just give me a couple of changes with which you disagree. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:12
      • Sure. I'll do it on your Talk. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, those were fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 03:05
  • It's really good, but will need more copyediting. Tony 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Truly a masterpiece of an article ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—I've just performed major surgery on the lead. The prose is not yet good enough for a FA. I'll try to come back to it. Tony 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I love this article, particularly the way the images are beautifully integrated into the text. Give me time to edit it, please, and address my inline queries. (In particular, why do we suddenly learn that Sicily was ruled by the Spanish in passing, in the list of stylistic characteristics? Isn't this important enough to mention further up?) Tony 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A page failing FAC is always disappointing to its principal editor, and this has failed miserably. That I can endure, it's happened before to me. I've had a lot of good luck here, and a little bit of bad. Taking out a film clip, verifying an image, a little POV etc. no problem. What I cannot endure is the dumbing down of language, and distortion of fact. So I have reverted Sicilian Baroque to the version Bishonen first nominated. It may have some minor style faults but since being here it has been pounced on by a, self appointed, hoard of style editors, (excluding Geogre) who seem to live here, each no doubt well meaning, but in their endeavours to stamp on the page their own uniform style, have altered, albeit, unwittingly the essence of the page. Facts which should be clear are no longer clear, other facts are now misleading or distorted. It is no longer, in my opinion accurate. I have spent most of today trying to clarify changed paragraphs etc. After a further two hours this evening I realise it is hopeless, even as I edit (with an inuse tag) style gurus from FAC are messaging me with their opinions, so I realise they will just return, so further edit is futile. The nominated version was the most accurate and true. If that is not what FA is about, then so be it. That is how I leave the page. I shall edit it no more.

This is obviously (IMO) the path of future FAs, so I shall be writing no more of them. I'm not flouncing off in a huff, (So please no "Oh come back dearest Giacomo on my page" - I flatter myself) I shall be around for ages but working on smaller pages which have no risk of nomination. Just one thought what happens to a page that fails FA, and has been distorted and become false by the FA style edits. Giano | talk 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you keep at it, it'll be featured status. It's only been in FAC for 5 days. Norman Borlaug took me over 2 weeks to get cleared through FAC. That's the point of FAC. It's not make-or-break. It's the final step to collaboratively turning an article into a featured article. Cut the drama. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:17

And how many hours of my time wasted? What a nerve. This has made me think twice about spending any time helping to improve articles like this one that were, and now are again, poorly written. Giano appears to be too lazy to integrate my numerous changes into whatever further changes he requires. It's lovely seeing all my work just dissolve into nothing. Strong object: it's nowhere near good enough for a FA. If it goes through without 'compelling, even brilliant prose', I'll be listing it at FARC as soon after as is allowed. Tony 01:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC) PS Giano, I'd appreciate an early warning if there's even a remote possibility that you're going to trash my hard work. To do otherwise is, frankly, rude. Tony 02:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection above, never entirely addressed, now firmly stands as well. And if it walks, quacks, and smells like leaving in a huff, it probably is leaving in a huff. Please do reconsider. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ormulum

Semi-self-nom: I wrote it and did a lot of the early research, and with the aim of getting a second medieval literature FA, but the quality of the article took off with the intervention and ministrations of Haeleth. At this point, I honestly think this is the prettiest article on an ugly book ever. Geogre 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A well-referenced and informative article. The red links are a minor concern however, do you have any info on Jan van Vliet and the Ayenbite of Inwyt? The pictures also look good; well done! Brisvegas 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have anything on Jan van Vliet. Haeleth might, but I'll see if he rates an article in the Dictionary of National Biography in the next few days. The only information I personally had was a substub ("A Dutch antiquarian and book collector"), and that wouldn't make an article. The Agenbite/Aygenbite is one of those big pieces that needs an article, but to do it any kind of justice requires a substantial effort. It will happen, but it's kind of a big pull. Geogre 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Franciscus Junius is a substub just like that right now... that should probably be even more of a concern! I've stubbed van Vliet, and provided a reference that looks like it should be useful, if anyone can find a copy. — Haeleth Talk 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's a very detailed article, with all the right foci. My only issue is that you seem to use Bennett disproportionately. Perhaps you can add some more information from other sources? Superm401 | Talk 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's difficult. Specialists are interested only for particular bits of morphology or instances of Old Norse, and, with Parkes, the debate on when and where it was written sort of ended (for the time being). We're at the mercy of the few scholars who wrote large works on Middle English and those preparing early Middle English anthologies. That, at this point, leaves us with Bennett. Bennett owned the field of early Middle English philology to a surprising degree. The other sources would be various other encyclopedias, and most of those are derivative of the sources already given. The fact that Ormulum doesn't light the fires of the imagination doesn't help, either. Geogre 12:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Simply marvelous and a wonderful read! This will be very nice beside the Peterborough Chronicle. You have just become my new Wikipedia hero! Well, next to Bishonen, that is. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctantly object. I think that this is about as close as an article can get without receiving my support (which means not much work for you!!). There are a few instances of POV writing: "despite its lack of literary merit" -- according to whom? "although Orm's poetry is, at best, subliterary" -- again, who's to say? and so forth...these are easily fixed, though. Also, the lead needs to be a little more substantial. Two sentences is a bit light for an article with over 11,000 characters. I'm OK with one paragraph, but there needs to be a little more to chew on in the lead. But the prose is excellent, and I'm sure to support given these improvements. If I can help in any way, please let me know! PacknCanes | say something! 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's mentioned multiple times throughout the text; it was not intended to be great literature, but rather a biblical companion. The modern equivalent would be a study guide to course literature or something like it. Even Orm himself confessed that it wasn't high-standing prose. From the text:

  The work is unusual in that no critic has ever stepped forward to defend it on literary grounds. Indeed, Orm himself was aware of its flaws: he admits in the preface that he has frequently padded the lines to fill out the meter, "to help those who read it", and urges his brother Walter to edit the poetry to make it more meet.

  Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I see where you're coming from; it still looks POV to me, but I did consider what was in the article and I can see where it can go either way. I'll withdraw that part of my objection altogether, and I'll go ahead and support the nomination even though I still think the lead can be expanded a little more. I don't, however, think that something that minor should be the only thing an objection stands on, so I'll support it. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 12:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It looks POV, I agree, but it's the standard description used in every textbook and course I've seen. Some more citations:

  "The modern-day critical response to the content of the Orrmulum is less than enthusiastic. It has been labelled 'soporific' and 'tedious'" - Treharne, p. 273 (although she's quoting Bennett there - that's how influential his opinions are.)

  "His lines are, however, monotonous to read, since they are absolutely regular in metre. Students of literature do not place Orm high on their list" - Dennis Freeborn, From Old English to Standard English (London 1992), p. 88

  And, as we say in the article, we have been able to find no instance in which any literary aspect of the work has been praised. It is difficult to prove a negative, but it's also decidedly unusual for an author not to have any prominent advocates. Compare the romances. — Haeleth Talk 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Mahvelous. Well-written, well-referenced, to the point and comprehensive enough without being overly excessive. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great stuff from the Geogre workshop, that remarkable place, and congratulations to Haeleth, too. The author urged his brother to edit it to conform to a higher standard of quality? He listed it on Cleanup? Fantastic. :-) Bishonen | talk 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful article! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Support. This article has been making me uneasy for reasons I've had a hard time putting my finger on, but I think I've got two actionable things:
  • The lead leaves me very, very hungry for more, but then I have to wade through three sections before I find out what had me so intrigued: Just how does a 12th-century written manuscript provide pronounciation details? I'd suggest either adding a little more to the pretty-short-right-now lead, answering that question in brief, or moving the Orthography section up. I hope that one of these suggestions or the other is acceptable; maybe I'm just fixated on the pronounciation issue, but it seems like it is the most important thing about the manuscript, and deserves more prominince. (If neither of those works for the article, maybe consider renaming the Orthography section to something dullards like me would recognize as being about the pronounciation question?)
  • (Stupid detail, and maybe ignorance): In the Origins section, in the little tables showing source and translation, why is the source center-aligned? Is that a standard formatting decision? I find it unpleasing to the eye. This is fine, now that it's been explained to me.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Because of the unique phonetic orthography adopted by the author..." is about as clear as you can get, Grapes. I wikified both "phonetic" and "orthography" to make sure that people who aren't familiar with the linguistic jargon understand what they mean. I can't agree, though, that reading three paragraphs should be considered a chore. It's just not a big article.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Never say never; Geogre has expanded the lead beautifully to address my issue. And it's 15 paragraphs across three sections. If this is going to represent wikipedia's best work, it needs to acknowledge that a lot of people aren't going to read even that much of the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bunchofgrapes, I think you're right that the lead is stunted, and a couple of folks have mentioned it, so I'll attempt to make the lead slightly longer and more thesis-like. Thanks for the kind comments. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. Objection struck. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • For your second point, the source text isn't centre-aligned, but rather each second line is indented slightly. The effect is clearer in the longer quotation at the end of "contents and style". This is the way the text is formatted in Bennett & Smithers; it's intended to show that the indented lines are subordinate (i.e. to avoid people asking why what's printed as short lines of alternately 8 and 7 syllables is described as long lines of 15 syllables). At any rate, it's more aesthetic than semantic, so please feel free to remove it if you're not convinced it's worthwhile. — Haeleth Talk 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just EXCELLENT!. Tony 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: the kind of article that makes me jealous. Now why can't I write like that? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  That is entirely Haeleth's doing. My version was choppy and repetitive. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)}

Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

Self-nom. Originally abandoned to the seagulls, I decided that this single had potential for featured article. "Cool" is a song with a message of a past relationship that ended up resulting in an interesting way. Although it did not perform unbelievably well on the charts, it had fair success worldwide, and is notable for all of these reasons. It has been through peer review, which went well, and has brought us to this. The rest is up to you. --Winnermario 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great song, great article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a bit more (if possible), though. Everyking 21:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing work. I'd love to see this become a featured article. --DrippingInk 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that's certainly complete! You've got my vote! 201.137.188.56 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection. Format references in APA format, with author, publisher, year, place of publication, and (where applicable) page. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. --FuriousFreddy 00:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • References have been formatted the same way they are in the "Yesterday (song)" article. --Winnermario 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Yesterday" became an FA over a year ago, during which time the rules have evolved. At the very least, you should place authors and publishing dates of sources which were not used to find statistical data. --FuriousFreddy 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and did the formatting myself for the references section (sort of overwriting Extraordinary Machine's version, sorry). While looking up the info, I found this at Napster.com: Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc. If this is inforceable on their part, this might be a problem for our entire project. I sent Billboard an email asking if it was okay to reprint their data here, since we are no-profit and informational, and we'll go on from there. I'm withdrawing my objection, as it has been fulfilled. --FuriousFreddy 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • My prior reservations over such level of detail in articles aside, I don't think using "permission only" chart trajectory information on Wikipedia would be applicable to the goal of creating a free content encyclopedia, i.e. one that can be redistributed by anybody. Also, all edits to articles are licensed under the GFDL, so I'm not sure. But anyway, this issue should probably be discussed further at User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. I've replaced the tables with a chart I made on Microsoft Excel, and moved the tables to its image description page. Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very very cool article :p OmegaWikipedia 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - It's good, but I don't think it's quite there. The writing style is awkward in places - a mixture of short choppy sentences, along with some long, poorly structured sentences. I think that will be easy to fix. Try reading the article out loud and the problem areas should identify themselves. If it doesn't flow absolutely smoothly when you read it - rewrite the sentence, and keep rewriting it until it does flow absolutely smoothly. The musical style is barely discussed and needs to be expanded, and critical comments/review comments would help achieve this. A sample would help greatly - I'll add one if you like. If using "Fair Use" images you need to provide a rationale as per Wikipedia:Image description page and there are too many screenshots. Use only what you absolutely must use. Select the best and delete the rest. They need to add significantly to the text, and not merely be decorative. I'm not sure about quoting song lyrics. I would say it's in violation of copyright and it does not seem to be essential to the article. I would remove them. Minor points - Stefani's "ex". Used several times. "Ex" is unencyclopedic/colloquial and should be replaced. Also the bit about Itunes "for reasons unknown"... that's not exactly true. I'm sure someone knows the reasons, it's just that you and I don't. Surely the sentence could stand on its own as a fact without the "for reasons unknown" which has the odd effect of making the comment irrelevant. Finally a complete copyedit is needed as there are typos and spelling mistakes. Rossrs 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is not the same article it was two days ago! A very fruitful community effort has improved it significantly - it looks great to me. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rossrs, I uploaded the files, so I'll speak on behalf of this. I believe these sceenshots are needed in this instance here to help corrleate with the message of the song. There are essentially two parts to "Cool" as a story. The first signifies how the couple became "uncool" when they broke up. The second signifies how years later, the couple was able to make up and still be good friends, yet move on romatically. The third screenshot signifies a theme that is expanded upon in the music video, but not related to in the song, about how even though Stefani claims she is cool, at times, she does regress and becomes "uncool". That said, I agree that there were too many images, and the image of Stefani lying in the bed will be removed as it essentially the single cover. Is that fair enough? I will also be justifying these reasons on the pages of the respective pictures. OmegaWikipedia 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Omega, what you've done with the images is very good. I personally don't think the article needs so many, but that's just my own viewpoint, and as far as I'm concerned you've satisfied my objection to those particular images, and I appreciate that. Winnermario should do the same with the image Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg which is still lacking the necessary rationale etc. Thanks Omega. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That image is actually from an inaccurate source that was displaying images under false identities. Apparently Stefani is performing a song by No Doubt, despite the presence of her Harajuku Girls in the background. I was unaware of this, so the image has become useless to the article. I say it be voted for deletion, as I don't know any proper copyright laws because of the inaccuracy. --Winnermario 20:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's well illustrated and energetically written. (In some places it needs more work: for example, I really don't understand the sentence "Cool" being written close to ten years after "Don't Speak" is seen as an appropriate gap between the two pennings.) However, it seems to me to suffer from the defects of many articles about pop songs: (i) Virtually all of the introductory section is about chart performance. If the song is worth a longish article, the introduction should surely indicate how this is so. The mere facts that this is single number X by a certain singer and did so-and-so in the charts seem feeble. (ii) The first section is "Song information". But wait: This is an encyclopedia article about a song; surely we expect that an encyclopedia article about a song should give us information about the song, aka "song information". Perhaps this is just a matter of titling: could this be retitled "Composition and instrumentation"? (iii) "Chart performance" is hugely bloated. The song did pretty well, presumably well enough to keep the record company, singer, fans, etc., all happy. Does anyone need to know so very, very much more? And note that we don't just learn what happened: we also read what (unnamed) critics "assumed" would happen, and how they were "proved wrong". If popularity (relative to that of other songs that the record companies cared to promote at the same time) warrants ten or more times the verbiage that's expended on the music, this does rather suggest that this is an almost purely commercial product, more akin to (say) a brand of candy-bar than to, uh, something by Verdi for example. (iv) Billboard is not part of the "World". (v) Two tables have a superfluous column: We read "2005" in every single cell. (For points (iv) and (v), see my thwarted attempt at a discussion here.) (vi) If "Chart trajectory" isn't mere fancruft, what is it? (Is this trivia really supposed to be "encyclopedic"?) -- Hoary 11:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC) PS I still think the "chart trajectory" is over the top, but won't use it as a reason to object. As has been pointed out by others, the article has changed a lot since the time it was first nominated here. At that time it was ho-hum; now it seems excellent. Well done! Hoary 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Some of the sentences seem awkardly worded (The lyrics of "Cool" describe a failed relationship that did not result tragically) and I, like Hoary, don't understand the one about a gap between pennings. I'd like to see the lead describe the nature of the song and its genre - for all I know from the lead this is jazz or country music. Perhaps some of the chart position information could be removed from the lead instead. I have never heard this song, never (as far as I remember) heard of this singer and the article doesn't tell me much about what kind of music this is. I don't mind the chart information or even the chart trajectory tables - I'd just like some more musical information as well. Oh, and the tables have some superfluous columns - better fix that too. All the faults I found have been remedied. I feel the article is now much more balanced and informative. There are still some seams showing where new text has been spliced onto old, especially in Composition and meaning where the text gets a bit repetitive. And there is still a redundant "year" column in the (now unified and better for it) chart table. I'd suggest getting rid of it and changing the "Position" heading to read "Position (2005)". Assuming those details get straightened out I now Support the nomination. Kudos to the people who have been working on this! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The lead needs work. Is a chart peak of #13 really the most significant thing about this song?
  2. Too much detail on chart performance, and not enough on the song itself.
  3. The "US" and "World" chart listings shouldn't be separate.
  4. References section needs proper formatting.
  5. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest reducing it to the album cover, Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg, and one representative screen capture from the music video.
  6. No source information or fair-use rationales on any of the images. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 19:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Better, but there are still problems. The biggest one I see right now is that there's no link to the description page for the sound sample. --Carnildo 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Extraordinary Machine 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Rossrs, Hoary, Haukurth, Carnildo are all objecting for inappropriate reasons. First and foremost, Hoary has been following myself and other editors around the site with the pop music articles. The problem is that he (and some others) don't like what we're doing. A chart trajectory is not fancruft because it is extremely encyclopedic. If a person wants the trajectory for a song, it's right here in the article. Also, the images are all self-created images, and are all fair use as per User:OmegaWikipedia. The previous images that were added to the section were also all fair use, as they came from Gwen Stefani fan websites. Another problem here are the charts. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the charts should be separate or unified, and it appears that Hoary is objecting because the style is not in his preference. This is unacceptable and he should not be using this reason against the article's nomination. These issues have been brought up before with Hoary and others, but they have failed to process our side and story, and retreat to their own. Also, the infobox clearly states that the song is of the pop genre. --Winnermario 20:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Winnermario, we have given clear reasons for objecting and every single objection is actionable and therefore by Wikipedia rules must be actioned. Carnildo has also taken the time to point you to Wikipedia policy pages and I think it would be a really good idea if you read those pages. I've also pointed you to a policy page. We've told you exactly how to elevate the quality of this article. It's a shame that you're disappointed by the fact that a few people have not given you the unqualified support you were hoping for, but we've actually given you something far more important - constructive criticism. The only thing inappropriate here is your reaction. The idea of an article being made a Featured Article is that is represents the very best work that Wikipedia has to offer and the nomination process should be stringent and exacting, and it should not be automatic. Stop bleating about how mean we all are and deal with the issues we've highlighted. I'm sorry that I wasted so much of my time trying to help you improve the article. Rossrs 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Winnermario, you should not strike out other's comments just because you feel they are a "useless argument". Rossrs 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing this to me, as I previously did not know this. But please do not mock me calling the situation a "useless argument", I was doing it in good faith, but with unknown knowledge. So thank you. --Winnermario 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Winnermario, I thought, and still think, my comments are valid. I'm not mocking you. You dismissed everything I said, without even extending me the courtesy of a reply, and you described my comments in your edit summary as a "useless argument". Believe it or not, I have tried only to improve the article by objecting to it, and I have made some edits to the article, in good faith and with the same aim, so I'm surprised by your negative reaction. Let's each assume the other to be acting in good faith from here on. Rossrs 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Fishing for votes is also generally frowned upon. Extraordinary Machine 22:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Fishing for votes is actually quite irrelevant. As long as there is at least one unfixed major objection, an article will not be featured. --Carnildo 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • There is no rule that states you cannot ask for votes. Plus, even if I had not "fished" for that vote, the article would still be in the lead with supports. I would also like to take the time to ask the people who opposed "separate charts" not to vote in this FA, because so far that is the only matter I have come across. User:Hoary was against it, and has specified above that they should be unified (along with other reasons) for this article not to be featured. If you ask me, the mentioning of that ongoing issue is quite irrelevant. --Winnermario 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • There's asking for votes and there's asking for votes. The way Winnermario did it in that linked instance -- which might have been, and I hope was, unique -- really brings the value of votes here down to that of, say, positive feedback on Fleabay. -- Hoary 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It appears as though User:Extraordinary Machine has been following me. Although the fact that "fishing for votes" is completely irrelevant, I'd like to know how he knew about this? --Winnermario 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • We read: These issues have been brought up before with Hoary and others, but they have failed to process our side and story, and retreat to their own. Winnermario may care to link to some page where the proponents of separate tables with columns whose every cell is identical argue at all convincingly. The argument here for what I regard as bloat may be less convincing than average, but if so then not by much. -- Hoary 03:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hoary enjoys bringing that talk page into numerous discussions. In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of people who do not support unified charts. So why do you claim our charts as POV when we see yours as POV? --Winnermario 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very, very good. This is certainly one of my favourite songs and articles. Also, if I may comment on the way charts are formatted: does it really matter? The case is small, and should be resolved quite easily. Anyhow, I vote support. -64.231.70.46 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The song is pretty lousy, as most popular songs are. Which is neither here nor there. The article is very precise, very much to the point, provides all the necessary information, and meets every possible criterium as an encyclopedia entry. An excellent effort. Ricardo the Texan 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - The article is well-written. --Anittas 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Object. Compared with other pop music articles, this article is actually fairly balanced; congrats Winnermario. However, I have to object for the following reasons: (1) far too much in-depth information about chart performance, (2) unsourced quotation (see Song Information, second paragraph), (3) too much speculation about song meaning/origins, with too little concrete facts (see Song Information, first paragraph and Lyrics and Meaning), (4) World and US chart stats don't need to be separated, (5) chart trajectory is excessive information and not necessary. With some pruning in some places, expansion of others, and inclusion of legitimate sources, I could support this with few reservations. Volatile 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Unified charts and no chart trajectory are not good enough reasons to object. However, the rest of your reasons are acceptable, so thank you for your input. :) --Winnermario 01:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I placed the unsourced quote in its appropriate place. --Winnermario 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It appears that someone has dealt with the separate charts situation; and I'm willing to drop the chart trajectory objection until further debate/comment can be made. The only reservations I continue to have are with the song meaning/interpretation and the chart info, both of which could be easily remedied. Volatile 13:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. My efforts to remedy some of the criticisms of the article raised on this page have been reverted (see [3], [4], [5]). Extraordinary Machine 02:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And rightfully done so, as there are people on this page who will object to this article if charts are unified. OmegaWikipedia 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Then "Cool" will not become an FA for as long as editors of the article continue to ignore objections. Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As the subject over chart views is subjective and a POV, I seriously don't think it should be counted here. If Mario can answer all other non chart related objections, would that be fair enough for everyone here? By the same token, if this article has charts unified, I will not support the article. Im sure other people feel the same way, and it doesnt make sense to withheld a good article from being a FA because people disagree over how charts should be noted OmegaWikipedia 05:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps if each chart section and trajectory heading had a couple of sentences that served as both an introduction of the section and explanation of what the information is, it would help. At the moment I'm sure there are people looking at "trajectory" and thinking "what the hell is this?". I think there is a trend towards providing excessive chart information that is not always relevant. We've discussed this elsewhere and I respect and understand your viewpoint, but I don't completely agree. I wouldn't use it as a basis for voting either for or against, unless it was particularly "bloated", and in this case I don't think it is, so it doesn't bother me. I have to say this article is improving substantially as a result of some excellent editing and additions over the last day or two. Everyone involved should be congratulated. I'm very happy that Winnermario nominated this, and that there were some objections - if the article had attracted nothing but overwhelming support, all of these great edits may never have happenned. If Winnermario (and others) deal with my objections, as they have been, I'm more than happy. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If all else is accounted for and some of the language/prose copyedited, I'd support this article. Volatile 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. As Rossrs said, there's been a lot of work done on the article over the last day or so. Here's a summary of it:
  1. References have been reformatted.
  2. The prose has been tidied and tightened in places.
  3. One music video screenshot has been removed, while the others have been given fair use rationale on their image description pages.
  4. The lead section now focusses less on the song's chart performance, and more on its influence and interpretation.
  5. The "Song information" section header has been retitled "Composition and instrumentation".
  6. The "Chart performance" section has been trimmed slightly.
  7. The chart tables have been merged, and the superfluous "Cool"/"Cool"/"Cool"/etc. column removed.
  8. Quotes from music critics about the song have been added, which help to explain what the song sounds like and what it is about.

  Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 9. And I've added a sample of the song. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The chart table that was added to the section documenting the trajectory is preferrable. My compliments to whomever designed it. However, I would also like to note unified charts. I'm still unsure if I want to go along with them, as they create a disturbance to the eye in reading. Suddenly, out of nowhere, from reading all these country names, we're into Billboard charts? --Winnermario 19:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll edit the table so that the U.S. charts are all one after the other (in other words, in their own "part" of the table), and before other countries. Also, I've trimmed the "Chart performance" section a little more and replaced the speculation of the relationship between "Cool" and "Don't Speak" with a comparison of the two songs (the statement that "Don't Speak" was also inspired by the Stefani/Kanal relationship is supported by a source). Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Better-looking, I suppose. It's getting there. --Winnermario 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very commendable effort here. Only criticism is the slightly bloated chart performance section, however it doesn't overshadow the rest of the article, so I have no problem letting it stay. Great job WM, EM, and all others involved. Volatile 22:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Okay, I'll finally move out of the way. This is a pretty cool article! I must insist, however, that the chart tables remain merged, so as not to put emphasis on the U.S. Billboard charts (thus violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy). Extraordinary Machine 22:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • The lead says the song is "by" Stefani, but later in the article we find it was co-written; this needs to be clarified.
    • "By" means "she sings". --Winnermario 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Er, I meant "needs to be clarified in the article", not here. . . (By the way, I do think the authorship needs to be included in the lead). Jgm 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's now been changed to "performed by". --keepsleeping say what 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Not anymore. Jgm 11:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • There seems to be a standard for featured article songs, especially the more recently promoted ones, to include songwriting and production credits in the lead paragraph. Furthermore "by" is not correct and should be "recorded by". For example Beatles songs would be by Lennon and McCartney and recorded by The Beatles. Have reworked the lead paragraph to see how it looks. Rossrs 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Music Video" section seems way too interpretive to me -- "identifying" the characters as playing named real people, baldly stating that things (such as the brunette wig) represent other things (such as Stefani's younger self), the whole description of the "story" told by the video: these things, if included at all, need to be documented as somebody's intent rather than the author's interpretation.
  • As to the chart stuff, I don't have a problem with the idea of the "trajectory" chart, but having such a chart and the week-by-week description of chart positions in the text is redundant; also I think that it is odd to have an article that describes the song as an "international hit" and then tracks chart information only for two similar North American countries (I think I'd be OK if the chart were retitled "North American Chart Trajectory" or some such); also also, a "trajectory" would seem to imply an eventual falling-off while this chart stops with the song at the toppermost of the Canuck poppermost, so to speak.
  • Finally, though I'm not sure exactly what to do about it, I'll note that I find the last paragraph under "Critical response" to be essentially unreadable due to the number of embedded quotations and sub-quotations, mixed with links, titles, and footnote indications. Can something be done stylistically here? The content of this paragraph is troublesome as well: the snippets of reviews just kind of sit there without any framing or context, don't they?

Jgm 22:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: This usage of cool is slang and the article never explains, or links to an explanation of what it means (in this context that they're okey with each other) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article explains what is meant by "cool" and its use is so widespread that I'd be surprised if people didn't know what it means, but I have added a couple of sentences to explain, and have linked to both cool (African philosophy) and okay which both contain definitions that fit the context of the use of the word in the song. Rossrs 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool;) It's still a horrid song though, support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

But you didn't let that stand in the way of supporting it... and that's cool ;) I've bolded your support to make it easier to see and count. Thanks Rossrs 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object for a reason given above by Jgm: until certain claims in the "Music Video" section (that the video's actors portray real people, that Stefani's hair color is symbolic of her youth, etc.) are given sources, they are original research. --keepsleeping say what 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The music video information is not original research. I heard everything that's mentioned (brown hair, role-playing characters) in an interview with Stefani in August, and although I've been searching to source the facts, I have come up unsuccessful. So this is sort of a thorny issue. --Winnermario 20:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Finding something by researching would be the best option, but if you can't find it can you remember what program played the interview? A reference that says something like "VH1 hits interview, screened August 2005" would be better than nothing and it might help someone else find a more precise source. I've seen this done in other featured articles so it might help you address this objection. Rossrs 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I just noticed this is now featured! Congratulations. Rossrs 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Snort. So much for the "process". Jgm 13:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a featured article! Thanks to everyone who helped make this possible! --Winnermario 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Voter turnout

Self nom. An important subject, but one where there isn't much agreement about what is going on. It has been through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this a good article. I did a little copy-editing, but hit two sentences I thought needed non-trivial fixes:

1. This sentence should be either explained, or links to the explanation should be clearer: "Even game theory analyses have found that the equilibrium number of voters in any large election is zero." In particular, I don't understand what is meant by the "equilibrium number of voters".
2. This sentence needs a not-entirely-trivial rewritie for grammar: "Western Americans have often complained that since the election has already been decided in the east of the country that turnout is depressed on the Pacific coast." (Bonus for statistics demonstrating this.)

Fix those and you'll have my support; nice work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Support now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I've fixed those two sentences, though it will take some time to see if any statistics are available. - SimonP 03:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I've edited two-thirds of it, and will almost certainly support it. The reference for the basic formula at the top is unclear. Is it Riker and Ordeshoot? Please see my inline comments throughout. Tony 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS What about some photos of some of the situations you refer to. Mugabe in victory celebrations?

• Support. Quite comprehensive and easy to read. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although you should make clear what Putnam book you are using in the references. (I assume it's Bowling Alone but it isn't specifically stated.) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of the big efficacy, Gerrymandering sort. This is as clearly written and well researched work of Political Science as I've ever read, and I've read A LOT. It hits all the important points and factors-rational choice theory, game theory, negative campaigning, GOTV, and, of course, that very famous study (in US Poli Sci circles at least) by G. Bingham Powell. Another outstanding survey article Simon!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on 'Institutional factors' is long and involved. At the top, please consider a summarising the list of factors that may increase turnout. Then your readers will be armed with a synoptic view of the big picture as they navigate the subsequent details. Here's a draft:

Institutional factors that may increase voter turnout.

• Legal compulsion to vote, and enforcement of that compulsion.
• A high degree of 'salience' (the perceived effect of an individual vote), which may arise from:
  • strong relative power of the legislature in question;
  • the possibility or likelihood that a significant change of government, and policy, may result from an election; and
  • the accurate reflection of the people's will in the composition of the legislature.
• The convenience of voting, including:
  • accessible polling facilities; and
  • simple voting procedures, including easy registration and one-off votes.
• Low levels of voter fatigue, arising from not-too-frequent elections).

Tony 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added an introductory paragraph to that section. I've also made the changes suggested by the comments you left. - SimonP 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This should be the benchmark for references in future FACs. Well-written, well-sourced, and comprehensive. Great work! PacknCanes | say something! 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tony 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Model article. Jkelly 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Simply great! Vb 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support The SimonP featured article mill churns out another masterpiece. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:

1. Riker and Ordeshook Please prefix their names with their occupation. Similarly, the same with Francis Fukuyama. India's polling is not only due to the terrain, it is also due to the lack of security manpower available. And to clarify another point, voting in India is split into phases rather than days. That is, the days are not necessarily consecutive. There's also hardly anything on voting in the world's largest liberal democracy. If you need any specifics on Indian elections, I can help out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheese

self-nom.

Peer reviewed here. I think this article is a good, comprehensive look at cheese now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support - A comprehensive and well-written article. Cedars 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Title Cuisine.jpg is claimed as "fair use". "Fair use" images should never be used in series boxes or other templates.
  2. The image Image:Bleu de Gex jpg.jpg is claimed as GFDL, but does not indicate the creator/copyright holder. This is a violation of the GFDL.

  --Carnildo 05:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment — Bleu de Gex jpg.jpg looks like it comes from this page. There's no copyright information, so we cannot assume GFDL. The uploaderCommons:User:Michiel1972 has been asked to verify copyright status before, but it seems nothing has been done. However, Title Cuisine.jpg looks like it has been properly taken from stock.xchng, which states that there are no usage restrictions on theimage. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Good work Gareth, I've retagged the image PD as this seems consistent with what the original author wrote (he did not tag it fair use that was the work of Eclipsael). Cedars 13:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: Thank you very much, Gareth and Cedars, for dealing with the Cuisine image. I've replaced Image:Bleu de Gex jpg.jpg with Image:Vacherin du haut Doubs.jpg, which is hopefully more-legitimately tagged. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support — I love this article! --Gareth Hughes 16:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Based on a quick read, I like it. Nice, wide-ranging overview. - dcljr (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Mild Object. This article has improved substantially since I last read it, but I think a few problems need to be addressed before it becomes a FA.
  • I don't think that subheadings followed only by a couple of sentences "flows" well. Some of the subheadings (especially in Types of Cheeses and Making Cheese) should either be expanded or combined into more generalized sections. At least a paragraph or two for each heading, consisting of at least 4-5 sentences.
  • This is more of a suggestion than an objection, so feel free to ignore it. A section on how cheese is actually used is missing. Is it eaten alone, or used as an ingredient in cooking? What are some of the ways it is consumed? I know cheeses like paneer are never eaten by themselves but used only in cooking, while some types of cheese are best eaten plain. Sortan 01:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: Subsections have been combined; definitely an improvement. Thanks. Still wringing my hands about the Cheese usage idea. It might be one of those dithering "some cheeses are cooked, some aren't, some are sometimes according to some and not others" type of things... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Another Response: I've added a fourth paragraph to the intro, partially addresing the cheese usage idea and partially addressing the lack of information about cheese melting qualities. Hope that helps. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Very nice! Sortan 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object same as Sortan. Will support once those are addressed. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: I certainly agree about the short subsections. I've fixed up the Making cheese section, and it's all the better for it. I know it's not really your problem or Sortan's, but I'd love to hear a good idea for dealing with the Types of cheese section. Expanding the subsections as they stand now is just article-bloat, I think, while combining them defeats the purpose of the enumeration. A bullet-list with indented short descriptions? Or resorting to something cheesy (sorry!) like a table? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, for the "Types of cheese" simply don't use headers for a few of those and just combine them. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Subsections combined. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, you've done a great job here - but there's still one or two one-sentence paragraphs here that need to be fixed. I'll support after that but I will add that there are some other mainly short paragraphs that might benefit from combining or lengthening - but then there is no such thing as a Wikipedia:Perfect article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, RN. I've eliminated all but one single-sentence paragraph, mostly with additional content; the one remainder ("Some cheeses have specific bacteria or molds intentionally introduced to them before or during aging") introduces a list, so maybe it can slide? I've merged a few smaller paragraphs here and there as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Paragraphs are a little short but its FA material.... and its cheesy! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - did you know that the Australian govt was banning several types of cheeses due to a health risk? I can't see a mention of this here... this strikes me as a non-intentional systemic bias. Also, the "History" section needs a brief sub-section lead. Also (and not entirely relevant) but I believe that List of cheeses doesn't include all cheeses - see Cheese.com's list of cheeses. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I hope. True enough regarding the America-centric systemic bias in the raw-milk-risks paragraph; rephrased it and added a bit of info about Australia. Also added an intro paragraph to the history section, as requested. I'm not sure what to say about the list of cheeses; I have to admit I've barely ever even glanced at it. Let me know if you think the contents of that list effect the FA status of this article, and I'll do my best. With many world cheeses sharing names or only being known in the local language, I fear any attempt at clean comprehensiveness for that list is going to be tough. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Quick note before I check - each article stands on its own merit. The list won't effect this article! But it would be great to update that list... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice article. "I do like a bit of Gorgonzola". the wub "?!" 08:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks good - Yum OmegaWikipedia 17:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

self-nom: I've done quite a bit of work on this article with a view to getting it up to FA status. It covers a subject which I believe to be interesting, unusual, and controversial, and which has received some media coverage lately. It was peer reviewed, and some helpful suggestions have been incorporated — thanks to those who contributed. — Johantheghost 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support Great work --PopUpPirate 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. To me, it reads primarily as a defence of the US Navy against common objections, more than as a plain article about the dolphins. Nevertheless, I can't quite put my finger on specific ways it could be improved because there may be common false allegations that need to be discussed. It's well written, but I somehow feel I'm being reassured rather than educated. So I can't quite make up my mind. Stephen Turner 16:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Being truly NPOV is hard, but I've tried :-) I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve it. However, I think that there is a real case backed up by good external references that some stories about the NMMP are really ludicrous — eg. the Hurricane Katrina story basically came from one guy, who has been seriously discredited (see links in the article, eg. the MSNBC story, plus Museum of Hoaxes). Also, there will always be speculation about dolphins with limpet mines strapped to their backs, and I think the mobile mine info is a genuine counter to that. (Ie. I've tried to list facts, not make opinions.) OTOH, I think the animal welfare issue, and the very issue of whether the program should use these animals at all, are real issues, as I've tried to make clear — and provided a link to that petition page. I'll look it over to see if I can squeeze a little more POV out of it. — Johantheghost 16:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've now added significant material to the "Animal Welfare" sec, and done some tweaks to the "In the Media" bit, both in the interests of NPOV. The "Welfare" section is now a bit of a list of anti-NMMP complaints, but I felt I had to list all of the objections which I've seen repeated in "significant" media. Stephen, thanks again for your comment — I think this is a real improvement, and I'd be interested in your thoughts now. — Johantheghost 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. Thank you. I think it's much better now and I'm happy to support. Stephen Turner 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object POV issues here - most of which surrounds the controversy and basically says "well, ok there may have been some controversy but really its always been good"... I'll give some examples:

I've got to say I really don't agree here — just look at the long shopping list of complaints I've added in the "Animal Welfare" section. And I've now noted that the AAALAC accreditation doesn't rule out vivisection. (Not that I think they're doing that, but it doesn't.) Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • " much of this was fuelled by the program's own policy of secrecy, which was abandoned in the early 1990's" - this might be true but this wording is both defensive and dismissive of the supposed controversy in the previous sentence. Needs rewording or something.

Well... Remember that this is the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary; and saying "much of this was fuelled by the program's own policy of secrecy" is not dismissive, because it doesn't mean that the speculation and controversy aren't true. So, I've reworded the section a little to clarify that that was what it was meant to say — and to explicitly mention animal welfare, which I had somehow omitted from the lead. Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • "There have been recurring controversies over the Navy's alleged mistreatment of animals in the program. Today, however, the Navy's position is that positive reinforcement techniques exclusively are used in training of their animals, and that they are looked after in accordance with accepted standards." - Um, arn't you going to tell me what the controversy is before rebutting it? This reads like a navy press release :\. Not only that but the rest of that paragraph continues to rebut an argument that hasn't even been made yet! What? Then the entire paragraph afterwards continues to rebut the nonexistant argument... what's going on here? The third paragraph FINALLY starts to make the opposition's argument, but its a bit disjointed now and those should really go first here so people have a clue what you are rebutting. In fact, what you may need to do here is take the content from the first two paragraphs, which is press-release-ish anyway, and merge that into the controversy paragraphs.

I think you've misunderstood the structure of the section here, which is my fault of course, 'cos I didn't make it too clear. The first sentence or two are supposed to be a summary; the rest of the section then states the Navy's case (adherence to a standard for care of lab animals, basically) and the case against them — I count 9 specific points made against the Navy. I really don't think I'm too much on their side... :-) So, I've tried to clarify this by explicitly making the first bit a separate paragraph — I think it's a lot clearer now.

As for your idea that the 2 navy paras should be merged with the allegations, that wouldn't work, because those paragraphs don't contain any point-by-point rebuttal. The two paragraphs of Navy case basically say that they look after their animals really well, and that they have external oversight to prove it. The three paragraphs of anti-Navy case present a whole bunch of specific complaints, and do actually contain 2 specific pieces of rebuttal. Johantheghost

Anyway, I'll take another look when those are addressed :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me know what you think now! Thanks for your comments; I think it's genuinely better now. Johantheghost 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! The wording in the intro is much better, and the warfare section looks a bit better :). What's the purpose of this sentence though - "Based on this accreditation, it is listed by the The Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums as a member"... it seems to have no real content (at least to a layman like myself) - why is it important? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comment. Yes, I know it's a little opaque, but the point is that they are a member of AMMPA which is a respectable animal-welfare org, so membership is supposed to be a guarantee of certain standards. But, in this case, that membership is based purely on their AAALAC accreditation — ie. AMMPA isn't doing any additional oversight. (I got this from a private email to AMMPA.) BTW, I think the second para of Welfare is a bit big and clunky now — I think the split before "In addition..." is valid, because it goes on to the topic of external oversight, rather than self-supporting claims. No biggie though. — Johantheghost 20:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've clarified the AMMPA situation a bit. — Johantheghost 21:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support SharksDolphins with frikkin laser beams! I made a few minor tweaks during the peer review process but the bulk of the work on this article has been Johantheghost's, who has done an excellent job on an interesting subject. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support It is the sort of article that people will want to read. Well, I certainly wanted to. Bobblewik 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support, Though PETA and its supporters won't like it. The fact remains, the use of animals as companions and weapons in war as old as warfare itself. Here is a high quality article on one of the more recent and high-tech examples of this fact. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I hope PETA don't have a problem with the article — though I imagine they have one with the NMMP — since I've really tried to just set out the facts. I hope the "anti" points are pretty well covered. Cheers! Johantheghost 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• 'Object'. MUCH BETTER

It's good, but needs editing.

1990's—why the apostrophe?

Fixed now Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Spell out numbers less than 10 ('five marine mammal teams').

Fixed now Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Where you bullet-point a sentence that contains listed items (e.g., in 'The program'), punctuate it as a real sentence, with a stop at the end. It's usual to put a semicolon at the end of each point, and the second-last one should finish with '; and'.

Can you specify what you're referring to? I can't find that. Bear in mind that the Wikipedia:Lists guide says not to punctuate the ends of sub-sentence list items. Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Insert a non-breaking space between values and abbreviated units (e.g., '60 m').

Fixed now Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

'the program's roots'—please change to 'the roots of the program', and do the same for analogous expressions. 'Animals' intelligence' is OK, though.

It looks fine as is to me — why would you change it? (Although I note that someone has ...) Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

'are trained for clearance of'—shouldn't there be a 'the' somewhere here?

Fixed now Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

'attack missions of various kinds; such as'—comma, not semicolon.

Fixed now Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

An hour or two of careful work by someone who's good at language (fresh eyes) will make it perfect. That is what a FA requires. Tony 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has obviously done this; thanks! Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support I went through and adressed most of the problems Tony mentions, plus a few that I found myself. I'll disagree on "the program's roots", however, I don't see a problem with that. Overall, it has a few short paragraphs/subsections that could use a little strengthening, but not a big deal. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, has got it all together.  BD2412 ^talk 02:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've gone through it.
  • Please see inline comment about MK 17—is there confusion between MK teams and MK weapons?.

Not really; the Navy (as far as terminology is concerned) treats its dolphins as weapons, hence "Mark 5 marine mammal system", "mark 48 torpedo", etc. I've removed this instance, though, since we don't need to know what version of ASROC it was. Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I presume you're using US spelling ('harbour' appears twice).

I am writing in US spelling, as appropriate to the subject; I can normally manage this, having worked in the US for 6 years, but some words just stick. Fixed. Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • The thing that will stick out for many international readers is the repeated use of the US administration's term 'Operation Iraq Freedom'. It may be an official term, so to speak, but many people will see it as spin. In view of the emotive issues surrounding the invasion of Iraq, I suggest that you change the term to something more neutral, such as 'the second Iraq war'.

Since 'Operation Iraq Freedom' now redirects to 'Iraq War' (I don't think it used to ...?), I've changed references to say Iraq War. Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Please consider removing acronyms that are not used more than twice or three times; they're not useful enough when repeated only once or twice, and make the reading more difficult. I've removed a couple already. Tony 02:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks — are there any left that are still a problem? Note that "ASROC" is the common name for that system, and "SSC San Diego" is similar. — Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the opportunity to revise the language a bit. A few commas too many in some sentences, I think. I re-worded the second lead para to re-introduce the link between the secrecy and the speculation, specifically. Also took out "sonar communication" -- sonar is not communication. Everyone please let me know what you think. Thanks to everyone who contributed to improving the article during my enforced absence. (In case you're wondering, the phones on my road have been down for 5 days, hence no net access... and still down! Blame BT.) — Johantheghost 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy

archives for earlier nominations: 1

The problems of the preceding nomination should now be fixed. David.Monniaux 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• support All my preceeding comments have been correctly addressed. The article is now comprehensive and as far as I can judge well written. Vb 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nicolas Sarkozy.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but has no source or fair use rationale.
  2. The image Image:Sarkozy raffarin police2.jpg is not public domain, it's under simple copyright, and should not have been uploaded.

  --Carnildo 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments The second image is provided by the services of the prime minister and is free to use for any purpose; I do not understand why you tagged it as a "copyright violation". The first image has a source, as written in the image's history: the photographic library of the European Commission. David.Monniaux 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The second image appears to be by "David Mendiboure" of the "Matignon Photo Service", which doesn't sound too terribly much like the Prime Minister's office to me. --Carnildo 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo , if you cared to do the slightest research (such as for instance checking Matignon on Wikipedia...), you would know that Matignon in the palace where the French Prime Minister's office are located, and a general collocution for the Prime Ministry. Rama 08:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but wait, the disambiguation page Matignon has only existed for what... a year and a half? notafish }<';> 08:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the first image by a photo from an UMP press release (Nicolas Sarkozy is the head of UMP). This surely qualifies under fair use. David.Monniaux 08:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive and well-written. An excellent English source of information about Sarkozy. Demi ^T/_C 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, jguk 10:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can't support this yet. It's not badly written in some ways, but there's an odd awkwardness about much of the prose. Here are some examples:
  • 'Previously, he was a deputy to the French National Assembly. He was forced to resign this position in favour of his ministerial appointment.' —'in', not 'to'? 'in favour of' is not quite idiomatic here ('to take up a ministerial ...').
  • 'He often is nicknamed Sarko'—that would have occurred once, not often. And the adverb is in the wrong place, anyway.
  • 'simply known as Nicolas Sarkozy'—word order is wrong.
  • 'is active in a wide range of political fields'—'Fields' is not quite right—research fields, yes, but not political.
  • 'He previously also held several ministerial posts'—remove 'also', and go through the whole text and remove this word where possible.
  • 'His ministerial responsibilities include law enforcement and working to co-ordinate relationships between the national and local governments'—'Include' means that there are other responsibilities you're not telling us about (which may be the case, but check this). 'and the coordination of the relationships between national and local governments' is what you want.

Now, I've exemplified a few things at the opening. They're subtle, but need to be fixed throughout. A native speaker is required to sift through the article. (I'm not being rude, just practical; there's a lot to commend the article.) Tony 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

Stumbled across this article, and was astonished that no effort has been made to nominate it as an FA. Very well-referenced, meaty, interesting, (Did you know he invented the cat flap?) and encyclopedic. Borisblue 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I can see that the article is a summary of three longer biography articles, but I think more could be done to improve the flow of the text, in some parts it is a compilation of short paragraphs begining in year Newton did x. --nixie 03:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  OK, I've fixed that God-awful paragraph. Thanks for pointing that out, can't believe I didn't see it. Is the prose OK now? Borisblue 12:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Please also spin the legacy and fictional appearances sections into prose, see Charles Darwin for a decent example.--nixie 00:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thy will be done. Borisblue 01:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for addressing the things I pointed out on the FAC nomination, I haven't changed my vote to support because I'm waiting to see if other people have problems with the content. I don't know enough about him to make such judgements, but comapred to an article like Charles Darwin it seems kind of thin, for example as far as I can tell there is reatively little summray of the biographcial detail that currently resides in The writing of Principia Mathematica, and what is mentioned is mixed in with scientific research - which doesn't make much sense now the article has been split into biography, research etc. With this split there is also now a 30 year gap in the biographical information. Shouldn't there also be a summary section for his occult views in addition to that on his religious views?--nixie 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Stamp germany sir issac newton.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since the stamp isn't the subject of the article, a fair use claim is doubtful. --Carnildo 22:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  replaced with an image from commons. Borisblue 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support —thames 00:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — This article has quite a few red links in it. All of these should at least be created as stubs. I believe that a featured article should spawn a whole series of related articles around it. I'm sure the contributors to this article can go through it and work on those red links. Also, I find the layout a bit ragged. I'm not sure why that is, but it'd be worth taking a look at the layout of the material again. --Gareth Hughes 13:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with all the red links, I've also rearranged the sections so that the biographical stuff is all in one place. Hope that helps. Borisblue 14:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Gareth Hughes 15:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment anterior to a vote: the "Religious" section is...strange. It opens with Newton the passionate believer in an interventionist God and then spends half its time spinning the story of the clockmaker God that Newton somehow helped to create. Newton had exposure to one of the Cambridge Platonists in the early biography section (More), but here he is a fundamentalist. His familial background in the Puritan and dissenter community is barely mentioned (and possibly correctly, too, for, though Newton was of such a family, he wasn't much of a Puritan). The worry over his anti-Trinitarian views is ... strange. He doesn't really have to have been very orthodox, when everything else about his religious life wasn't. A man who can combine the Platonists with (alleged) Rosicrucianism with (alleged) hermeticism and (avowed) alchemy and who sees in the created universe God's plan, but not Spinozan or Liebnitzian hylozoism is probably not going to be orthodox anywhere. I do not mean to fault the authors too severely, because this is a vexatious part of his life, but the section is kind of choppy and betrays the wiki-history of distinct points of view layering on top of each other without a single thesis (right or wrong) being presented. It might almost be better to have very, very little than to try to dance through the minefield of a full discussion. Geogre 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm afraid all this is waaay over my head :( I'll contact thames, he is an expert on this, and contributed substantially to this section. Then I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the comment Borisblue 20:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  Geogre, you're right that it has been melded together from different contributors. At first it talks about his personal religious views, and then it goes into the effects his scientific discoveries had on certain religious factions. These religious factions held views that Newton almost certainly would not have ascribed to. I've put a subheader between Newton's religious views, and his effect on religious views to better clarify. As far as the Platonism and Rosicrucianism, I would love it if you could add some of your knowledge to round out that section of the article, as I haven't done any research in those areas. —thames 23:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can. The problem with the Rosicrucians is that they were Rosicrucians, and they did a good job of keeping whatever it is that they were on about secret. The allegation of Rosicrucianism is about the only thing that's bankable (every member of the RS at first got accused of it, and practically all significant royalists did; it was presumed to be intensely related to alchemy, so that only made the claims stronger, when everyone knew that IN was performing alchemy). With the Platonists, I think it would be fascinating to find any Cudworth or Whichcote views in his thinking (other than just a belief in reason as man's toolkit for approaching God) (Whichcote was a Puritan, and yet he was one of the leaders of the Cambridge Platonists). I've always stayed clear of Newton, myself, because the complexity of his life requires a person deep in as many areas as he was, and I'm not one of them. I can add a bit to how Newton was viewed and used by the public. He became a lussus naturae in the Restoration world while he was still middle aged, and people were pointing at him quite a bit. I'll review the edits before voting, thanks. Geogre 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Any stuff that you feel is too in depth to belong in this article could go to Isaac Newton's religious views as well. Borisblue 01:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm seriously Geogre: those were some sweet edits. —thames 04:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot. If I felt even close to competent to the task, I'd try to help out the subarticle. It's a pleasure to help. Geogre 14:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Thanks for the compliment. There is always more to be said, and Newton deserves quite a few words, but, for a short, encyclopedia biography written in summary style, this is a very good article that covers what needs to be covered. Happy to support. Geogre 14:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I'll lend my nomination to this now. Looks much better than it did a few days ago! KingTT 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This article seems very interesting and well written. Dan M 22:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written with a nice layout and appropriate linking for more depth. InvictaHOG 02:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great well written article. --WS 15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object, but it's within reach. An hour or two of intensive editing will get it up to standard. Here are some examples of what is required, from the top of the article.
  • 'he is widely regarded as the most influential scientist in history'—remove the hype, please. Others might say 'Einstein'.
  • 'also'—I counted four in the lead, all of them redundant. Every sentence in the article is 'in addition' to the previous statement. Please go through the whole article and remove 'also' unless it adds useful meaning (I'm sure it won't in most cases).
  • 'ellipticAL'?
  • Use of past tense for scientific truths is unusual; why not 'He was the first to realise that the spectrum of colours observed when white light passeS through a prism IS inherent in the white light and (add: IS) not added by ...'. Fix elsewhere, too.
  • The last para in the lead is one long list, and your attempts at various wordings are laboured ('finally', 'voiced a theory'). The semicolons are awkward. What about bulleting the items? 'He is responsible for other breakthroughs, such as: (bullets).
  • 'The following is a brief biography of Newton's early life.' Relocate above the 'Early life' subtitle as 'This is a summary of Newton's life.', and remove the first sentence currently under each subtitle. Isn't there a standard formatting
    Main article: Isaac Newton's early life and achievements
    ?
  • 'Newton was premature'—you mean the birth, do you?
  • 'could have fit inside a quart mug'—grammar; and a reference citation would help for such a specific statement.

This topic deserves FA status—please improve it. Tony 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! I'm not sure it's wise to remove "the hype". Isaac Newton IS widely regarded as the most influential scientist in history; every list of influential scientists on amazon puts him first- at very least, no one would consider Einstein more influential(Newton #1 here and #2 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806513500/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-6096938-5806455?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance here], behind the Prophet Muhammad). The assertion on the Einstein featured article that he is regarded the most influential scientist in the 20th century is more contentious than the claim that Newton is the most influential in history. Anyway, fixed the lead, citations and funny wording you metioned. Will deal with the tenses later. Borisblue 04:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Nice, but please merge the tiny paragraphs for a better look. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

Self-nom. One of the leading football (soccer) clubs in England. Article is fairly stable and covers a wide range of aspects of the club. Has previously been peer reviewed. Qwghlm 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The references to Liverpool and Man Utd in the lead section ((only Liverpool and Manchester United have won more), and 10 FA Cups (second only to Manchester United)) sounds a bit like fancruft when included in the lead. Perhaps it would be better to include this information later on. TreveX^talk 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have removed the bracketed terms (which were an attempt to justify the "one of the most successful" claim), the reference is now included in the #Achievements section. Qwghlm 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks well-written and comprehensive. I probably would have included Lee Dixon in the Famous Players section as well, though. Leithp 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a further thought, how about including something on any Arsenal fanzines? I don't know what it's like for Premiership teams, but in Scotland the fanzines play a large part in unifying supporters as well as being hugely entertaining. This could also tie in with the requests below for more on supporter culture.Leithp 09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: what about a section about the supporters like the IFK Goteborg article has? It would be nice for the article to have more about Arsenal's fans.Kevin M Marshall 14:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It was decided by consensus that a "famous supporters" section would be too long and inherently unuseful. See Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Famous Arsenal fans for details. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not relevant to Kevin's proposal. Take a look at IFK Göteborg and you'll see what he means, which is a section about the supporter culture around the club, not a list of famous supporters. -- Elisson • Talk 16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike IFK Goteborg, Arsenal's fanbase is pretty heterogeneous, it crosses both class and racial divides. It would be quite hard to do an article that could sum them all up like the IFK article does. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist that you create a section like that, but your "objection" does really not mean much. The IFK Göteborg section has one paragraph about the fanbase structure, and four paragraphs about the supporter culture, supporter organizations, rivalries, attendance numbers, and so on, of the club. I do believe that Arsenal is such a big club that you could write a whole book about the Arsenal supporters. :) I will read the article later on and vote, but missing a supporter section won't make me object. -- Elisson • Talk 19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A subpage about Arsenal's supporters' clubs would be nice, but I think even a section would suffice. Just name any major fan clubs and discuss how Arsenal has attracted fans in the London area, in the UK, and across the world. It has quite a broad fanbase and I think that needs to be better reflected in the article.Kevin M Marshall 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your ideas - I've now added a Supporters section, feel free to comment on it - though perhaps it would be best to start a new thread below. Qwghlm 12:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) subheading =Players out on loan= is unnecessary. Either merge with parent or promote to a higher level. 2) Do not fragment ==External links==. Use the semicolon (;) to create a bold heading. =Arsenal Ladies= needs to be expanded to at least twice its current size of not more. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have done (2) and (3). I disagree with (1) - the players are registered to the club, so they should be in that section, but they are not in the playing squad (and hence have no number), so they should be kept separate from the main group. I could if you like prefix that header with ; instead of === so that it does not appear in the table of contents. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, Use ; for that section. No, you'd need another paragraph on Arsenal ladies, before I withdraw my objection. ==Achievements== should be converted into prose. Also unbold the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Right:
      1. Have converted the === to ;
      2. The main article on Arsenal Ladies itself is little more than two paragraphs long at the moment, to further expand would basically mean duplicating the entire thing. I could just add {{main}} to the top of that section instead, to emphasise that it is only a summary.
      3. The History section, and the History of Arsenal F.C. article both double as prose versions of the Achievements section. It is meant to be a quick at-a-glance list of honours - to turn it into prose would add clutter IMHO. I'm not keen on unbolding either - it's the standard format across all football club pages, and demarcates the name of the trophy clearly. Qwghlm 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll review later, but you'll have to expand that paragraph. Most likely I'll get to review only by sat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Have expanded Arsenal Ladies section a little further, but it really is hard to make a decent-sized section given how women's football is dwarfed by the men's game in the UK. Also do note that the two clubs are technically separate entities; the content on Arsenal F.C. should only be a brief summary of Arsenal L.F.C. Qwghlm 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Question for Nichalp: are you objecting to the article having a short section in it (which I've seen you object to before) or to there not being enough info on the ladies' team in the article? If it's just the section length, which looks like a reasonable enough objection to me, it should be easy to merge it into another section. I don't think it would be fair to say that the article needs more on the ladies' team than it has now: they aren't even remotely as notable as the men's team (wouldn't be surprised if average attendances for the men's team were 100 times higher, for example) and they've got their own article which is linked to in the text. One sentence mentioning them would be satisfactory imo. CTOAGN 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Qwghlm, its fine now, and I've answered CTOAGN's query on his talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I admit the following comment nit-picking, but I have no problems otherwise with this article. (I'd be more likely to vote "support" if I knew more about soccer to know what I should learn from this article; Arsenal is one of a very few professional teams I have heard of.) The thing is this: in the section "Arsenal in popular culture", we read that "the film is centred on a friendly between Arsenal and an amateur side, one of whose players is poisoned whilst playing." While I assume that this is proper British English idion, without the noun, I am not entirely sure what "friendly" refers to; I presume "game". Unless it is unidiomatic, could the appropriate noun be added? -- llywrch 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have turned it into "friendly match", as that is what it means. In footballing vernacular the word "friendly" alone suffices as a description, but obviously the article should cater for all. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would "non-competitive match" be acceptable as a replacement? It's not a phrase that's often used when talking about football, but should be understandable by everyone. CTOAGN 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just make it friendly match. Kevin M Marshall 02:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• 'Comment: I'll get round to having a proper look at this tomorrow, but I don't like the way that there are a few sections of prose, then some lists, then some more prose. I'd prefer to have all of the prose together and the lists at the end. Also, don't external links normally go after references and footnotes? CTOAGN 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. David.Monniaux 08:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've moved the links to the bottom, and the prose about Arsenal Ladies to join the rest. I am not sure what to do with the records/statistics section, as it is a few very short paragraphs of prose that summarise an article that is a series of lists. I would rather have it stay where it is as I feel it's more natural belonging there, following on from the list of honours. Qwghlm 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: About the crest issue, I would have thought that it had to do with trademark and not copyright, but I may be mistaken. David.Monniaux 08:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The club explicitly mentioned copyright in the press release announcing the new crest [6]. In 2002, the club lost a court case against a street trader who reproduced the old logo after suing him under trademark law [7], as the defendant successfully claimed he was using it as a "badge of allegiance", not a guarantee about the origin of the product. So I can understand why the club might have turned to copyright, not trademark, law to protect its crest instead. Qwghlm 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: From the first paragraph: "Arsenal Football Club are a football club . . ." and "the team has yet to achieve . . ." And in the third paragraph "The club was then known . . ." I'm not a BrE speaker, but the subject verb agreement seems askew. —Wayward 11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have converted to use the plural in all cases (which is how football teams are usually referred by). Qwghlm 11:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Six-goal Support Neutral: Still a few things:
  • but after hostilities ended, Arsenal won another two titles and an FA Cup. - in which years?
  • Crest - a link to a news article about the changes would be good, but not essential.
  • Kit - in which year did Forest make this donation?
  • Kit - last sentence - minus sign should be replaced by ndash or mdash, but can't remember which :-)
  • There are a lot of long sentences separated by with commas, especially at the start of the article, e.g. By then, Arsenal had been relegated to the Second Division, but despite only finishing fifth, Arsenal were elected to rejoin the First Division in 1919 at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means. I'd really prefer it if these were edited - they make the article come across as kind of choppy. CTOAGN 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added those years in.
    • Added in a link in.
    • Unknown, it was very early in the club's history, soon after the club's first match in 1886 (but probably 1887). Thus I have put in "soon after" into the article...
    • I've used ndashes (the unicode version, not HTML entities) throughout, including that section. The Manual of Style doesn't care as long as it's consistent.
    • I have shortened some longer sentences, I could really do with a neutral party to do a few tweaks, though - it's hard copyediting your own prose. Qwghlm 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone would call me a neutral party <grin>, but I've done a copyedit. Unfortunately, I've done it at 3am for some reason so I hope it hasn't introduced a load of mistakes - would be a little counterproductive. All my reservations have been dealt with now, so I'm changing my vote. CTOAGN 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You put in a couple of mistakes but I've sorted them out now. Thanks a lot for doing this. Qwghlm 10:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - great. And we need more soccer FA! igordebraga ≠ 01:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - better than it was when it was nominated. Good enough to get my vote now. Kevin M Marshall 04:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Whole-hearted Gooner support - Not that I'm biased or anything. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland, Ohio

• Partial self-nom, on behalf of myself, EurekaLott and Beirne, who have both contributed significantly to improving this article. I think the article is fairly close based on the peer review comments. Feel free to comment, and I'll do my best to address any objections. Thanks! PacknCanes 20:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic work, everybody. --Arcadian 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:ClevelandCityFlag.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Replaced flag image with Image:ClevelandCityFlag.gif, which is tagged with the proper source and copyright info. PacknCanes 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Concern. There is only one sub-heading under Demographics (which makes the table of content look awkward). Also, there is an external link in the neighborhood section (there should not be any external links within the main body of the article, only in the external links section). Though this is not a major concern, but maybe you could add a short section on Cleveland's cityscape (under geography) if possible. Pentawing 03:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Content looks good. Length of the article is a concern though, but hopefully it will not detract too much from the article's positive attributes. Weak support Pentawing 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's good, but the prose needs work. I hope this candidate can be raised to FA status during the nomination period. Here are just a few examples from the lead to demonstrate the kind of editing that is required throughout.

Provide metric equivalents or insert a big sign at the top 'For US readers only'. Insert a non-breaking space between every number and its unit, e.g., '(96 km)' (see this edit box for the html insertion).

'because of access to transportation routes'—engage the readers by stating instead what these routes were (riverine and road transport?).

'33rd-largest'—in the same para you don't use a hyphen for this expression.

'2,148,143 people'—too precise to be credible; 'more than 2.1M people'? Same with county pop.

reference citation numbers: remove preceding space (looks better IMV), or insert a non-breaking space to avoid line overhang.

'Nevertheless, the city also faces some continuing challenges, notably from concentrated poverty in some neighborhoods and from difficulties in funding and delivering high-quality public education.' Get rid of 'also' and the first occurrence of 'some'; 'in particular,' would be better than 'notably'; 'in the funding and delivery of' would be more elegant. Tony 06:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I caught most of the metric equivalents, and did some copyediting to make the prose flow smoother. Also added a cityscape section, which should address (hopefully) the objections of MARussellPESE below. Probably not perfect, but I hope it's getting closer. PacknCanes | say something! 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent work! This article has changed a great deal in the last few weeks, and looks much more encyclopedic. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 09:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Object: Much improved over a month ago. Editing to date was thorough, but there are significant gaps. There are no references/links to the Zoo, Metroparks, Lakeside Park, Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath, etc. Items on the Zoo and Metroparks were added recently and immediately removed. Detroit's article includes discussion and links to her parks and zoo, even though the zoo is in Royal Oak. Both Detroit's and Ann Arbor's articles each have an entire section on their cityscapes, including discussion of their parks and architecture. I'm not sure if "Cityscape" is in the template, but as it reads now it's as if Clevelanders don't have any recreational opportunities, when I know from personal experience that these smack-down Detroit's and keep up with Chicago's. MARussellPESE 12:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Amazed to see most of my suggestions implemented! No lists, featured standard - its like it happened overnight! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object Good article, but some sections need a summary as the size is slightly on the higher side. 1) Summarise: ==Transportation==, ==Sports==, and ==Economy==. 2) convert those .gif files to .png 3) odd sentences such as He never visited the area again; 4) See alsos should always be after the section end and not at the section beginning. 5) avoid starting a section with a left aligned image. 6) 41°28′56″ North, 81°40′11″ should be wikified using the {{coor dms|}} template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The size cannot be cut further without compromising significant parts of the article. I asked this on the FAC talk page last week and got no response, so I'll say it again here: larger cities necessarily need to have a higher size limit than the Ann Arbors of the world. There's just too much stuff to cover; where Ann Arbor could go into minute specifics at 40 KB, Cleveland simply scratches the surface using that much space (to say nothing of the 68 KB New York City article). I've already cut it down as far as it can go while covering everything that needs to be in the article; if I cut any more, I'd be hearing objections that essential sections are missing. Bottom line: I cannot justify cutting out significant portions of the article to meet an arbitrary size figure, and I'm sure that EurekaLott would agree with me. That said, I've fixed that one sentence in the history section (you're right, it didn't look quite right there), I moved the see alsos to the ends of the sections, the lat/lon has been wikified, and I'll get around to the gif files. PacknCanes | say something! 08:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

size cannot be cut – are you saying you can't or will not? The size of the city does not matter. Take a look at Mumbai, obviously much larger than Cleveland. Secondly, just because I was inactive the past week does not mean I can't object now. I haven't asked you to prune it down to a specific size, please note this, I've asked you to summarise certain sections which are bulky. Since I have objected to many article on the size issue in the past, I believe I can spot bulky sections. I have noticed text which dwells on specifics rather than on the city. Now look what I've asked you to summarise: a) named after native Ohioan and former Senator John Glenn. no need for extra info. b) #1 heart hospital in the United States for eleven years running. It is also ranked #2 in urology and #14 exact rankings of institutions not needed. c) ...research campus to employ 7,000 as well... I have spotted three sentences which brief the reader on specific institutions rather than the city itself. d) CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett. Byrd-Bennett has announced her resignation as the system's CEO ; streets of downtown on September 1–4, 2005. Do you want me to list more such sentences? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I was saying I can't, but now that I have some direction on exactly what you're referring to, I can (and will) go through and edit those sections down. If I came across as antagonistic, I apologize; I didn't intend to do so, and the comment about what I put on the talk page wasn't a jab at you (I promise!). I was simply saying that I really didn't have any guidance to go on, so I just crossed my fingers and hoped for the best. Anyway, EurekaLott and I have both done a bunch of copyediting, so take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the gif images with png images. Pentawing 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak support a summary is still possible, but its more or less ok now. I think you can add something on Courts. Pentawing can help you out there. Thank you for taking care of my objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you'd want to see something on the courts, since it would go against what you said above. :) Seriously, the only thing that the Cleveland municipal court does, for the most part, is serve as a small claims court and traffic court. Most courts of any significance in Ohio, starting with the common pleas courts (essentially district courts), are county courts that don't have much to do necessarily with the city itself, although the physical location of the court is in the city. I'll be honest: I don't know enough about exactly what the municipal court does to put it into the article; maybe someone else can help. Thanks, though, for your support. Much appreciated -- PacknCanes | say something! 06:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the courts wouldn't be notable, but the Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse which opened in 1999 might be worth mentioning. It's only the seventh tallest building in Cleveland, but because of its position on the river, it's probably the fourth most notable component of the skyline. --Arcadian 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While the courthouse is tall and relatively new, I can think of several more significant cityscape-related topics I'd mention first, if there was room in the article. Examples include the impact of urban renewal and the Erieview Plan, the work of Walker and Weeks, the Rockefeller Building, the "Cleveland double" style of house, etc. - EurekaLott 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft

There's a lot of history behind this - for those who want to check my early edits - you'll see I made a rant last march on the talk page about how biased it was etc.. Well, of course as one might guess nothing happened for months, so for the past months I've been working countless hours bringing it up bit by bit to featured standard, and I think its finally there.

Well, and for the article itself, its an extremely comprehensive article on the controversial company that everyone loves to hate, otherwise known as Microsoft. Its written in a painstakingly NPOV manner, and was written, well, pretty much by me (with copyedit assistance from Wayward and random tidbits added mostly by anons :)) - there isn't really anything at all left over from the version from march, sans the business culture stuff. Its surprisingly stable given the subject matter, and I'd like to think the writing is good on it as its probably the best I can do.

The peer reviews are here(2nd) and here(1st). Hopefully the comments on those are resolved. Anyway, any comments etc. appreciated :).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was about to support, but I found a minor quibble: the facts & trivia section shouldn't be there, especially given its shortness and its only content being a two-bullet point list. The puzzle hunt could be moved to business culture, and the home computer system...well, I'm sure there must be some place for MSX in there. (Or maybe not? After all, it's already quite crowded.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I merged them into the appropriate places. In truth though the MSX thing was so minor to microsoft that they don't even mention it in their own timeline- maybe it should be just listed in see also instead? Currently merged in the history section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: From first glances and fleeting scans it seems like a good, supportable article - I should be able to tell you either way if I get round to reading it tonight. Perhaps one odd point is that there are no pictures of any of the "key people" (Bill Gates seems like the logical choice) or any of its products (Windows XP perhaps? X-box?) except the blue screen of death... The current photos are good but I would consider a corporations key people and products an important item as a picture. --Oldak Quill 14:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the problem is that none of those photos are "free" and would have to be fair use.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think fair use is quite justifiable in this instance. 14:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair use would be fine for this article. Microsoft as an entity can only be put into image form by using pictures of its key people, key products, or maybe headquarters. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 22:32
    • Nothing on their videogame system in the 2000-2005 when it played a large part in their effort to win the livingroom "war".
      • Well, it is mentioned in the product divisions section (perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the history section as well? I'm not sure if its "major" enough though - what do others think?).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • It was their first major entry into the hardware buisness.I don't know but the history section misses something about their hardware stuff and their effort to diversify.
• Support it looks good, I added in the Xbox photo and the MSN homepage to illustrate their sections, I believe it would be nice if an MCP/MCSE would scan/photograph their card/certificate for the article... but other than that I think its good.  ALKIVAR™ 00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• There are a couple fo pics of Gates on the commons.--nixie 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: "A great deal of time and money is spent each year on recruiting young university-trained software developers who meet very exacting criteria" —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, I mean take a look at [8] or [9] for an example of an "interview" there for the kind of criteria they want. I suppose maybe it could give an example or reword a bit though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support—Good article; the plethora of useless links has been pruned, making it much easier to read, and focusing readers on the many high-value links. Tony 04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS Can the photo of the Indian headquarters be shifted up to the end of the previous section, where it's mentioned in the text?

Federalist No. 10

This is one of 85 articles on the Federalist Papers. Let me know of any problems and I will try to address them forthwith. The article was peer reviewed, and you can find the archive here; I think the points made there have been addressed. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to explain what faction is in an article about Federalist 10! Superm401 | Talk 23:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Really good article, but I agree with Superm401. The article needs to define 'faction' as Madison used the word. Jkelly 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to these points, the article already specifically quotes Madison's definition of faction from Federalist No. 10: "He defines a faction as 'a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'" Is more than this needed? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've pipelined the first instance to Political faction. That should do it.  BD2412 ^talk 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It does for me. Jkelly 04:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I'm sorry I missed the inline quote of Madison's definition. To be fair, though, it's much better to have it defined (or at least linked to a definition) at the first mention. I'm satisifed now, at any rate. Superm401 | Talk 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the redlinks be fixed or unlinked? OmegaWikipedia 12:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If by fixing you mean stubbifying them, I'd be happy to but all I could write would be "X was a newspaper/publisher in New York in the late 18th century." This really doesn't seem worth it. On the other hand, most of the redlinks probably do deserve articles, and hopefully their presence will convince someone more expert in the area to add knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see. I still think a redlink would look bad for a featured article. Maybe you could move them to the talk page so that people who want to fix them could and remove them from the main article? OmegaWikipedia 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed 6 wikilinks from the article and created stubs for 2. A couple of redlinks remain, but only as the names of works in the references section, none in the article body. Is this satisfactory? It should be noted that many featured articles contain redlinks (indeed, quite likely a majority). Redlinks do, after all, help Wikipedia grow. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Great job on fixing the redlinks! It looks much better (you too BD2412) OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created stub articles for the three Supreme Court decisions cited, and will expand those later.  BD2412 ^talk 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Succint but a very informative and enjoyable article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article. OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Have I mentioned, support?  BD2412 ^talk 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support, this is the best article I've read today. Falphin 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. User-unfriendly. Here, I've listed a small, representative example of what needs to be addressed throughout. It will take many hours.
  • Can you hit us with a more functional description right at the top? At the moment, the poor readers have to wade through several sentences to learn what the topic is about. It was a high-profile political commentary in the lead-up to the debate about the US Consitution, was it? How, very briefly, did it influence the consitutional debate? You need to engage the reader by painting the big picture at the start. It's kind of ... boring, as is.
  • What is 'faction' in this context? Without an article, it's an unusual usage; we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn about it—briefly gloss it in a phrase or two here.
  • Any reason for initial caps in 'Anti-Federalist'?
  • Again, in 'Circumstances', the reader first gets bogged down in matters of process; why not start with the larger meaning and then move to process.
  • Are you a lawyer? You write like one. Someone needs to go through the entire text and simplify expressions such as 'Madison comes to the conclusion' (Madison concludes).
  • 'Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction. The first, removing the causes that provoke the development of factions, he contends can be accomplished in two ways. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable, and the other, creating a society homogenous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society.'
    • Unclear whether 'the first' refers back to 'position', 'way', 'damage', or 'faction', until you read further and then reread.
    • Rather long sentences, with multilevel nestings in one. We have 'The ffirst', then we have 'One ...'. Perhaps you might consider the judicious use of bullet points, for ease of reading, and to make the grey mass less daunting.
    • 'because causes'—avoid such jingles.
  • 'the majority can always enforce its will'—remove 'always'.
  • 'the number of citizens to a representative'—better wording required.
  • 'Each representative being chosen from a larger constituency also, in Madison's view, means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.'—Clumsy word order. 'Each representative being chosen'—not strictly grammatical.
  • 'The larger populations and areas a republic is able to cover also motivate in favor of that form of government.' Huh?
  • 'This is a general application of the principle of checks and balances central to the American constitutional system.' Comma needed.

We want an interesting, enlightening text. This is boring, and you're asking the readers to work too hard. Tony 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • In most cases, I've altered the article to reflect your suggestions. Regarding two of your specific points: (1) "Anti-Federalist" is almost universally capitalized as the name of a movement or party. (2) Your first point was also difficult, as Federalist No. 10 did not especially influence the constitutional debate (hopefully the article did not imply that it did). I've tried to improve the lead in terms of placing motivating material nearer the beginning, however. If you could take another look, that would be excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's a lot better now, but can you find someone else to have a run through? And leave it yourself for a few days and run through it again. There's still a considerable amount that needs to be fixed. My eyes picked out a few more things at random:
  • 'The fact that a republic can encompass larger areas and populations also motivates in favor of that form of government.' 'Motivates' is the wrong word.
  • A sentence like: 'This is a general application of the checks and balances principle central to the American constitutional system.' reads poorly without a comma after 'principle'. Go through the whole text looking for such places. Here's another example: 'differing economic interests had created dispute even when the Constitution was being written'. There are lots more.
• 'Madison's argument that restraining liberty in order to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. This is a convoluted sentence. 'In order to'—PLEASE just 'to'.
• Sift through for redundant words: 'compromise ideas like this one' (remove 'one'); 'In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence in making their case.' (we don't need both first AND last phrases).
• Numbers over ten, use numerals (36, etc).

So you see that there's still work to be done to bring it up to standard. HINT: Read through each sentence in reverse order, starting at the end. It often helps you to see faults. Tony 13:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Should the title 'The question' be 'The faction question'? Tony 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Tony, I'm afraid that going through the article myself will not be very productive in producing the sort of changes you seek. This is because most of the things you see as needing to be fixed I would say are fine as is; after all the way the article is written more or less represents my style of choice. For instance, I could read the article 10000 times and never add commas in the two places you suggest above, or change thirty-six to 36. If you want me to make changes to the style of the article to reflect your standards, I'm more than happy to do this, but the changes will have to be suggested by you. I have, however, made the specific changes you requested. "The question" refers to the question the essay answers. I have changed it to "the question of faction" to clarify this. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the article is fine stylistically - people looking up an article on an edition of the Federalist Papers should expect some erudition, just as those looking up an article on a math topic would expect to see some formulae. In any event, any reviewer who disagrees with the turn of a phrase or the lack of a comma can make that change to the article in less time than it takes to point out this shortcoming. Cheers!  BD2412 ^talk 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The changes I propose are to make the text easier to read. They don't arise from a personal preference on my part, unless that's for easy reading. For example, without the commas in my examples, and in many other instances in the text, nominal items jostle against each other, and initial adverbial phrases are not as clear as they need to be. Suit yourself: I'm only thinking of your readers. No matter how 'erudite' you intend the article to be, it makes no difference to these matters. Tony 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't mean to imply that they are personal preferences in the sense of being arbitrary or capricious, they are personal in the sense that they are not universal or fundamental rules of English. People can reasonably differ on whether to include a comma in a certain place, surely. My point as far as this FAC nomination goes is that while you say that there are lots more places where the text reads poorly without a comma, this isn't an actionable request unless you can indicate where such places are for me to fix. I hope I'm not coming off as rude, but our obviously differing interpretations of what's unclear means it will be difficult/impossible for me to imply your general advice. (By the way, I've refactored these comments in with your previous ones; feel free to reverse this if you want). Christopher Parham (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Someone looking this up on Wikipedia will find exactly what they wanted. If that doesn't qualify the article for featured status, I don't know what would. --⟳ausa کui ^× 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Texas Ranger Division

Partial self nom. This article was the Texan Collaboration of the Month in August, and it was turned from a stub into a good basic article by Katefan0, SaltyPig and other users. After massively rewriting and expanding it by myself, a thorough copyedit by Tony1 and Katefan0, a deep check of its images' status by Carnildo, a month at Peer Review, and still more work afterwards... I feel it's time to finally submit it for your consideration. Thanks for your attention! Shauri smile! 17:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object At 50 kb, (46 w/o extras), the article needs to be authored in summary form. Consider moving the =history= section to a dedicated article and add a summary of it here. There is also no need for so many subheadings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried a different approach and removed the quasi-trivia lists, which added very little to the article, and that were created when we basically got started and needed topics to cover. The later development of the article has made the importance of such lists almost marginal. As of now, the full size is 46k (42 without extras), which is around the size of many FAs. Also, I've formatted some sections and reduced the number of subheadings. Hope this is enough. Thx for the input, Nichalp! Shauri smile! 18:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • wikipedia:summary style has the reasons why the article should be written as a summary. 42 is still on the higher side. This article has the potential to be summarised further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I have nothing against a large article. In fact, I think that many articles suffer from limitations on size, which I experienced when I wrote large parts of the article Norse mythology. This is not a paper encyclopedia :-).--Wiglaf 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read wikipedia:summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with what SoLando says below. I disagree that article length should be an argument against FA status, and especially if there are already FA articles of equal length. Moreover, the summary style is a proposed guideline.--Wiglaf 05:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Have you read the rationale behind the summary style? I've always objected to a long article which can be clearly summarised. I have no problems with an article size = 40kb if it is written in summary style. For example, take a look at Economy of India. Although sections are neatly summarised, the article by its very nature has to include a plethora of subjects, and so is large. And, I welcome you to FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • But in this article, the history is so central. Summarizing the history of the Texas Rangers and moving the bulk of the history to a separate article would be like removing a central part of what makes them what they are. It would be like taking the meat out of the sandwich. It would be nice making my own FACs, but that will have to wait a few months until I have finished my dissertation.--Wiglaf 07:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • You're looking at it from a wrong angle. Think of it as removing the bones out of the meat. :) I've already mentioned what has to be done on Shauri's page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I am sorry, but the analogy escapes me. Likewise it escapes me why this excellent article absolutely has to be rejected because of a few kb.--Wiglaf 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Its not the raw kb that I'm looking at. I'm looking for a summary. Unfortunately most newbies get confused between this. If the article size exceeds 30kb start looking at summary options (30 w/0 extras such as referencs interwiki etc). Three or four kb here and there do not make so much of a difference. Shauri asked me if I would support if the article was at 37 kb, I told her I'll support if the history is written as a summary, kb size not the major issue. In other words, move the details from here to a new history article and provide an overview of the history. Since I have summarised many article in the past, I can tell whether or not an an article needs a summary. You'll get it once you start getting articles featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I don't have anything against long articles, but after a thourough copyedit, I found some minor, but important points that need clearing up.
  • While the second paragraph states the Rangers are a North American organization, nowhere is it mentioned they work in the United States. It may seem obvious to most people, but you can't assume anything. If I knew where it would fit best, I'd have done it myself, but I'm not sure.
    • The leads says it's an agency "with statewide jurisdiction based in Austin, Texas", which I believed to be sufficient; but as you say, one can't assume anything, and thus I've added "in the United States" to that line.
  • The lead doesn't mention the famous cases the rangers handled.
    • I intended the lead to be a summary, since they are developed in the body of the article; but I like the sugestion, so I've just added the information to the lead.
  • It's not really actionable, but the lead image doesn't work for me. Any alternatives?
    • If you forgive me, Mgm, the matter is extremely subjective. Nearly "anything" could go here, from a badge to an old picture. The image is intended to show the presence of the TRs in modern Texans' mind. Please observe that this huge statue is located right outside the entrance to the Texas State Capitol. Such a symbolism is notable, and I wanted to give a first image that was detached from a particular period of time.
      • I really like this explanation. And I really, really like the picture - of course, I did suggest we use it, so I'm biased. Johntex\^talk 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The early history sections has a lot of the years and dates seperated making it hard to wikify both so the user preferences can kick in.
    • I've just addressed this throughout the entire article.
  • I've fixed them, but [[1950]]s points to the article 1950, [[1950s]] is a different article. Please take care when wikifying.
    • Done as well.
  • In the "Mexican American War" section it is said Sam Houston increased the numbers of Rangers when he was reelected because he saw their efficiency. Why would he, when he previously disbanded part of the forces because he felt peaceful coexistence with Indians was the way to go?
    • Because there were tribes that didn't want peace; but mostly, to repel Mexican invasions, as it is mentioned in the very same paragraph. Also, he didn't had disbanded them previously; he merely didn't give the Rangers the military role that Lamar did.
  • Horseback riding is occasionally mentioned in the article, and it's clear it was done from the start, but it doesn't say if Horses were out of the budget during the depression or how many Rangers still have horses available today.
    • As for the first point, I added a small line to the Depression paragraphs, stating that they had to used their own personal horses (sourced in the Handbook of Texas) as means of transportation. In fact, Rangers had always needed to supply their own mounts until the 20th century. As to the second point, well, they still have horses at their disposal if needed, and I guess it could be added, but... do you really think this information is suited for the article? When discussing the history of the agency within the broader history of Texas, and addressing political, military and criminal issues, I feel that going into this sort of details it's a bit like beating around the bush imho...
  • The words "seceded" and "apocryphal" need to be changed or explained.
    • Really? I never imagined they should, since both words aren't that difficult to understand and, imho, they are clear in the given context. Why do you think that, Mgm?
      • I wikified apocryphal so anyone who doesn't know what it means will get sent to apocryphal. Johntex\^talk 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Likewise, I wikified seceded. Johntex\^talk 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • McNelly had a knack for disobeying orders? What is the source for this?
    • The same one for the line that preceeds it, which is under the footnotes section. An "ibid" note can't hurt, tho, so I just added it.
  • The bit about partisans in the 20th century section needs a source too.
    • Same as above. Source added.
  • The 20th century section has a bit where the word "worse" is used twice in quick succession. Could the first be clarified and changed?
    • Done, I rephrased the paragraph, within the strict limits of the meaning intended by the source.
  • Legislature was passed on March 31. What year was that?
    • The reason why the year wasn't cited is because it was the last mentioned year. Solved, anyway.
  • The car image is nice, but its use is not mentioned in the article. The article could use expansion on the mode of transportation for Rangers over the years (not only during the depression)
    • I added a mention to the time when the automobile was officially adopted by the agency; but as I said above, I feel that (although it is certainly interesting, and I have sources to address it) a further detailed expansion on the mode of transportation for Rangers over the years is not of primary importance within the limits of this article.
  • Source needed: Hardin had an affair with his killer's wife.
    • Source added, and also some precisions to these facts.
  • Bonnie and Clyde section: May 21 of what year?
    • Same as above, solved.
  • "Most Rangers also preferred to wear broader-brimmed sombreros as opposed to cowboy hats". Can someone put a time stamp on this?
    • Extremely difficult to do with precision, but a time window can be established based on pictorial evidence found at different sources (especially one of the External Links), and I just added it.
  • I'm also missing a mention of Walker, Texas Ranger and Rangers in general in pop culture. Are they portrayed realistically?
    • Well, this serves to prove that one can't please everybody! I've just re-added mentions in Popular Culture at your request.

I'm sorry to pile this all on you, but I think that covered every objection I could make, so if this is addressed. I'm sure to support. Good luck! - Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As I just told you, there's nothing to apollogize for, Mgm :) I'll adress the remaining points right away. Hugs, Shauri smile! 22:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, my dear Mgm. Please let me know your thoughts. Hugs, Shauri smile! 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, thourough and well-sourced. My beef with the image is the angle it's taken from. I didn't notice the building behind it and the image doesn't show off its impressiveness, but that's really a tecnicality. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object too long. Needs to use summary style. Borisblue 23:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support A very informative, comprehensive article. Article size of 42 to 49 kilobytes (to me) should be acceptable; many featured articles are of an equal (even larger) size, so I hope that objection won't determine whether this article receives its (deserved) FA status or not. If it does have to be reduced in size, I'd prefer the "High-profile busts" section being made into a small summary, with the main text being moved into something like "Prominent arrests made by the Texas Ranger Division" (that title seems a bit awkward. Sorry!). The "Popular culture" section could be moved into another article, too - it wouldn't realy have a noticeable affect on the article size, though. SoLando (Talk) 03:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the above as to why I have objected. Size of any two articles cannot be compared. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I found the article very instructive. However, I am concerned that there seems to be a general exceedingly positive tone. Ex: today the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world — regarded by whom? I strongly doubt that law-enforcement forces around the world know about the Texas Rangers (though now, obviously, many have heard about it from Walker, Texas Ranger, but one cannot base oneself on fiction to judge), or that they have voted upon it. Similarly, while there has been some limited criticism on 19th century brutality, there does not seem to be any kind of discussion of modern issues. David.Monniaux 08:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)<

David, I see that you have chosen to ignore the improvements that have been done to meet your demands. Shauri left you polite message about this[10], which you chose to ignore according to your activity afterwards[11] It is consequently obvious that you are no longer taking part in the discussion, and there is little use for your comment here anymore. I am consequently forced to strike it.--Wiglaf 22:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My dear Wiglaf, let's just let David answer my comment. I'm confident he'll reply in due time. Shauri smile! 23:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)2

Done (totally forgot about it). By the way, you are not supposed to edit other people's comments yourself, even if you decide that their criticisms are unwarranted. David.Monniaux 06:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The striking had more to do with the fact that you seemed to have disappeared in spite of Shauri's kind request for a new comment. An oppose vote serves no purpose if the voter does not take part in discussing the improvements.--Wiglaf 10:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the positive criticism, David. As I see, you have two concerns: phrases like the one you point (please note where else at the article you find "excesively possitive tone", and I'll gladly address it). As for "today the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world", the answer is, by other law enforcement agencies, and I can source that. To your concern: "I strongly doubt that law-enforcement forces around the world know about the Texas Rangers", I must note that unfortunately, you're wrong. The fame of the TRs troughout the world is firmly established, and as an example, I wish to offer you an extremely illustrative example here. If the sole idea that they would be facing the TRs caused such unrest through the III Reich that the German Ministery of Propaganda had to openly dismiss the rumor, it speaks of the widespread fame that the TRs have throughout the world. I also don't consider that the criticism of brutality is "limited"; nearly all arguments regarding the issue have been included without going in particular detail, something that I deemed unnecesary for size purposes. I invite you to check the vast majority of webpages (even books) on the subject; you'll see that criticism is absent, unlike here. There also isn't any kind of discussion on modern issues like these, simply because there are none to the best of my knowledge; and if you happen to find information that points otherwise, I'd be happy if you could bring it to my attention here so I can include it. Thanks again, Shauri smile! 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In any case, just to solve the issue for good, I've rephrased the line regarding their fame as an effective agency, and sourced it. Shauri
      • I'm somewhat concerned that you use as "reference" some Web site that is obviously a tribute to the Texas Rangers. Apart from one anecdotal example, we see nothing. I can attest to you that hardly anybody in France had ever heard of Texas Rangers before the Walker TV-show appeared. David.Monniaux 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, my dear David, if you worked on a law enforcement agency, perhaps you would! But in any case (as I just mentioned above) I removed already that phrase and simply mentioned that "they have intervened on several thousand cases with a high level of effectiveness", sourced "not" on a tribute page but on the Handbook of Texas, a reputed online source by the University of Texas at Austin. I believe this settles the matter. I merely used the example above for illustrative purposes at this talk, not at the article itself. Thanks! Shauri smile! 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
          • At the base of the statue currently shown as the lead photo in the article, there is a quote by Teddy Roosevelt something to the effect of feeling secure anytime he had the Texas Rangers guarding his flank. Unfortunatelly, I am not within easy driving distance of the statue in order to get the wording correct, and I cannot find an on-line reference to it. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. However, there exists, I think, still a few phrases that should (in my humble opinion) be phrased otherwise. Take, for instance, such as taking part in summary executions and confessions induced by extreme means. What does "summary execution" mean? Is it the same as what we have at summary execution, or was it lynching? (And then, why not include wikilinks?) What are confessions induced by extreme means? If you mean torture, say so.

Let's call a spade a spade and use plain-spoken language. David.Monniaux 08:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, David, and your input is welcome to introduce tweaking into any phrases you believe necessary. The one you point out has been rephrased within the limits of the facts that are presented by the source. Again, thanks for your positive contribution. Shauri smile! 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the current formulation. David.Monniaux 08:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Object There are lots of bizarre wording here and there: "At the beginning of the 20th century, Texas' frontiers had become more civilized", "the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world" (why, how, by whom, for doing what ? Citation ?). Issues of racism seem mainly addressed a contrario ("The agency is also fully integrated with modern Texan ethnic groups...") or in what could be seen as appreciative folklore stories ("Los Diablos Tejanos"), which raise more questions than they solve, in my reading. The history part is very detailed, but this makes it overly long, and some issues (such as racism) are not discussed from a perspective. Also the whole article is organised in a way which makes me think more of a collection of things put on top of each other than of one coherent article. Rama 08:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please, try to be more polite when you chose your wordings. People may take offense by words such as bizarre.--Wiglaf 11:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Humm, with all due respect, Rama, I've read your objection thrice, and I still can't quite understand most of what you expect. Let me try and analyze what I believe you object:
    • "Bizarre" wording (?) "Civilized" is bizarre? Again, with all respect, I hardly think the same. Perhaps you could care to clarify what you mean? I guess I understand what you mean, from what Johntex says; he has already addressed this for me.
    • That other phrase may be a little unfortunate, but it's a quote, and nothing of my own making. As I told David, I'll gladly source it right away.
    • Solved, as I just replied at David's objection.
    • Racism is not discussed from a "perspective"? From which "perspective"? Addressed "a contrario"? If you feel the article fails in its NPOV, then I suggest that you read my above comment to David, and invite you to search for other sources that address the matter in a more neutral way. It is said that it is fully integrated because, as of today, hardly any issues of racism (if any at all) have been linked to the agency, unlike its past, where it is deeply discussed, sourced, and imho addressed with full seriousness. It appears as if you were focusing from a wrong view. Let's see in a very simplified way: they "were" anti-Mexican and anti-Indian at some points of its history, but they are no longer now, at least not as an organization (impossible to tell what each Ranger personally thinks), thus it is fully integrated today and to prove that, it has several Latino and African American among its members. What's so unclear with that? Again, care to explain exactly what you mean?
    • "or in what could be seen as appreciative folklore stories ("Los Diablos Tejanos"), which raise more questions than they solve, in my reading." "Appreciative"? With all due respect, you're the first person I ever find that considers it an "appreciative" tale. It is one of respect obtained by fear, and as it is said at the article, they earned it "ruthlessly". "that" is what is inteded to show with this quote: their fame, not their "appreciation". Once again, please explain what questions this matter raises you, as I find your objection here extremely sui generis.
    • As for the organization of the article, it tries to cover all topics related to the subject, like famous anecdotes, uniform, etc. Again, you're the fist person ever to raise this point. It is meant to be a "comprehensive" article on the subject, unlike the vast majority of existing sources. Perhaps you could suggest a different organization?
  • If you allow me to quote you, my dear Rama, your objections raise more questions than they solve. I apollogize for the hasty words, honestly. Still, I would really appreciate a bit more in depth analysis to address your concerns. Rest assured I'll do my best to solve them. Thank you! Shauri smile! 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I am guessing the objection to the "bizzare" wording is asking whether frontiers can be civilized. We might want to replace "civilized" with "settled". Johntex\^talk 20:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that the issue here is that words such as "civilized" are inherently POV, i.e. they express a moral judgment on what is and what isn't civilization. For instance, I'm ready to believe that the Native Americans considered themselves "civilized" and considered that the settlers were barbarians at their gates, stealing their land, and pillaging and raping their villages. I thus would prefer that such words were replaced by factual phrases, alluding for instance to the absence of settlements of people of European origin. David.Monniaux 07:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think that the editors of the article had that specific sense of civilized in mind when they used the word. In this context, I interpret civilized as the more overarching sense of "the state of having brought a well-organized Western institutional culture to the area", which is in fact what happened. I am positive that civilized is here contrasted to the settler culture that preceded it, and not to the Amerindian culture.--Wiglaf 07:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • That's correct, Wiglaf; the meaning intended was exactly the one you point out. The issue was already been clarified by Johntex, however, so I hope this particular point is solved. Shauri smile! 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have a general problem with Texas Ranger Division; it is overall a good article and an interesting one, but I would not nominate it for Featured article in its present state; my main point of criticism is that it tends to be an accumulation of very detailed and picturesque anecdotes, lacking what I would expect of an encyclopedic distance. For instance, Texas_Ranger_Division#John_Wesley_Hardin is so detailed that in my opinion, it stops being informative (on the general subject of the Texas Rangers) and starts stuffing the reader with clichés.

Also, as I mentionned earlier, there are several instances of implied features: for instance, what does "The agency is also fully integrated with modern Texan ethnic groups, counting numerous officers of Hispanic and African American origin" suggest ? That the only mention of a racial discrimination is the a contrario allusion to the fact that it is now ended is disturbing to me.

The article is mined with similar details which sacrify historic distance and critic understanding to folkloric details and praises. These are certainly unconscious, and I do not doubt your good faith, but I think that there is a very regional POV (Texan subject discribed by Texans forthe entertainment for other Texans) which makes this article look much more like a fan site than a critical, encyclopedic article.

Lots of details can't save a lack of general vision. I know that it is often what happens at first; I did the same for UNPROFOR. But I know that UNPROFOR needs lots of work, and I'd never suggest it as a featured article in its present state.

Besides, I find it particularly peculiar that some people should entitle themselves with the right to decide whether or not objections of other users still stand. Rama 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is even more peculiar when oppose votes are left and the voter is to be seen no more. This is a discussion page, where we discuss how to improve the article for FA status, not a place where people appear to have thrown in an oppose vote and run away. Moreover, Shauri's kind request for a comment was ignored until I dealt with it (a coincidence?).--Wiglaf 10:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Big Texas-sized SUPPORT! This article is obviously the product of a lot of time and hard work and is clearly and interestingly written and throughly researched. Whenever someone says something is "too long" that is usually a sure sign they did'nt bother to really read it. Why are you complaining about a mere 50k length, unless you are on a 1200 baud modem? :). Still others would have parts of it lengthened for the sake of "Political correctness", which most of the time means Historical Incorrectness and leads to Political Revisionism. My hats off to Shauri for sticking to her guns. This being said, there are some minor, valid criticisms. A few phrases which might need some tweaking or rewording, a date or two (such as the Bonnie & Clyde shootout) which need filling in. But these are easily corrected and no reason to seriously oppose this fine work of historical narrative.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Great comments, Ghost!--Wiglaf 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Ghost that the length of this article is not a problem. I also think the article strikes the right tone with regards to rasism accusations, etc. I'll try to help fix a few of the valid but minor suggestions/criticisms about word choices, etc, in order to make the article even better, but I think it is FA material already as it is. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support—Although I did work over the first two-thirds of the text a month ago, I feel distant enough from it to vote. I'm in the process of going through it again to make minor improvements. Tony 06:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: very instructive, some good recent edits, size is not, IMHO, a valid objection. This would be very far from being the longest FA. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. It has been nominated before. We've been working hard on this article and feel it has improved significantly. All the objections from the previous nomination have been addressed. --WS 10:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Objct. While there is much in this article that is very good, I found the opening paragraphs too technical: they read as if written by medical experts for medical experts. While the use of jargon is an ongoing problem with all medical articles, I found it a little disappointing because further down in the article this problem is handled far better, & often successfully. But if these paragraphs are re-written to solve this, & perhaps a few other tweaks made to the body of the article, I'd be happy to support this article. -- llywrch 17:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is probably due to the fact that most of the article has been written by medical doctors and students :-) I simplified the first paragraph a little, added some more explanations, especially about myelin and I think most of the lead must be clear and not too difficult to read now. Do you think it needs more changes? It would be a great help if someone with a non-medical background would have a look at it. What tweaks would you like to see done to the body of the article? --WS 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead and would be interested in your thoughts on it. Also, if you had specifics which could be addressed in the body we would love to work on them. :) InvictaHOG 00:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if, from simply reading the first paragraph, the casual, non-medical reader, could get an idea of the concrete consequences of that illness, before going on to explain demyelinisation. David.Monniaux 08:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've redone the introduction to place clinical manifestations and outcomes before pathophysiology. Let us know if this is more appropriate. InvictaHOG 12:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is very interesting... but, shouldn't the prognosis before the treatment? (Also,n beware of jargon in titles. Not everybody may know what a "prognosis" is.) David.Monniaux 22:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As per our template in the clinical medicine project we list prognosis after treatment, since response to treatment often affects the prognosis. However, if you think that things would be better in a different order, feel free to come discuss changing the template in more detail! InvictaHOG 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support — I really do like this article, and found it very easy to read. I would like to congratulate all who have worked on it. This article deserves featured article status. I would like to encourage the contributors to engage on a scavenger hunt for more pictures, though. The long chunks of text, even though they are very well written, could do with a little descriptive decoration. --Gareth Hughes 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added two images InvictaHOG 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:MS inflammation.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How embarrassing. It has been removed pending confirmation. I've added an image and am working on another - I agree it would be nice to have more!

• Support. Immense improvement. Very realistic as to how much the casual reader will comprehend. Should be featured. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It is well-written and has improved much. *drew 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please use 'MS' on every occasion after you introduce this abbreviation at the top. Spell out numbers less than 10. Consistent approach to the placement of reference numbers is required. There must be a space after each. If you have to have a space before, insert a non-breaking space to avoid overhang. Tony 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the numbers and fixed the reference links. I kept the first mention of multiple sclerosis in each section and replaced the rest with MS. Thanks for the help! InvictaHOG 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace

Partial Self-nom. This article was a mathematics collaboration of the week and is the result of many mergings. This is a very central topic in mathematics and applied disciplines which is taught during the early university classes in mathematics. It is referred more than 450 times on Wikipedia. A big well-balanced effort has been put on pedagogics, properties and theorems, and applications. The article covers also eigenfunction and eigenstate which are now redirected here. Vb 13:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• support and nominate Vb 13:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• support although a bit too much math for my liking. Non-mathematicians might have some trouble with this. Borisblue 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Because it is in clearly differentiated sections, it is useful for the layman and the mathematician alike. An excellent article. Si sic solum omnium.... Batmanand 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article is awesome! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Discrete-continuum.gif is claimed as "fair use". There's no reason to use fair use images in this article.
     • I have changed the description of the image. Could you please check whether it is OK now. Vb 09:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
       • It's a published, copyrighted work. That means that we either need to get the image released under a license such as the GFDL, or that it be used as "fair use", and I don't think a fair use claim can be justified here. --Carnildo 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
         • No it is not copyrighted. Don't mix up book of abstracts with proceedings. I sent a mail to the author so that he can put an end to this discussion. Vb 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
           • Was the image published in the US after 1989? If so, then unless the author has explicitly disclaimed copyright on it, it's copyrighted. It's very hard to create a non-copyrighted work these days. --Carnildo 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
             • The author responded and allowed me explicitly to use the figure. I think this closes the case, doesn't it? Vb 10:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
               • Not neccessarily. Was it "permission to use the figure on Wikipedia", or "permission to use under the GFDL"? The second is acceptable, the first isn't. --Carnildo 19:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. The image Image:HAtomOrbitals.png is claimed as GFDL, but does not indicate the source or creator. The GFDL license requires this. It's probably {{GFDL-self}}, but you should contact the uploader to verify this.
     • I contacted the author. This image is already on the featured article quantum mechanics. Vb 09:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. The image Image:Eigenfaces.png has no source or copyright information. This is grounds for speedy-deletion of the image.
     • I changed the description of the image. Since ORL is a public domain database, I think it is no problem. Thank you for checking. Vb 09:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
       • The database may be public domain, but as I understand it, It's a database of faces. Depending on the origin of the eigenfaces in this image, it may or may not be in the public domain. --Carnildo 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
         • The database is not accessible anymore from the original site which distributed it. It was made of ten photographs of 40 persons. The eigenfaces are a mixing of all those photographs. If the database is public domain, it means the photographs are in the public domain. Well at least in my understanding: I am no lawyer. Vb 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
           • Is there some standard eigenface algorithm, or is there some element of creativity involved in the creation of the eigenface images? --Carnildo 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
             • I don't really know. Couldn't we assume good faith in this case? --Vb 10:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 04:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) images are too large, esp. for smaller resolutions. Scale to between 220 to 270px. done 2) ToC is granulated, and contains too many subheadings. Specifically 5.1.x and 5.2.x should go. Rename 6 to something shorter.done =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Point 1) has been addressed. Point 2) is not valid: This specific choice of titles and subtitles must be criticized on nonformal ground. This article is intended to a very large audience ranging from the layman to the mathematician. This particular choice of headings correspond to this. Applying blindly the FA criteria leads to an artificial uniformisation of WP which is not desired by many WPedians. Vb 08:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I did all you asked for blindly just to close the discussion. Vb 09:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not strike out a reviewer's objection. I evaluate all articles before objecting, and I never blindly apply the same formula to all articles. A single paragraph does not make a section and this criteria certainally applies to a mathematics article. Use the semicolon to create a non-sectional heading instead. See the ; in operation in the cricket article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. That's what I did: I have used the ";". I stroke out the part of your objections which are utterly objective and have been definitively addressed. Vb 09:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have some more issues:
    1. (from a vector space to itself) : "(" ")" deviates from the text, please avoid such a use in the lead.
       • This remark is important because we have to specify which type of transformations we are speaking about. I have put it as a footnote. Do you think it is better? Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    2. see Fig. 1, for an informal definition). --> not needed in lead
       • Please discuss this issue with Kappa, I have included this to answer one of his remarks. See below. Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    3. Parentheses other, possibly nonlinear, transformations could also be listed)—may be visualized by the effect they produce on vectors (arrows pointing from one point to another). deviation: Please flow the text. (This applies to all such elements henceforth)
       • Sorry but we have to define what we are speaking about (as when we speak about Green's operators) :-) Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    4. See also: eigenplane --> unbold and use {{see also}}
       • doneVb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    5. Earth rotates, earth is a common noun. use small caps.
       • No see article Earth. We are speaking about the planet.Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    6. As another example, consider a thin the tone needs to be encyclopedic rather than text book style. "Consider" has to be removed.
       • Yes that's true that's a sickness of many math articles. I have tried to improve this.Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    7. (see Spectral theorem) not necessary; already linked
       • I think we need it here to tell the reader where the particular conditions can be found
    8. This provides an easy proof that the geometric multiplicity is always less than or equal to the algebraic multiplicity. (Do not confuse this 1st sense with generalized eigenvalue problem, below.) same problem, this has to have an encyclopedic tone, and should not read like a manual. This applies to all elements again.
       • I have tried to address this.Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    9. Green's operator? Please explain
       • Done Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    10. =Factor analysis=, =Tensor of inertia=; =Tensor of inertia= need to be expanded to twice its current length to be called a section. Please expand or else use the semicolon.
        • I think it is important that the reader can see in the TOC which are the possible application or at least which are listed in this article. I therefore don't change this. Vb 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think there should be some introduction to ease a reader into the subject. That it has to do with matrices, vectors and so on. I do have some knowledge on EV, so I feel that the introduction should ease users into the subject. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added the links to linear algebra and functional analysis in the head. Do you think it helps the reader in the direction you point at? Vb 18:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not satisfied. I'll have a go at the article tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've edited the text to withdraw my objection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's one of the best Mathematics articles I've seen. COGDEN 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I'm a non-math guy and I thought it was neat. KingTT 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can't tell what these things are without scrolling down. Definitions and examples should be front-loaded. Kappa 01:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I do have to agree there. That's one ground for improvement, but it can be easily fixed. I still support. COGDEN 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This opposition makes sense. In order to address it, let me first cite the WP recommandations for a mathematics article

It is a good idea to also have an informal introduction to the topic, without rigor, suitable for a high school student or a first-year undergraduate, as appropriate. For example,

In the case of real numbers, a continuous function corresponds to a graph that you can draw without lifting your pen from the paper, that is, without any gaps or jumps.

The informal introduction should clearly state that it is informal, and that it is only stated to introduce the formal and correct approach. If a physical or geometric analogy or diagram will help, use one: many of the readers may be non-mathematical scientists.

Thus I think it would be a bad idea simply to shift the definitions and examples from the body to the head. That's the reason why I made the Mona Lisa picture. I think the caption provides exactly what is required as a definition. To make this point clear I have numbered the figures and refer to Fig. 1 in the head. I think someone reading its caption will understand what is the topic even without much mathematics knowledge. Tell me whether you agree. Vb 09:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Can you rewrite the description so the example will work for someone who can't see the image? Kappa 12:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I have tried to rewrite the caption from this point of view. Is it better now? Vb 14:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks, that helped. I also added something so that a user who can't see the image will hopefully be able to imagine what happened. I have withdrawn my opposition. Kappa 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • What you added has a good intention but is not correct. This transformation is named shear. The problem is that tranfo is not easily defined for non mathematicians. It is easly defined graphically in an example but not with words. I therefore think it is better to let it as it was before. Vb 15:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I think I have found a formulation which cope with this problem Vb 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: The illustration using the Mona Lisa at the beginning is ingenious! Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Metrication

Partial Self-nom (I've worked on it lately reforming layout and adding some sections) This is an interesting article on a world-wide phenomenon - over 200 years 95% of the world has changed from using local traditional measurement to using the common SI system. Even in the two countries that haven't changed - the UK and US - many industries and most universities use mostly or only SI. The article recently had a Peer Review and has incorporated useful suggestions. One problem with it is a lack of a good iconic image for the header - but perhaps someone has a suggestion for that? Seabhcán 13:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Currently Neutral—The paragraph describing Canada not using celcius for ovens could leave the impression that metric has been adopted in other areas of Canadian Life. Imperial Units are still used almost exclusively in the construction trades (Lumber is sold in 8, 10, 12 foot lengths, etc) even with the younger generations. Wire sizes are in AWG. Television size is refered to in inches, etc. A mention should also be made of the difficulties in conversion when Canada's largest trading partner (USA) has not converted. Otherwise, it's a great article. (Never realized the metrication process had been going on so long) CanadianGuy 02:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Canadian situation. Perhaps you can add something yourself. Are you aware that there is a full article on Metrication in Canada? Seabhcán 17:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very interesting read, lots of excellent content, but I have a few points:

• The 'Before metric' section is too short - three paragraphs summarising the content of the main article would be ideal.
• The lead could do with being a bit longer, three paragraphs would be nice.
• Although the article says that only four countries 'have not fully metricated', it then notes that Canadians use Fahrenheit and no-one has metricated time, so that could do with some rewording.#

DoneSeabhcán 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't really say much at the moment about why many countries go metric.

DoneSeabhcán 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Under 'Opposition', is 'ironically' really necessary? I don't think it's particularly ironic.

DoneSeabhcán 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some images could do with brief captions.

DoneSeabhcán 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to read more about the practicalities of changing road signs from miles to kilometres. Has it been done overnight or does it take a lot of time?
• There's a brief mention of the UK's habit of still using imperial units but quoting them as metric, but some more everyday examples are bottles containing 568ml of milk, or bags of peas weighing 454 grammes.
• There's a large see-also section - if these things are worth mentioning in this context, they should be linked within the text.

Done.Seabhcán 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If those points are addressed I would support this nomination. Worldtraveller 11:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats a lot of points to deal with, and will take some time. I don't agree that the 'Before Metric' section is short. This section is not the subject of the article and should just give a brief overview of the historical situation. There is a full article on this subject which is linked. I also think that the lead is a fair summary of the article, and I don't know which specific additions would improve it.

The question of 'Why' countries go metric is intersting and hadn't occured to me. I'll cook something up for it.

The road sign issue is interesting. It would only apply to recent converts such as Canada, Austrailia and Ireland (maybe Japan?). In Ireland it was done over one weekend last January. I don't know about the others.

In the UK milk is sold in bottles of Pint, Liter or rarely Two Pint sizes. But it always has both metric and imperial written on the bottle, but no one would ask in a shop for '568ml of milk'. They would buy a pint of milk - so I don;t think your example would apply. Thanks for the feedback. Seabhcán 14:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You've added a paragraph since I last looked at before metric, I think it looks and reads better now. It occurs to me that it might look better to incorporate the link to the main article in the flow of the text. As for the lead section, it reads like an introduction to further content at the moment, rather than a summary of all article content which could stand on its own as a mini-article. And the point about our bottles of 568ml of milk could just illustrate how stubborn we're being about going metric. Anyway, good work, I think the article looks much better now. Worldtraveller 15:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Would love to support, but object for now because references are not formatted as per Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. Just fixed them. Seabhcán 15:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Support: Metrication is a charged topic, and the article sticks to the facts. One thing that might be mentioned is the use of "dual units" during the conversion process. Everything from Coke bottles to construction plans were prepared in both units for a time in the U.S. so as to familiarize people with their use. Some State Departments of Transportation converted fully, and most partially, to SI — only to revert to U.S. standard units. I would break up that first paragraph in "Conversion Process" into smaller chunks. Perhaps a separate paragraph for the "first" and "second" approaches. MARussellPESE 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support—But one or two more pictures would lift it. Tony 14:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support A truly fascinating artical, with excellent prose, that reads like an adventure novel and an encylcopaedia at the same time at some points. Agree with above re: images, but more images of greengrocers in the UK selling by the lb may not necessarily help. Excellent division into sections, and nice that it links to bigger articles about, eg, the arguments for and against metrication. Factual, NPOV, thorough. Well deserving of FA status. Batmanand 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. High praise indeed! Seabhcán 17:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. The article is excellent! Batmanand 07:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support; I made a few formatting changes, but nothing too major. Looks good. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Canada

Mostly a self nom. This was a former candidate some months ago. Since then I've tried to resolve the remaining objections, and others have also made several improvements. - SimonP 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Canadian soldiers afghanistan.jpg has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Resolved, an anon had removed the license some weeks ago. - SimonP 13:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG Support eh. A VERY thorough and well written survey/overview article, about a country that some are'nt even aware has a military...Dudley Do-Right aside of course:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• neutral support- I think the post-WWII section could be expanded a bit. It mentions peacekeeping, but does not mention the varying degree to which Canada has been commited to this. I think there could be some discussion of funding levels and operational problems in recent years, as well as other issues such as sovereignty assertion in the far north. The Cold War section is a bit sparse on details, I don't think it even mentions that troops were stationed in Europe as part of the defence of Europe. Discussion of WWI and the inter-war period is also a little bit sparse. Other than that all very good. Peregrine981 12:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that this is a summary article that's already approaching 50k, so I think further expansion would be a mistake. Separate articles should treat the details you are talking about. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit on this, but I feel that most of the details of the evolution of the Canadian Forces are better covered in the history section of the Canadian Forces article. There is something of a difference between the "military history of Canada" and the "history of Canada's military." This article is the former, while the section the CF article is the latter. - SimonP 19:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... I do not think it is yet a worthy candidate article, but no doubt can be (definitely moreso that another nomination). This article should be refined and enhanced: it's sufficiently different from Canadian Armed Forces, and (should be) detailed enough to satiate inquiring minds. Perhaps a clearly temporal overview and slight reorganisation of some content are required. E Pluribus Anthony 07:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay! I'm elated the article has been nominated! Thanks and congrats to everyone. As well, one suggestion: I recommend the picture for inclusion on the main page be the The Death of General Wolfe painting appearing further down in the article (as it's rather well-known), not the 'Vimy' picture up-top. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 08:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but three minor comments. The War of 1812 section doesn't have a "see main article" heading. Is there a reason why not? Also, an entire article could easily be devoted to Canadian peacekeeping. I don't need someone to go write that article before supporting this nomination, but it would be nice if even a stub were to be created. Also, there is no mention of the White Paper of Defence, which I would have expected. Perhaps that is extraneous detail. Jkelly 00:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Spangineer has kindly added a see main heading to 1812. I agree having an article on Canadian peacekeeping would be great, but that isn't really my area of expertise. As to the White Paper, as mentioned above, the organizational details are already covered at Canadian Forces. - SimonP 19:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, very nice summary article. Further expansion is not necessary; the article is already quite long. Trimming some sections would be nice, but difficult, so I think it's ok as it is. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support ... Looks good CanadianGuy 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, I feel like a spoiler on this FAC list, but the guidelines do say 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. Here are some examples of things that need to be fixed in the lead. I'm trying to encourage you to find collaborators who are distant from the text ('fresh eyes'), who will go through the whole text to make it kinder to the reader.
  • Opening sentence: 'The military history of Canada includes both those military actions centred on the territory encompassing modern Canada, and participation of the Canadian military in conflicts, and also in peacekeeping, around the world.'
    • 'includes' means that there are other functions you're not telling us about; if this is not the case, use 'comprises' or 'consists of' instead.
    • Why not remove 'those'?
    • Can 'centred on' be replaced with just 'in'? (Think of your poor readers.)
    • Insert 'the' before 'participation'?
    • 'in conflicts, and also in peacekeeping, around the world'—why not 'in conflicts and peacekeeping around the world' (so much nicer to read).
  • Second sentence: 'For many millennia, the area that would become Canada was the site of inter-tribal wars among First Nations groups. The arrival of Europeans led to conflicts between them and the Natives and also the importation of European conflicts to the New World.'
    • Remove 'many' as redundant, and because it's a jingle (en, en).
    • 'First Nations groups'—the double plural doesn't sound right.
    • The referent of 'them' is unclear, although I guess you mean the Europeans. (Could be the First Nation groups.)
    • Remove 'also' and insert 'to', but see next bullet ...
    • The importation bit is clumsy—why not 'and brought European ...'—nice and simple. But do you mean conflicts between the European groups, or European techniques of waging war?

Phew, that's two sentences. There's lots of work to do.

Tony 03:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the whole text, oh boy, a big job. Next time, please seek help before nominating the article. Tony

• Object, as with last time. Anecdote: I check the article this morning to see what it has to say about the North-West Rebellion. Here's a precious nugget of "compelling, even brilliant prose":
  • "The Rebellion saw a series of battles between the Métis and their allies against the Militia and North West Mounted Police, from which the government forces emerging victorious."
    • Wow, I'm sold. Oh, and it doesn't help that Dominion forces actually lost every battle until Batoche. Albrecht 16:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Acorn Computers

Pretty comprehensive article on a the history and products of a now defunct British computer company. A lot of effort has gone into this article, including contacting several people involved with the company by email to clear up disagreements surrounding the article. TreveX^talk 17:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Self nominate and support. TreveX^talk 17:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Terrific piece. Angmering 22:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It came out rather well! mfc 15:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Object
  • lots of bold text
  • ToC is granulated. Use terse headings eg: Acorn Group as an Olivetti subsidiary (1985–1998) ---> Olivetti subsidiary
  • Section 5.1 is unnecessary. Either merge with parent, or promote to a top level heading.
  • an appearance at Supergirl's school! what's the exclaimation mark for?
  • Separate 4MHz etc. with a non breaking space 4&nbsp;MHz.
  • Your footnote is not done correctly. Use {{ref}} and {{note}} to correct it.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Each subsection (===Subsection not a section===) is now at least three lengthy paragraphs.TreveX^talk 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also expanded the footnotes (using {{ref}} and {{note}}).

TreveX^talk 11:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • TreveX, please do not strike out my objections. Only the reviewer is authorised to do so. You may bullet my answers or correct typos, but please do not strike out (or fragment if the case arises) by objections.

      I'm not happy with the headings: 1) Use either Prehistory OR Chris Curry and Sinclair Radionics 2) Remove the years in the headings; A new RISC.... --> New RISC ... ; BBC Master, Archimedes --> BBC Master and Archimedes; ; The last acorns fall --> too flowery, please tone down. 3) company was closed down --> company folded? 4) 5 December : dates like these should be wikified. 5) (shown right) not necessary 6) I notice a lot of text in brackets, (eg. (including the CPU); (the Econet) etc ) this breaks the flow of the text, please avoid using these. Good work fixing the rest. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now fixed all of your criticisms with the exception of one, the years in the headings. I think this is a minor disagreement about style rather than a substantive grounds for objection. In my opinion, the use of years in the headings makes the article more useful and informative by giving an at-a-glance overview of how the four main phases of the company were distributed, chronologically speaking. Are there any Wikipedia style guides on inclusion of years in headings? TreveX^talk 11:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Though I still reccommend you not use years in the headings, I won't hold it against the article. Good work in taking care of the rest. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well done. --Pamri • Talk 11:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't there be some info on its stock performance and corporate structure? (maybe there is but I missed it?)Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There is information on stock performance, profits and company structure throughout the article. Stock performance and profits are discussed at critical points:

The BBC Micro sold spectacularly well – so much so that Acorn's profits rose from a mere £3000 in 1979 to £8.6m in July 1983. In September 1983, CPU shares were liquidated and Acorn was floated on the Unlisted Securities Market as Acorn Computer Group plc, with Acorn Computers Ltd as the microcomputer division. With a minimum tender price of 120p, the group came into existence with a market capitalisation of about £135 million. CPU founders Herman Hauser and Chris Curry leapt instantly into the paper millionaire bracket: Hauser's 53.25 million shares made him worth £64m; Curry's 43 million shares translated into £51m.

The Italian computer company took a 49.3% stake in Acorn for £12 million, which went some way to covering Acorn's £11 million losses in the previous six months. This valuation fell some £165m below Acorn's peak valuation of £190m. In September 1985, Olivetti took a controlling share of Acorn with 79% of shares.

Between 1996 and 1998 Olivetti disposed of its interest in Acorn Group through a series of structured transactions, raising £54m.

As for structure, the various incarnations of the company are discussed throughout the narrative:

• • Cambridge Processor Unit Ltd (Dec 1978)
  • Acorn Computer Ltd (Jan 1979)
  • Acorn Computers Ltd (May 1979)
  • Acorn Computer Group PLC (Sep 1983)
  • ARM Ltd (1990)
  • Acorn Online Media (1994)
  • Element 14 (1999)

Thanks for looking at the article. Hope this helps! TreveX^talk 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Fauna of Australia

The first original and comprehensive survey of a countries fanua on Wikipedia. The article has been though formal and several rounds of informal peer review by interested editors.--nixie 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The images Image:Cercartetus lepidus.JPG, Image:Long-tailed mouse.jpg are under a license of "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Emu big 500px.jpg is licensed under the {{GFDL}}, but does not indicate the creator.
  3. The image Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg does not have any source information.

  --Carnildo 05:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Repaced one, found the author of one, and on point one- if you read the licence on those images you would see that commercial use is permited as long as the original source is credited- which puts in on par with Cc-by-sa-2.0 or the GFDL for freeness.--nixie 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Removed photos mentioned in point 1 anyway.--nixie 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The wording is a bit complicated, but the key terms seem to be "to download, print and otherwise reproduce the information for non-commercial purposes only" and "If it is indicated on a website that specific information may be used for commercial purposes". Without knowing the source website, it's not possible to check to see if the site's got an exception for commercial use, and in any case, it doesn't appear to allow derivative works. --Carnildo 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, of course. More great work by nixie.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• It looks great on a cursory glance, but I need a little more time to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: amazing article Nixie! However, "The Australian Psittaciformes comprises a sixth of the world’s parrots..." what is a Psittaciformes? However, I really must say that I think you've done a superb job!!!!! If you could sort this small thing out, I give you an enthusiastic support! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Psittaciformes is the order of birds that includes parrots, I've reworked the sentence. --nixie 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, great work, but with a few comments
  • The establishment and speciation of the present-day fauna... (under Fauna of Australia#Origins of Australian fauna, para 1) - I think that "evolution" would be a better word than speciation, since it encompasses change in general, while speciation is really just a split in a lineage.
  • giving rise to a diverse group of arid-specialised flora and fauna (same section, para 2) - I don't usually think of "flora" and "fauna" as countable objects (with the exception of a slightly different usage of the words in systematics) - why not just say "plants and animals", "organisms" or "species"?
  • Fauna of Australia#Monotremes and marsupials, paras 1,2 - I find the sentances here rather long, with too many semi-colons; might it not make for easier reading if you broke some of those sentances up?
  • Australian snakes come from seven families (Fauna of Australia#Amphibia and reptiles, para 5). Might "belong to" be better wording? Somehow "come from" just doesn't feel like the best choice of words. Also - snakes after lizards? Aren't snakes sexier than lizards? ;)
  • Invertebrates occupy all ecological niches (Fauna of Australia#Invertebrates, para after table) - I disagree with that statement; if that were true, then there would be no unoccupied niches for verts to fill. Or are you Aussies all invertbrates which have evolved to look like humans?!!! ;)
  • Introduced species that have and continute to cause significant environmental degradation (same para) - I don't like this sentance (a) shouldn't it be "that have caused and continue to cause", and (b) should it be "that" or "which"?
  • 3.7 m earthworm? Wow. (That isn't a suggested change, it's just amazement)

  Guettarda 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think I've covered all your points [12], thanks for the careful once over.--nixie 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• ObjectComment:, a few points based on the lead and the first section.

The anon that struck out above oppose, was me. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The word endemism needs a quick explanation or rewording.
2. I don't think marsupial is a common word to non-native English speakers, maybe a quick explanation in the lead would help?
3. Explain what a monotreme is.
4. The lead mentions different animals getting extinct by hunting, introductions of enemies and general habitat destruction. Maybe you can include some examples?

I'll continue reading and reviewing the rest of it later. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have addressed most of your objections [13], however I am not in favor of redundant definition of terms, endemism for example is explained in the context of the preceeding sentence, and is a wikilink.--nixie 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  favor? I thought favour was prevalent in Australia ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Please use &nbsp; between a number and its unit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think I got them all.--nixie 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  One more thing, please move the Gang Gang and koala images a bit lower, it currently squeezes the text in lower resolutions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support—Informative text and excellent pics. Tony 13:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support wow. Take care of MgM's objection though :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• He said he already did, he just didn't agree with one of them, which is fine. I've got a few other points now though: the last ones, I promise.

1. You say the Cane Toad has become a pest, can you reference that for us non-Australians so we know it's not overstated?
2. Salties also live in fresh water rivers? Was that a typo or is that something I just didn't know?
3. Since Australia has the most venomous snakes of any continent in the world, I think a snake picture is appropriate in that section. If you need the space, I suggest you remove the lizard one.
4. The same goes for spiders, but they're not as important.
5. Is archæological proper Aussie spelling? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Cane Toad, along with the rabbit and the fox, is the most destructive and virulently despised introduced pest, and especially prominent since it has become established in Australia's Eden. So concerning is its spread, that the CSIRO is developing biological controls. The Australian Museum confirms its status. Footnote forthcoming.

Saltwater Crocodile is a misnomer: they do habit freshwater rivers and so on.

Yes, archæological is proper AusE.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have a photo of a snake or spider, but there are no free snake pictures as far as I can tell. There is one free spider picture that I know of, but I'm not sure that the identification is correct. I'm happy to alter the pics if and when there are some with compatible licences.--nixie 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I was able to identify one of the spider pics more conclusively so it is in the article now.--nixie 00:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to a good external website with images of lots of Australian snakes and other venomous species, which will hopefully take care of that point until there are some free snake images.--nixie 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. I like has this article has developed. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support excellent article. Oh and Salties also live in fresh water rivers? Was that a typo or is that something I just didn't know? They move between both salt and fresh water. Sabine's Sunbird 20:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Object - beautiful article, well written and illustrated. One (easy to fix) issue though - I think the bloody cane toad needs a bit more written about it. You use very strong words, "disastrous" and "devastating" but don't explain why so. Without the two "d" words it would have been ok, but those particular words demand a little bit more info about their impact. I'd mention their hardiness and adaptability, their extreme toxicity and their seemingly unstoppable encroachment in a mere 70 years. (I think they've spread into Kakadu, of all places, so "disastrous" may yet become "catastrophic"). A couple of brief sentences would cover it. Everything else is great. Rossrs 09:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've added an extra sentence specifying their effect.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sums it up nicely. Thank you. Rossrs 13:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg is PD from the German Wikipedia and since venomous snakes outnumber non-venomious ones in Australia would anyone object if I replaced the lizard image with Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Fierce Snake deserves illustration and as it's the most venomous land snake in the world, it's "notable". Probably more notable than the blue-tongued lizard, but even though the lizard picture is less "sexy" (to paraphrase a previous editor), it's a great image just the same. I've never seen a blue-tongue with its mouth wide open like that showing its tongue and the blue-tongued lizard is quite iconic in Australia. If both photos could be used, I'd be extremely pleased. Rossrs 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to use Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg, you need to provide a source. And no, "From German Wikipedia" isn't good enough. --Carnildo 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, apparently it's not as free as I thought. Maybe we can have the Image sleuths take a look at this and see if they can dig up a free version? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've listed it now and contacted some active Sleuths to take a look at it. Hopefully they'll come up with a free alternative in a couple of days. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not going to let the one missing image throw me off, but I'll keep trying to find a free alternative for the snake image. Thanks for addressing my concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Herbig-Haro object

I've been working on this recently, with help from peer review. I think it's pretty comprehensive, I hope it's not bogged down with astro-cruft, and I seek your views on whether it is up to featured standards. Worldtraveller 11:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I had no idea those existed. I'll make sure to review this before the period ends. By the way, I did make a small stylistic change. I think you had two phrases mixed up in the lead. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support, very intersting article. One minor things needs fixing- the numbers of the references and those in the text don't match- and they probably should.--nixie 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point - I took off the reference numbering, it was not really needed, and added a couple of other cite points as well. Worldtraveller 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. I fixed a few problems, but there's still things that could be improved. I've stricken my vote, until I've had the chance to check the improvements. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "However, T Tauri was found to be a very young and variable star, after which a class of similar objects are known as T Tauri stars." Things aren't known after something, they're named after or known as. Please fix the sentence to indicate your meaning.

   Hopefully clarified now.

2. The words "collimated", "coalescing" and "accreting" needs a short explanation in the article. The last could probably be replaced with a more common word.

   Have added explanations, hope they are clear.

3. You repeatedly mention this is common in young stars. How old can stars be and still be considered young?

   Added ages in a few places to answer this question.

4. What is a binary system in regard to stars?

   Added explanation

5. The last sentence appears to be an opinion. What is your source for it? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   Source now cited. Thanks for your comments and editing! Worldtraveller 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My objections have been addressed. Great article! -Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support I helped out in peer review so of course I'm going to support :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely done.Kevin M Marshall 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Support (see below). The drawing should be a SVG not a png. Most of the uploaded nasa images are too small for good print use, we often get request for larger images. 1200px in one dimension would be good, if larger images are not available at the source site we should ask for some. Also, a media resizing bug is making the animated gif display full of snow. --Gmaxwell 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, but I'm not sure I see why the format of the drawing matters. Also, I'm sure I can find some bigger images but don't see any requirement for a certain image size in FAC criteria? Not sure what to do about the resize bug, any thought? Worldtraveller 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it does not. The only thing concerning images that it is not an image overkill and that the image is free for us to use. But if the animation is causing problems, it could be removed. As for an image not being in svg, {{Sofixit}} yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 05:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That's more of an objection that would fit with an FP nomination. Featured articles don't neccesarily need images, so asking for a certain quality for something that isn't mandatory to begin with, while actionable isn't something I think should be acted upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia frequently recieves requests for information about where to request higher resolution images by users with a neet to print our works, we simply are not doing a good job if we fail to make an effort to provide images with a resolution high enough for print. While it is true that we can feature an article without images, it is fairly rare, and I suggest that it's unlikely that we will feature any more without images or other illustrations except in cases where the subject is diffcult to describe visually. Simply put, a large number of our articles now have very high quality illustrations and therefor an article is not an example of our best work without them. In this case it is especially sad, because the bulk of the images do exist in a very high resolution form, but no one has made the effort to go find anything but little web resolution images... and because the animation which would otherwise be wonderful, now looks terrible, just because of a mediawiki bug. As for the so fix it, I went through peer review requests a few weeks ago and made SVGs for most of the articles that needed them. That I haven't had the time to do one more for this article does not decrease the point that the article isn't the best we have to offer without it. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I forgot the mention the biggest point for making objecting over the lack of a SVG: The orignal author of such diagrams frequently made them in a vector drawing package whos native format can be converted directly into SVG with little effort. The alternative is for someone else to waste a half hour recreating the image... Which I've now done. The animation still looks terrible due to the mediawiki resizing bug, and most of the rest are still too small. I've demonstrated that I'm willing to address the issues I've raised, but is anyone else? --Gmaxwell 16:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. (after edit conflict). A very complete article. Hugely improved since the last time I looked at it in July. I don't consider the images to be such a big issue, specially if their source is clear; that would allow somebody to check there if necesary. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the diagram, I've now fixed the animation. (compare [14] and [15]). However, two of the three NASA photos do not provide any URL, and the one which is provided isn't to the ultimate source site. Perhaps I'm stupid, but googling just brings me to mirros of the article. The quality of HH32 is poor enough that it even looks somewhat bad on the screen. Since you seem to think it would be easy to get better images from the source, could you please give it a shot? Thanks. --Gmaxwell 16:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Take your pick:

• HH32: here or here.
• HH47.

And to boot:

• HH30 - Top left.

To be honest, I was not hable to find a better picture of HH1/2 than the one we already have on the site. However, note that these images linked above are pretty much from the source. It can't really get much better without having to process them yourself from raw data, IMO. Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! I uploaded highres versions where they were available, and combined multiple versions of HH47 to fill in the corners. I guess they are about as good as they are going to get for now. --Gmaxwell 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

Simply brilliant. I am stupefied and amazed this isn't a featured article yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This is a good article, but it still needs some work. There are far too many short paragraphs and sections that need to be merged and expanded. We should not have external links to pages about his parents within the article. If they are worth linking to, they are worth having Wikipedia articles and should be red links. A problem shared by almost all presidents is the mess of templates and categories at the bottom, taking up almost two full screens. Why have both succession boxes and templates listing everyone to have ever served in the position? Why have so many cats when in theory all that is needed is Category:Theodore Roosevelt? - SimonP 18:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I tackled the parents' external links. The template issue is one I am not well-versed in and seems quite complicated, from my limited experience handling these difficult issues. As for the short paragraphs and sections, I'm having trouble identifying which ones you take issue with. Some I think could use work are the Square Deal, naval buildup, Panama Canal, Supreme Court Appointments, states admitted to union and the historian & writer of prose sections. Are those all? Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. (I don't have that firm a grip on TR's history, I just stumbled on what I felt was a stunningly good article.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • After some more examination, I've come to the conclusion there are some other bits that need work (like the references). Any other comments? I'm going to work on the other parts of the article tomorrow, but looking at how much I added to the references just by writing one subsection, I'm worried the references will take up half the article when I'm done. Johnleemk | Talk 19:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm certain that with some work this could get to FA standards. In the section on his presidency I would suggest merging Naval buildup, Panama Canal, and some bits from the introduction into a general overview of his foreign policy. The entire Legacy section also needs an overhaul, I especially dislike that every paragraph there has only one or two sentences. I don't know what to do about the mess at the bottom. I would suggest dumping the three large templates, but it seems some have been placed on TfD in the past and survived. One thing that strikes me as especially illogical is a succession box for Progressive Party Presidential Candidates when Roosevelt was the first and only person to hold that post. - SimonP 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Great work, all my concerns have been addressed. - SimonP 14:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - (leaning to Support). The content and writing and images are good. My sole knowledge of the subject is what is written here, so I can't comment if anything is missing, but there seem to be no POV issues. To my eye the only thing that spoils it is the vast array of templates. Is the large info. box restating information which should be in the lead necessary. I see that template looks likely to survive templates for deletion, but is it a Wikipedia essential, or requirement for an FA. I don't want to bring the deletion discussion here - just a yes it is required, or No will do. The cabinet table is OK - but all the others? Giano | talk 10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: That bio-template makes the lead into a newspaper column, if one imagines what it looks like as text, one realizes that the lead is too short. It is also not well written. To whit:

"Roosevelt's energy, vibe, skill and sheer joy in the Presidency were remarkable. During his life he was an author, legislator, soldier, big-game hunter, diplomat, conservationist, naval-power enthusiast, peace broker and progressive reformer. For his many achievements and the larger-than-life role he played in the White House, Roosevelt is usually thought of as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents."

His vibe? "in the Presidency" is the object of which of those adjectives? Or is it the whole stack of them? His vibe in the presidency? Since he was Sect. Navy, it's not surprising that he would be interested in navies, but "naval-power enthusiast" makes him sound like he played a lot of Avalon Hill games and hung around the docks ship watching, and that's not even to get into naval "power" enthusiasm. Finally, "is usually thought of?" By whom is he usually thought of? I usually hate to attack the writing, but there are some language boo-boos here that are show stoppers. Geogre 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: The lead is improving, and I really hated being so mean in my criticism, but I still can't quite go over to support with the "often considered greatest." Honestly, is it necessary for him to be considered greatest? "Greatest" is a terrible word for NPOV encyclopedias to use, even if it's other people "considering" it. In my experience growing up, I never encountered anyone who thought he was the greatest or one of the greatest, although he certainly did have great popularity. Some of the legislation from his administration is similarly cornerstone (although being eroded these days), but I don't think he's been considered, especially "widely," one of the greatest since the 1940's. Geogre 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you follow the wikilink about greatest presidents, it has a detailed table showing several surveys about the greatest Presidents. Roosevelt is in the top 10 of every one of them, and the top 5 of most. There must be some way to succintly represent this in the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is. One is to have a footnote, or at least a wikilink, on "considered" or "greatest" so that there is some standing rather than the vague passive voice construction. Another would be to be explicit: "Several surveys indicate that Theodore Roosevelt is still remembered as one of the greatest presidents." (Also, though, top 10 of 40 is less significant than "top ten." My point being that the general public can only name about 10 presidents. Historians should do a lot better, but serious ones would probably back away from "great.") Geogre 13:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How's the solution I came up with? Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I'm unhappy with all "greatests," but that's not the fault of this article. (Being in the top 10 of 40 isn't really as significant as top 10 of 100. Surveys of The People on presidents will always bias toward who they remember, and surveys of historians have to be examined really carefully. Surveys of the Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, are of no more worth than a survey of The Nation readers; far, far right wing.) Anyway, the other issues are addressed, and this refers elsewhere. Geogre 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I've tackled everything except the legacy section and the templates. For the latter, I've enquired on the talk page about removing them. For the former, I may not be able to come online for a few days, so it may have to wait. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—needs a thorough copy edit. Stop-start paragraphing; awkward wording, such as 'succeeding to the office upon'. Why cite vice-president before president at the top? 'Larger-than-life' is POV unless justified objectively. The list 'in addition to being a politician, he was also an author, soldier, big-game hunter, diplomat, conservationist, an enthusiastic supporter of the navy, peace broker and progressive reformer' is chaotic. How about some logical ordering here? Get the whole text looked at by a fresh pair of eyes. Tony 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried my hand at rewriting the lead again, but have no idea whether it's any good. Could you give me some examples of stop-start paragraphing so I can identify and work on them? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's better, but I've had another go at cleaning up the lead. It all needs that kind of attention.

You mention twice the Nobel Prize, but for what? Chemistry?

Firsts: years for all points required.

Paragraphing: end of 'Post-presidency'—lots of shorties. Consider bullet-pointing 'Popular culture', since it's just a list of isolated points.

Sections on family matters to ships: relocate and/or merge—too short for sections.

Delink or stub-write the broken links?

Tony 01:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that's everything. I've restructured the legacy section and thrown out the redundant templates. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment: I like the article very much, but I'm afraid that huge info. box , is the first thing I see, and it is a huge info box. It just detracts from the article. I know this is a controversial subject, but, for me, in my POV, it just spoils the whole page. It contains nothing that's not in the article, but it should be in the lead so anybody with a brain can find out for themselves in 30 seconds scanning the page. Giano | talk 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support As TR Himself was want to exclaim, Bully!! A great article on a great figure not only of American, but World history.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Still needs fresh eyes to thoroughly edit the text. Here are a few problems that pop up as I glance at random through the first few paragraphs. I'll change my vote if the prose is fixed up; 'compelling, even brilliant', the guidelines say.

to ever have received'—clumsy word order

Do we need to know about his diarrhoea?

'It is believed he attended'—either say who believes it (specific reference), state it as a fact, or remove it.

'his observation work on insects'

'compelled young Roosevelt'—the?

'Two trips abroad also had a great effect on this part of his life'—what part? Odd expression. Tony 14:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure why you think the part about diarrhoea should be removed, but I've made the other changes. How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I was exemplifying what needs to be done, not pointing out every problem that needs to be fixed. Thorough, intensive job required throughout. Tony 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Is it okay now, then? I've honestly never seen such meticulous detail applied to the wording of an FAC before, but I ran a fine tooth-comb through the article, hunting down any errors I could find. Hopefully this latest revision is satisfactory. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

MDAC

Self nomination. This is a very important Microsoft technology. It is now very comprehensive and it is extensively footnoted. Compare it to the MDAC Roadmap and I think it compares favourably! I think it is ready for FAC nomination. - 203.134.166.99 08:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, is this going to be finalised soon, or are there some further issues that need to be resolved? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Object - The software infobox is inconsistent with others - it has a logo where others have a screenshot. Cedars 08:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• This was raised in peer review. There are no screenshots to be had of MDAC, it is a framework - not a GUI app. You mentioned headers, which I asked what you meant but never answered. Could you clarify what you meant so that I may sort this out? - 211.30.175.238 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I agree with the comment. However, the diagram is actually the real representation of MDAC and gives a great overview (IMO) of the architecture at a glance. I hope that this will overcome the objection. - 211.30.175.238 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Diagram is fine. Cedars 00:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Cheers Cedars. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Cannot vouch for the technical accuracy of the content, but it's well structured and easl to follow, even with my very limited knowledge. 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to sign. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. In Image:MDAC Architecture.PNG, the arrow from ".NET managed provider" to "ODBC" points upwards, while every other arrow points downwards. This makes the diagram look more complex than it actually is. --Carnildo 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - 203.134.166.99 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object It's quite a nice article, but needs a little bit of work. The lead should be longer by a paragraph or two, I think. And it needs a copyedit -- for example, Microsoft have seperated the data store from the application that needs access to it through the use of this technology: this was done because different applications need access to different types and sources of data and do not necessarily want to know how to access functionality with technology-specific methods. this sentence alone is too long, has one spelling error, a subject/verb agreement problem, plus some general diction issues (some vague pronouns that makes it unclear what the application needs access to and which technology allows the access, plus it's weird to say "applications don't want" something, since applications don't really have wants). In general, I don't really understand the article at all, but since I don't know anything about the subject, that may unavoidable; still, it's worth looking through to see if anything can be made clearer for noobs. Change to Support Tuf-Kat 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya. On review it badly needs a copyedit. Can anyone assist in this matter? - 203.134.166.99 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've done a bit, probably needs more. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I made some changes. They need to be looked over, as I don't understand this topic. I also left behind a few invisible notes about unclear bits and stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix. Overall, some bits were clearer than others (may be the bits Filiocht did), but at least one author would be advised to avoid the passive voice as much as possible. Some commands are in italics, some are not, some are in <code> tags -- is there a reason? I got about halfway through, but I gotta go now. Tuf-Kat 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Both you and Filiocht are legends :-) I'll continue doing some copy-editing. - 211.30.175.238 14:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have done a large copyedit, I'm sure there are still somethings I've missed however. What do people think now? I'm actually wondering if the history needs a copyedit also. - 203.134.166.99 02:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is much improved. I'm hesitant to actually support because of the lead though. For an article of this length, it should give a two or three paragraph summary of the content. Tuf-Kat 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've lengthened the first paragraph and added a second paragraph to the lead Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Great work! I think this is pretty much all the objections dealt with now... any others we can fix? - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks very nice, I've changed my vote. Tuf-Kat

• Under Obsolete Components, DAO, the sentence "RDO 2.0 was the final version developed by Microsoft." appears. This sentence also appears under RDO. It probably doesn't belong in both places. Kelly Martin 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. The diagram really should be a SVG. Would you like help making a SVG version? Gmaxwell 22:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... why? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be better, but I'm not good at SVG stuff and I don't see a problem with PNG, at least in the interim. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? Because it's an image full of text, so even if we ignore how difficult it is to update and translate (SVG fixes that), we are still left with something that looks like crud when printed. Most of the time diagrams are made using a vector editor, so it's best for the orignal author to create the SVG. Since thats not how this one was made, I've offered to redo it myself. I've just started on it now. Once done, I'll pull my objection. :) --Gmaxwell 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The diagram is SVG now. The bottom text needs destuffing because RSVG handles text areas a little incorrectly, it's easy enough but I need to catch an plane atm. --Gmaxwell 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Limerick

Self-nom This article is on the history of the city of Limerick in western Ireland. This article has been Peer Reviewed and received very favourable responses. I believe that this is the most comprehensive article on this subject on the internet. Seabhcán 14:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• How about more images? The article as it stands is a little image-bare. --Oldak Quill 08:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. Have you any suggestions? I don't want to just add irrelevant images for the sake of it, but if there were specific images on the subject, that would be great. Seabhcán 10:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know, a lot of those sections sort of suggest pictures. The Williamite battle has illustration out there (and it's all public domain). A map of Ireland with the city's location marked in the lead would help. Graphic propaganda or a graphical representation of atrocities in the pogrom, if contemporary, would also be PD. A portrait of one of the leaders (William III comes to mind, or James II) would be helpful early, and/or of the proponents of the Act of Union, later. No vote on the article. Geogre 14:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added an image of De Valera and one of Patric Sarsfield. I'd like another for the 'Celtic Tiger' section; idealy one of "modern Limerick". I'll search around for one. Thanks Seabhcán 14:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support: If we can get from WW2 to the Tiger with the same detail as before, yes. I've now done a little bit of copyediting. The photos are better. However, as the history gets nearer to the present, it gets more detailed, which is well and good, but, given the detail of the 20th c. sections, it's odd that we jump from a general Limerick in War to Celtic Tiger. A section, or at least material split into the pre-Tiger and Tiger sections, explaining the ruinous state that the area was in would be a good thing. Without it, I can't support. With it, I do. Geogre 11:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats a tough request. I spent a lot of time researching this article but I couldn't find any details on events in Limerick during the 50s and sixties. Only two things spring to mind: In 1956 about 500 Hungarian refugees arrived to Meelick (about 20km from Limerick) and were houses in the Knockalisheen Army Camp (built during the emergency). They left again a few years later. And in 1965 Che Guevara spent a night in Hanratty's Hotel on Glentworth Street (see Irish diaspora). And thats it. I haven't found anything else. Seabhcán 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't mean to posit anything insurmountable. I was simply looking for the kinds of things one can find, sometimes, in the triumphalist literature on the Tiger. E.g. "Although in the 1960s, Limerick had a very high unemployment, now things are great!" can give high unemployment.... That kind of thing. Even Frank McCord, whom I know the folks aren't fond of, probably is accurate to the post-war period, which was hard throughout the region. (England suffered pretty severely with rationing and high unemployment for a long time. Scotland is arguably still suffering from the reorganization of industry that came after the post-war reorganization. Ireland, as an independent country, had to translate its skilled workers into information economy workers.) Anything at all that will give us a picture of the hardships that have been overcome. Didn't the west of Ireland lag behind the east in the new prosperity? At any rate, I really do want to support, but I think the gap is too conspicuous at present. Geogre 14:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but all that stuff was national and is dealt with in the articles on Irish history and economics. The first paragraph in the Celtic tiger section gives an overview of the gradual improvements in Limerick in the 70's, 80s and 90s. Problem is that there were no improvements during the 50s and 60s. Also, there was no industry to speak of in Limerick before the war, and so nothing to reorganise after it (Ireland was excluded from the Marshal plan because the country was neutral during the war). Ireland's industry under British rule had been built in Belfast, which was retained by the UK. The information economy didn't exist in the post war period. I would love to add something on this, but it has to be something informative and relevant to the city. Seabhcán 14:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've writen a section on the post war period. Its really just a series of anecdotes, rather than a proper history, but maybe it will fill the gap. Seabhcán 10:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: the fact is Geogre, that nothing happened in limerick during the 25 years after the Emergency. Maybe a sentence could be added to the start of the Celtic Tiger section, something like "The quarter century immediately after the Emergency was, In Limerick as in many other parts of the Republic of Ireland, a period of economic and social stagnation." Although, maybe a brief mention of the Tiede Herrema kidnap is in order? Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiede Herrema kidnap? Whats this? Seabhcán 10:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This]. As I recall through the mists of memory, he was living just off the Monaleen Road and was kidnapped on that road. The Limerick Leader archive would likely help. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, heck, if nothing happened in Limerick for 25 years, I won't object. Such placid places are rare in the sublunary world, indeed. Actually, with the efforts that have been made, my conditions were met, so I switch to full support. (It was just this logic hole sitting there and no perverseness on my part, and I'll stop alliterating now.) Geogre 13:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article seems very comprehensive and reads well, especially to someone who otherwise has very little knowledge of the subject!--Lordkinbote 07:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

I think it's quite complete, on a controversial and difficult issue. (Yes, the title is long, but it is difficult to make a shorter one without introducing some bias or undertone.) David.Monniaux 22:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think this is an excellent article. However, I'd like to see a few minor things fixed before I change my vote to support:

• Somewhere at the beginning you briefly mentioned something about "previous restrictions" to the use of religious symbols before the enactment of the law. Could you please give an example?

I explained it better, it refers to the conditions given in 1989 by the Conseil d'État.

• In the Background section it is mentioned the law applies to schools in Category 1, but not to schools in Categories 1 and 2. Is that a typo? How can the law apply and not apply at the same time to schools in Category 1?

Rephrased that. It applies only to 1.

• What's the name for the "umbrella group" of Catholic schools in France? I think it should be mentioned even if it doesn't deserve its own article.

Fixed. It's the General secretariat of Catholic education.

• You compare the amount of money parents pay in average per month for private education in France with the monthly cost of an ASDL connection. Is that the cost of ASDL in Paris? Detroit? Cairo? I think it would be more useful if you compared it with the French GDP per capita or some other common financial statistic.

Given the context, it is obvious that this is the price of an ADSL line in France. :-)

I wanted to make a comparison that reflects cost-of-living issues. Sure, there are indicators like GDP per capita, but what do they tell us exactly in familiar terms? I don't know the GDP per capita of France without looking it up, but I know the price for a phone landline subscription (approximately 30 EUR every two months if you're at France Telecom). Most families pay a land line, thus it gives an element of comparison (I agree that ADSL is perhaps not a good comparison.) What do you think?

I like the landline comparison since I think it makes more sense than ADSL, and can be grasped without people needing to go to the linked article. Thumbs up.

• In the Stasi Commission section the purpose of the small font paragraph is not quite clear. Are you quoting someone? Or is it a note? If it's the latter it may be more convenient to have it at the end of the article.

It was a note.

That's it. I think these should be quite easy to fix. Feel free to cross them out as you work with them. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Very interesting article! A section on international reaction to the law might be useful, as, if I recall correctly, there was pretty widespread condemnation of the law from the U.S. to the Middle East.

Good remark. I've worked on it.

Also, was there ever an exception made for Sikhs and turbans as indicated by Villepin [16] [17], or does the law apply to them as well? Sortan 16:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with these "exceptions" is that they are not based on texts with statutory or regulatory value, but are likely to be granted on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, no minister can openly issue a general decision that violates a law — so all they do is to use the vagueness of the law to decide that in such or such case the behaviour of the student is not ostentatious etc.

Because of the way it works, the number of students affected will be disputed. I read in today's Canard Enchaîné that, according to the Ministry, there are at this point only 3 students who wear ostentatious religious attire but that this is disputed by some groups. All I can do is to copy these claims.

I could probably try to get some more detailed stuff but this would quickly be "original research"... David.Monniaux 17:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

About the sikhs: it alluded to in the article, 3 sikh students went to Catholic schools, with expenses paid by the state, according to the Canard last year. There's not a big sikh population in France so it's not a front-line issue. It will be difficult to get more information on it. They announced lately that one Sikh student currently faced action because of his turban. David.Monniaux 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support The issues I mentioned above got fixed, and the addition of the international reaction section makes article even better. The comparison with a telephone landline (see above) is quite reasonable and more understandable than the price of ADSL. Thus I support now this article for FA status. Good job. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 20:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting and well written. →Raul654 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt (aka Watergate's Deep Throat)

Self nom. Previously a FAC (the old nomination is here), but defeated apparently on the grounds the article was too new. So after letting it age three months, I'm trying it again. It is well researched, has a sea of footnotes, has photographs. I would appreciate specific explanations for why it does not qualify as a FA. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I wasn't prepared to support this last time because it was too soon after the revelation, but this is a great article. My one concern is that the fair use images need more detailed explanations of why they can be used in this article. I personally doubt ones like Image:Carl bernstein.jpg and Image:Bobwoodward.jpg do qualify. - SimonP 16:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the image status. The first image, Image:W Mark Felt screenshot.jpg, is a screenshot which as I understand it can only be fair use if it's used to comment on the TV programme, not on the person pictured. Image:Hoover-JEdgar-LOC.jpg has no source or copyright information. I'm not sure on what grounds Image:Bobwoodward.jpg and Image:Carl_bernstein.jpg are claimed to be fair use. And Image:Tv MarkFelt 1jun05 150.jpg claims to be PD, but I'm not sure why (does it count as federal government?) Stephen Turner 17:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you have a poor understanding of fair use. I suggest you reread the article - this is a totally inaccurate comment. If the image has a transformative usage then it sits quite well under fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's an objection with pictures! I didn't upload any of these pictures so I can't answer your questions. I don't know what you're talking about with Hoover. I just clicked there and it's marked public domain from the Library of Congress. Do you have any comments about the article itself? If I deleted every photo would that be acceptable? PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note: Not all things on the LoC site are PD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected the tag on Image:Hoover-JEdgar-LOC.jpg -- it's not a work of the federal government, but the LOC lists no known restrictions on reproduction. --Carnildo 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object please convert those {{ref}} notes to {{inote}}. They are a major hinderance to reading the text. Use the {ref} only to mark text which really needs quick referencing, ie contentious phrases, disputed numbers etc. One of the problems of having the {ref} style is, as the numbers increase, maintainence becomes harder. See for example [83] leads to [84]. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a valid reason for objecting or just a personal preference? I haven't seen anything saying that this is an official policy, or that having more than a certain number of fn3s should in itself prevent an article from being featured. Incidentally, I am starting to agree with you on this point a little more than I did before, it's just that I'm not convinced that it's enough on its own to justify an oppose vote. CTOAGN 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect to Nichalp, no, it's not a valid reason for objecting. The standard is that an article has inline citations -- the choice of style is left up to the author (so long as the article is consistent). This objection is invalid. →Raul654 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. My Windows 2000 article got to FA status and it has an absolute heap of them. And if you don't like the text, you can modify your stylesheet to hide the numbers. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • • Heh heh. Beat you. :-) I'm in favour of them as well. I think you may have misunderstood - I was just pointing out that I didn't think the objection was a valid one. CTOAGN 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • P.S. not sure by why he thinks it's harder to maintain them. It's really not that hard. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe commonsense should dictate the use of footnotes. Why would you need to reference every second statement, which points to a useless ibid? If the text needs to be modified later, care should be taken that the refs are linked properly after modifications. With such a large amt of {refs} it becomes harder to locate and fix. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The reason is that you may not always be around the project. Any editor might challenge any fact not referenced: after all, what fact may seem obvious that you may not feel requires an ibid may in fact be very difficult to locate later on (another editor may not realise you used the same source for a different fact or opinion). I'm of the opinion that all facts should be referenced to stop challenges. It could happen (I've done it before - if the text had been referenced then I would not have had a problem with it). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I disagree. Felt was born in Twin Falls, Idaho. Is there a need to bookmark where he was born? A google search will give you ample results. Using inotes does not mean that it is in any way less referenced. Use {{explain-inote}} to notify users that inotes are used. One of the articles I've worked on is Economy of India. Using normal footnotes soon became a logistical and stylistic nightmare, so we settled for inotes, with footnotes for essential points. Another article was Nepal. I've added a phrase that "women are sold to brothels". Now this statement would need to have a reference that definately calls for easy access, so I've used the footnote style to quote my reference. I'm not asking the authors to abandon the footnote style, only just that it should be used sparingly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Neutral, great article, extremely well researched, but I feel it needs a longer intro, summarising his whole life. I'd have thought 3 paragraphs would be necessary for an article this size. I'll change to support if this is done. One minor nitpick: it'd look better if all the footnotes at the end of sentences went after the full stop (Like this.^[18] Not like this^[19].) I'd still vote support without that changing, though, and might do it myself if I get bored. CTOAGN 19:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The intro's still a bit light (I know, {{sofixit}}), but I've changed my vote to Support. If an article this well written and researched can't make it to an FA, there's no point submitting anything. CTOAGN 00:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:W Mark Felt screenshot.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but there does not appear to be anything significant about that particular TV appearance. A fair use claim is doubtful, and the image should probably be removed.
  2. The image Image:Bobwoodward.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since Bob Woodward is only periperally related to the subject of the article, any fair use claim is doubtful.
  3. The image Image:Carl bernstein.jpg has no source information, and may be deleted at any time.
  4. I suggest replacing the images of Woodward and Bernstein with the presumably-public-domain image from [20]

  --Carnildo 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • As a bit of a follow up to the above, I think the article suffers from a horrible disease known as picture-overloaditis. By a wonderful twist of coincidence, the cure for picture-overloaditis is also the cure for the copyright problems listed above -- delete the problematic images :) →Raul654 08:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very well written, researched and sourced. - Jord 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support of the strongest sort! VERY Well told story, extensively researched and supported. Everything an FA should be and a bit more.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support (forgot to do this). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object because the number of references in the text is overwhelming - it seriously harms the readability of the text when every second sentence has a reference at the end. Also, I think the lead neads to be longer, and summarise more of the article content - three paragraphs would be nice. Worldtraveller 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree - I don't see how having a superscripted number at the end of a sentence is particularly intrusive. The FAC criteria certainly make no mention of such a problem. →Raul654 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • To me, citing a reference for where he was born and what his parents were called seems to be overdoing things. Citing his birth certificate when saying what his name is would not be too dissimilar. Many of the citations are necessary but I feel they could be trimmed somewhat. Links to references give the reader constant reasons to break away from reading the article, and I don't think that's a good thing. Worldtraveller 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support I consider this a model of a well-cited article. Jokestress 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• support: Overdue. Ombudsman 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Sigh. The arguments above are so very frustrating. One tries to do good work but people won't say anything positive. It's always negativity, usually about trivialities. Before, someone objected because there weren't footnotes. Now that I have them, someone else objects to their presence. It's easy to see why many Wikipedians, even Administrators, just throw up their hands and walk out on the project all together. I know I've been contributing a lot less lately because of the tenor of debates here. Is it just me that gets so frustrated? PedanticallySpeaking 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone's saying there should be no footnotes. You can have too few but you can also have too many. I'm saying negative things because I want to help to improve the article - please don't take objections to FACs as attacks on the nominator, no serious editor would ever intend them as such. Worldtraveller 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't just you. I recently put an FAC through for the first time and when it passed I just felt relief that it was finally off the FAC page. Seeing somebody object to X being missing, putting X in and then seeing someone else object to X is extremely frustrating. It's given me a few ideas on how we could improve the process; I'll post them on the FAC talk page when I get round to it. CTOAGN 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, FAC is a quality control process and yes, it is an exacting process. We aren't attacking the nominatior, all what we're doing is suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very substantive article, very well written and VERY VERY well referenced. I think the delay did help, especially with the revelations about Felt's family and their motivations. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support When this article was first nominated, PedanticallySpeaking encouraged me to vote. At the time I opposed it being a featured article, but the article is much improved now. Most of the dust has settled and it is no longer constantly changing. The time has also allowed the Wikipedia community the time to address all the delicate subtleties present with a controversial figure like Mr. Felt. While it isn't perfect, it certainly fits the bill as a shining example of what this community can build when they work together. Badammcqueen 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support but only on the grounds that we find a way to shrink the references/notes down somehow, I agree that we need these... but they do consume an awful lot of the page, perhaps spin them to an article specifically for references? Other than that this article is an excellent example of what wiki is about.  ALKIVAR™ 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, having references on another page is a strict no-no =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support in a FA, claims need to be well cited, don't see why some people think there are too many. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – look at this from another angle. If you were writing about a person, say Gandhi, would you add all possible books available (including clones of each other) under =references=? Would that really make the article more referenced? I really don't think converting from ref to inote takes too much time since I've done it in the past. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support – the article and the dedicated effort that produced it. --Ian Pitchford 13:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor

This is a self nom, but I humbly submit the story of a now largely forgotten hero of the Second World War for your consideration. My friend Leithp and I did not start it, but we have put a lot of work, time and care into it. I hope the results show and you reward them with feature status. Thanks for your time, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellently written article. Stephen Turner 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to change my opinion to Neutral at the moment. I agree with SimonP's comments below about the final section. It's all too hagiographic at the moment. I don't think you need to lose the assessment section, just source it ("Baynes [or whoever] claims that O'Connor was quiet and patient" etc.). This will give us confidence that it's not just your own assessment. Stephen Turner 10:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative & but not too boring unlike other FAs. Spawn Man 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Boring is not a valid objection. Please give constructive objections. A FA has no co-relation to whether people on the street will know him. If an article is well researched, comprehensive and well written, it can be a FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And your previous (major) support said it was "not too boring like other FAs". Odd that it suddenly became boring after four days? --Loopy 18:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fine then, I'll put it back then... meanys.... Spawn Man 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is a great piece of work, but it still needs some tweaks. The lead should be longer than one section. There are also too many one paragraph sections, some of these should either be expanded or merged together. The earlier sections could use some more content, for instance it gives no information on how he got his WWI medals. There are some POV statements that need to be sourced, especially in the Assessment section. For instance we cannot simply state that he was "a quiet, patient, scholarly figure. In manner and appearance more like a kindly school master than a soldier." - SimonP 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments and constructive criticism. Simon, I've addressed some of the tweaks you said needed by expanding the intro and reorgainizing the article. As for the other issues. I want the main focus to be on his WWII career, not on WWI. I also do not want whole sections to sound like O'Connor's resumee, although I'm afraid some do. As for the assessment section, the goal there is to breath some life and analysis into the article, without interfereing with the facts of the main body. Doing as you suggest would, perhaps, make the article more NPOV, but it would also make it more dry and a less compelling read. This is a sacrifice I'am not willing to make. Respectfully, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, my major concerns have been addressed, and I withdraw my objection. - SimonP 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, so do I have you support now? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mild objection: The man himself is certainly interesting, but I feel like the biography suffers from its sources at this time. The coverage of his military career is excruciatingly detailed, with few explanations of the significance of the detail. Essentially, a great deal of the time between the wars not much was happening except a very active military career. Each transfer of post is given, without a rationale for inclusion. If each of those moves is important for the career or the significance of the life, then help the reader out by explaining it a little. If not, perhaps some elision is called for. The other thing that bothered me a bit was the "Assessment" section. Having an assessment is copacetic, but this particular one sounds a bit like what the 1911 used to do: focus on the personality and affect of the person rather than the function and effect of him. The pleasantness of his manner is important, I'm sure, in explaining his effectiveness as an administrator and manager, but, unless it is couched in such terms, it seems distracting to talk about these things. (wanting to support) Geogre 13:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the dreaded, offending "Assessment section" so it is now less POV and hagiographic, as per the above critcisms and suggestions. Please forgive me, if it still sounds a bit like the 1911. The reason for that is I find the style and prose of pre-WWI to be so much more eloquent and warm than the terse, clinical and neutral language which has come into favor since. Please also excuse that parts of it still sound a bit much like a Resumee. Originally the section on O'Connor's interwar postings was shorter, covering only significant assignments. However, I felt compelled to add the remainder for the sake of completeness. Had I failed to do so, I'm sure someone here would be bound to ask-"So what did he do from 1929-1934?" (Damned If I Did, please meet Damned If I Did'nt :). So I chose to err on the side of completeness but still expanded, briefly, (since this is just an article afterall and not a full biography) on those postings which would have a greater significance to his future life, namely his WWII career. The latter must be covered in greater detail, since, again, it is the core of the article and, needless to say, its entire Raison D'Etre.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support now that objections have been answered. (And violating NPOV is a reason for objecting, y'all, which is something the 1911 did all the time. I can point to numerous 1911 examples of major authors dismissed as "vile" and "obscene." If we don't want to be as infuriating and laughable as 1911 is, we would do well to be more clinical than it. The current assessment has moved away from what I considered objectionable POV and toward NPOV evaluation.) I still feel that the article is too complete for the thesis to appear, but that is not a reason to object. Geogre 14:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I find the article informative, well-written and designed. With the new wording of the "Assessment" section, I believe the only remaining point that needed a serious revision has been properly addressed. I encourage R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) to provide a source for the considerations included at that section, but I think that this is easy to solve, and personally, it doesn't represent a reason to oppose by itself. Shauri smile! 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and informative. And as per Shauri, problems have been properly addressed. Nufy8 00:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support, on the whole a good biography, but I agree the assessment section needs to provide sources for statments so it doesn't read like the authors POV. This should be easy to remedy.--nixie 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• The assessment section is certainly much improved now, but I'm still a bit uneasy about it. I would still really like to see some sources for the descriptions of his character. Stephen Turner 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support if 'Assessment' section is expanded and NPOVed. It is both too short (stub section) and contains unsourced remarks like 'was arguably one of the finest generals of the IIWW'. This article would also benefits from some external links, more pictures of the general and the lead could use some expantion to three paragrapsh to be truly comprehensive. All things considered, great job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all. As far as sources for his character go, they are my apprasals based on ALL the references I list and more, including his own papers. The easy solution would be to delete the assessment section all together now. But Iam unwilling to do that simply to gain FA status. I want to have at least some praise for O'Connor and not just bury him the way history pretty much has. He deserves better. So out of respect for the subject, I must respectfully decline. However, the advice and edits you have suggested, and even made in some cases, have made this a much better article. Along with your generous compliments, you have reminded me why I love Wikipedia. Especially those from Shauri, SimonP and Piotrus, whom I regard as 3 of the BEST writers and researchers in the entire community. Even if I fail to get Sir Richard his FA, I come away from this experience greatly enlightened and encouraged. Once again, thanks for your time and your thoughts.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's interesting, well written and backed up by references - I like it! You've addressed the problems brought forth by others and the article is in good shape. I only have three issues to raise. The first is the line "Sir Richard O'Connor was arguably one of the finest generals of the Second World War." under Assessments. That just doesn't really feel right to me, maybe it could be tweaked to be toned down a bit, or maybe a quote of someone saying something along those lines? Second is that I think his picture should be brought up the page and made more prominent, like you see with the Erwin Rommel or Bernard Montgomery articles. Finally, and I'm probably wrong about this, are you sure he attended Tonbridge Castle School? I lived in Tonbridge for 7 and a half years and racking my brains I really can't remember a Tonbridge Castle School, while there is Tonbridge School right next to Tonbridge Castle, a respected posh school in the town. I could well be wrong though. Those issues aside, great job on the article! --Loopy 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Loopy! Thanks for your support and suggestions. In answer to your querry regarding the Tonbridge Castle School, Iam really not sure about this. There seems to be a lot of schools there, and it was over a century ago besides. It could well have changed names, or moved, merged with another school or closed down entirely. But your knowledge of the area, obviously, far exceeds mine, which is entirely based on what little I have read. Still, Tonbridge does sound like a lovely place to visit and I don't think I'd mind living there either. Kent is the "Garden" of England after all. My thanks again, along with my compliments on your fine work on the Zulu War! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Aye, Tonbridge was a nice place to live. And if you got bored of the town, just jump on the train to head north to London, or south to the beach at Hastings, with much in between to check out. Regarding the school, I found this quote on a website: "For the next hundred years Tonbridge Castle passed through the hands of several owners and tenants, it was used as a military academy and as a boys school. The site was finally purchased by the local council in 1900, using the mansion as offices, and opening the grounds as a public park." [21] So I now reckon he did attend a school called Tonbridge Castle School, probably for two years, 1899 and 1900 before it became a council property. Cheers, --Loopy 18:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Peterborough Chronicle

Self-nom. I know it's a bit short, at least by my standards, but we have a dearth of FA's on medieval literature. There are more possible references, but they would get us into some fairly strong minutiae of linguistics and would therefore be on language, rather than on the Chronicle itself. Geogre 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I fixed an ungrammatical sentence, but still find the result puzzling:

  The first continuation expresses equal outrage at the hanging of forty-four thieves in 1122, many of whom were innocent, as at the burning of the monastery at Gloucester. The monastic author suggests that taxes were too high, putting the impoverished villagers in a dilemma of stealing or starving, and argues that the draconian punishments of thieves were a sin.

• It would seem that this would have the first continuation saying the thieves are guilty at the same time as they're innocent. Which is it? Not having the references to hand nor any knowledge of the text itself, I'm not competent to answer. If the chronicle is so obviously self-contradictory, this should be acknowledged explicitly. If it's more subtle about it, this needs to be explained better.
• Otherwise, a fine article, although I'd be interested to have more information about the history of the manuscript itself (its preservation, how it traveled from Peterborough to Oxford, etc.). --Michael Snow 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  I thought you disentangled the sentence, but I guess not. The author thought some of the thieves were innocent, but he thought they were innocent in a larger scheme because they had been forced to become thieves. I.e. they were guilty of the crime, but they were innocent of the sin of moral depravity involved in stealing. The guilt belonged to the local barons who taxed so excessively that people were turned thieves and who then demonstrated their power by hanging the thieves. I'll work on making it clearer. (Please check again a few minutes after this time stamp, as I'll risk being wordy to be clear.) As for the MS treatment, that's something I haven't encountered. Inasmuch as it's Bodleian, we know from its call number that it was collected by Archbishop Laud, which means that it was one of the books he gobbled up after the "dispersal" of the monasteries (under him) at the time of Henry VIII. Laud made some donation to Oxford, so I imagine it landed there around 1580ish. I don't know for sure, though. Geogre 01:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Correction: probably got into Oxford in the 1640s, and, for all his faults, Archbishop Laud didn't have anything to do with breaking up the monasteries. My mistake(s). Geogre 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  28 June 1639 to be precise, it appears [22]. How Laud came by the manuscript I'm not sure, but I did find this statement that may or may not be relevant: "In January 1623, Laud was inducted into the parsonage of Creeke in the Diocese of Peterborough" [23]. --Michael Snow 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm looking through the various copyrighted sources on Questia now. There are some bibliophiliac works from the turn of the 20th c. that might give an account. If I find one, I'll put it in as a sort of "history of the book." BTW, not to be needy, but was that a "support?" :-) Geogre 16:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  I took the information we have now and started a history of the manuscript section. Please add to it if you find more. Now that it's there, sure, I'll support. --Michael Snow 18:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  All great stuff. So far, I've been finding out (as I feared) about all the source material, which you can tell in this passage, that passage, and another passage in the space before the first continuation, and then more about exactly which and by how much the declensions declined in the first continuation, etc. I have yet to find a descriptive bibliography, but I keep looking. (The philological stuff is fascinating, but it's wholly inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.) I might find an account of when the Peterborough Abbey was "dispersed" by Henry VIII, but even that's going to be a tough slog. I also keep looking for PD or GFDL pictures of the present-day cathedral, but to no avail so far. Geogre 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I know nothing about Middle English, but this article really interested me. Which is what an encyclopedia should do. Stephen Turner 09:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Short and sweet like an ass's gallop, as we say in this land of perpetual drizzle. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: looks good to me. (I can't think why they say that about Asses gallops because it's raining). Giano | talk 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a great Geogre read, light and clear. I wish there were more pictures, but there probably simply aren't any relevant images other than the manuscript itself, which graces the top right position. If it were me I might put in a few kings and a shot of the Bodleian Library, but that's more an admission of vulgar taste than an objection. Bishonen | talk 00:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  Aha. See, I had been searching for a picture of the religious center at Peterborough that was GFDL or PD, and I haven't found one. It might be worth a picture of Stephen. I don't think the article is long enough for more then 2-3 photos, but I absolutely agree that at least one more is needed. I just couldn't find the ones I could think of. Geogre 10:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  Image:stephenblois.jpg and Image:Matilda-coin.gif are being uploaded and added now. Thanks again. Geogre 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

Self-nomination. Article about a notable #1 hit single. --FuriousFreddy 04:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to see explicitly mentioned in what country it was a number one hit. Not everyone knows where the Billboard Hot 100 is from. Also, the sound sample should be linked in a template as is common with music samples. Finally, I'm not sure about "Concurrent group tension". It's more about the group and its members than the song the article is supposed to be about. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've changed the sample link into a template myself, using a copy from the one at the "Moonlight Sonata" article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sound excerpt is tagged 'fair use', but there is no justification for this. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_using_sound_excerpts for text that you might cut and paste onto the info page, although you'd need to tweak it for this particular item. Thirty seconds would be better than 20, and if you justify it properly, that would probably be an acceptable duration. Better if you say something about the music or lyrics in the text—then it qualifies more strongly as 'educational' use. Please provide complete info on recording and performance.

Some paragraphs are too short. Some of the writing is awkward or incorrect; e.g., 'base instrumental track'; 'the song's instrumental track' (remove 'song's'); 'Williams had been in and out of the hospital' ('the' hospital? Why be so specific?); 'crafted' appears twice in a short space; inconsistent tense in first para; Kendricks and Williams' departures (?); 'mutually agreed'? 'did the orchestral arrangement '. Needs a complete edit.

A few years and decades are linked, most are not. Better to delink the few that are linked, for a whole bunch of reasons (see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context). Tony 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just thought I would point out that it is common in AmE to say the hospital, as in "he went to the hospital," "he's in the hospital," etc. To say "he had been in and out of hospital" sounds quite odd to American ears. —Wayward 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's gone now, however. I just summarized to say Paul Williams was ill. --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I revised the artice entirely, based upon your comments. The information on the recording and performance is complete, and the text discusses the song's lyrics and music. I also followed your instructions reguarding the fair use of the song sample, nd saw enough justification to revert to the original stereo uploaded version (I only uploaded a mono version because I was told samples had to be 20 seconds long and 64 kbps in bitrate, which would not have worked well for a stereo sample). --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have one quibble before supporting: The "Origins" section is nice, but I think it's missing some background. Explain why there was pressure for psychedelic recordings in the late 60s -- not just that the Temptations had had a couple psychedelic hits, but the general pop scene at the time. Tuf-Kat 05:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Noted. --FuriousFreddy 11:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks great. Support Tuf-Kat 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• object for the moment - I think the article lacks comprehensiveness without a lengthier discussion of some of the cover versions. Also, I think 'song information' should have more about the musical structure of the song, and should be in a section of its own rather than in the history section. A minor POV point is the sentence '..."Just My Imagination" has a "dream-like quality"...', which is reporting someone else's POV as if it is a fact. Worldtraveller 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • While reasonable, fulfilling those suggestions goes beyond my means. I don't have any information on (nor have i heard) any of the covers of the song, and I don't know enough about music theory to be able to write abotu the musical structure. Is anyone willing to help? --FuriousFreddy 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you wouldn't need too much about the covers, just mentions of any particularly successful ones (the one I know is by Donald Byrd, it was on his very successful album Places and Spaces). Check out www.coversproject.com for more! I do think something about the musical structure of the work is essential though. Some of the Beatles FAs have good examples of this. Worldtraveller 12:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think info on the musical structure would be good, as well....only I can't write it myself. I'm not knowledgable enough. As far as only mentioning the covers, what is wrong with the way they are currectly mentioned? --FuriousFreddy 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. Object but only one point needs to be addressed before I'll support - I agree that "dream-like quality" is "reporting someone else's POV as if it's fact" but can't think how it should be rewritten. I'm not even sure if it should be rewritten, substituted or just deleted. I made some minor copyedits mainly substituting colloquial or superfluous words; I condensed the bit about Kenricks' mother wanting him to stay with the group and Kendricks' mind being made up etc, mainly because it looked awkward. Now that I've condensed it, I don't think we need to know about Kendricks' mother's efforts, and could just cut that phrase out. I'm not objecting to that though, just drawing your attention to it. Aside from the "dream-like" quote, I think it's a great article and will support. Rossrs 23:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted both. --FuriousFreddy 00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then it's a wholehearted support from me. Rossrs 01:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • Can chart positions be piped into one link? It looks weird here with only "chart" linked
  • Needs more information on chart performance, which is very underdeveloped. How were singles sales? How was airplay like? Certifications? How was chart behavior like? Did it last, or did it peak and drop? We need more information than just peaks.

• • • Comment/Question : I disagree when you say we "need more information than just peaks". "Just peaks" is the standard to which much credible music literature is produced, and has generally been the standard required by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states "It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I think the article is currently "tightly focused" and I'm unhapy that it may evolve into something that goes into what I believe to be "unncessary detail". 34 years after the song was a hit, why is it necessary to delve deeply into such trivia as "what was the chart behavior like" and "did it peak or drop"? The song has been placed into a historical context, and some info has been given about its chart performance that clearly establishes its level of success and noteworthiness. I feel that many articles are becoming overwhelmed by statistics and trivia that are meaningless to many readers, and which steer the articles away from discussion of such things as cultural relevance (points very well made in this article I think), in favour of a whole lot of numbers that don't really demonstrate anything of significance. I don't see how they add relevance, so could you please elaborate on why you think it's needed? thanks Rossrs 02:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • My sentiments exactly. Overinformation can scare a reader away rather than aid their education. --FuriousFreddy 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Rossrs, just putting the peaks can be very misleading and doesnt give out a true context of how the song performed. We're told it was #1 for 2 weeks, but did it have longevity? Like for instance, this year, Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" peaked at #2. It never hit #1, but it spent months in the Top 10 and is actually still on the charts (after entering the charts late last year). Compare that to Carrie Underwood's Inside Your Heaven. It peaked at #1, but quickly fell out of the Top 10, and quickly dropped down the charts. If we just put peaks without talking about chart performance, we'd be inclined to say that "Inside Your Heaven" was a big hit, when in reality it wasnt that big of a hit, as opposed to Since U Been Gone. Also take, Fantasia's "I Believe", it also peaked at #1, but did not rank on the end of the year chart. However, several songs which did not hit #1 and even peaked out of the Top 10 did chart. We dont need too much details, but some context would be good, since being #1 only means #1 that week, and doesnt give a proper context for how it performed overall. OmegaWikipedia 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • OK I understand what you're saying, but you've chosen songs that could almost be called "novelty hits". ie the Underwood and Fantasia singles were each the first single release following them winning American Idol. Their sales figures were concentrated in the first couple of weeks, and sure enough, by most definitions they weren't big hits. I know you were only using them to explain your point, and that's fine, I understand what you mean, but as far as chart performance goes those songs were "freaks". Clarkson, yes you're right. A massive, long running hit that only peaked at number 3. I think it's also important to remember that charts prior to about 1992 were much more stable. As a rule songs climbed steadily, and then dropped quickly. I don't think the charts need to be discussed in detail for "Just My Imagination" (or any other song) unless there is some significant anomaly. It probably should be discussed for each of the songs you've given as examples, but not for all. Thanks, I understand what you're saying now. I don't completely agree, but that's fine. Rossrs 02:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The song information section is awkward. That section and Origins would be better switched. Also the "History" header doesnt really make sense. Could this be switched to a better term?
  • International charts stats. Where are they? The Temptations are not only a US act. And we need to know this song performed around the world.
  • I'd like to see the #1's bolded. But since you disagree on this, I wont press it too much.
  • The chart mentions the Hot 100 as the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Pop Singles. Pick one and stick to it. Or better mention it only as the Billboard Hot 100, as there is a Billboard Pop 100 nowadays and people sometimes call the Pop 100 as Billboard Pop Singles too.
  • Song writing and certification should be listed in the infobox.
  • This section

Just My Imagination" was the third of four Temptations songs to go to number one on the Billboard :Pop Singles Chart in the United States; the others were "My Girl" (1964/1965), "I Can't Get Next to :You" (1969), and "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone" (1972). The single held the number-one position on the :Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks, from March 27 to April 10, 1971, replacing "Me and Bobby McGee" by :Janis Joplin, and replaced by "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night.

OmegaWikipedia should be in the section on the songs performance....Not its lead.

Ha, ha, this is humorous, and is technically (for the most part) an inactionable opposition. But I'll play along:

Freddy, why the rude behavior?

It isn't rude behavior. Most of these points of opposition are retaliatory, at best, and not in the interest of actually improving the article. The article derives its formatting from Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs, as it should.

1. The infobox was taken from the original one on the Songs project page; that's not a big deal.
2. All available Temptations chart information goes only as far as to note the peak positions on the pop and black singles charts in the United States, and pop positions in the UK on some songs. Googling for other charts provided only the UK position. I have no record of how the song performed in any other country, nor do I have access to such information. That information would be of use, but I can't include information that is not availiable to me through the resources I have. Encyclopediaic coverage only requires notation of the peak position, a trajectory goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.

Then you need to look harder to find this info on the interntational stats. Right now, when youre not talking about the international stats, theres an implication of POV with a bias towards the USA. And we're not asking for a trajectory, but some information on its chart performance would be good.

I've looked as hard as I can for international statistics and chart performance information without spending money to have someone pull up such statistics for me. You can't add information to an article that isn't available to the author. There is no USA bias, as United Kingdom chart information is also included. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Seeing that the song will be thirty-five years old this coming January, there is no available information on the song's airplay history. Motown never submitted sales records for public viewing, nor did they submit any of their releases until 1977 for RIAA certifications of any kind (they would spray-paint a copy of the record gold, give it to the artists, and tell them they had a gold record). "Just My Imagination" was known to have sold at least a million copies; there is no further sales information.

Then put that into the article about its sales.

It's an inexact and unverifiable figure. And a general user reading this article will have no interest in Motown's protection of its sales records; that would, however, make good trivia for the Motown page. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The Billboard chart will be mentioned by the name it was called in 1971: Pop Singles chart. All instances of Hot 100 will be removed from the article.

This is a bit unacceptable. When did it become policy to use archaic names? As I mentioned above, there is a Pop 100 chart, and calling it the Pop Singles Chart will only lead to confusion.

The chart should be called whatever it was called at the time of the relevant single release. Every article referencing Hanna-Barbera should not be changed to Cartoon Network Studios, and every one referencing Our Gang should not be changed to The Little Rascals. There are several different articles on persons named Michael Jackson, Paul Williams, Frank Wilson, Mary Wilson, and so on, and the link is properly piped, so there is no confusion. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The official song infobox templete does not require songwriters to be listed in the infobox, only producers. And, as noted above, there is no certification.

It really would be better to list it though.

...in your opinion. This article is formatted in accordance with the project it falls under; any additions to the infobox are purely arbitrary. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Standard writing style for number-one hits is to notate the number-one chronology in the top paragraph.
2. "#1s" should never be bolded. It implies bias and point-of-view.
3. Song information comes after "Origins" for reasons of chronology. The events that led to the song being done happened before the song was done. That is why the sections are ordered the way they are. Be that as it may, I reversed the ordering anyway. --FuriousFreddy 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia 04:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) --FuriousFreddy 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. The article is up to (and in some ways surpasses) the standard set by other music single FAs, except that it is lacking in its discussion of cover versions. I can't bring myself to either oppose or support it for that reason. Jkelly 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've discussed the covers in as much detail as I can by myself, based upon my own knowledege and the resources available to me. I am more than open to contributions from others. --FuriousFreddy 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The few extra lines made the difference for me. Support. Jkelly 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Mercantilism

Self nom. Another of my past works that I've recently tried to bring up to FA standards. It is a somewhat difficult subject to write about, since it is a very amorphous topic, but I feel this covers all the important areas. - SimonP 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good job an important piece of economic history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The efforts put in this article will pay off. This is simply superb!!! Ruennsheng
• supportOppose. I agree about the fact that this article is very good. I am nevertheless missing some reference to mercantilism today. Neo-mercantilism redirect here and nothing is said in this article about this. In the discussion many comments appear about some wrong interpretation of mercantilism. I think the article should at least have a paragraph like "false or misleading understanding of mercantilism". I have also the feeling in many countries the press shows up the country's favourable trade balance as an absolute positive achievement of the governments. For example in Germany where I am living politicians are very proud Germany is the world export leader: isn't that a form of naive mercantilism? A very simple way to get rid of my opposition would be to add a preface saying what this article isn't about. But writing a short paragraph about this might even be better. Vb08:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We actually have an article on neomercantilism, and I have re-redirected neo-mercantilism there. I've also added a bit on the subject to this article. As mentioned in the legacy section modern concern with the balance of trade is a direct legacy of Keynes', and most economists (though certainly not all) do believe a positive balance of trade is a good thing.- SimonP 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Lots of potential, but needs an intensive edit first. Take, for example, the opening paragraph.
  • Why does the eptithet 'total' qualify 'volume of trade' but not 'supply of capital', and are 'supply of capital' and 'amount of capital' different concepts? (If not, please use the same term for ease of comprehension.)
  • Does 'encouraging exports' (partly) comprise a 'protectionist role', as currently stated?
  • 'This economic policy, which flourished in the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century), based on mercantilism is often called the mercantile system.' Clumsy word order.
  • 'Flourished'—this might be POV, since it assumes that mercantilism was on the whole beneficial, against the possibility that it inhibited economic activity.

I haven't read further yet; please fix it all up, and I think I'd enjoy the article. Tony 10:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've rewritten the intro. I'd almost wholly replaced the original one last night before posting it here, and it looks like I didn't take enough time to read through the new version. One item I left unchanged was that encouraging exports is protectionist, as this is generally accepted. For instance, the protectionist measures most discussed today are the American and European agricultural subsidies. Our protectionism article has a bit on this. - SimonP 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Apart from the somewhat clumsy explanation of Comparative Advantage (which maybe should be removed - there is a link anyway) I think this article explains clearly, succinctly and reasonably simply a relatively complex economic theory. It puts it into the historical context well, and describes both its initial appeal and its failings, without being POV by saying that people in the 17th Century were "stupid" or "naive" (cos they weren't). I have made a few, minor, correctiosn to spelling etc,and I support this nomination. Batmanand 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• support--Pamri • Talk 03:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm impressed by the balance and thoroughness of this article. My compliments. Hydriotaphia 03:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Looks good - but there's no external links... put in some and I'll support :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There aren't a lot of good websites on this topic, but I added a couple links to primary sources that are available online. - SimonP 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent!!! Great job! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A masterpiece. Neutrality^talk 00:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A number of sentences are ungrammatical:

  To a certain extent mercantilist doctrine made a general theory of economics was impossible.

  One group, represented by Jacob Viner, argues that mercantilism was simply a straightforward, commonsense system that the people of the time simply did not have the analytical tools to discover it was actually deeply fallacious.

  Thus if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth and traded, both states would end up better off.

• Overall, I feel the style could be improved. I would suggest considering instances of passive voice and extended prepositional constructions; some are appropriate and others might benefit from a rewrite. Basically, a careful edit is still required. --Michael Snow 21:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done another couple rounds of copyediting, and fixed the errors you pointed out. I'm pretty hopeless at picking out errors like these, so any others you can point out or correct would be appreciated. - SimonP
    • While fixing those, unfortunately you introduced another:

      Since creating domestic industries required an available supply of capital; the seventeenth century also saw a dramatic fall in interest rates.

    • Did you intend for the semicolon to become a comma? This sequence actually concerned me a little anyway before - it seems to suggest cause and effect, although not clear about which direction, and the connection is perhaps not adequately explained for a general reader without a grounding in the underlying economic principles. --Michael Snow 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I've corrected and hopefully clarified that sentence. - SimonP 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's helpful. But did governments in this period really control interest rates to the extent the revised sentence now suggests? --Michael Snow 04:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes they did. For instance in England the interest rate was set by an Act of Parliament and was only moved every few decades. In the late 17th century, for instance, there was a long running debate over whether the interest rate should be lowered from 4% to 6%. John Locke's Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money, is a well known argument against lowering the rate from this period. These rules were essentially usury laws, putting a limit on the maximum legal rate of interest, but since the natural rate was considerably higher, they were effectively government imposed interest rates. - SimonP 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Okay, I tried to incorporate a little more of this context in the article. In any case, objection withdrawn at this point. --Michael Snow 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support after seeing some of the issues mentioned here have already been addressed. A fine piece of work. KingTT 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great work! 172 | Talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, as obviously, some copyediting has been done and issues are fixed. Great article. Mstroeck 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a slice of fried gold. Battle Ape 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but with one Minor Objection-"This period saw the adoption of Machiavelli's amoral political science and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations." Machiavelli has taken the rap for many things, but not Mercantilism. This is disputable as is use of the term "amoral", which also smacks of POV in my opinion.