Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2007

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Peregrine Falcon

[edit]

This article was the Wikiproject Birds collaboration last month, and now appears to meet FA requirements. Jude. 21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also the citation tags still around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Comment (1) I'd much rather see a photo of a wild bird in the taxobox. The current pic is a falconry bird in awful atypical habitat (more suited to a Sparrowhawk!), and its identity (given the huge range of hybrids produced by falconers) can't be guaranteed at all. There's a very good USFWS photo Image:Falco peregrinus nest USFWS.jpg with 5½ meg size, which I'd recommend. (2) The map is awful quality, and should be replaced by a new one, preferably in .png format, and preferably with the ranges of the subspecies indicated (tho' that could be tricky with migratory subspecies, finding enough colours to indicate breeding, migration, and wintering ranges). (3) Barbary Falcon - HBW lumps it; I reckon we ought to think more about merging them. (4) Should the colloquial name "Peregrine" (without the 'Falcon' qualifier) be added at the top in bold? It's a lot more used than that archaic "Duck Hawk" (which I reckon should be demoted to non-bold as a footnote of history). (5) Along with black marketeers and eggers, gamekeepers should be added to the human threats (plenty of refs from e.g. the RSPB website). (6) There's a mix of UK and US spellings on the page (looks to be a preponderance of UK though), which should be standardised (/-ized!); as the species is native in both areas neither has location-related priority, and deciding which to follow goes to first major edit, if anyone can remember or wants to delve back into the page's early history. (7) Reference citations are a bit mixed in style, and need standardising; aim for the same style as in ornithologigal publications (e.g. British Birds): Bloggs, J., & Doe, J. (2000). Title of Paper. Journal 10: 20-30. - MPF 08:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1, 4, and 5 are done, and I think I've finished 6 and 7. How or where can I get a new map? Is there a site that makes them, or do I need to find a wikipedia user who makes them?Jude. 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I created a new map. It doesn't show subspecies ranges. There are between 17 or more subspecies; finding enough colors for them would be a problem, finding refs which show their ranges would be a problem, deciding whether to show breeding/migration/whatever range would be an issue, and some subspecies overlap. It's difficult, and I think impractical, to show the subspecies ranges. (Common Raven, which is an FA, does not show the eight subspecies' ranges in its map) --Jude. 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, unless there are only a few subspecies with well-defined non overlapping ranges it can become a real headache. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support The large bulleted lists of subspecies are extremely unsightly. There are several instances of single-sentence paragraphs, not exactly the best of prose. The images need serious work per WP:MoS#Images: the lead image is poor (a dark bird on a dark background that is too far away), and the article violates other principles of good image use and placement, such as creating long stacks of images on the same alignment. The external links probably need some paring, and there isn't a Wikispecies link. Most of all, the article only meets the bare minimum of citations; the end of each paragraph and quotes. To be part of the best of Wikipedia, much more comprehensive inline citations are needed. Compare to such FA-class articles as Guinea pig. As this is not a peer review, I'm not going to make a whole laundry list for you to complete right now. VanTucky Talk 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put all the subspecies into paragraph form, with the subspecies grouped roughly geographically. If they should be alphabetical, just let me know. I changed the taxobox image and right-aligned all the images. The external links have been cut down and divided into two subsections, the wikispecies link has been added. The citations have also been expanded. Cheers, Jude. 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

You see how the reader can gain an understanding and feel for characteristics of the bird - "Sedentary and territorial..." "Like other fairy-wrens, the Superb Fairy-wren is notable for several peculiar behavioural characteristics; birds are socially monogamous and sexually promiscuous..." Learnedo 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I'm working on the map to distinguish summer breeding, resident breeding, passage, and winter - might be a few days till I'm done - MPF 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also made a subspecies distribution map (breeding ranges only). This is compiled from the textual range descriptions in HBW, some of which are a bit poorly defined - can someone check it against other published subspecies maps and say here if there's any incorrect boundaries to amend before I add it to the Peregrine article. Thanks, MPF 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Oregon State Capitol

[edit]

Epbr123 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks really good for the most part, but a couple minor things...
  • Does state really need to be capitalized? Per WP:MoS, only pronouns basically need them, and while Oregon most definitely is one and capitol can be, I think state is a regular noun in this usage.
  • I've been kinda wondering about this. Is "Oregon State Capitol" a proper name? If not, what about these other possible article titles: "Capitol of Oregon", "Oregon Capitol", "Oregon's Capitol" -- ? -Pete 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just nit-picking, but should the footnotes be two columns? With 30+ notes, it takes a little too much scrolling. If this means the statue image needs shifting, I'd be happy to try it myself. VanTucky Talk 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Florida Atlantic University

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I have put a ton of work into it, and it has also been through an exhaustive peer review here. I was able to get a number of of experienced editors to look at the article and I believe I have addressed all of their concerns.

Thanks, KnightLago 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment: Nice piece and, for once, a genuinely enticing introduction! I enjoyed the enthusiasm and the local-school-makes-good sub-text though it isn't overtly POV. You weave in many statistics without clunkiness and the occasional colloquialisms adds unobtrusive color. Anyhow, now the flak :)
  1. Trivial typos and inconsistencies: controvery > controversy; was comprised of > was composed of? or comprised?; "the The Scripps" > "the Scripps"; "The HBOI" > "the HBOI"; Army > army (generic use) and Air Force > air force (ditto).  Done
  2. Punctuation of abbreviations is inconsistent, tho "no points" dominates. I suggest either U.S. > US and S.E. > SE per Wp:mos#Acronyms and abbreviations or points everywhere throughout :)  Done I left it S.E. because the official name of the library is S.E.
  3. Drifts a bit? By the end of 1945, about 100 planes were stationed at the airbase.[16][17] The conclusion of World War II marked a significant point in the history of the land that would later become Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton Army Airfield saw a steady decline in use. Perhaps By late 1945 about 100 planes were stationed at the airbase though the end of World War II marked a significant decline in use or similar?  Done I moved the sentence down a bit to make it flow better. What do you think? KnightLago 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Good solution - RD.[reply]
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I admit to bias, having just done the copy-edit :). Also admit to being not familiar with criteria like "wikification". But I do believe the article meets the listed writing criteria, gives an interesting history, covers past and current issues, and would describe the topic well to any uninformed reader. I myself had heard the name, but knew zero about FAU before editing. Very educational to copy-edit! Unimaginative Username 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just read through again (as requested), after the changes for consistency of referring to the school were made, as Karanacs suggested. (I also caught another couple of minor nits). I agree with Karanacs' suggestion. It reads very smoothly now that those changes were made. Fine article. Unimaginative Username 01:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment So far I have not done a full read-through of the article (that is coming), but here are some things that should be fixed: **Be consistent in how you refer to the university, either as FAU or as Florida Atlantic. I am not sure if this is an issue. See Ohio Wesleyan University (featured) which uses abbreviations and the name of the school throughout. Ohio Wesleyan's usage was a special circumstance according to the FAC nom, so I will change to Florida Atlantic.  Done KnightLago 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Check all your citations for publishers (see 15)  Done
    • Citations should be consistent in how newspapers are done. It looks like some of them have the newspaper name in italics (preferred) and others do not; choose one template method and stick to it.  Done
    • I would trim the external links, and have only the official website for the school  Done I left the main website, the main athletics website and the newspaper.
    • Don't need wikilinks to 1940s, triangle, senior citizens, or other simple terms  Done any others?
    • "Owl's football team" should not have an apostrophe in it  Done

Karanacs 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more from me

    • The History section bothers me a bit. In the Beginnings section I expected to read about the foundation of the school, but that doesn't happen until the Expansion and Growth section. I think I would rename the first section Establishment, and have it start
"On July 15, 1961, to meet the burgeoning educational demands of South Florida, the state legislature passed an act authorizing the establishment of a new university in the City of Boca Raton"...Should City really be capitalized?...Then go into the existing Beginnings section. Lastly, grab the first two sentences out of the next section and add them into this one.  Done
    • Furthermore, on the Beginning section, do we need to know about the amount of money spent updating the airfield in WWII? I would remove that sentence and the one directly after it, as the second is an unneeded transitionary sentence. Air Force should be capitalized.  Done
    • I'm confused over what you mean by "upper division" students. Are they graduate students only or juniors/seniors?  Done Both, the sentence reads "university in the nation to offer only upper-division and graduate level courses."
    • I would reword the sentence about the presidents to something like "...the university has been led by five presidents. The fifth, Frank T. Brogan, assumed office in 2003 after resigning his position as the Florida Lt Gov." (and president in the following sentence does not need to be capitalized)  Done
    • Article needs non-breaking spaces between numbers and their qualifiers (Ex: 22181 undergraduates) Instead of a space, use & nbsp; or {{nowrap}}  Done
    • I don't understand this sentence: "It offers a liberal arts education in the platform of a public institution."  Done I looked at the source. By public institution they mean public university. I tried to make it more clear.
I will, thanks. KnightLago 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for the 364,000 square foot research facility  Done
    • Need a citation for why the owls find the campus appealing  Done
    • Need to fix number formatting in first paragraph of Residential Life section. Do you mean the "within a 50-mile [(80 km)] commutable?" The brackets are because the 80kn part is not from the quote. If that is the problem then  Done

Karanacs 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -
  • 1.) In the Rankings section, the last two sentences tell the reader virtually nothing. What does "fourth tier" mean? How many schools in the US are first through third tier? And how many other schools were named as one of the "Best Southeastern Colleges"? 10? 100? 1000? We need these numbers for those sentences to have actual context.  Done
  • 2.) Full sentences in captions should have periods. Fragments should not.  Done
  •  Not done These are complete sentences: "Here is the Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus." "The Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus, looks pretty." This is a fragment: "The Glades Road entrance sign, Boca Raton Campus." A sentence must contain a noun and a verb. Many fragments in the captions still have periods. I guess I could just personally delete them (would take like 2 seconds), but I just wanted to let you know the rule for captions.
  •  Done Ok, I fixed them for you. :)
  • 3.) The first sentence in the lead is somewhat contradicted by the second sentence. The first sentence states that FAU is in Boca Raton. The second sentence states that there are six other campuses in other cities. A clarification is necessary (e.g. "...university with its main campus in Boca Raton" or something like that.)  Done
  • 4.) "Florida Atlantic's seven campuses serve a" - repetitive; you just named the seven campuses. We don't need to be told the number again. Every word in the article should be valuable - it's a tough task to say the most important thing about a university is such a short article. Delete unnecessary words -> "Florida Atlantic serves a"  Done
  • 5.) History - "1940s&ndashera" - fix please  Done

I honestly haven't read the vast majority of the article, so I cannot support it, but it looks fine on a cursory glance. -Bluedog423Talk 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Battle of Barrosa

[edit]

(Self nom): This article was an inaccurate stub when I got hold of it. It quickly evolved to B-class, and then a very constructive MilHist peer review (here, thanks to Cla68 and Jackyd101) allowed me to take it to MilHist A-class review (here), which passed. Since then, there have been various minor tweaks, and the article has been through LoCE (thanks to EyeSerene). I can't see anything more to be done to the article, so I'm proposing it here, for FA status. Thank you for your attention, and I shall endeavour to address any issues raised as soon as I am able. Carre 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still needs a copyedit and readthrough by an editor who hasn't seen it before. I am sure that the nominator does not find The first column engaged broke after a single British volley. disconcerting, but the poor reader must switch from The first column engaged the enemy to seeing engaged as an adjective. This is grammatical, but clumsy; the LoCE should have caught it. This is the first thing that caught my eye; are there more? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I know what you mean here - it could perhaps be The first column to be engaged broke? Although the to be may be considered redundant.
  • Again, I think I know what Although initially garrisoned by a mere 4 battalions of volunteers and recruits, the actions of the Duke of Albuquerque in ignoring the Spanish Junta's orders to attack Victor's vastly superior force allowed him to reinforce the city with his 10,000 men means, and that him is the Duke; but I'm not sure, and the reader ought to be. "Use the right word, not its second cousin."
I assume the city, not the actions, was garrisoned; try The city's garrison was only...; but the Duke of Albuquerque ignored his orders from the Junta and, instead of attacking..., if that is what you mean. If I find more samples, I'll put them on the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Your suggestion is better. More suggestions on talk page much appreciated, and I'll stick another request at LoCE in the FAC section and hope it gets attention. Carre 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have no problems with either of your suggestions, so they're done. Did you give up after spotting those two, take a break from the reading, or just didn't find anything else? (I'd be surprised if the latter!) Thanks for the assistance. Carre 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been through LoCE again (in proofread mode), but I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Carre 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reads, in general, as though you have been trying to stick too closely to a single source, and your source has crept into your writing. I don't think you would answer a Talk page question "So what happened at Barossa?" with this, but your reply there would be better writing. For example:

  • Use politic, take it out, or explain that the Spanish were annoyed at Graham; but don't link it; that's as bad as putting slang in quotes.
  • whilst?!?

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now I'm confused:
  • Alburquerque (in the article) hasn't lost an 'e'... nor has it gained an 'r': the spelling you may be more familiar with, the place in New Mexico, took its name from the town in Spain, but was misspelt. I could wikilink it, to clarify (Alburquerque, Badajoz)?
  • The article says that Cádiz was the seat of Spanish government, and further goes on to say the "ruling Spanish Junta".
[Edit again] - I found an alternative wikilink for Junta (Cádiz Cortes), which explains the role better than the previous one (2nd paragraph). Is that better? Carre 13:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was allowed to resign? Exactly as the article says - The ruling Spanish Junta, under pressure from widespread protests and mob violence, was allowed to resign - What's not clear?[edit] - misread the question, sorry. Carre 12:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dead ground" is a fairly standard military/MilHist term, but I suppose I could find something to replace it, although the cost would be wordiness.
  • politic was wiktionary linked following a comment by the last copyeditor, claiming the sentence didn't make sense. Since it clearly does, the wikt link was put in so a non-English speaker, unfamiliar with the term, could look it up. Much the same as any other wikilink.
  • whilst, indeed.
Carre 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - just an attempt to summarise PMAnderson's comments above, and my actions in addressing them. Mainly for the sake of what remains of my own sanity. I don't mean to put any words into that reviewer's mouth, so if I misrepresent his concerns I apologise and hope he corrects any mistakes in the list.
  • First two comments (First column engaged, and initially garrisoned) - changed article to use PMAnderson's suggestions.
  • Alburquerque - as explained above, the article is correct, but wikilink added for clarification.
  • How large an area did the Junta control - better wikilink provided.
  • Who allowed the Junta to resign - "allowed to" removed; now reads only that the Junta resigned.
    • Calling the Cadiz Cortes a Junta is questionable, but I suppose it is Oman's usage. They were a National Convention, not a local committee; nor were they warlords.
  • Personally, I'd rather call it the Cortes, not the Junta, but it's not just Oman who uses the phrase (although, admittedly, most of the more modern single volume histories borrow hugely from Oman). Incidentally, for corroboration on the term Junta, you can see this, which one of our Spanish colleagues offered as a cite when he changed the number of the Regency from three to five (both being correct, as explained in the current citation). You may not have Spanish, but you should be able to get the gist (I don't know the language, and I understood it).
  • Correct - I think the current English interpretation stems from the military Juntas of South America during the 70s and 80s, especially around 1982! I trust we can leave Junta as is then, or perhaps change the term to Junta Suprema Central, with same wikilink. I think just Junta is better though. Another dead objection, I hope. Carre 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]Actually, a day later and re-reading your last, I think I may have misinterpreted. By "your inclination", did you mean my preference to call it Cortes rather than Junta? Junta being more accurate, but carrying the negative, military jackboot connotations. Carre 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "dead ground" - nothing done. If this is a blocking issue, I'll just remove the phrase on request, since I think explaining the term in the article would be detrimental.
    • I would suggest the use of some such phrase as "along sloping ground not visible to the French". There is no reason to use jargon when it is avoidable.
  • That version doesn't fit with the sentence - how about more cover and ground not visible... etc (just removing your "along", which is the bit that doesn't fit).
  • "Sticking to a single source" - no comment, other than look at the reference and bibliography sections before throwing accusations like that around.
  • wictionary link on "politic" - explanation for the wikt link addition given above (wasn't there in original nominated version).
  • "whilst" - not changed, and I have no plans to change it. If anyone really objects, they can go change it themselves.
    • Changed. This is 2007, not 1911. Btw, the same sentence asserted Victor's knowledge of the tactical problem involved. Do we have his orders, or his memoirs? Vague and unfounded assertions of this sort are endemic in military histories of a century ago; we should avoid such bloviation.
  • This was a single instance of whilst you were complaining about? There are more than one in the article! ;) I noticed your edit adding {{cn}} with edit summary "is this really Sir Charles" - Oman says "The move could only mean the garrison of Cadiz intended to come out. Accordingly, Victor resolved to stop its egress;" - so it's my paraphrase and editorialising, and I do still use whilst when writing :P You've since clarified anyway, and I have no problem with the more recent change.
Ahh, sod it - I bit the bullet and replaced all the remaining whilsts with while. Carre 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whilst is still in common use in BE; it's considered to be a more formally correct usage than while (better for an encyclopedia article?), although the two are synoymous. I'm not suggesting you change it back... just resenting the dumbing down of the English language ;) EyeSereneTALK 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Eye, whilst is listed under Tony1's useful guide under "Misplaced formality". Fowler notes that it is less common than while and, when discussing among/amongst, even suggests that while has largely driven it out. I know you and I still use it, but it's not worth arguing about :). Annoyingly, I've had Fowler's work sitting on my bookshelf for the last 15 years without realising it, since it's disguised as volume III of the Oxford Library of English Usage, and I never considered consulting it. Serenity is the key! Carre 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely serious. I've read the Times and Guardian style guides ;) It's an interesting one though - a quick straw poll amongst my colleagues has us split at around 50/50 in usage (with the more literary ones preferring whilst). Amidst all the office controversy I've just started, I'd better get back to work ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the strike outs and clarifications. Carre 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If PMAnderson could strike through those specific comments he feels have been addressed to his satisfaction, then I can keep track of where I am. Similarly, if I've missed anything or misrepresented, please fix. Carre 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I am trying to polish the prose because I have no problem with the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem - help with the prose is appreciated. Additionally, all instances of whilst have now gone. The external link above (details Junta handing power to regency) verifies use of Junta. Dead ground now gone. A note on single cite per sentence: typically, I read the relevant part of all the sources before writing a paragraph, and paraphrased them all. Then I chose citations that best supported my paraphrasing - I did this rather than list all sources since I hate seeing multiple cites, one after another, especially mid-paragraph. Are we in a position to start a new list now? (Except for the politic one, which I'm not fussed about either way) Carre 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree firmly on multiple footnotes. You might want, on a new article, to use a single footnote per sentence of the form "Source A p. m. Source B, p. n. Source C, p. q, note 1." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Superb Fairy-wren

[edit]

I am nominating Superb Fairy-wren at FAC..another critter that is territorial and lives in a pride like a lion...but seriously. I feel this article is nice and cohesive and comprehensive and throughly referenced. I feel the prose came together OK, and another expert copyeditor has given it the once over. Let me know of any problems and I'll try to fix pronto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: All images were taken and uploaded to Commons by their respective authors. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but they are both shortish and got a through grilling beforehand and the other looks ok...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportConditional Support I gave the article a light copyedit- I've always been told not to have more than one semicolon in a sentance. Feel free to revert this if you disagree. Also, in the first paragraph of behaviour, "Plentiful insects are available which allows the birds to rest in between forays" sounds a bit awkward to me: could you reword this? Also, there is no section on either Conservation or Relationship with Humans. I can see why there is not anything for Conservation (though BirdLife International probably has enough for a short section, similar to King Vulture's), but is there nothing out there about it and humans? Still, this article is in my opinion definately featureable and I'll be more than happy to change to support after my questions are adressed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer - the concept is more insects --> easy catching ---> can rest (summer), while winter --> less insects --> must forage continuously. Having a little trouble wording it to avoid ambiguity and repetition simultaneously. If you feel the current is still awkward feel free to tweak.
That sounds better to me. Thanks. R-cS
I hadn't realised there were multiple semicolons in any sentence. I'm happy you reverted. Did you get all of them?
I think so. R-cS
Re Fairy-wrens and humans, I guess like many small birds, the only real human stuff is that they have adapted well to human invasion as long as they have plenty of shelter (I mentioned this in habitat as would be tricky to stick in right at the end and is more ecological than cultural anyway). As they are insectivorous no-one feeds 'em much that I know of and I am unaware of any usage. No book I know records anything and I'll google it post haste. There are two - one as the emblem of BOCA, the other is as a badge for scouts in this country. Now question is, waht to do with them? A 2-3 sentence stubby section or at the bottom of taxonomy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I honestly don't see how it fits in with Taxonomy. My advice would be to make a section at the bottom that would involve both your two things and a quick conservation bit from BirdLife. Obviously, expound on why they chose this bird as the emblam if you can find that out. Thanks for your quick response to my comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - taxonomy was a long stretch. I've been musing while AFK and think I can whip up something soon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I can go with Wrens and humans and have the cultural stuff with a least concern bit but it seems a bit artificial really. I now can't find the scout ref and each combination I type into google turns up nix (?!). Instead I got two stamp issues, though one was a mistake. I'll see what else comes up as it still looks a little stubby cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think it looks good now. I always preferred to have a stubish section over leaving out the information. Thanks, Casliber. Oh, and I'll write up a conservation paragraph at some point and put it on the talk page in case you want to use it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment: Under subspecies, should "... are intermediate between King Island and Tasmanian forms." read are "of intermediate colour"? Just because I wondered, initially reading it, whether it referred to color or to some kind of evolutionary order or relation. I changed "deeper blue colour still; while birds of Flinders Island" to "deeper blue colour still; birds of Flinders Island"; it could also read "deeper blue colour still while birds of Flinders Island" (semicolon to a comma) if you prefer it that way. The article uses a generous amount of semicolons! (I approve; I love semicolons) However, I believe that the semicolon in "Vocal communication has two main roles; " (under Description) should be a colon. Under "Behavior", the sentence "The head, neck and tail are lowered, wings held out and feathers fluffed out; the bird running rapidly and voicing a continuous alarm call" seems awkward to me. Perhaps "The head, neck and tail are lowered, wings held out and feathers fluffed as the bird runs rapidly and voices a continuous alarm call"? --Jude. 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer, yes it is colour that it is intermediate. All your suggestions sound good. It's daytime/weekend here and my time may be limited if you don't see my changes to all of the above feel free to hoe in. All good. all done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been fixed, and I have no further suggestions for changes, so I've added my vote to support the article! Cheers, Jude. 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing - it has adapted well to human change and is common even in urban Sydney. It is under distribution but what I will do is change cultural depictions to X with humans and put something there when I get a chance today. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Ok, I've added a couple of select links - we now have one to a call, and another on birdscaping the garden. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Populous: The Beginning

[edit]
previous FAC

(self) I addressed the concerns from last time, but the reviewers didn't show up... so I'm renom'ing. David Fuchs (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose

I own this game and I stubled over this piece of text:

"The game has no formal resource management; new units are created at houses, and training new warriors costs no type of resource. Only wood from trees is required to build new structures."

Training warriors costs mana as far as I know and mana is created by followers residing in houses. I would like to have this double checked. Regards, Daimanta 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. The number of followers in general funnels into the amount of mana your shaman has, but at any time you can create any type of fighter. I've double-checked the manual, and I see nothing to the contrary. David Fuchs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I looked it in further and I have found some (weak evidence)

"This building takes any follower type (except Warrior) and makes them a Warrior. This process uses mana, and proceeds fastest whent[sic] the spell charge bar is full."

Source: http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/198322/23903

I believe I have read that training units costs mana in the game itself(probably level one), so you might want to take a look into either the tutorial or the first levels of Pop:TB. Regards, Daimanta 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed the sentence slightly. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well, the rest of the article is fine with me. You have my support. Regards, Daimanta 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Lee Smith (baseball)

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the featured article criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

King Vulture

[edit]

Self-nomination Another bird and vulture article (to go with California Condor). I've done quite a bit of work on this article as part of the potential New World Vulture featured topic and believe that it matches the featured article criteria. It is very comprehensive and well-cited. It flows well and has some pretty good images to go with it. If there are any problems, I'll fix them as soon as I can. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support as a late-in-the-piece tweaker and copyeditor I feel this one is just over the line - the prose runs smoothly. The only things are that a distribution map would be great, and the cultural section at the bottom is a little stubby and would be great if this could be embellished. Also, we have a few samey images - I guess this is due to what there is to work with and I'm not sure we need them all. Some other notes in image captions would be good (location etc). Might not be able to do much about the last point though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Card has agreed to do a distribution map, but he has to make a new map to show all of the Americas. If someone else wants to try their hand, feel free to do so. I put everything that I could find in the culutral section- I'll reread my notes on the Maya and see if I missed something. I fiddled with the images, gave them better captions, and put in a new one showing the bird's habitat. If you want to delete one of the two heads just above the picture of the cloud forest, go ahead- I personally think it looks fine though. Thanks for supplying such a quick comment. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jude just put in a new range map that looks absolutely outstanding. THANKS, Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jude fixed them. Thanks, Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I agree that it matches the FA criteria (assuming the range map is in the works right now); in particular, it's very well-referenced. Cheers, Jude. 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. Aflumpire 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been through fixing some inconsistencies ("grey", drift between singular and plural, and caps. Should the relation with humans be written as singular too? Is there any discrepancy between It is relatively unaggressive at a kill and will normally back down rather than fight. and Once it has found a carcass, the King Vulture displaces the other vultures because of its large size and strong bill. ? Jimfbleak 06:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. It reads very well and is well-referenced. Great pictures, too. Coemgenus 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "most strikingly colored bird " is probably subjective and doesnt fit in the opening sentence. I perfer a simple statement about what the bird is and maybe where it is found. Done unless you want to build up starting sentence
    • How soon until chick fly, how soon until they fend for themselves? will look for this, but I don't recall ever seeing it
    • Other than that pretty dang good. Which vulture is next? :) -Ravedave 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got the Andean Condor next on my slate, followed by the American Black Vulture. Not sure where I put all my condor notes though...Rufous-crowned Sparrow 03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

House of Gediminas

[edit]

I hereby nominate this article for featured article. Article was written by user:Renata3 and with kind copy editing help from user:Novickas, article is ready for this procedure. Article is already reached GA status and all FAC criteria are met, in my view. Article deals with important issue of Lithuanian history, namely one of the most famous Lithuanian ruler's royal house, who's heirs once ruled Center and Eastern European states. In article, mostly used published works, including and English encyclopedias and academic publications; extensively referenced and comprehensive. Illustrated with maps and graphical representation. Please express your opinion as well. M.K. 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I'm leaning towards support, because this is essentially a genealogical article and as such provides a mine of carefully pieced-together information about who was who in this family. This is very valuable.

  • ...but after Jogaila signed the controversial Treaty of Dovydiškės with the Teutonic Knights, Kęstutis seized Vilnius and became the Grand Duke in late 1381. A few months later he was imprisoned in Kreva and died there. Does this not rather simplify and shorten the matter? Jogaila was not able to strike back as quickly as implied here, I suspect. Checking the source given was disappointing, as I don't feel that Rowell, p. 69, backs up the text as it should.
    • Brittanica [5] has a summary of the events, which took place in 1381 and 1382. Will put this in tomorrow. Novickas 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Kęstutis seized Vilnius in late 1381 (don't have a month), Jogaila seized power back in June of 1382, and Kęstutis died on August 15. Everything happened in less than a year. I added a source (just it won't help you much - it's in Lithuanian). I put in more precise date, but I don't feel like elaborating is a good idea: it's not the focus of the article. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your cutting "a few months later" helpfully removes the impression of this being a brief conflict. By "shorten the matter", I did not wish to imply that I thought more detail was needed; merely that the events appeared telescoped. The treaty was supposedly signed in 1360, so one imagines the confrontation did not begin with Kęstutis's seizure of Vilnius. One has to be most cautious of the sources here, I feel: our reading is coloured by Vytautas's own report to the Teutonic Knights much later. We assume that this treaty, for which Vytautas (through Wigand) is our source, was the problem. But Vytautas may have been trying to justify his father's usurpation.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1360? You mean 1380? Nutshell: Jogaila came in power in 1377, signed the treaty in 1380, was deposed in 1381, seized the title back in 1382, fought against Vytautas in 1383, and reconciled with Vytautas in 1384. A copy of the treaty survives (see img). Renata 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant 1380. (First rule of prognosticating about others' articles is that one always makes stupid mistakes!) qp10qp 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • striking a personal union. This doesn't seem idiomatic to me; it has echoes of "striking a bargain", which is certainly what Jogaila did. But it might be better to state what happened more clearly.
    • I did not want to focus on grandchildren. The main focus of the article is Gediminas, his origins, siblings, and kids. Grandkids are mentioned very very briefly. So I don't feel like elaborating on Jogaila-Vytautas conflict is a good idea. There are better places for this. It's enough to point the reader where. To that extend I added another sentence This Polish-Lithuanian union, in different forms, survived until the third partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Striking" was my main query, and now the that is gone, the matter is clearer, I believe.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 1345 he became the Grand Duke of Lithuania and co-ruled with his brother Kęstutis. This could need a note of explanation, as it might sound contradictory to those unfamiliar with the arrangement. It might also be worth saying a word about the theory alluded to that a tradition of co-ruling may have long existed; as it is stands, that is left hanging. I believe Rowell dismisses this theory.
    • Yes, Rowell dismisses the theory. There is this sentence Their successful collaboration is celebrated in Lithuanian historiography, and gave rise to a theory that the tradition of co-ruling in Lithuania arose as early as 1285. in Kęstutis' paragraph. Any ideas how to phrase the co-ruler blurb in Algirdas' praragraph? The theory is rather complex and I am afraid it might confuse more than explain. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest appending something along the lines of the following footnote to that sentence about the theory: "The nature of this Lithuanian dual rule is difficult to define precisely. According to the historian S. C. Rowell, p. 68, it "reflects political expediency; it certainly does not meet the formal definition of diarchy as 'rule by two independent authorities'...those two leaders were not equal: the grand duke in Vilnius was supreme".
In the Algirdas paragraph, I recommend covering all angles by saying something to the effect that Algirdas and Kęstutis ruled Lithuania in partnership, Algirdas as grand duke and Kęstutis as duke of Trakai. qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do over the next few days - need to read up first. Renata 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, smart work. The article earns its place as a first stop for Gediminas's genealogy.qp10qp 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One can only judge this article on what it intends to be, a body of information about who was who in Gediminas's immediate family. This sort of article is invaluable for anyone who wants to gain a handle on medieval history. To give an example of the value of this work to Wikipedia, take this character Žvelgutis, son of Vytenis, whom I had never heard of. He has been fished out of a footnote in Rowell and used in this article to help provide a possible reason why Gediminas succeeded his possible brother Vytenis. It appears as if similar acts of mosaicing have been performed to bring many other minor relatives of Gediminas into the light and into context in this article for readers of Wikipedia.qp10qp 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I won't have time to familiarize myself with the article until tomorrow, so no opinion for the time being. One could make a sound argument that it should be merged with Gediminids, an established term for the family. That article has six interwikis; the House of Gediminas has none. I hope to make substantive comments in a day or two. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But two things: (a) In "Daughters", the sentence "In addition, the Synodik of Liubech mentions Lithuanian duke Gomantas (Гамант), who most probably is identical to supposed Gediminas' father Skomantas, or Skalmantas, and Gomantas' daughter Elena, who was married to Andrei Mstislavich of Kozelsk,[29] so it is very likely that Andrei of Kozelsk indeed was Gediminas' brother-in-law." is difficult to read. Does "most probably is identical to" mean "likely refers to"? (b) In "Sons", please clarify the sentence "There are rumors that Narimantas married a Tatar princess, but they lack sources.[19]" - rumors? like today between historians, or like 13th century rumors between medival loudmouths? --maclean 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Archimedes

[edit]

self-nom This is currently a Good Article, and has been through Peer Review. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These minor stylistic fixes needed:
  • Some hyphens in reference titles should be en dashes
  • I think some image captions are missing full-stops at the end. They seem to be complete sentences.
  • "Μη μου τους κύκλους τάραττε - Do not disturb my circles" - en dash needed rather than hyphen
  • "300 degrees Celsius (572 degrees Fahrenheit)," - degrees Fahrenheit should be abbreviated
  • Some dates ranges have hyphens rather than en dashes. Epbr123 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)  Done (all)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see below for some issues I saw. Karanacs 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you for fixing these issues. Karanacs 02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citations for the following assertions:
      • "Archimedes used his correspondence with the scholars in Alexandria as a way of making his results known."
      • Archimedes' last words
      • Rene Descartes rejecting the Archimedes death ray story
      • several paragraphs in legacy section
    • In the inventions section, I would move the information about the Archimedes' Screw to the paragraph where you speak about the Syracusia.
    • There is a red link for Siege of Syracuse in the body of the article, but it is fine in the lead. I meant that the link should be changed to a blue link like the lead, but this is okay, I guess. Karanacs 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd make the death ray paragraphs into a separate subsection in this section; there is a lot of information about it
    • Can the external links section be trimmed? This is very long.  Done (all)

Karanacs 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I have tried to avoid overdoing the inline citations as virtually every statement in the article can be checked through the citations, wikilinks and external links that are already given. Archimedes published many of his results as letters to Dositheus, this is uncontroversial as stated in the article. The objection of Descartes to the death ray is addressed at [6]. The redlink for the Siege of Syracuse has been fixed. I'm not sure if the external links section is too long as it is designed to give a good range of links to explore, and in my view is not excessive. I'll have a look at some of the paragraph issues raised. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of inline citations is for increased verifiability. When you are representing someone as having a particular opinion, you absolutely need to provide an inline citation for that. You never know if someone in the future is going to further trim the list of external links or remove information from other articles and then people wishing to verify facts in the article would not be able to do so. It is also against wiki policy to use another wikipedia article as a source; relying on someone to follow a wikilink to verify a fact has the same problem. Even facts that are uncontroversial can be unfamiliar to readers who might want to verify them. I strongly encourage you to add the inline citations for the issues I raised. Karanacs 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed; the Writings section needs a lot of cleanup. See WP:ITALICS and WP:LAYOUT on the placement of see also and main templates at the top of the section. Direct quotes need to be sourced. Publishers are not identified on all of the sources; some of them appear to be personal websites, unclear. External links need pruning per WP:EL,WP:RS, WP:NOT. Centuries and solo years need not be linked. Please delink common words known to most English speakers per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT; they make it harder to get through the text and dilute the high-value links, examples only: flammable, plywood, cart, gear, there are many more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    • I've made a sample edit to demonstrate the incorrect use of the main template (those articles can be directly linked) per WP:LAYOUT; there was one I couldn't fix because the title wasn't the same, so I left it to you. I'm still not sure why part of one of the quotes is italicized (pls see WP:ITALICS). The missing publishers mostly appear to be www.mlahanas.de , which is Lahanas personal website, and which specifically says: "The content of the site www.mlahanas.de is provided 'as is' and without any guarantee of suitability or marketability for a specific purpose or any other entailed guarantee." and so on[7] (doesn't inspire as to WP:RS). There's also a missing publisher on http://cnx.org/aboutus/ (which appears to be some sort of Wiki?). MathWorld also looks like some sort of anyone-can-contribute Wiki, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/ Hopefully you can replace all of those with published, reliable sources. The reliability of sources is a big one, per 1c; unless you can resource those items or establish reliability for those sources, I'll have to switch to oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my oppose, since all of my objections have been addressed, but I hope others knowledgeable of Archimedes' work will examine the sourcing as well. I'm still concerned at the number of personal websites used, even though these websites are often to University professors. Peer-reviewed, scholarly or hard print sources would be preferable to Dr. Joe Bloe's personal university webpage, but others may agree the info cited to those pages is not controversial or that those sources are acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for striking the oppose. I have tried to avoid overciting university websites, but they do at least meet WP:RS. As Wikipedia is an online rather than a print encyclopedia, the references can be checked immediately, rather than an obscure academic book that most people would never buy or read (some academic books are very expensive). The references have also been chosen for ease of understanding. For example, the pulleys reference at [8] was given because it has clear diagrams showing how mechanical advantage is obtained through pulleys. Fortunately Archimedes is an uncontroversial subject and anyone with access to Google or the local library can see that there is little wrong with the factual statements in the article. Incidentally, there are surprisingly few books about Archimedes in print in 2007, and those that are can be found in the Further Reading section. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment on all the above. Karanacs has raised some useful questions about citation, although most of this is from Boyer, as is now indicated; his suggestions for rearrangement should be considered. If the deathray is consolidated into one area, that can be followed by one footnote listing all the sources that apply only to it, which would be a service to the reader. Eubulides' enthusiasm is noted; this is a good article, but not beyond improvement. The rest of this deals neither with substance or with the writing. None of these "defects" impair the reader's appreciation of the article; fixing all of them would not change it from a good to a great article. Furthermore, referring to an entire guideline, and expecting the nominator to read your mind as to what part of it you think applies, is not helpful to anybody; it does not surprise me that Ian seems somewhat lost in the jargon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Substantive comment De Re Publica is a dialogue; it is explicitly set more than a century before Cicero's time. The "man named Gallus" is the astronomer Gaius Sulpicius Gallus. Please rephrase. (And while you're doing so, do add the standard form of reference 1.21, which you can deduce from Latin Library.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, which chapter of the Synagoge contains "give me a place to stand..."?
  • Greek should have accents, and eureka should have a rough breathing (it is possible to leave them out, but if so, kinaso should be treated the same way."
  • The accuracy in the average is not the remarkable thing about Archimedes' roots; that simply means that the upper and lower bounds were approximately of the same order (not surprising, if he was, as is most likely, using the continued fraction). The remarkable thing is that the errors all had the correct sign to be rigorous bounds; see Petr Beckmann's Pi.
  • Did you consult Tzetzes yourself? If not, you should cite whatever source you actually used (Boyer?), "citing Tzetzes Chiliades, II.35,105." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The force of myriad as "uncountable" is not "infinite" but "indefinitely many". (And it's not exactly the same Greek word as the number, either.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have done my best to address the points raised above. Common words have been delinked and the external links section pruned considerably. Nearly all of the references are from academic websites and the publishers are given in the cite web templates. The only personal website used as a reference is the site of Michael Lahanas, which is very well researched. I was puzzled about the italics and "see also" points, as they seemed OK to me. The Tzetzes reference is from T. L. Heath, and I have been unable to get beyond the reference for the Pappus quote already given. I removed some of the section about Archimedes' roots, and rewrote the part about the myriad. People have commented on the spelling of the Greek language quotes before, but as I am not an expert here it is better for them to be tackled by someone who is. The article avoids implying that Cicero was a contemporary of Archimedes. Thanks for pointing out that Gallus was Gaius Sulpicius Gallus. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hopefully fixed all of the points raised today. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sense an overuse of contains, having just searched for one. Please check to be sure that all of them are the right word (for example, to say that De re publica merely contains a fictitious conversation is misleading; except for small prefaces, it is the conversation), and whether some of them can be varied. It is all too easy to fall into a mannerism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Reply I have reduced the use of the word "contains". It now appears only once in the article. On a different note, can anyone help with this text from Cicero describing the planetarium that Archimedes is said to have built:


Which globe did Gallus demonstrate in this extract from De re publica? My interpretation is that it is not the one built by Archimedes in the Temple of Virtue. Did Archimedes build the globe demonstrated by Gallus, or was it built by someone else? ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Loeb translation says clearly that there are two, both by Archimedes; one carried off by Marcellus for himself,which Gallus showed to Philus at the home of Marcellus' grandson; the other, more famous, which Marcellus consecrated to Virtue. Eudoxus and Aratus are responsible for the design of an orrery, but not for these. I will see if the Latin differs when I have time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Not a full review, but some suggestions. I think the lead can be further improved (see WP:LEAD), especially that second paragraph. It may be worth expanding a little more, too. Under "Biography," that second paragraph could probably use another in-line citation, as well as the paragraph beginning with "The tomb of Archimedes..." The part later about the "Death Ray" ends with several citations, following a few long sentences without any citations at all. Can you spread the wealth here, so to speak? The Mathematics section could definitely use more citations. Same thing with the first half of "Writings" - On Conoids and Spheroids starts with an incomplete sentence: "A work in 32 propositions addressed to Dositheus." I wonder if the "Legacy" section should use bullets? Otherwise, it might be worth combining into one or two paragraphs rather than short single-sentences 'graphs. The note, "When not listed above, consult Carl Benjamin Boyer..." would prevent me from supporting this as FA. That kind of vague sourcing doesn't cut it for me, especially because it can't be fully guaranteed - who knows what other editors may add in the future? Other than those points, though, this is a decent article. If these comments are addressed and I'll give Archimedes a support vote. --Midnightdreary 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hopefully tackled the points raised here. I compressed the Legacy section but found that it became unclear, so left the items it contains in separate paragraphs. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I opened the image it had a tag saying it was missing source information. The burden is on the uploader or user to provide source information, and then remove the tag. Now that that's taken care of (thanks!), I'll strike my objection. Jeff Dahl 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, why not use the high res images they provide? Jeff Dahl 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've added a larger version of the Fields Medal which can be found at [9]. I was surprised by the comment that the image was incorrectly tagged, since it has been credited to the IMU for some time, and is public domain as long as an acknowledgement is given. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes changed to Support as requested by nominator Leranedo 07:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found it exceptionally informative and will keep it for the future.
  • Extraordinary significant subject matter.
  • Try to add more internal links.
  • Add more to External links. There are a great deal of quality sites out there. Leranedo 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for your support (the change from "yes" to "support" was requested just in case there was any confusion). --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

2007 UEFA Champions League Final

[edit]

The article has undergone a massive transformation recently, and after passing for Good Article status, I feel it is ready to be a Featured Article. NapHit 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Buc

Comment Nothing about Craig Bellamy's golf club celebration or the ref blowing for full time early. There are two sections titled "Route to the final". Ref #6 not dated, ref #23 not entered right and why are some dates are in brackets and some not? "causing the problems, stating that "Milan supporters" "that" is redundant and put a comma before the quote. "UEFA was further chastised by the clubs for their lack of provision for their disabled fans, only providing them with sixteen disabled tickets each" chastised? is that what you meant? and move "only" to after "with" or remove it altogether. "The second leg in Belgrade was won by Milan 2–1" move "2-1" to after "won". "knock-down" why the hyphen? "he was brought down by Lucio." I think "Lucio brought him down." would be better. "Kaká was put through by Seedorf." I think "Seedorf put through Kaká." would be better. "Argentinian" spelling. "Crouch scissor kicked Finnan's cross home." sounds a bit passive. "widely-reported" why the hyphen? "The next penalties were scored by Xabi Alonso, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard" I think "Xabi Alonso, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard scored next penalties" is better. "hastily-constructed" another hyphen, why?

Buc 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments I have addressed all the problems you mentioned, more comments would be helpful NapHit 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do I get one of my articles to "Godd" status? Isn't FA a stepdown from God status? (tongue in cheek) — BQZip01 — talk 05:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about the final, yet there is a substantial section on the "route to the final", I would say disproportionately so. I agree that background and context is necessary, but we should also remember what the article is about. --Jameboy 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article is like that is because there is more information on the route to the final then the final itself, but in light of this, I will try and expand the final section a bit more NapHit 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Be consistent throughout with A.C. Milan or AC Milan.
  • Not sure about the flow from title wins to ticket problems in the second para of the lead.
  • Before saying "only 9,000 tickets", context by saying something like "Out of x thousand..., only..."
  • In the problems section, you could wikilink both UEFA and Olympic Stadium.
  • "...closed the ground..."? Surely just closed entrances/turnstiles?
  • "...providing them with sixteen disabled tickets each..." - would state "only sixteen..." (or similar), to emphasise that it was inadequate.
  • "...Lille of France..." sounds a bit weird to me, I'd prefer "French club Lille...", similar for Anderlecht.
  • "Liverpool won the match 2–0, thanks to goals from Peter Crouch and Steven Gerrard; to ensure they finished top of Group C.[35]" - strange semi-colon separation.
  • "Bellamy celebrated by playing an imaginary golf shot, a reference to an incident at the team's Algarve hotel a week before the match, after Bellamy brandished a golf club at Riise.[37] Then on 74 minutes, Liverpool went ahead after Riise scored. Both Liverpool scorers were involved in a widely reported incident at their training camp the previous week.[38]" - these appear out of order...
  • "...night was soured late on..." - bit PoV.
  • Not sure the second and third paras of Post-match really relate to post-match. They more relate to statistics or something similar...
  • Why the See also section when the article in question is already wikilinked in the lead.

That's about all I have right now. Hope it helps! The Rambling Man 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've dealt with these suggestions, more would be welcome NapHit 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

  • Lead: Stub about ticketing problems (remove "some") seems unimportant, unless you can wind it in more smoothly. Remove or substitue with more info on another aspect? Is "semi final" one word? Surely. (2a)
  • While on that, is "Problems before the match" best at the top? I'd have thought further down, so that it starts with "Route to the final".
  • What is "2007-1 long shot"?
  • We have "9th" but "eleventh". Reverse them: the boundary is normally nine/10. Tony (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything except the eleventh bit, because I cannot find it in the text NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Buc

Comment

  • "UEFA was further chastised by the clubs for their lack of provision for their disabled fans, providing them with only sixteen disabled tickets each." sounds a bit passive.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaká had been brought down by Alonso." I think "Alonso had brought down Kaká." would be beter.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some ref have links followed by quotes? Are they quotes from the link?
Yes I think they are quotes from the links
So what the point of them? Aren't the links there for people to read? Buc 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed NapHit 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the match there were some ticketing problems." "some" is redundant.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no tickets at all." "at all" is redundant and I think "without tickets" would be better anyway.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milan and Liverpool are amongst the three most successful teams in Europe in terms of European Cup titles, with seven and five titles respectively." should this really be in the lead?
removed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how much there is about the teams' route to the final I think there should be more about this in the lead.
added more NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text in the "Statistics" really has nothing to do with the match.
removed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the "Match details" section really the match statistics?

Not really I don't think the line up can really be classed as statistic, although I can change the statistics bit to a sub-heading if needs be NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing about the Opening ceremony.
no sources available for this NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could mean the article fails 1b. But since I don't know of a current FA about an event with opening ceremony I'm not sure if it would be required. Buc 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a reliable source for info on the opening ceremony so I will have to leave it out NapHit 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no free use image of Milan lifting the trophy? Just a suggestion, this wouldn't be required for it to become a FA.
not that I am aware of NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #11 date not in brackets all the rest are, need to be consistent.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either "semi final" or "semi-final" not both. Same with quarter final.
fixed NapHit 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure Yahoo! Answers is a realiable source.

Buc 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed section NapHit 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that an image of Milan lifting the trophy would be good. Is it just my browser? but the stadium image is overlapping the team stuff. Otherwise i support, all little problems seem to have been fixed. Woodym555 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the stadium picture problem more comments are welcome NapHit 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support a lot of good work has been put it. I'm still not happy with "This is due to the kit being their lucky kit (Italian: maglia fortunata), having won the European Cup/Champions League in this kit in five out of their six final wins. However, they have lost finals in this kit twice, most recently against Liverpool in 2005." - poor English. Also, I'm not sure the match ball deserves a whole section, least of all after the match summary, it'd be best of incorporated higher up I think. But good work. The Rambling Man 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sentence and moved the match ball section further up more comments are welcome NapHit 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support looks like it's almost perfect now. Still some problems with the ref though. #39 isn't dated and some date are in brackets while some aren't. I also noticed a handful of other minor things. In the lead it says "the match the of". "Filippo Inzaghi scored on his 33rd birthday." sounds linke triva. The table at the end of the "Route to the final" section doesn't have a title. Buc 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the minor problems thanks for the comments more are welcome NapHit 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is called "2007 UEFA Champions League Final", yet more than half of the text doesn't deal with the actual topic, but with the "Route to the final"; this is entirely unacceptable. Also, the article fails to offer much information beyond what happened on the pitch (besides the tickets controversy) - there is no real analysis of the game, the referee is only mentioned in the statistics, no information on the international media coverage or the winner's celebrations. I would also expect a bit more information on the stadium and events surrounding the final in Athens. EnemyOfTheState 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello! You mind telling me what the heck UEFA stands for in the lead without me having to click on the links to find out? Already a bad start. You should introduce what UEFA stands for in the lead.
UEFA is the most common form, it is what the clubs, journalists and fans use. The wikilink is there for a reason. I have never heard anyone use "Union Européenne de Football Association" or even "Union of European Football Associations" for that matter. Woodym555 16:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that why you make a note: Union of European Football Associations (commonly referred to as UEFA), just like in other articles. Now we know what it stands for throughout the article when it stated UEFA. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess put it in brackets wouldn't do any harm. But what does "No" mean? Buc 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote only yes or no, whether it be weak or strong. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the Route to the final should go, though it does fit somewhat into the article. It's history and can be integrated into a separate History of the UEFA Champions League article or whatever you like to name it.
  • It only has GA status? Why? Can't it make A status first before trying to jump the gun to FA status? Leranedo 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no formal A-Class review process for the WP:FOOTY project. As such "A" is entirely subjective and is up to an individual reviewer. Even so, one could take an article from B straight to FA if you wanted. It has no bearing on this FAC. Woodym555 16:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any rating is subjective, including mines. And yes you could, but I believe it should be a factor. Changed to yes as I have no major concerns regarding this article besides the UEFA issue mentioned above.
    • Keep in mind that any article on wikipedia is first and foremost for the reader. Just because you or I are familiar with the subject matter doesn't mean the readers are. Leranedo 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Buildings and architecture of Bristol

[edit]

This article describes 1000 years of architecture within the British city of Bristol, and illustrates it with examples of notable buildings, supported by suitable images. It achieved GA status in June and has had a peer review by Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture form which issues raised have been addressed. Within the last month it has also been copyedited by two users not otherwise involved in writing the article. Although I have written much of the article it has been a collaborative effort and, I believe, it is now comprehensive, neutral, well written and supported by extensive citations - meeting the FA criteria. — Rod talk 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please see the instructions at WP:FAC and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support 1b. I'd asked at peer review for research and a mention of the slave trade and how it related to Bristol architecture (it was a wealth creator at the very least) this hasn't been done. Bristol and Liverpool were the two most significant British ports of the slave triangle as evidenced here and this article shouldn't duck that. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • Response Thanks - I've now tried to address this in the Stuart & Georgian architecture sections - although there appears to be little naming specific buildings with links to the trade. Although I would argue the buildings themselves are not political, I agree their construction needs to be put in historical and social context, therefore I have tried to do this in a balanced way with comment about the merchants who profited from the slave trade and the abolitionists who were also active in the city. Perhaps you would take another look and see if this meets your concerns?— Rod talk 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Factual, and well-researched, although I've seen articles with more sources opposed; but still less than compelling writing. The first paragraph is: Bristol is the largest city in South West England. It has an eclectic mix of architectural styles reflecting medievalism, industrialism, war-time destruction, and 20th century regeneration. First, this is one sentence, cut in half like the magician's lady; second, what exactly does reflecting medievalism mean? For that matter, does medievalism mean fourteenth century remains, or does it mean Pugin?
  • We do not need to incorporate the History of Bristol into this article; and what we do include, we should make clear. Say that Bristol Castle was destroyed at Cromwell's order; don't make the reader deduce it. (And if he ordered the destruction in 1656, what does that have to do with the Royalist occupation, more than a decade earlier? ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: A couple of fair points I suppose. I've taken it upon myself to change the lead slightly; "reflecting" does perhaps seem a bit strange. As for what medievalism means, surely following the wikilink makes that clear? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I've also taken it upon myself to remove the link between the Royalist occupation of the castle and Cromwell's ordering of its destruction. It seemed tenuous, and anyway, as you say, it's history, not relevant to the subject of this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment amounting to weak support. I'm still not sure that Bristol Castle and the local abolitionist movement fit perfectly into this article, but there's more duct tape and piano wire holding them on now. In the long run, Defences of Bristol may work better. But this is now a matter of slightly differing editorial judgment, not something that would be an embarassment on the front page, which is our de facto standard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the reference to Robert Southey under this head. The claim about the busts in Bristol Cathedral implies two assertions:
      • That his bust is in the Cathedral (itself unsourced, but probable)
      • That it is there to commemorate his abolitionism, which ODNB does not even mention.
    I will welcome this back with a source for both assertions; but now it has neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have added Southey back in with the addition of a reference from the BBC which covers both claims see "In the footsteps of Bristol's abolitionists". BBC Bristol. Retrieved 2007-10-17. which in section 2 says "Memorials to several people pertinent to the abolition cause can be found in Bristol Cathedral, including a bust of Robert Southey." I hope this meets the needs?— Rod talk 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Leranedo 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only vote yes or no, whether it be weak or strong. While the article reads acceptably, though a bit too dry, dull, and minutia-ridden for my taste (though I'm sure others would appreciate it), if this GA status article can be featured on the Today's Featured Articles, then I can see no significant enough reason to maybe vote yes. I would like to see more images if possible, especially since this is an architecture-related article, it would be helpful. External links to obtain more information is crucial, perhaps a few to images?
  • Some sections of the article does not flow smoothly. Consider: "Bristol occupies a strategic position between two rivers. The city was defended in medieval times by..." It's too sudden of a shift and should be re-worded. The article needs to stay focus on Bristol architecture and not lead/introduce the section with "Bristol occupies a strategic position between two rivers." That's geographical in nature. Focus on the architecture.
Response: I've removed the reference to Bristol's position between two rivers, as I agree that it added very little to the subject of this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having dates in the Contents would also be nice as this allows readers to quickly select sections based on whichever era they are interested in. The article s not complete enough, though getting there, considering that the scope is a span of 1000 years. Leranedo 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have added approximate dates to the section titles so that they appear in the contents list. If I add any more pictures this is likely to "squeeze" the text which is criticised in the manual of style. I don't quite understand the comment about GA articles appearing as Today's Featured Articles, I thought only FA articles could appear in this way?— Rod talk 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind that comment. I was mistaken. Changed to yes, but it still needs content-decision improvements, among others. Leranedo 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Wihtred of Kent

[edit]

Anglo-Saxon king of Kent. FAs of contemporaries include Ine of Wessex and Æthelbald of Mercia; FAs of other kings of Kent include Æthelberht of Kent and Eadbald of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would make the lead a single paragraph, opposed to 2 small paragraphs and 1 sentence. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

  • "Bede's correspondent on Kentish affairs was Albinus, and these views can almost certainly be ascribed to the church in Canterbury." Can you explain or wikilink Albinus?
  • "It was also in 694 that Wihtred made peace with the West Saxon king Ine, which he achieved by paying compensation for the killing of Caedwalla's brother, Mul, in 687" I don't quite follow why Ine was fueding with Wihtred over Mul, as it happened pre-Wihtred? Could you make it a little clearer?
  • Could the Laws section give some idea if Wihtred's laws had a lasting influence?
  • Succession is a bit sparse, although I'm guessing that's due to lack of information. Perhaps a comment about Mercian dominance?

J.Winklethorpe talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with each of these except the third; I don't believe there was a great deal of influence but I don't know how to cite the negative. What I could do is mention the most famous use of laws in Anglo-Saxon history, which is that Alfred the Great makes explicit reference to Ine of Wessex's laws and Aethelberht of Kent's laws, but not to the other two Kentish codes, Wihtred's and those of Hlothhere and Eadric. This would be a reference in the negative, so my inclination is not to add it, but let me know what you think. I've been able to find a few sentences placing them in context historically, for example this: "In the days of Wihtred and Ine in the seventh century such laws were of limited application geographically, but by the time of Aethelred the Unready their scope had become national . . . For some five centuries the laws of kings were in fact normally approved and sanctioned by the king's councillors and such long-continuing practice cannot have failed to enhance the authority of the king's council." This gives some historical context, but only to say that they can be placed in that context, not to give them any influence. Is this worth citing? Mike Christie (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment on the succession: yes, there's not much information known. I could put in some details on just what the conflicting evidence is that makes the chronology after Wihtred's death so difficult, but that's not really to do with Wihtred. It seemed simpler just to be concise, and leave those details to the articles on his sons. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was just stretching around trying to think of areas for expansion. It doesn't sound like the extra info you have is relevant to Wihtred, so I'd say to leave it as is. Anyway, another great article (and, um, just how many more of these kings are there?). Support. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think I'm running out of easy targets. The remaining ones have either almost nothing known about them (e.g. Ceol of Wessex), or the articles out there are in fair shape already (e.g. Anna of East Anglia or Aethelwulf of Wessex). One editor's done a pretty good pass at the East Anglian kings, and another has quite a bit of work on the Northumbrians. I've been trying to focus on kings whose articles were stubs, since that way gives the most benefit to the encyclopedia. There are a couple more stubs, at least -- I've been eyeing Wiglaf of Mercia for example. After that I may have to start working on the start-class ones. Overall there are at least a hundred of these guys, but no more than thirty or forty are major. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellently written as always. Karanacs 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely written and, apparently, nicely cited. The only addition I was going to suggest was something about his wives, but I have added it myself now. I'm not sure how to add the citation of Kelly's DNB entry to the 'References' section at the bottom, but will endeavour to find out when I have time.Ycdkwm 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Charlie Macartney

[edit]

This GA is a comprehensive account of one of the most colourful and decorated cricketers of Australia's inter-war period. All the match details and a thorough description of his unique style. Has been copyedited by a famous copyeditor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - I fised the last two points. In general, I would put the style towards the end, but in the case of famous stylists like Trumper/Macartney/Kippax, it would be more appropriate IMHO to put this first, as the reason why they are so well remembered is their grace and style, rather than sheer weight of run scoring. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

[edit]

Nominating for Featured Article status. This article has been relatively stable with only minor edits for a few months now. All images have a detailed fair use rationale explaining why they are appropriate in the article. The article itself has citations to (60) different sources. The article has had a peer review, was then listed as a Good Article, and then had a second peer review, and it looks like the prior editors had worked on implementing those older suggestions from the article history processes. It is my belief that Trapped in the Closet (South Park) meets the featured article criteria. Cirt 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  1. The plot summary is overlong as discussed above and should be reduced in length accordingly.
  2. The information on the production of the episode is limited to the short inspiration section - could this be expanded further?
  3. The use of episode numbering in the lead may be confusing to the casual reader. Perhaps naming the episode as being the twelfth in the ninth season would be more appropriate.
  4. Perhaps the {{cite episode}} template could be employed here as the primary source for much of the content of the article is the episode itself particularly for the plot summary.
  5. The to do list for the article lists a number of tasks - I can see that the article is described as stable by the nominator but is there extensive work planned?
--Opark 77 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing some points from above
  •  Done -- Shortened plot summary -- Myself and User:Scorpion0422 have made some recent edits to shorten the plot summary. As suggested by User:Opark 77.
  •  Done -- Shortened the lead -- Again, same two users have shortened the lead, and cut it down to three paragraphs, as suggested by User:Bignole.
  •  Done -- One sentence paragraphs -- I combined a couple of one sentence paragraphs into other more comprehensive paragraphs. Suggestion from User:Casliber.
  •  Done -- Production of the episode -- Reading through the discussion pages, it looks like Michaelas10 (talk · contribs) (since left Wikipedia) had tried to find more sources on the production of this particular episode itself, and had worked hard to come up with what is there already. Comment from User:Opark 77, above.
  •  Done -- To do list on the talk page -- I took the liberty of crossing out some of the recently completed objectives on the to do list. The only ones that remain are relatively minor, and will not materially change the article, so to answer your question, yes, I would imagine that save edits to improve the article coming right now from out of this Featured Article discussion, the article will continue to remain pretty stable. As per the above comment on this by User:Opark 77.
  •  Done -- Numbering of episode in lead -- Changed this to "twelfth episode of the ninth season" -- Direct suggestion, above, of User:Opark 77 (Thanks, this sounds better.)

I hope that this addresses some of the points suggested from above. Thank you all for your helpful suggestions. Hopefully after these edits we can continue to move the article along to WP:FA status soon. Cirt 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment - A third party copy editor needs to be found for the article. I was scanning over structure and I noticed lots of misused commas with quotation marks. See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE. Basically, if it is a sentence fragment you are quoting, then the punctuation is on the outside. If it is a complete sentence, then it is on the inside. Also, if you say something like: John stated "blah blah balh"-- then you need a comma after "stated". This: "In a different review of the DVD" is not necessary. If you had two different IGN reviews, then it would be appropriate, but it is an IGN review followed by The Denver Post, so it's obviouse that it is different. These are just things that caught my eye. There is probably more, so I'd suggest a third-party copyeditor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- Copyedits as related to quotes and commas -- In ten individual edits, I have gone through the paragraphs of the article to the best of my ability and edited those sections as per the suggestions from User:Bignole, above. These edits should be fairly easy to spot from my edit history comments, referring to this FAC. Hope that helps a bit towards the process of moving the article along towards FA status. Cirt 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral - I tried to clean up the article some myself, but I'm not perfect so I'm sure I didn't get everthing. Question, I found this--""Trapped in the Closet" was nominated for an Emmy in July. The network showed its appreciation by running a full-page ad in Variety with the "South Park" boys saying, "C'mon, Jews! Show them who really runs Hollywood." The episode has been rerun many times since.</ref>"--in the article. It seems like it is meant to be seen by the reader, but in fact it's part of a footnote. Was that the intention, or did someone mess up the coding by accident?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like that is correct as it is - it looks like it is supposed to be part of the citation, quoting from the cited article for those who would be interested to check. But if it is confusing we can just remove it from the citation, and just leave the citation itself. Cirt 05:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - as per nom--Swellman 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Second Ostend Raid

[edit]

An article I've been working on for a short while. Has passed GA and had a Wikiproject peer review. I believe this to be fully referenced, accurate and well written and thus a good candidate for an FA. Let me know what you think, any comments will be appreciated. Jackyd101 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your change, but I would contend that for the war's duration is factually accurate and not inappropriately dramatic given the importance of the six months in question. In addition, which part of the article do you believe to be factually inaccurate? Bruges was indeed captured by the Allies at some point during the Hundred Days Offensive but I was unable to find a date. The article does not contradict this, and I think that the only mention of the war's end is when the article states that the larger German warships were trapped in the harbour until the end of the war. This is true, since the ships were trapped no matter who actually controlled the harbour. Did you have any other concerns?--Jackyd101 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion is at least misleading; but you will note that my comment is not an oppose. Are you citing Perrett for this point also? If so, what are his words? If not, how do you know that they were trapped and not destroyed? IIRC The Germans scuttled much of their fleet in the last days of the war; and the Allies may well have sunk some as a precaution against a change of fortune. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be an oppose, but it isn't a support either and I'd like to see if I can get it there. Perrett's exact words are "Those ocean going U-boats and destroyers caught in Bruges at the time of the raid remained there for the remainder of the war." None of the books I consulted made any mention of the state of these ships at the war's conclusion. It is unlikely that they were undamaged, but that is supposition and its also worth noting that the German's did not (as far as I am aware) scuttle any of their warships until 21st June 1919, and that Bruges cannot have fallen before the very final days of the war and that the rapidity in the collapse of the Bruges defences may have taken the town by surprise. However in all honesty I have not found any information either way on this issue.--Jackyd101 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruges fell about 19 October 1918. The King and Queen of the Belgians visited it on 25 October 1918. I hope this helps. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, that does help. How are the changes I have made?--Jackyd101 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked slightly. If that's all Perrott says, he could be counting the war as ending, for Bruges, either in October or November. But since I was chiefly curious, I will support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well referenced and an accessible piece of little known WW1 history. Good work. I thought that maybe the last paragraph of the lead section might be improved a little? Perhaps it should be two paragraphs? I have added some wikilinks. LordHarris 08:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the links. How would you suggest the third paragraph of the lead be split? It could be before "Despite its failure", but why do you think this is necessary, is the lead too long as it is?--Jackyd101 08:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think the lead was too long, right length imo. I just though that the latter part of the paragraph - despite its failure + the medals part should be a new paragraph gramatically as it was concluding the introduction, where was preceded it was a paragraph highlighting the failures. LordHarris 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll see what that looks like and move it if it works. Thankyou--Jackyd101 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Splendid Fairy-wren

[edit]

I am nominating Splendid Fairy-wren at FAC.. I developed this at the same time as Superb Fairy-wren, and was going to leave it but some very generous birdwatchers donated some terrific photos with characteristic behaviours. I believe it fulifils criteria WRT prose, formatting, refs and comprehensiveness. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Thanks for the support. I'm trying to judiciously handpick some quality links. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I just gave the page a thourough copyedit and believe that it still has a few problems with the prose and possible confusions. For example:

"is a wide-ranging fairy-wren found from western New South Wales across to Western Australia."
don't like how its worded (changed - how's that - feel free to tweak) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus in 1975, the first three forms below were sunk into Malurus splendens."
Sunk? Isn't there a better term? (yes, was a bit casual ---> done) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A clutch of two to four matt white eggs..."
What is matt? (=dull/lustreless) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I plugged in a cite needed tag under Distribution. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(well spotted - I'd forgotten the ref -done) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to address any other concerns. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article another copyedit. A few quick and easy possible changes stood out to me. First, in the subspecies, could you list the describer's full name and link him? And who described emmottorum? In the Distribution section, do you want to refer to the subspecies by the subspecific name instead of the subspecies's common name? Up to you, but may cause a casual reader some confusion. And under Courtship, what are conspecifics? I'm assuming the female wren, but you may wish to clarify this. Other than that, I think it looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done all I can at the moment - material on emmottorum is tricky to come by and I have expanded as much has I can presently.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Thanks for adressing my concerns. However, you did miss Matthews in the M. s. musgravei section (no first name). (Oops, you did this while typing this bit up). Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support under the assumption my objections are addressed:
    • There are no references in lead section. People who use the lead to get a general idea on the subject, which is why articles are written in summary style, should be able to get their references without scouring the rest of the article.
(tricky this - I reffed the two most unusual statements -everything else is fairly mundane. Wasn't sure if a lead peppered with refs was necessarily good either. I am happy to slot a couple more in if you want.)
 Done Reffing the unusual suspects is fine. Just make sure the rest of them are referenced elsewhere in the piece. - Mgm|(talk) 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Females while incubating emit a purr. "While incubating" either needs to be enclosed in commas, as it is a clause, or be moved to the end of the sentence. Also, to me as non-expert incubating is a vague term. Incubating what? Do you mean breeding?
 Done(OK - changed to "Females emit a purr while brooding." - could also go with "Brooding females emit a purr." but that seems just a little too perfunctory somehow.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done"Groups of two to eight Splendid Fairy-wrens remain in and defend their territories year-round." Since you describe them as monogamous, I'm assuming grouped birds have 1 territory. Also, "remain in and defend their" is a somewhat odd construction. I suggest using: "Groups of two to eight Splendid Fairy-wrens remain in their territory and defend it year-round." (like it. done)
    • Do the birds show a preference for taking petals of any particular species of flower instead of just the color? (unknown - only colour recorded to date - was wondering that myself)
    • I had a little trouble picturing the nest in my mind. Can someone obtain an image? (I'll try looking)
      •  Not done Feel free to alter the template once one is found. An image would be the icing on the cake, but I'm not going to oppose one missing image that might be hard to get. - Mgm|(talk) 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A study conducted on a population of Black-backed Fairy-wrens has shown them to be socially monogamous and sexually promiscuous, meaning that although they form pairs between one male and one female, each partner will mate with other individuals and even assist in raising the young from such pairings. In this case over a third of offspring were the result of these matings.[49]" Why mention Black-backed wrens? Repeat of earlier info. The monogamous and promiscuous comment is a repeat from earlier and I don't see the link to the Splendid Fairy-wren. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done(Good spot - the Black-backed is a subspecies of the splendid - forgot to change that. And I've melded the two passages together.)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if all OK (apart from nest photo - will cross figners on that one) now MGM :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Beyond Fantasy Fiction

[edit]

Passed GA. This would be one of the shortest FAs, but I believe it's as thorough as it can be, given the sources available. A recent FA on a similar magazine is Fantastic Universe. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any lower size limit for FAs, so I'm not sure how to respond to the first point, except to say I don't think it's a valid FA criterion. For critical reception, here's an edited version of my response to the same question for Fantastic Universe: It would be interesting to get a sense of current opinions of the magazine amongst sf readership, but I don't think there will be any contemporary sources for this that could be cited. At that time it wasn't usual for review columns in magazines to review other magazines, and I would think that Beyond Fantasy Fiction received no critical attention outside the field of sf. There are probably passing comments in fanzines, but in addition to being impossible for another editor to verify, any quotes from fanzines are the opinions of the editor, and I don't think would be reliable sources for overall critical reception. The best sources for the relative critical importance of sf magazines tend to be survey works written by researchers, and memoirs (etc.) of writers who were closely involved. I've included Tuck's opinion on the magazine's quality. As for memoirs, I've looked through what I have and found nothing of interest. It wasn't one of the major mags, so memoirs tend to ignore it in favour of Astounding, F&SF, Galaxy, and If.
For the last point, "not comprehensive", is there anything other than critical reception that you feel is missing? I think the article is in fact quite comprehensive, as there's not a great deal to say about the magazine. The article is much longer than the corresponding entry in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF, which is the standard SF reference. Mike Christie (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read my oppose comments together, not seperately. The article is not comprehensive because its less than 10kB and no Reception section. A short Reception section is enough, if the section is well-written, well-referenced and all the FA criteria. A few comment below about references you did not use. --Kaypoh 12:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at pulling a separate reception section out of the existing material; I'm not sure there's enough material to justify a new section split but I'll think about it. If I understand you, though, you're saying that that's the problem; that there needs to be more information on critical reception and that if there were, the reception section would be large enough to be justified, and hence the size problem would go away. The problem is that I don't think there is much more to be found on the magazine's reputation, particularly if we're looking for contemporary reception.
On your comment "A few comment below about references you did not use": yes, I was unaware of those, so it's certainly possible there's further material out there I haven't found yet. But in my defence I would like to point out that none of the additional material related to contemporary reception. One was a historical work by Michael Ashley; I had quoted from another of his books, but this one had a little extra material I was able to use. Another was a short memoir by James Gunn which turned out not to have anything usable; it simply mentioned the magazine in passing. The third was an account of awards given in 2004 at the SF Worldcon; no stories from Beyond actually won awards, but two were nominated so I was able to support the inclusion of those stories in the "notable stories" list by reference to the list of nominees.
I'll keep an eye out for more sources, and see what I can find, but I'm afraid I'm not very hopeful. Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says reception must be contemporary? --Kaypoh 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did find one more source; a newsgroup post prompted me to dig through my 1963 magazines to find reviews of the anthology drawn from Beyond's pages, and I found some comments by Schuyler Miller in Analog that are relevant. I've added those, and also broken out the comments about the magazine into a reception section as requested. Let me know what you think now. Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the recent split, you got my support. I am not that satisfied yet with the first sentence and its source of the reception-section, though: "some very good material" vs "good quality throughout its life". That thing addressed, I'd be out of complaints ;) I'd maybe think about joining the Ashley comment to follow the first paragraph, preceding the list of notable stories and condensing the Hugo part a bit. Johnnyw talk 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've modified the sentence to match the ref; take a look. I also added Malcolm Edwards' comments from the original Nicholls Encyclopedia of SF to the footnote on Beyond being the heir of Unknown; I don't think it's worth having in the body of the article but it does support the "often cited as" statement. I moved the Ashley para up; I think it works better up there but I felt it could stay separate from the first paragraph. On the Hugos paragraph: it is a wee bit long, but it's a complicated situation to summarize concisely, and I wanted the paragraph to be quite clear. Can you think of a way to improve it? Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? "Although no Hugos were awarded in 1954, the 2004 World Science Fiction Convention awarded "Retro Hugos" for that year, where two Beyond stories appeared as runners-up: ..." I know it doesn't tell the Hugo story in full, but maybe it suffices for the Beyond article? And the other changes look fine! Johnnyw talk 18:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used a version of that -- see if you like it. What's missing is that Beyond did not win any Hugos first time round, though it was eligible in at least one year in which they were awarded. If you're OK with that not being included, I'll leave it as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see shorter FAs here and there as long as the article is comprehensive. Of course if it's possible with a little creativity to get a reception section going that would be great. I think fanzines would be fine, and your reputation would probably suffice for verification as well as good faith. Sometimes this reliable source business goes too far, and an article suffers for it. If you have seen reviews of the magazine here and there use them. FAs do differ case by case and in this case I would encourage the use of blogs, fanzines & etc when they aren't crazed. The idea behind this FA is more or less to shed light on an obscure magazine, rather than the usual concern of offering a NPOV on a popular article. I'm leaning towards support because if this article truly is comprehensive and the author has done his best then the FA star lends credibility to an article that deserves it.-BillDeanCarter 12:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, have you searched for references to Beyond Science Fiction in Google Books? 4 pages of results popped up when I did a search.-BillDeanCarter 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As well, I would create a section describing how one can find the magazine nowadays? Is a search of WorldCat the only way? Do people reprint them? IF it's difficult then say so. Is it only to be found is special collections of collectors or libraries?-BillDeanCarter 12:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the good ideas -- a quick look at Google Books gives me a little more I can add (also from Mike Ashley, but that's not surprising given the limited number of books on this topic). I will also put in something about the relative rarity of the magazine. ; it's not one of the rarer ones, but it can take a little time to get a set of ten in good condition. I'll post again here when I've made those changes -- tonight if I get time. Mike Christie (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added several additional tidbits from Mike Ashley's "Time Machines", courtesy of Google Books. I also added a note on rarity. On fanzines: unfortunately I have very few fanzines, and none from the fifties, so I can't do anything there. I hope the additional material from Ashley suffices. Mike Christie (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was a lot of critical reception for a magazine that didn't last more than 10 issues. But maybe there's something in the stuff that Johnnyw found.-BillDeanCarter 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at this link, Mike. Seems as if some of the stories published in Beyond have been nominated for a Hugo in 1953 (the very first edition of the awards). Also, in the introduction to "The Witching Hour", author James Gunn talks about Beyond. Hope that helps.. Johnnyw talk 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info based on the retro Hugo award -- there's nothing that was contemporary, but it's nice to note that the stories were honoured later on. Thanks for the link. The Gunn seems less useful; he doesn't really talk about Beyond at all; he just says he wrote a story that he thought would be published there and wasn't. So I didn't use that. Let me know what you think now. Mike Christie (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gunn also said that one of his Beyond stories (lead story, May 1954 issue) would later be recognized as a "classic" by Encyclopedia of Fantasy further down in the article I linked above.. maybe adds to the general praise.. Johnnyw talk 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me looking at that again; you're right that I hadn't fully mined it. I went back through and took a quote from Gunn about Beyond's place as a fantasy magazine; that's a nice addition because it's someone I hadn't quoted from. I also added his "Sine of the Magus" to the list of notable stories, but I reffed it to the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, since that's what Gunn is quoting; they list several more stories as classics but I think the list is long enough as it is. I should mention, though it might hurt my case, that the apparent multiplicity of sources is something of an illusion; the author of the Beyond entry in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy is Michael Ashley again. The original entry in the 1978 first edition of the Enc of SF was written by Malcolm Edwards, who I understand has one of the top magazine collections in the UK (well, now he does; he was still working on it back then), and in that edition Edwards says "Beyond was a fantasy magazine conceived in the same spirit as Unknown", which sentiment Ashley echoes in the later entry. I could re-cite this to the 1978 edition to make it clearer that this opinion is held by multiple people, if that would help show comments from multiple critics.
I've been through all the memoirs and critical works I have that seem to have a chance of mentioning Beyond (e.g. Knight, del Rey, Aldiss, Blish, Pohl, Amis); I've found a couple of slight references but nothing worth adding. I've also pinged an editor who has a good deal of background in sf criticism, and may get some leads from her; we'll see. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and 2a.
    • "in 1953–55" doesn't work; the ellipsis "the period ..." is too much. Spell it out "from ... to ... ". Why is it a short period. Kind of begs a question I'd rather the readers didn't have to query right at the opening.
    • The lead is far too short. (2a)
    • Remove dot in second caption (not a real sentence—see MOS).
    • Can you do something about the stubby paragraphs, particularly at the end of the first section? Elsewhere too.
    • MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
    • Consider removing the square brackets around the ellipsis dots. Then a different formatting is used—those ugly widely spaced ones, three then four, unspaced. Read MOS on it.

And more. Tony 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reworded the opening. Not sure how to deal with the reader's surprise at the short duration; it's explained in the second para of the lead, which says the magazine was not a commercial success. I do think the dates should be early in the lead -- it's a basic fact about the magazine.
  • I've expanded the lead; I agree it was too short. It's still quite short but it is a short article and I think more might make it top-heavy.
  • I removed it but I'd be glad of a ref; WP:CAP doesn't seem to say anything about punctuation in a caption. Or is it another page you're referring to?
  • The stubby paragraphs have been merged, I hope smoothly, with their neighbours. I deleted the note about the rarity of the magazine; I think that's ephemeral information and not encyclopedic.
  • MOS breach repaired.
  • I've switched to the &hellip; entity, which I found on WP:MOS; hadn't known about that. Very handy.
Thanks for the comments. Anything left? You say "And more"; the only one of your comments I was able to fix in multiple places was the stubby paragraphs, which I think is now cleaned up. Please let me know what else you can see -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tons. I've had a go at rewording the opening para, and now the second para (except for the reference) is kind of redundant. This suggests that you need to invent a new second para, which would make the lead more meaty. It's still too slender. Perhaps brief statements about its history and significance, being careful not to use exactly the same wording as below? Tony 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second paragraph; see what you think. You also had a comment embedded in the lead about the statement that Unknown was "noted for printing logically worked-out fantasy tales". This was intended to refer to the fact that Campbell, Unknown's editor, had "sought to ensure the fantasy elements in [Unknown] obeyed some set of laws, in effect treating the supernatural as another science." That's a quote from the Clute/Grant Encyclopedia of Fantasy from the entry on Unknown; they cross-reference to an article called "Rationalized Fantasy". An example would be Jack Williamson's Darker Than You Think, which introduces werewolves by way of a new evolutionary form of human. I didn't want an extended explanation of Unknown in the article (and certainly not in the lead) so I tried to convey this with "logically worked-out". Is there a better way to phrase this? Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about something along the lines of "stories with conclusive backdrops/settings/concepts" or "stories that gave special attention to a conclusive, well-elaborated backdrop/setting"... The "logically worked-out" isn't really satisfactory right? Hope the opposing reviews give your changes another glance and voice their opinion. Greetings! Johnnyw talk 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had another go at wording this, using the example from the encyclopedia I quoted. It now says "The publication has been described by critics as a successor to the tradition of Unknown, a fantasy magazine that folded in 1943 and was noted for printing fantasy with a rational basis, such as stories about werewolves with a scientific explanation." Is that an improvement? Thanks for the good wishes -- I did nudge Kaypoh again earlier today, but he/she's not much on Wikipedia right now and may not see the note. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support Being short doesn't prevent it being comprehensive, in my book. A few comments below.
  • Ref 9, Introduction to the Witching hour, I think would be better formatted as a ref to the 1970 publication, with a courtesy link to the online reprint. That way, it's clearer that Gunn was a contempory, and means that if the link dies, the original ref is still valid.
  • Ref 12 "The long list of..." needs a "retrieved on" date, and publishing site (eg NESFA).
  • The ISFDB references are to another wiki which holds details on the contents of the original magazines, right? If so, I'd again suggest referencing the original source, and providing the modern source as a link.

J.Winklethorpe talk 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are done; I've also cleaned up a couple of other ref issues I spotted going through. On the third point: yes, the ISFDB is a website that holds an index -- it's the most detailed index available online. I've switched two references (1 and 6) to give cites to individual magazines, and then mention the ISFDB afterwards. The others (now refs 4 and 15) are more difficult, because they don't refer to individual items, but to things such as "the stories were printed in . . . two-column format". I don't see how I can cite to specific issues for that. For those two refs, would it be best to say something like "See the individual issues" as well as the cite to the ISFDB? Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that those sorts of statements are so uncontroversial as to barely require a specific ref anyway, so any of those approaches would work. J.Winklethorpe talk 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added text along the lines I suggested to those two references. Thanks for the review, and the support. Mike Christie (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I gave the "some very good material" an attribution so it is clear that it was one person saying it, not wikipedia presenting it as an undeniable fact. I rearranged the part about the British version to bring the dates (1950s) forward. --maclean 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things:
    • This statement in the lead: "The magazine was regarded as the best of the fantasy magazines launched in the early 1950s by one science-fiction historian with another saying it printed very good material" needs the critics' names; otherwise, turn it into a more general statement ("received (two) positive reviewers"?). I didn't look closely, but I presume they are named below.
    • There's no info on where the collections of the 10 editions are housed. Links to collectors' groups in which members have the complete collection? Or archives? Or museums? This could be flagged at the end of the second para in the lead, and detailed below. Important. Tony (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "The magazine was regarded as the best of the fantasy magazines launched in the early 1950s by science-fiction historian James Gunn with another, Donald H. Tuck, saying it printed very good material."? Indeed, they are named in the Reception section. --maclean 02:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, Maclean has changed the lead, per his note, and I think that addresses your first point. On the second point, I did at one time have a note about the accessibility and cost of purchasing a set secondhand. The pricing information was removed by another editor for being unencyclopedic, which I think was the right decision. I eventually removed the note altogether as without the pricing info all it really said was that you could obtain them secondhand if you wanted to. If you search Addall for "Beyond Fantasy Fiction" you'll get 344 hits: because of duplicates this probably represents about fifty or a hundred issues for sale. The other way to talk about accessibility is, as you suggest, to identify collections where the magazine can be found. However, I know of no collections that indicate their contents in enough detail to do this. The Merril collection includes an image of the first issue of Beyond at the top of the page, but doesn't include it in the example list of the magazines they carry, at the bottom of that page. I would be surprised if they don't carry it, but I can't be sure from this. The SF Foundation does not include a catalog, and nor does the Eaton collection. These are the most prominent publicly accessible sf collections I know of. The bottom line is I'm not sure how to address this problem because I can't point to any library that carries the magazines. Should I reintroduce a comment about the accessibility of the magazine through second-hand dealers? Mike Christie (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Worldcat link to the external links; it works fine for me, so that's very handy. Thanks for that. On the lead, is there anything specific you can see to improve? Mike Christie (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the old version, which didn't name Tuck or Gunn there; but if we must, that is too much weight for a passive construction to bear. Make it James Gunn, the historian of science fiction, regarded.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement to leave the passive behind. I've rejigged it as you suggest, with a couple of minor differences; take a look at it now. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Worldcat no longer works -- evidently it preserved some password state information in the URL you gave me, and when that timed out it asked for a password. So I've removed it for now; if I can find another way to access Worldcat I will put a link back in. Mike Christie (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the list to the talk page, in case we want to add some summarizing statement. I think the active works nicely; encyclopediast sounds better to me, but both words exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

André Kertész

[edit]

Hi all! This really is my pet project and I finally feel this article is ready to stand up for FAC. I recently began working on the André Kertész article in early August and have expanded it a great deal since then, adding around 300 edits since then and hoping to add more [10]. I got a few books from the library and began working. As you'll see, the article:

  • Is 100% referenced.
  • Has pictures (The only free use ones I could find so far relating to the subject).
  • Is very comprehensive.
  • Is well prosed.
  • Is NPOV.

I feel I've done pretty much all I can do to the article. Any constructive critism is welcome, but hopefully the article is good enough to make FA status. I'm going to go out and search for more references (You can never have enough!) just to double reference everything. Anyway, go see the article for yourself - I've tried my hardest, but now it's up to you! :) Cheers, Spawn Man 07:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I haven't had a chance to start reading but given he's a photographer it would be great to get some photos - some of his early work would be over 75 years old and hence out of copyright (?). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - reading the article I don't get a sense why his work was so outstanding (I do in parts but could it be elaborated upon some more?)
I really couldn't answer that - why do people like a certain artist? I didn't want to go on about how great his photographs were because it may have sounded too POV, but if I could get some of his photographs, maybe that would help the reader. The problem is that, sure, some of his photos were prior to 75 years ago, but weren't in America, so would that licence still count to them? I guess I could still use a low resolution picture to illustrate one of his works, but again, there may be opposes for using a fair use image in the article. I'm at a loss and not great with image licences at the best of times. Anyway, thanks for the copyediting! Hopefully we can think of something... :) Spawn Man 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is my favorite photographer, so I'd love to see this article featured.  :) I work with images a lot, so I'll see what I can do to track down any photos out of copyright. However, there really need to be page references for all the book citations--this almost certainly can't be featured without them. Calliopejen1 04:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer of help Callio! He's my favourite too. However, I must say that I've never had to put in page number into citations before. Most of the information is taken from all over the books and the main book which I used I had to return. To pinpoint down and reset all the references could take me forever and I don't see how this would affect the article's chances. I thought if it was from the book, unless you really wanted to pinpoint it down for the reader, it was not an absolute must. Does anyone else known about this? Spawn Man 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry dude - I've done it for my last few FAs - I think chapters would be a good compromise if that was possible (I should have given you the heads up earlier....) Not sure how strongly other folk feel - not seen it hugely debated on FAC though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For free images, basically what we need, US or abroad, is images that were published (not just taken or exhibited) before 1923. Hungary's copyright laws don't help us out because they aren't any more liberal than the US's (see here, 70 years after the death of the author for artistic photographs). Since it doesn't look like he was very successful during his early career, I'm not sure how many published pre-1923 images there are... I think that our best bets are the self-portrait for a competition in the magazine Borsszem Janko (assuming it was published in the magazine before 1923) and whatever was published in Erdekes Ujsag in 1917. Do you have these images in your library books? Calliopejen1 05:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there is a problem with the copyright status of the main image, which says both PD and copyright. I just tracked down the photographer on google and sent him an email to ask for clarification. (He hasn't contributed anything to wikipedia since 2005 so I didn't think his talk page was a good option.) Hopefully he responds! Calliopejen1 05:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, for the reference thing I'll see what I can do - For the references from the book "André Kertész: Diary of Light 1912–1985", everything is from the "Chronology" chapter from pages 198-206 and is the same with the book "André Kertész: A Lifetime of Photography", where everything is taken from the Chronology chapter from pages 9-11. The references from the book "Leica: Witness To A Century" come only from pages 54-55. I no longer have access to the book "André Kertész: His Life and Work" and it just simply isn't possible to tell you what exact pages or chapters I got my references from in regard to "André Kertész: Of Paris and New York" - the book goes back and forth through time and I went back and forth while writing the info into the article. All I know is that the references from that book come from pages 7-124 and the exhibitions references from page 258. If someone can tell me if this is at all any help and how to implement it if it is, it would be appreciated. In regard to the photographs; no, the books do not have when they were published, only tentative dates as to when they were taken. I think the war photographs he took were published in the magazine because the subject of the magazine article was of the war, but I'm only guessing. If any of this has helped, please let me know here - I think I might have some hard work set out... gulp... Spawn Man 08:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musta missed that one - I nominated it at GA first, but when it didn't get reviewed, I nominated it here later while I still had the references. Sorry for the violation. :) Spawn Man 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great article. However I have a question. I'm not knowledgeable about the style used concerning this issue but I find that mentioning Kertesz's religion in the lead "was a Hungarian-born, Jewish photographer" is as odd as reading Elvis Presley is a christian rock'n'roll singer or Mohamed ElBaradei is the muslim Director General of the IAEA. Since he wasn't a Zionist leader or something like this and his religion didn't have a great impact on his career.. Your opinion is appreciated. Thank you. CG 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CG thanks for your input - I didn't write the lead but helped the main contributor out a bit; from various bio articles I've seen, a fair proportion indicate a person's religion with not a similar level of relevance (eg Barbara Bach or Beastie Boys, which I've was been looking at). I am not sure of the rules on this. It may have had a bearing on why he left Paris for New York in this case but concede I don't know the subject matter well enough to comment otherwise. Spawny may have something further to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind cutting it out if it's a problem; I just thought it ran off the toungue better than having a sentence of "And he was Jewish" down the line. I think I'll wait for better consensus, but it'll be noted down. Thanks for the comments. Spawn Man 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have dropped out entirely; while it need not be in the first sentence, it should be somewhere outside the infobox; any European after 1933 would find Jewishness had a significant impact on his life. To class him as Jewish by religion implies he practiced Judaism; is there a source for this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I'm unsure of the copyright status of his photographs as of yet, but seeing as it's near impossible to get any pieces from his earliest days, I doubt there'll be any pics any time soon. Calliopejen1 did say he was looking into things above, so maybe we can get something from him. I've left him a message. Cheers, Spawn Man 11:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. I appreciate the work that's been done on the references, but I think you really need page number pincites for a featured article, or else as a practical matter it's hard to verify its content. The Harvard library has the books used so if I have some free time i might try to track down some page numbers but it's not going to be possible during the life of this FA nomination. Also, the author of the photo never replied, but it looks as though he uploaded it in 2005 with both a copyright sign and a "copyright / free use" tag, which has since been replaced everywhere with the PD sign, presumably because it is the exact same thing in practice. (If you release all rights to your photo, it's not really copyrighted anymore.) I will clean up the image description to indicate this. Also, even if there are no free photos by him that we can find, I think a limited number of nonfree images would be acceptable under wikipedia's nonfree content criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Ummm, I have added page numbers to the citations, as mentioned in the thread above. Not sure if that's what you mean, but I've been over it with a copyeditor and he says what I did was correct. Spawn Man 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really.... About 20 citations are listed for a book where a 100-page range is given, and 20 more are for a book with no page numbers at all. What you did is the best for now, but I really don't think this should be FA until there are page numbers. Without them, it's basically impossible to verify that what the article says is correct. Calliopejen1 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're calling me a liar? Why would I write down untrue facts? You should have brought this up before I gave the freakin' books back. I can't possibly fix this now for at least a month or two. Besides, all the statements sourced with those couple of books which don't have page numbers or a large range of numbers are also cited with ones that are. For example, one statement is cited by a book without a page number and by one with page numbers - surely that is acceptable considering I can't get the books out for ages now. This is all very stressful and frankly, I told you that I couldn't give page numbers since I gave the books back ages ago. This is my pet project, and I'd hate to have it fall short simply because two of the references don't give page numbers, despite the fact they're backed up by one which do. I think I can remember the chapter names - Would that do instead of page numbers in regard to the books with a large range or no page numbers? Or I could simply remove them from the inline citations and put them in general references. I don't see the problem really Callio, seeing that even if I didn't remove those references, the article would still be 100% cited, so I don't see the problem with leaving two citations alongside ones which do have page numbers. Spawn Man 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simmer down, don't take this so personally! :) (I never called you a liar.) You never pointed out that all the un-numbered ones were double-sourced so I was only looking at the progress in the references section without knowing that they were double-sourced in the article text. As of now I think there's like two statements that aren't sourced to any pages, but I don't think that's an issue. However, I can't throw my full support behind the article without a copyedit (I'll try to work through it) and maybe the inclusion of a couple particularly relevant (nonfree) images to show his style. I haven't read it through thoroughly (I was waiting for the page #s, which were a deal-breaker) so I can't say if there are any more issues. Calliopejen1 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man. I lost my cool a bit - I've just spent so much time on it and I've been trying to get a non-dinosaur FA for ages; I tried two times with Jewellery and eventually gave up (It's now a mess after I've abondoned it), and I thought I could do it with Kertesz. So yeah, I apologise for my reaction. On another note, I can get non-free images sure thing; I was just hesitant to use fair use images on a FA, but sicne it's requested, I guess I'll ahve to. As for the copyediting - Circeus rewrote the whole thing, and I'm quite amazed at the job he's done. Then Cas Liber rewrote a bit too. If you want to triple check, that's fine, but IMHO I think that all it needs now is the pictures. I'll get right on it. Question: What licence should I use? Cheers, Spawn Man 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another major problem that will keep me from supporting if not added: there is no art criticism of Kertesz's work included. Kertesz is a major photographer and I imagine there should be no shortage of journal articles on the topic. An artist FA should have content discussing his style (there's very little in the article as it stands) and content from critics as well as biographers. Calliopejen1 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
There's many references as to why his work was important throughout the article. Kertesz wasn't one of those huge media artists which gathered crowds to his exhibitions all the time; I wouldn't know where to start without sounding POV. As I've already said, I've given the books back, there's no way to remedy things until much later, probably after the FAC. This isn't such a big deal in my opinion, as there's lots of material in the article text which says how he was received by the critics, how other artists thought of him and sourced statements saying he's a seminal figure in photography. That sounds like a fair desciption page to me, but if you can give the ground work or a starting point, I'll go and do it. I've not done an artist FA before, so I need a bit of help, though I doubt I'll receive it from you because you hardly reply to my posts. Anyway, thanks for your input. Spawn Man 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky - I've typed in "André Kertész" + criticism or critique but nothing is jumping out. Funny how more completely some subjects are covered than others...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some relevant sources (I may add these later): Calliopejen1 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ken Johnson, "Unmasking A Chameleon Of the Lens," NYT February 25, 2005
  • Andy Grundberg, "PHOTOGRAPHY VIEW; REVISITING A MODERNIST PIONEER AND A POET OF URBAN LIFE" NYT January 5, 1986
  • Andy Grundberg, "PHOTOGRAPHY VIEW; MODERN MASTERS AND VIEWS OF WAR HELD CENTER STAGE" NYT December 29, 1985
  • Gene Thornton, "KERTESZ: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT OF MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY" NYT July 22, 1984
  • Monteiro, Stephen, "Andre Kertesz: Maison Europeenne de la Photographie" ARTnews v. 106 no. 5 (May 2007) p. 169
  • Weil, Rex. "Andre Kertesz: National Gallery of Art," ARTnews v. 104 no. 4 (April 2005) p. 133
  • Goldberg, Vickie. "Too Human," Art On Paper v. 9 no. 4 (March/April 2005) p. 68-72
  • Vince Aletti, "The Photographer-Poet," Art & Auction v. 27 no. 6 (February 2005) p. 110-15
  • Wild, David. "The modernist eye," Architects' Journal v. 209 no. 12 (March 25 1999) p. 54
  • Hamilton, Peter. "The mighty Magyar," British Journal of Photography v. 142 (November 15 1995) p. 14-15
  • Bowman, Edward, "Kertesz--reality and distortion" The Photographic Journal v. 135 (September 1995) p. 326+
  • Berna-Heath, Diane. "Snap decisions: Andre Kertesz, a centennial tribute." Southwest Art v. 24 (August 1994) p. 32+
  • Hambourg, Maria Morris. "Photography between the wars" The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin v. 45 (Spring 1988) p. 3-56
  • Plachy, Sylvia. "Hungary by heart" Artforum International v. 24 (February 1986) p. 90-6
  • Obituary, Afterimage v. 13 (November 1985) p. 2
  • Obituary, Art Direction v. 37 (November 1985) p. 128
  • Obituary, Art in America v. 73 (November 1985) p. 190
  • Gross, Jozef. Obituary, British Journal of Photography v. 132 (October 25 1985) p. 1195-6
  • Gross, Jozef. "Exposure," British Journal of Photography v. 131 (August 3 1984) p. 812-13
  • Gross, Jozef. "Andre Kertesz: a 90th birthday tribute." British Journal of Photography v. 131 (August 3 1984) p. 800-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the finds...we'll have to find some of them and source....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed, pls review capitalization of the word "Period" in section headings per WP:MSH. No punctuation on sentence fragments on image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions). See WP:MOSNUM regarding spelling out numbers less than 10 ( ... would be returned to him within 6 months ... ) Use endashes rather than hyphens in Bibliography and Exhibitions (see WP:DASH). Separate page ranges in References with endashes rather than hyphens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is done except the endashes, which I'm not sure how to format. Could you give me an example of how to put one in the article here or something? Or is there a button on the keyboard which has it because I'm pretty sure I solely used the dash at the top of the keyboard. ? Spawn Man 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a couple of ways you can do en and emdashes. When you're in the edit mode on any Wiki page, below the edit window is a bold line that says Do not copy text ... Below that is a line that starts with Insert:, and the first dash there is an endash, second is an emdash. You can insert them from there. On my browser, I can also insert them with alt-numeric keypad (0150 for endash, 0150 for emdash). I think the key combos may be different on different browsers, but should be explained at WP:DASH. Pls ping me if you still need help. By the way, I think you may have removed punctuation on some full sentences in image captions; only sentence fragments are not punctuated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article does not address Kertesz's art in any substantial way. We get blanket statements like "he is now considered one of the seminal figures of photojournalism and photo essay and if not photography as a whole" but no explanation by art historians about what makes his photography special and why he is so important. (Or even really what his typical photos look like.) I provided a very long list of articles that are likely to address just this, but they have not been incorporated into the article. Calliopejen1 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought you were going to do that? I don't have access to those articles! Grr, you leave everything to the last minute Callio! I asked what you were looking for, but you didn't reply. Saying you need artistic critique is not good enough for me to embark on what you wish - It's not easy writing about how anyone is so great without sounding POV. As I said before, can you please provide me with an example so I may begin - I really have no idea what you want; I'm new to the art FAC world, so a little cooperation would be great! Cheers, Spawn Man 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said I might, but I got busy with other things.... And I gave you what I was looking for, namely critical assessments of Kertesz to incorporate. You should at least be able to access the several NYT articles online since TimesSelect ended last week, which would be a good start for now. The others aren't online even for me, and I'm not going to go find them in our art library all the way across campus... I would see what you can do with the NYT articles to start. I don't think it should be too hard to present an objective picture of what critics say about an artist. I think this quote from the NYT is a good model:

      • What distinguishes Kertesz's work is not a particular visual style or signature subject matter, but its emotional resonance. Undoubtedly Kertesz was a great formalist, but in his most persuasive pictures, form is put to the service of feeling. In their catalog introduction, Ms. Greenough and Mr. Gurbo get this just right. Kertesz, they write, sought "not the decisive moment when an external action completed an intriguing formal arrangement, but the instant when the world was infused with personal meaning."

      • I worked a little on the Fernando Amorsolo article, which I think isn't the best but you can see how it covers his style and criticism of him. I'm not sure what the best organizational strategy would be. Calliopejen1 08:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added something, can you check it out? Cheers, Spawn Man 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Calliopejen1 is on Wikipedia at varient times and as such, may not respond quickly to replies or questions - therefore, would you consider waiting until after all discussion is halted before closing this FAC? I'm sure I've completeed what has been asked of me, but in case I haven't, a day or two might be needed to fix any problems and then another one or two days may be needed for Callio to reply; so if you could just make sure everything's done, it'd be a lot easier. Anyway, thanks admin, whoever you are (I presume Raul, but maybe not...). Cheers, Spawn Man 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Hopefully this was quick enough for you... :) The article is very comprehensive and well-referenced, but I don't think the coverage of his work is quite as good as it could be, and I don't find the writing to be totally FA-quality (no specific objections exactly, but just overall). It's a good article, but I'm not sure it's FA material quite yet. Calliopejen1 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply' - Yep, super-fast! ;) Thanks for the neutral, but I'd have to disagree with the writing element of your rationale - the article has been rewritten by top class copyeditors who almost solely work on rewriting FAs. If you could give me the areas to clean up, it'd be great. Also, what areas can I work on for the coverage of his work? I used your example given above as a template and sourced the new section. However, if it's just the general feeling (That's a little unfair though....), there's not much I can do. Any suggestions are welcome, but for now I feel it's an inactionable vote - I'd love your support in any case. Cheers Callio! :) Spawn Man 05:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. But the article does not mention why he is in Category:Beekeepers. I also echo the above request for more illustrative descriptions on why he was considered so good. --maclean 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support! Hmm, the bee keepers thing was added by an IP I think due to a reference that Kertesz was a beekeeper at one point in his life - I didn't know whether to keep or biff it, so I thought I'd leave it - things like that usually get decided by community consensus on the main page when the article get's there, or if you want it gone, that's consensus enough for me as it does sound a bit strange. :) As for the "why he was so good" - as I said above, I was a bit hesitant of making a section on why he was so good (Why is anything good? It depends per person...) as it may sound kinda POV. As it is, I tried my hardest and presented the facts and a general description of what reviewers and people thought of him (IE, the unknown soldier etc...). I'm sure someone more bold than I will certainly expand on why he was so good when the article chugs along, but I don't feel that something small and that could potentially be taken as POV was worth the hassle when why something is good varies from person to person. In any case, thanks for your much needed support! :) :) (Double smiley). Cheers, Spawn Man 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no way that an article which has the wrong sort keys in the DEFAULTSORT magic word should ever become a featured article without that being fixed. Gene Nygaard 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds easy to fix, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean (I did all the cats by hand and someone else put that default sort in - could you give me a clear idea of what I have to do since I didn't quite understand your oppose. I'll be happy to fix it. :) Thanks, Spawn Man 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind that - I think I've fixed it? Why didn't you say the accents needed to be removed from the default sort? It woulda been a bit better phrased, but still, thanks for pointing it out. It'd be great if you could revise your !vote based on the fact I've fixed the problem now; unless of course I haven't fully fixed it...? Anyway, thanks again for your comments; they've made the article look better for it. Spawn Man 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got an edit conflict when I was explaining it here, glad you figured it out. Our rudimentary sorting mechanism only goes by Unicode numbers, not by anybody's sorting rules. I'll strike the oppose. Gene Nygaard 01:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch! :) :) (Double smiley). :) (Oops, make that a triple.) Cheers, Spawn Man 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly.... *Sigh*... Spawn Man 06:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

BAE Systems

[edit]

Previous FAC

I have fixed the issues raised during the last FAC. These were excessive use of lists, a very short history section and a short criticism section. Other improvements include compliance with WP:LEAD (concise summary of entire article & interest provoking) and a general formatting cleanup to comply with MOS.

Tony raised some issues on my talk page at the time of the last FAC. I have addressed them to the best of my ability. The biggest change was as a result of "How is it positioned in the British military–industrial complex?" - i.e. the BAE Systems#Areas of business section.

I look forward to any comments. Mark83 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi again, Mark! I promise that I'll take a full look at the article in the near future, but right now, I don't have the patience. However, I'd like to note that the very first sentence doesn't make much sense. -- Kicking222 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you in advance. I've re-read the first sentence and can't see a problem, however I'm open to suggestions. Mark83 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Actually I had a third look and I think I've corrected it. Mark83 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e

*Very weak oppose I feel like there are a few slight problems with the text. "Heritage" and "Formation" could use a couple more sources, and there's a paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" that has no references. The "Criticisms" section has many short paragraphs that could be merged. Finally, I feel like the non-UK sections of "Areas of business" could be expanded, but that might just be because I had a brief inside view of one of those non-UK areas and thus feel like there's more to say. Aside from that, I did a slight bit of copyediting, but another read-through (by myself, or Mark, or anyone else) certainly couldn't hurt. Overall, the article's almost there. -- Kicking222 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for your comments.
    • Heritage now sourced. Please let me know if there's a sentence in particular you think needs cited.[14]
    • Formation is pretty well sourced. Reading it again I assume it's the "The creation of a UK company, compared with what would have been a British–German firm, made the possibility of penetrating the US defence market more likely..." passage that needs more citation?
    • Unsourced paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" fixed.[15]
    • "non-UK sections of "Areas of business" -- Would you mind clarifying what you would like to see? Maybe for the US include details of major acquisitions (Lockheed Martin AES/Boeing Commerical Electronics etc etc.) and details of major facilites? Mark83 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done, my friend. Everything I had a problem with before looks great now. As far as my last point, it was easily the most important one. I think it comes down to, simply enough, add something if there's something to add, but don't strain for it. Either way, it doesn't matter- this is a great article, and it deserves to be featured. -- Kicking222 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Overall looks like a pretty good job. A couple of things that stand out to me at the moment:
    • The Organisation section seems a bit lost. Would it help to have a paragraph or so of prose giving a brief explanation of the organisation's structure, rather than just a list with no introductory text? Perhaps a line or so next to each division covering what it's responsible for (not always obvious, e.g. Insyte)? Also, I'm not really sure how the order of these has been decided, but to the casual reader it might look a bit random.
    • The Areas of Business section could possibly do with a slight expansion - particularly the significance of BAE's acquisitions in the US. On JSF, for example, BAE initially negotiated a guaranteed 10% workshare, but its acquisitions of other JSF contractors have taken its total workshare close to 18% (haven't had a chance to look up a source for that yet). There's also no mention of Saudi Arabia under "Rest of World" even though BAE Systems has about 4600 employees there, according to BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support.
    • What is the intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics." under United States? Obviously it's true, but it seems a bit pointless since BAE has/had well-documented projects in conjunction with all three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All great points, thank you for them.
        • I totally understand your queries about context and formatting of the organisation section, I'll rework it.
        • I would welcome any suggestion as to how to expand the Areas of Business section. I will take up the suggestion to expand the Saudi Arabian element of that. As for the US - do you think using the JSF as an example would be a good way to go? Detail what share the company had and how it expanded with acquisitions - e.g. particularly Sanders as part of Lockheed AES?
        • The intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors" is not projects, but linked as in as possible merger partners. You are 100% right that that's not at all clear. I'll reword and reference it better. Mark83 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is much better; well done indeed. The "Criticisms" section is in WP's best tradition of NPOV. But there are a few things still.
    • The first thing I noticed was the significant overlinking, in an article that already has a lot of high-value links. Please weed out the trivial ones to avoid diluting the high-value ones, and to reduce the blue spattering. For example, non-full dates ("June 2002" et al.) should not be linked. "British"? "World War II"? Well-known currencies not normally linked (see MOS), and the names of Anglophone countries, well, who needs to consult those articles here? Nor do you need to cite "GB" with the pounds symbol (see MOS).
    • "1955-present" etc. En dash for ranges, but why not "since 1955"?
    • "due to "a change in circumstances." Use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. Sometimes you do.
    • c. consistently spaced.
    • Consistently abbreviate the US and the UK, rather than spelling them out. Tony (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and constructive comments.

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

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

[edit]

This is a somewhat short article given its limited scope. However, I've researched heavily for this topic, as evidenced by the references section. I dedicated my time to writing a comprehensive, neutral and adequately sourced article, adding inline citations in nearly every assertion of the article's body. It's been peer-reviewed, and would now like to see if the community believes it meets the ultimate standards. At the very least, even if it doesn't pass, I'll know that good suggestions will be provided to improve the article. Thanks in advance for your comments. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support. I can see why you've put the two pictures in, but I'm not sure they're really what the article needs. As far as I can tell there is no graphic or logo for NAP itself. The picture of the store aisle illustrates, but I don't think it really informs. I won't oppose on the basis of the graphics, but if you can find something else it would be great. Is there any information about Puerto Rico's demographics that could be made into either a map or a chart, for example? I have some copyedit comments too; I'll put those on the article's talk page to avoid clogging up the FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response:
    • Images: You're right about the images, there's currently no logo or insignia to identify the program, only for the Puerto Rico state agency that runs it. I'm inclined not to include it in this article because it could face fair-use problems.
    • Demographics: During my research, I tried to find information within the sources which linked poverty rates, consumer price indexes, and other related data with the NAP program, but was unsuccessful. I'll try researching today and tonight to see if I can find anywhere else which is related, so long as it doesn't tilt towards OR. Done
    • Copyedit: More please! Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to correct them today and any other which arises. Done
Any other suggestions are much welcome! - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered these concerns, except for the images since none can be found. Any more suggestions are welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is featured quality now. If you can find the data to create the graphics I suggested on the talk page, that would be great, but I don't think it's necessary for featured status. I've switched to support, above. Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mike for your suggestions, they did wonders. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is FA quality. I have a few minor comments.
    • Lead Needs to includes summary of the material under "Management assessment"  Done
    • History I would get rid of the "Background" and "Program Creation" subtitles. They are not balanced in length and the beginning of the latter sub-sect begins with "To address these issues," . If you do not just put it all under "History", you need to rewrite that beginning to quickly name the issues in the new subsection. Separate sections need to be coherent to reader's who start reading right there.  Done
    • Images There are some photos from the USDA found here or here. They are obviously publicity shots, but you might be able to do something with them and copyright is not an issue.  Done I wish we had a photo of card to use.--BirgitteSB 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the images, I decided to include only one, which provided relevant imagery to the article. You're right about the card, though. However my attempts have been futile. I've asked two beneficiaries who have refused to let me photograph it due to privacy issues. The USDA doesn't have a picture on it in their website (nor on the past national vouchers, which is odd given their wide use), nor does the PR Dept. of the Family (which, even if they did, would present fair-use issues). Anyway, this FAC has done wonders to the article, thanks for your comments. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for writing an article on a real subject. Overall good work. I realize the article is on a narrow subject, but nonetheless it doesn't feel comprehensive. The only specific item I can put a finger on is that the article really doesn't spend much space on discussing the impact of the program. There have got to be studies about that. For ex, do children recieving assistance do better in school, impact on mortality, etc. You don't need to regurgitate all welfare impact studies, but an appropriate amount of information about the impact of this program is needed. I see a citation notes that there isn't recent information on the social impact, but there's got to be some. Also that reference returns a 404. That's just one example. I would think a review of the sources would reveal additional topics that haven't been properly developed in relation to their importance to the subject, though I could be wrong, I haven't read the sources. That information could help expand the third paragraph of the lead which is a little choppy. - Taxman Talk 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll review all the sources. If you got one error, there may be others.  Done
As to current impact, the only consistent, reliable, and publicly-available studies are those issued by the GAO. I'll see if there are any new releases, or if the ones provided incorporate more detailed information. The biggest source of information should be the PR Department of the Family, but they don't publish their studies (and even if they did, I'd have serious concerns over the primary source's integrity).
Since this issue you presented is a critical one (deals directly with FA criteria), I'll take the next three days for addressing them. If no studies are found, I'll let you know so you can determine the next appropriate step, even if it means withdrawing. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just use the best you can, even if the available studies are older, just note that. Good luck. - Taxman Talk 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found some useful info, although its definitely not recent. I hope it was what you recommended to increase its comprehensiveness. Please review this section for its adequacy and proofreading. I also rearranged some paragraphs, merging them to other section to improve the flow of information. If you could review the article again from the top, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I supported above, but I'm now a bit concerned about the aesthetics of the table layout in the program benefit section. It looks very ugly on my screen, at what I believe is a normal font size; the problem is the tables are jammed up against each other, and you get a big chunk of white space on the right. I tried previewing the section with the table moved to the left, but that looks ugly too. Any ideas for improvement? Mike Christie (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any problems, but I've made some changes. How does it look now? Also, what's your resolution? Maybe I could see what's wrong by experimenting with them. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better the way you have it now. (My screen is at 1280x1024.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 07:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support

As the nomination 'slate' has been wiped clean, I wish to reaffirm my support as an editor of this article, and commend it to the Wikipedia Community's scrutiny.--Bulleid Pacific 10:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
  • “Bulleid incorporated his infamous chain-driven valve gear into the new design” If it’s infamous, then you need to tell us why, and provide a ref to back up “infamous”.
  • “The original Southern Railway classifications...” If this is a fact that is disputed (or at least commonly miss-stated), then it needs a ref. “common misconceptions in published works” comes over slightly argumentative. Perhaps something more like “Later published works have often used 'BoB', 'BOB' or 'BofB' instead” would be more neutral.
  • “In the event the loco entered traffic as Bulleid intended.” I assume “entered traffic” is a railway term; “entered service” might be better understood by the majority of readers.
  • “The onset of the Modernisation Plan meant that the remaining 50 locomotives were not rebuilt, and continued in as-built condition until eventual withdrawal from service.” I think some dates would help here.
  • There’s a tendency towards short paragraphs, for example the first paras in Construction History. I’d suggest going through and seeing where adjacent paragraphs will read together nicely.
  • Personally, I think there are quite enough pictures in the tex without the gallery at the end. Almost by defininition, pictures in a gallery aren't illustrating a piece of text
Comment: It is nice having 'real archive' pictures (the B&W ones), rather than relying on pictures of preserved engines (which may have un-prototypical modifications or liveries). However, I tend to agree with you...
EdJogg 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – all photos were in Commons already (except the two nameplate pics, and they are still not!) and all have been added to a new Commons category I have created. This has now been linked using {{commonscat}}, and the gallery has been removed. EdJogg 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very quiet nom. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have undertaken changes suggested. I have also noticed that it is a quiet nom, but I feel it is better not to comment and let nature take its course. I'm sure the other lead editors feel the same.--Bulleid Pacific 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed, thanks. I've made a few changes in the prose as I did a final read through; feel free to revert if they're not helpful. I think this is a good job on a technical subject, and so I support. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the other (prolific?) contributing editors to this article (recently, at least) I didn't think it was appropriate to say much here, except in response to constructive criticism... EdJogg 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • I have re-edited the first sentence of the "Rebuilding" section. It is important to note that there were several Standard locomotive types introduced between 1951 and 1954, hence I have adopted 'from 1950' rather than 'in 1950'. But I am not convinced that we actually need the following phrase at all "...that had been introduced from 1950." I think the paragraph works fine without it, and interested parties can click the link to discover the dates of introduction.
    • I've also had a go at the first paragraph of the "Design features" section to avoid the slightly stilted wording (using 'infamous' twice, for example). I think its still OK.
  • EdJogg 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nicely written and laid out. Looks comprehensive but trains ain't my forte. I do find "No fewer than 20" a little jarring and would prefer 'twenty' as a word here but I think my opinion would differ from MOS so its not a deal-breaker. Niec article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Bratislava

[edit]

previous FAC

After unsuccessful previous nomination, I'm nominating this article again for your feedback. Most of the issues have been dealt with, though, there may be some holes which I have missed. The article got copy-edited just after the first nom was over. As I'm still fairly a novice to this process, please don't go too harshly for errors. Thank you. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. This is very good indeed and well on its way to fame and immortality. But four points: (1) "Geography" now follows "History". This is unconventional. Its unconventionality doesn't worry me, but it really does seem odd, in that (despite the worst efforts at pollution, etc.) geography seems to determine history more than vice versa. So I'd switch the two around unless you have some good reason (which you might explain here). ¶ (2) "Facts" such as that the religious make-up was, according to some census in 2005, "243,048 Roman Catholics (56.7%), 125,729 Atheists (29.3%) [...]" strike me as blackly humorous. Does anyone really believe that censuses are correct to 0.00001%? Yet this is what these numbers imply. And even if they were this accurate, the precision would be meaningless, for two reasons. First, even though one-year-olds may arguably be RC merely on the say-so of their parents, one-year-old atheists (and comatose atheists, etc.) are hard to imagine. Secondly, they're dying (and being born, or otherwise becoming) all the time, with no guarantee of equal rates, so the figures correct at 10:06 one day are unlikely to be correct at 11:06 the same day, let alone the next day. Would "243 thousand Roman Catholics (56.7%), 126 thousand atheists (29.3%)" be "Original Research" or something similarly unwikipedian? ¶ (3) The article doggedly supplies an equivalent in miles, etc., for every damned measurement, of which there are dozens. I congratulate you on your stamina. And how this messes up an article that without them would be much more enjoyable to read. But the Youessians, Burmese and Liberians must be appeased, I suppose. ¶ (4) I sense lingering repetition within the article. As I quickly went through it last night, I noticed that it twice said that Bratislava is the only national capital at the point where three nations meet, and I don't think this repetition was unique. If, like me, you're a bit numbed by a computer screen, try printing it out and going through it with a red pen. ¶ I'll be watching this candidacy, and probably supporting it later. -- Hoary 01:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Done. (2) Hopefully done. I have reworded the sentence to clarify that the precise numbers were recorded by the 2001 census. The article no longer suggests there are 243,048 Roman Catholics in Bratislava. (3) Although I completely agree with your opinion, many people insist on having imperial units in articles. (4) This interesting piece of information is mentioned in the Geography section and in the lead. I would like to leave it there because the lead just summarizes the article (including its geography section) and this is perhaps the most interesting geographical datum in the whole article. But if this issue prevents you from supporting the candidature, I will be happy to remove a sentence from the lead. Tankred 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Geography and history are now the right way around. Good. ¶ (2) We read that for example according to the 2001 census there were 391,767 ethnic Slovaks. Again, this implies that the census is precise to 0.001%. I don't believe that any census is that precise (with the possible exception of one in a totalitarian state such as North Korea). Moreover, the table of ethnic groups says nothing about hybrids. Is, say, a child of a Slovak and a Hungarian parent both Slovak and Hungarian, is the child forced to choose one or the other, or is the child forced to be one or the other? Or should one infer from the table that "mixed" or "other" account for fewer than the number of Croats? (Additional questions: Do Wikipedia editors have an obligation to turn off their brains and unthinkingly recycle such statistics? Does questioning what they might actually mean constitute "Original Research"?) ¶ (3) Yes, you're right. Removing any of these sops to US/Burmese/Liberian parochialism risks incurring the wrath of dozens of right-thinking editors. ¶ (4) Fixed: well done. -- Hoary 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment if you think this article deserves promotion or not. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objectstruck... see below --Dweller 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Beautiful article, but one of my first instincts at FAC (having fallen foul of it with articles I've nominated!) is always to check for imbalanced history sections. Approximately half the history of this ancient city appears to have happened since 1900. I also wonder if the article could be shorter - can more information be hived off to daughter articles? NB If this objection is addressed, I'll be happy to review. --Dweller 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC[reply]
    • Hello. Thank you for your comment. I understand objection for long recent history, and I personally do not like that as well, however, reviewer at the first nom insisted that recent History should take up around half of the section. To the spinning off information to daughter articles, which parts do you think need reduction? MarkBA t/c/@ 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gosh. You were put through hoops. However, I think he has POV on this... and my POV is he's wrong. "the public is generally more interested in recent than in long-ago history" Nonsense. One of the main reasons people visit Bratislava, rather than say Milton Keynes is because of its history. "Encyclopedic" means covering the topic. Recentism is a real problem. Since this is now my take against his, I invite other editors to weigh in on whether a history section should be so weighted. In the meantime, I strike my objection and wait. --Dweller 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, there's too much emphasis on the 20th century. This seems like undue weight to me. --Victor12 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see that you don't like too much emphasis on the 20th century. Well, I could do this a bit shorter if I could remove various demographic details from history or shortening/combining some sentences. I'll look after that later. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anybody's reading this yet, I found it quite troublesome to remove bigger chunk of History and so I only moved some "demographic" data down where they belong. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read through the History section, and it looks fine, generally speaking, though you should bear in mind that I know nothing of the facts. I saw quite a few problems with the prose that I didn't correct when I copyedited last time because I wasn't bold enough, and I'll fix those later after the dust has settled. One thing, though—that's the picture you're going to use for the twentieth century? With all that happened, it seems like you're making a statement by showing only a picture of the destruction wrought by Allied bombing (Does "Allied" refer to the Western allies as opposed to the Soviets?). Also, no mention is made of what side Bratislava, and Slovakia for that matter, was on in WWII, that is, did it consider itself a conquered land like Poland or a satellite like Romania or something in between? And I'm surprised to learn that the the Red Army actually "liberated" any part of Eastern Europe, and I think many people, Americans at least, will be surprised, too. Despite any complaints you've received here about imbalance toward modern history, the readers will know at least something about it and will want a complete picture. --Milkbreath 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the 20th century picture, what do you suggest? My tip would be to have picture of Nový Most bridge (either under construction or in operation). For some reason anything conquered from Nazi Germany is viewed as "liberation", but other wording seems to be only "conquered", which sounds bit hostile. On what side? Slovak state was always on German side, not counting Slovak national uprising or conquered territories in 1945. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (I thought about this after I posted, and if Bratislava got really clobbered by bombing {not bombarding, right?} you should say more about that in the text; that would be an important event.) Maybe make the picture the same size as the others in the History section, and add a few more to balance it out. The way it is now, the pictures go from quaint to none to horrific. Maybe the Soviets "overran" or "took" or "advanced through" it. Was there a battle for the city? By "Slovak national uprising" do you mean there was a resistance movement? I don't know what you mean by "conquered territories in 1945". --Milkbreath 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reduced size of the picture, but quick look shows that word liberated is more used. Yes, there was a battle of the city, from 2 April to 4 April but I don't think this is important in the main article. I'd like to add one picture, but I don't want to have 1919 and World War II (picture) next to each other. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - ok, I took the liberty of some copyediting to smoothe flow and remove commas and combine some clauses, as well as some word replacement. Prose was a little choppy but generally fine. I don't know much about Bratislave so not too sure on the emphasis in verious sections, though I think a few more sentences on city morale and development since it was made capital of Slovakia in the History section would be good if possible.
  • Development is mentioned and more is covered in Cityscape and Economy, but "city morale"? I dunno what do you mean. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some stubby paragraphs that could be combined, like I did in the Parks and Demographic sections - there are others elsewhere. If there is no clear cutoff in subject matter consider combining a few.
  • Combined few paras in Government and one in Cityscape. Which sections do you think could use some merging? MarkBA t/c/@ 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead needs to be a summary of salient points; a sentence or two mentioning its status as a capital city both now and in the past should be there.

All that and I think it'll be over the line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello and thank you for commenting. For the 2nd point, I guess you mean rewriting to include that Bratislava was a capital from 1536–1783 (at least I guess so). I'll look after these points later. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I meant. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ok I took out the sentence Even though Bratislava is one of Europe's newest capital cities (since 1993), the city has a long and rich history influenced by many tribes and nations. - which sorta sticks out and doesn't really add anything (it already was a capital once before so is sorta wrong too). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Demographics section repetitive census data like "Bratislava II with 108,139, Bratislava IV with 93,058, Bratislava III with 61,418...", "...737 Methodist Protestants, 748 Jews, and 613 Baptists" and "...Ukrainians (452, 0.11%), Roma (417, 0.08%), and Poles (339, 0.08%)" are better presented as tables. What do references [1] and [83] have to do with the ethnic group listings, why not just create a new one to [26]? The first sentence is referenced to [27] but that only lists the 2005 number while [28] would be better because it lists both 2001 and 2005 (I hesitate to do this because I see that the reference is used 3 places in the article). Also, Demographic sections can be useful for drawing comparisons of the city with regional or national stats (older/younger population, more/less minorities, etc.) --maclean 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... to the ref 83, I've missed that as I was replacing dead link, however, I haven't found equal replacement so far (I dunno if some old state can be linked). Or, better idea might be to leave important or major data in the article and the rest should go to a new article named "Demographics of Bratislava" or similar. How about that? MarkBA t/c/@ 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked original dead links and linked to the archive. Replaced the link in "Urban Bratislava" citation.MarkBA t/c/@ 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spun off some data into a separate article. Although I don't know, as I've never experienced this, are dead links with archive links tolerated in FAs, until a replacement is found? MarkBA t/c/@ 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem with the archive links. Do you have access to the Slovak national census (for comparison with the city)? I cannot find it online. Do you have access to historical population levels in the city (enough to chart its development)? I can help develop this section if the sources are available. --maclean 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you clarify the second sentence? I'm not very sure by the meaning, but it looks like you were referring to what is now that dead link. For historical population, I have found online up to 1786 here (but only one so far) and in my book a comparison between 1720 and 1780. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek)

[edit]

Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) has had a peer review (which is here). The peer review was very detailed and helpful, and all the issues raised and the suggestions for improvement have been addressed. The article (and its name) follow most of the recommendations of WikiProject Rivers. This article also follows the model of Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek, which are similar streams and are featured articles.

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Plunketts Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Finally, because it is so small, some information (discharge, population of the watershed) is not available. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this article as this article have good references and comprehensive and follows other norms of FA. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A comprehensive study, well written and follows the norms of other FA articles, White Deer Hole Creek and Larrys Creek. The work done on this article, has improved the others. Dincher 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For the record I participated in the peer review process although I have not made any significant edits to the article. My sole remaining grumble is that the photos make PA look as if it has a perpetual summer, but I am assured that autumnal/ winter images will be obtained in due course. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for all the support - I only started the article August 5, so the pictures have been summer of necessity. The leaves are turning so I should be able to get some autumnal shots soon. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

The Raven

[edit]
previous FAC
  • After the last FAC review, I feel that this article on Poe's most famous poem is standing up fairly well. I feel that this article meets FAC criteria. I'd love to see this pass before the end of October! Looking forward to giving this another go, so comment away! --Midnightdreary 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A nice article. With a few minor fixes, it will meet the criteria.
  • This passage feels awkward (rather than brilliant or engaging): "He explains that the poem was created by logically considering every aspect of it. For example, the raven enters the chamber to avoid a storm (the "midnight dreary" in the "bleak December"). The dark black raven sits on a pallid white bust to create a visual contrast."

 Done I agree with you here, so I gave it a try. What do you think now? --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...suggested that Poe's particularly strong focus on structure and meter is so formulaic that the poem is artificial, though its mesmeric quality overrides that." This exact phrase is repeated twice in the article. I do have a problem with the phrase "...though its mesmeric quality overrides that." It feels awkward, because of the vague that.

 Done I didn't realize I had that line twice! I cleaned it up and left it in the section that talks about the poem's structure. How does that work? --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The captions need work. Take a look at the wikipedia caption guidelines, because there are some really great examples and suggestions there. Specifically, the captions in The Raven need to provide context for the picture and draw the reader in. The fact that the picture is an engraving of a scene from the poem is nice, but we need something more. For example, does the image make an interpretation of the poem, does the image capture some special detail or emotion? On the bust of Pallas, surely we could have some information detailing the symbolism?

 Done I'm not sure it's particularly strong, but I gave them a go. Your comment also inspired me to switch two of them around. Thanks for that link! Let me know if these new captions can be further improved upon. --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Parodies sprung up especially in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia and included "The Craven" by "Poh!," "The Gazelle," "The Whippoorwill," and "The Turkey." It might be interesting to explain what the parodies were parodying. For example, a parody of a politician might make fun of that person's unusual accent, lifestyle, or facial features.

 Not done By definition, a parody is aimed at the original source material it is parodying. You're thinking of a satire; your comment doesn't seem to apply here. --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good work so far. Jeff Dahl 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Okay, with these changes I'm satisfied. Only one other minor detail, I would remove the forced image sizing on the bust of Pallis, because it seems a little big. The other illustrations seem OK at 220px width. Jeff Dahl 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were insisted upon during either peer review or GA review. At the time I wasn't too keen on it myself... but, there are so many different versions of the poem it's worth being clear about it. Besides, a quote is a quote and should be cited. I wonder if there's a wikipolicy on quoting works that are the topic of an article...? --Midnightdreary 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article needs anything beyond what is mentioned in the "Critical reception and impact" section. Further expansion only invites massive amounts of cruft (as we saw in the last FAC review). I wonder if others agree with Bole2's suggestion? If so, I'll gladly flesh it out a bit more (if I can find third party sources that discuss it). --Midnightdreary 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that featured articles should contain sections about popular culture status if such status is important. With the Raven, a pop culture section would constitute little more than a list of trivia, which is why that stuff was put in its own article. Jeff Dahl 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it's cult status is important. Buc 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you're arguing two different things. "Cult status" does not apply to "The Raven." As it seems to state in the article, "The Raven" has long-standing mainstream appeal. The fact that everyone from Homer Simpson to The Alan Parsons Project reference it is as irrelevant as, say, the various mentions of George Washington. Okay, maybe not the best example but still... where do you find a reliable third party source to cite in regards to the pop culture references of "The Raven"? I see your point, but I'm not sure how it can be worked in without trumping the seriousness of the article. What do you suggest? --Midnightdreary 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: In case not clear, I'm suggesting that "cult status" and "mainstream" are opposing ideas. Carry on! -Midnightdreary 23:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Age of Mythology

[edit]

previous FAC

I've been helping Dihydrogen Monoxide (the main contributer) with this article, and I think it passes the FA criteria. Any suggestions would be appreciated. · AndonicO Talk 14:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Nine Inch Nails

[edit]
Previous FAC

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 01:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The fruit of Reznor's disillusionment with his record label and culmination of the band's harsh, aggressive live sound, the Broken EP of six songs and two bonus tracks was released in 1992." - All this is speculation on behalf of the writer. For example, the fact the EP is "a culmination of the band's harsh, aggressive live sound" is a critical opinion and not fact. Some may debate for example that NIN's live work didn't have any bearing on the EP.

 Done Removed the speculative POV. BotleySmith 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A 10th anniversary deluxe reissue.. Elsewhere in the article, the words "first" and "second" are used. Either use "1st", "2nd" and "10th" or "first", "second" and "tenth".

 Done Fixed. BotleySmith 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, NIN's first decade ended with a long period of relative silence." - "Long"? According to..? "Relative"? Relative to what? Please refrain from using adjectives, which are usually biased and POV.

 Done Took out the sentence and reworded the one just before it a bit. Drewcifer 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Without sufficient promotion from Interscope Records, however, it slipped out of the charts soon afterward" - Whose opinion is it that the album slipped out of the charts due to insufficient promotion? Reznor's? Some critic somewhere? The reasons for an album's success or lack of are opinions, and not facts. It may be the case that someone else may argue the album didn't fare as well because the material wasn't as strong as The Downward Spiral, or the fact that the album had no momentum (given the five year gap between releases). LuciferMorgan 15:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Duly removed. BotleySmith 05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In response to this successful experiment, Reznor.." - What is and is not successful is an opinion. Did Reznor deem it successful, for example? Or did a critic say he felt the experiment was successful? LuciferMorgan 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed the phrase. Drewcifer 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It features lyrics written from the perspective of multiple fictitious characters, leading critics to draw comparisons between it and the character-driven The Downward Spiral." "Critics" suggests more than one, whereas only Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield has expressed that opinion. Therefore, the opinion should be attributed to Sheffield. LuciferMorgan 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reworded the whole sentence to speak more directly about the album, while removing the mention of TDS. Drewcifer 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"..while others such as Robert Christgau criticized the album as "shtick".[48]" Who, besides Christgau, has criticised the album as "shtick". "Others" is a plural word (as you know), suggesting more than critic has expressed this opinion. LuciferMorgan 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reworded. Drewcifer 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On these tours, Reznor quickly gained a reputation for smashing equipment on stage out of frustration... " - gained a reputation amongst whom specifically? And why is the word "quickly" used? Did he do it quicker than someone usually does. To be able to deem something quick, you have to be able to compare it to similar equivalents. LuciferMorgan 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reworded. Drewcifer 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The album slipped out of the charts soon afterward". "Soon" is an opinion, and what can be deemed "soon" varies from person to person. How many weeks following after its release did it fall out of the Billboard Top 40, or Top 200? If the article said when it fell out of the Top 50 or Top 200 etc., then it would be more factual. LuciferMorgan 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. Drewcifer 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This was released soon after the 2000 Fragility tour, which itself was recorded and released on CD, DVD, and VHS in 2002 as And All that Could Have Been." As stated above, what can be deemed "soon" differs from person to person. LuciferMorgan 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reworded. Drewcifer 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spending two years on the album charts, Pretty Hate Machine became one of the first independently released records to attain platinum certification.[1]" Which "album charts" specifically? Billboard Top 200? Billboard Independent Charts? Just saying "album charts" is too vague. LuciferMorgan 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The source itself does not specificy, so I was forced to take it out. I believe this hurts the article's coverage of the album greatly, but it appears I have no choice in the matter. Drewcifer 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, it spent at least 113 weeks (two years and then some) on the Billboard top 200. Raul654 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, using that source, the article can say it spent 113 weeks on the Billboard Top 200. Good find Raul. :) LuciferMorgan 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome work Raul! Implemented the source and redid the sentence.Drewcifer 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Master Chief (Halo)

[edit]

Hopefully this is full of enough of out universe, real-world info on one of the most recognizable video game characters of all time (not that I'm knocking Mario). David Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is too soon after the release of Halo 3. Buc 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this makes a difference. The Master Chief's facets and his impact were documented before the game came out. David Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article might be a bit unstable. Buc 06:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll look at the history, there haven't been any edit wars or rapid changing of content, so I would say that it is fairly stable. David Fuchs (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Few things:
    • Could you read through and make sure that important people, places, and things with which the Master Chief interacts in the Halo universe are sufficiently described so that the casual reader isn't lost? A couple examples that I found and fixed involved the Arbiter and the Covenant; neither was explained on first reference. Alternatively, tangential things can be removed; I did so in a couple of places where it seemed to break the flow of plot.
    • The image in the infobox, from the pre-beta stages of Halo 3, is outdated. Could we instead use something like Image:Halo3chief.jpg (except without the Bungie watermark)?
    • I removed (what appeared to me to be) original research in the form of a novel synthesis regarding the Master Chief's character and sacrifice of lives. This appears to have been added in the flurry of editing in the wake of Halo 3. Since the plot sections are heavy on primary sources, could you go through and make sure that the attributes and points made actually do appear in the novels? Alternatively, do we have any third-party reviews that cover his character from what was revealed in the novels?
  • — TKD::Talk 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An IP user restored the section that I had deemed original research (because of novel synthesis). I tried to salvage it by sticking more closely to what the books actually say (there wasn't an explicit contrast). I'm still not entirely comfortable with depending solely on the text itself for character traits, though. — TKD::Talk 06:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • James086 has replaced the infobox image. — TKD::Talk 11:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who added them, I can vouch for the veracity of the text citations (although I was using a .pdf version for sourcing). But I'll look and see if I can find additional thirdy party refs to shore it up as well. David Fuchs (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't worried that each of the individual points wasn't correct (I myself have the books, but haven't yet read them); I was concerned that there was some original synthesis occurring in setting up the contrast between the situations, because the books don't make the link explicit. However, after trying to shuffle the wording to stick more closely to what the books actually say, I can live with what's there now with respect to that point.
With regards to secondary sources, here's a review of The Fall of Reach that spends a long paragraph on the Master Chief's character (and serves as a source for the notion that John-117 is a biblical reference). Here's another review that basically says that the Master Chief is confusingly portrayed as a completely different character in The Fall of Reach, compared to the video games. — TKD::Talk 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the above two links into the personality section: good finds! David Fuchs (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
←Support. Thanks. After having made one more copyediting pass through the text, I think that all of my concerns have been addressed. — TKD::Talk 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation isn't broken... as for the image, if you can find a better one, do so. This is wikipedia. David Fuchs (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You are, all of you... vermin", perhaps? :P David Fuchs (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

[edit]

self-nom This article written by an art historian on a subject of some dissension, has been carefully editted and referenced to incorporate material from both the restorers and some major critics of the restoration. Amandajm 07:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Raul654
  • I think this article should probably be renamed to Restoration of the Sistine Chapel or something similiar. The article should also have a before and after shot of the Creation of Adam - specifically, Image:Creation of Adam.jpg (before) and Image:God2-Sistine Chapel.png (after) Raul654 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming, I agree. But perhhaps, since it's here, the renaming can wait till others have had a look at it?
    • Suggested images. In selecting paired-images I have only used those that could be cropped to exactly the same proportion and have very good tonal and colour properties. In relation to the pair of images that you suggest here, while I acknowledge that "The Creation of Adam" is the best known, It is not the only important image on the ceiling. It was discarded in favour of "The Forbidden Fruit" (Which is another of the larger and better known panels) because in that case I have two images of equally high quality. I could not possibly use the unrestored imagge that you are suggesting, because the tonal quality is extremely poor. It looks as if the tones have been exaggerated to "improve" the clarity, so that areas are too dark, and some areas are bleached out. Also, it is badly cropped. If I had a good quality image of the Creation before restoration, it would be worth including. The whole point is, No-one can possibly assess the results of the restoration unless the images are as accurate as possible.
      •  DoneI added the better of the two, and teamed it with a different, same size panel, which I think looks effective. Also found reasonable pre- pic of the whole. It's a bit too dark, which overemphasises the dirt, but certainly indicates the overal pre-restoration greyness.

Several more comments:

  • The entire interior of the chapel, but particularly the ceiling, was covered with a grime of candlesmoke comprising wax and carbon. - What kind of carbon? I suspect it's Amorphous carbon
    •  Done
  • ...had used a very stable and mould-resistant ground, developed by his assistant Jacopo l'Indaco, in which the plaster was mixed with volcanic ash. Is this Intonaco? If so, it should probably be mentioned by name and linked.
    •  Done
  • Aims of the conservators - this section is a big list and should be prosified.
    • List. I have just looked up the manual of style. It gives guidelines for the use of lists within articles. In the case of this particular list, the list of Aims, I would imagine that it has always existed as a list. It does not work as paragraphs. It only works as a series of short sentences, or part sentences. It is going to be a List whichever way it is written. The choice is between a very clear bulletted list, or a paragraph which appears to the eye to be a paragraph but is in fact comprised of single and unrelated sentences. The other option is to turn each sentence into an unbulletted single-sentence paragraph which will simply look stupid.
      • The other alternative is to simply make a very broad unspecific and generalised statement that runs into flowing prose and cuts the technical details. There is another, shorter technical list that I could do the same to. But my opinion is that some people will be very interested in this technical stuff. I think the list of aims is important to the article. Amandajm 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing (where each section has a section reference) at the bottom is unusual. Just go ahead and cite it - forget about "section reference" Raul654 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • I just noticed that "Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem." is the picture next to the Response to the restoration - I'm not sure if this was an inside-joke or not;) Raul654 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your help! The answer is, yes, definitely!
  • Another thing I thought of - there were a number of restorations prior to this one (the article mentions them several times in passing). Obviously this article is about the modern one, but I do think it should have a section (right after the lead) describing previous restoration efforts. It doesn't have to be super detailed, but I think it's necessary. Raul654 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree. It would be a pertinent addition.
    •  Done
  • I've gone through and fixed some other issues:
    • I moved the previous restorations into its own section.
      • OK, didn't like the new name of the other section though... I deleted the "effort" as abit of a nothing word.
    • I'm still not thrilled with the list in the "Aims of the conservators" section, but I can live with it.
      • Thanks
    • This: The problems with the ceiling appear to have been caused initially by water penetrating through the floor above because in about 1547 Giovio wrote that the ceiling was being damaged by saltpetre and cracks. is a run-on sentence. Everything up-to-and-include "above" should be one sentence, everything after it should be another, but I can't figure out what the second sentence should say because it's basically incomprehensible.
      •  Done, The point here is that Giovio doesn't say that the saltpetre is cause by damp coming through the floor above, but that was what happened continuously. Immediately above the chapel ceiling is a very big guard room. It used to have an uncovered walkway that took in water and then filtered it into the building. They covered the walkway up, but I'm not sure off-hand at what date. One of the outside walls bloody near fell down and has massive buttresses. Back to Giovio, it is water penetration, specifically, that causes this problem, and with the seeping of the water, distinctive surface crazing occurs, as described elswhere. (Yeah, I've been involved in building conservation). Anyway the sentences are linked. Amandajm 11:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved some images around to be closer to its relevant text.

Raul654 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Response' I moved Jonah back, because he was actually meant to be illustrating another point. I have made that clear in his caption. As for those two prophets... Never the twain shall meet! they are at loggerheads over the restoration! : )
      • Seriously, I didn't like the layout. Amandajm 11:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Raul654 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Incorporated list into other sections as per Raul's suggestion
    • I'm also having reference issues with this one. For example, "There is a particular small but extraordinarily dynamic feature of Michelangelo's work which, here and there, has disappeared for ever. This is the eyeballs." (which should be reworded) is referenced with simply "Jesse Lunette". It took me a while to realize that this wasn't a person's name, and it still doesn't help me now that I've figured that much out.
      •  Done
    • Don't bold names in the references, and format your external links. For example, in "Oberlin Alumni Magazine, Fall 2002. [5] Accessed Jan. 23 2007." the external link shouldn't read "5", but the name of the article. You should add the author here as well, by the way. Standard cite templates such as {{Citation}}, {{Cite web}}, and {{Cite book}} would probably help you out in this regard. In the reference "Beck etc.", what exactly is the et cetera here? Other random style issues: Wikify your dates; I shouldn't see "11th December, 1999".
      • Need help! I'm hopeless at that sort of thing! Who do you recommend who does good tidy-ups of that sort?
        •  Done un-bolded the names

    Why is there a hyphen in the ":-" construction instead of a solitary colon? Pagrashtak 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer to your last question about the hyphen is because that is the way we were taught to do it, about a hundred years ago! Amandajm 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)  DoneI think I found them all.[reply]
    • The new name of the article is better, but the article and title are inconsistent about the pluralization of "fresco".  Done

    — brighterorange (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) The style of the "The cause for concern" section is very odd. It's written more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article:[reply]

    • The title of this section needs to be more descriptive and/or less sensational.
    OK Done
    • "the worst fears of the critics were confirmed once the ceiling was completed" doesn't give anything to the reader, besides attempting to take a position on an obviously contentious issue.
    True, Oh dear! and I thought I'd tried to be balanced! Done
    • "Arguimbau, on his website, quotes Collalucci, the head of the team, as contradicting himself on this matter" -- if this is important, then it should be explained in the article how he contradicted himself. If it's not actually important, it shouldn't be here.
      • Reply It's in the footnotes. I went carefully through Collallucci's written statement and recorded the contradictions. I'll move it up. It really makes the man look a fool, though.
      •  Done
    • "But perhaps not all", "But it is more than relief"-- these kinds of short sentences seem out of place compared to the normal writing style used here.
      • Reply, I'll check it out. Done
    • "It is the three-dimensionality which art-lovers expect to see in the work of the man who sculpted Moses" -- who says this?
      • Reply Argy-bargy, Beck and AmandaJM! Done
    • "The reason for their reluctance to produce the detailed photos, which would probably have put to rest the worst fears of many interested people, was the intention of the company to produce a large limited-edition two-volume coffee-table book" -- the opinion portion of this line should be presented as such, unless the writer of the NYT article is a mindreader. --- RockMFR 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Good point! Done
    • Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is beside the point, article depends on its citations, not on who originally contributed to it.--Grahamec 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not far from it. We are told it is written by an expert, if qualifications are to be mentioned they need to be backed up. Giano 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No qualifications are mentioned in the text of the article, the claim in the nomination above was in my opinion unfortunate, but it does not affect the quality of the article.--Grahamec 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree completely. If we are told an article was written by an acknowledged expert one automatically gives it greater credence and assumes it has a greater reliability than a page which is not. This subject is contraversial in the art world as it is, which makes such claims even more important to be verified. Now is this page written by an acknowledged expert or not? - and if so acknowledged by who and with proof. Giano 07:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments J.Winklethorpe talk 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ref 3 lacks the name of the volume it appears in. Refs need page numbers as appropriate.
    Response There were four examples. removed two of them. Don't know where it says that "The Creation of Adam" is one of the most famous paintings in the world. It's simply reproduced in every single art book, without "words to that effect".
    Umm, not sure what you're responding to, here? Anyhow: refs, pages numbers, etc... J.Winklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about the use of an "unnamed writer for Carrier". When it comes down to it, that source is a piece of corporate fluff. It's fine when used for facts about air conditioning, but there's no way of knowing if the writer's opinion holds any weight. Most likely, it's a PR person. I'm sure there's some more reliable quotes out there, perhaps from the restoration team itself?
    I think that the "corporate fluff", as you call it, has a place as well. OK, I'll find another quotation to put in as well.  Done added another little quote. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find an independent writer who praises the restoration. Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My question would be: why is this writer to be given weight in this article? There is no evidence that they have expertise in anything other than airconditioning.J.Winklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply It's not a case of giving them weight. It's a case of being unable to find positive criticism for the job by anyone who didn't have a specific interest. Obviously the person who wrote this was paid to write it. But reading beyond the rhetoric, some of what it says is true beyond question: "The accumulated grime of centuries dulled colors and erased detail."
    Putting it in the article gives it weight. If some of it is true beyond question, what parts of it aren't?J.Winklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if a lot of the details in the article are "commonly known", there are a lot of statements that require specific citation.  Done

    Beyond that, even if a paragraph contains no controversy, a basic ref to a factual source at the end of it is good practice. This is as much about allowing others to follow up on what they read as anything else.

     Done added more citations
    • Something like "the removal of the carbon black has made all four scenes undeniably less dramatic and terrifying. Particularly noticeable is the loss of depth in the Death of Haman" contains enough subjective opinions to require some sort of citation, as just one example. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Firstly, the scenes are "dramatic and terrifying". They represent:
    1. Judith loading the decapitated severed head of Holofernes into a basket, and looking back over her shoulder at the body which is threshing its limbs like the proverbial "chook with its head cut off" (we call'em chooks where I come from!)
    2. David, a teenage boy, astride the body of Goliath who is still alive and trying to get up, raising the sword to hack his head orf.
    3. A seething mass of bodies of people, both dead and alive, who have all been bitten by poisonous snakes.
    4. Some people sitting around a table, the King in bed, and a couple of servants sitting on the steps watching the death throes of Haman, who is tied up to a tree, set diagonally to the plane of the picture, which is quite an extraordinary innovation.
    So what do I cut? I s'pose I can cut "terrifying" as being POV, but "dramatic" has got to stay, regardless of who did or didn't say it. I think the scenes could probably be described as "violent" without it being POV either. Assassination, retribution, hand to hand combat and mortal agony aredefinitely violent!
    Reply 2. "Particularly noticeable".... I've written this elsewhere. The reason why the loss of the black is much more particularly noticeable in some fescoes than others is entirely dependent upon the condition of the fresco when the black was applied. If the fresco was still damp, then the carbon black bonded with it much more permanenetly than if the fresco was dry. The black was essentially the last stage in the process, because Mick was using it to pick out details, create depth in the shadows, and in places, make figures really jump out of their background in a dramatic way. This latter was particularly the case with the Haman figure. It wasn't the case with a lot of the other scenes. So, by the removal of the black, Haman has been much more affected than the other pendentives, and to a degree than is probably only equalled by the loss of "radical foreshortening" of Jonah.Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't looking at "dramatic and terrifying". I was thinking of "undeniably less" and "particularly noticable". These are strong expressions and therefore challengeable; citation required. I get your explanation, I just think it needs supporting by an external published source. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If, according to the article, "disagreements about this, by Beck and other critics, have been vociferous and are unsolved" then a lot of the material is likely to be challenged and requires more careful references. A few examples from the Colours section:
    • "Perceptive viewers of the Sistine Chapel ceiling have always been aware..." if it's perceptive viewers only, perhaps a reference to some of them would be appropriate.
    Yes, this can be cited. Done
    • "it ought not to have been any revelation to the restorers." an opinion, and so needs a reference to whose opinion it is.
    Hmmm! that is definitely a bit POV, that is! It needs rewording.
    Basically, anyone who has ever seen a fresco that is in reasonably good condition (one without a great deal of overpainting or soot deposit) ought to have known what the palette is likely to be. But your "average viewer" (the thousands of tourists who flock to the Sistine Chapel every day) tends to accept the colours that they see as being those that the artist painted. On the other hand, Mancinelli cites a number of writers who had seen through the gloom.
    I am one of those to whom the lightness and brightness of the colours have always been apparent, and I have tried to get my students to perceive Michelangelo as a colourist. "Now you see but through a glass, darkly..."
     Done reworded some of this.Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "One figure that has particularly lost its impact is that of Jonah" again, more in the region of opinion.
    Well, yes.... and then again, it is overwhelmingly the case. The reason is that Jonah is radically foreshortened. To a much greater extent than any other major figure on the ceiling, and also, he occupies the prime position. Centrally placed and directly above the Last Judgement. So that anything that effects the tonality of Jonah is going to have a more radical effect than on almost any other figure. This is particularly noticeable because the painting beneath him has been worked over with lapis lazuli, giving it intense colouration. It also has much stronger tonality than the ceiling. And above it sits Jonah looking all pale and peaky, and but a shadow of his former self.
     Done Quoted Vasari on the previous state of the fresco, moved the pic so it is more obvious and reworded the statement.Amandajm 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, ok, but if "lessening the impact of the radical foreshortening described by Vasari" has occured, then says who? Ultimately, Vasari is giving a subjective opinion, and then someone else centuries later is saying that the restored figure doesn't match up to vasari's description. I'm not yet convinced this isn't more in the realm of opinion, and needs to be presented as such. Feel free to pursuade me otherwise, of course. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the mode of Vasari's opinion, I suppose, is subjective. But the basis of what he states is not. He observes, correctly and beyond argument, that the surface on which the picture is painted juts forward. (Structurally, it is a pendentive which supports the ceiling above it.) And while the actual architecture just forward, the figure painted on it leans backwards at a very steep angle, defying the surface upon which it is painted. This is not a matter of POV. It is a statement of fact.
    There is no other major figure on the ceiling which is comparable. This type of foreshortening only occurs elsewhere in some of the bodies of the violent corner pendentives
    Before Michelangelo, almost ever example of radical foreshortening was applied to a dead body, or someone asleep, eg a corpse in Uccello Battle of San Romano, Mantegna's "Pieta", Ghirlandio's "Massacre of the Innocence". Giotto's radical foreshortening of the arms of the apostle in the "Lamentation" was rarely emulated. So when Vasari described Jonah, he was talking about a work which had become exemplary to artists of the 16th century.....But all this is too much to say within the context of the article.
    I don't know how many days it took to paint the Jonah pendentive. On the evidence of what I can see from reproductions, I would say definitely three and possibly more. Some of the black appears to have been applied while the plaster was still fresh. In other areas, the black has gone, which indicates that it was painted when the fresco had dried and hence was less well attached, so it has come off in the recent cleaning.

    In a painting that was not foreshortened, this would effect only the tonality and the detail. But because foreshortening is the most significant compositional feature of this picture (as against contrasting colours, harmonious forms etc etc) then it is the foreshortening that has been affected. In the Daniel pendentive, foreshortening is also affected, but less radically, because it involves a leg, in particular, rather than a whole, extremely dynamic figure.

    • Note. In the case of Jonah, (and the other lesser figures mentioned such as the body in the "Brazen Serpent"), the foreshortening is such that it requires an adjective to set it aside from what one might term "normal" foreshortening such as that of a forearm, hand or knee . I can use "extreme", "radical" "dynamic" or some such. But it needs such to adequately describe what is happening.
    Reply, I'll take another look at the bits you've commented on. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so "radical foreshortening" is a fair summary of what Vasari said. That wasn't actually what I was getting at. It's the (possible) opinion that the figure now has less impact than what Vasari described. Basicly, we're looking at the figure now and saying "Well, that's definitely not as good as Vasari said it was". Is this "Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."? (WP:WHEN) J.Winklethorpe talk 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I can fix that. I thought it was the whole bit, that you needed convincing abouut, not just the single sentence. I agree it's a problem. Amandajm 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *"A comparison of the "restored" and "unrestored" figure gives strong evidence for the case that Michelangelo worked over this figure in a wash of carbon black, and that the technique was planned ahead" I can find nothing about this in the ref given. Could you point me to it?

    Thanks for observing this. Inadvertently cited AW instead of PLA.  Done

    J.Winklethorpe talk 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Quite honestly this is the best article I have ever read on wikipedia. The prose is brilliant, the images are good quality, well integrated, and the side by side comparisons enlightening. An outstanding job. I do have a few issues, some more and some less trivial.
    • The intro mentions that there are critics of the restoration, but does not give any clue as to why they opposed it.  Done
    • The article ends on a really sour note, a quote that begins: "The [so-called] Glorious Restoration of Michelangelo's frescoes has destroyed them forever." OK, this is a view by one critic. Let's not end the article on such a disparaging remark! I know not everyone is happy with it, but as one reads to the end of the article, the prose takes on a dramatically critical tone. I'm not suggesting you remove criticism, but just make sure it is a little more balanced, and don't pile it on right at the end!
    Reply, One option is to move that quotation that says that "Every book... will have to be rewritten" down to the end. But if I do that, then it will need a lot of qualifying with positive comments about the colour. Honestly, the more I look at the before and after pics of the "Jesse Lunette", the more sour I feel.
    Done added a short section at the end with two quotes and a gracious statement by Pietrangeli (not the guy in charge of the restoration, but the one who established proceedures back in the 70s) aaand turned up some good stuff which I am going to write in... tomorrow, because it's late in the land of Oz.Amandajm 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The spandrel on the left retained the crisp black definition on the architectural motifs after restoration, suggesting Michaelangelo completed it while the plaster was still wet. The other spandrel lost its detailing after cleaning because the highlights were added after the plaster had dried." (44 words vs. 99 words and makes the point)
    Reply I'll see what I can do
    • "The penultimate restoration was undertaken by the Restoration Laboratory of the Vatican Museum..." can we have a little more detail in this section, it feels a little thin.
    Agree, but that is all the information that I have available.
    • "the team of restorers worked initially from aluminium scaffolding..." implies that they took a different strategy later on, but the article doesn't mention this.
    Reply. I see. It wasn't the material nature of the scaffolding that changed, it was the structure, which is explained, but the fact that aluminium is highlighted draws attention to the material. I'll try to reword it. Done
    • One of the captions seems to have some kind of weird thing going on: Template:Ref labels
    Rude word  Done
    • "...was built within the Vatican..." The Vatican is a big place with many buildings. Can we be more specific?
    Yes Done
    • "Head Restorer of Papl Monuments" I assume you mean "Papal"
    Yes  Done
    • In the criticism section it says the restorers "...took a universal approach to the restoration" but earlier in the article, it says: "The continued scientific analysis and the response of the restorers to the particular problems was to be an ongoing part of the process, rather than the conservation team deciding on a single treatment for every part of the building." Which seems to be in conflict.
    Reply Yes, the do conflict, don't they? (I've moved this down to link it with comment below Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • "An important part of modern restoration proceedure, as established by these rules, is the study and analysis of the artwork..." There are other things too, one thing that is very important to conservators is making changes that are reversible and there are other things too that must have influenced this restoration team. What are they?
    Reply. Unfortunately, I'm locked into what I can get from Colalucci. He says that there are two things- Procedure and Method. He says that Procedure is so on and so on.
    I read Colalucci's chapter and extrapolated the Aims of the restorers, which I then wrote in list form, basing them on the rules as set down by Carlo Pietrangeli, mentioned but not quoted by Colalucci. I am aware of what the rules are and have written specs based on them, but I don't own a copy. And because I don't own a copy and can't cite them exactly, it could fall into the category of Personal Research. So I rewrote the section, incorporating it into the section about "Interventions". If you want to look at the list, go back about a week in the history, and you'll find it all there. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply OK, I got really radical. I reread the list and put it back. It's all there, alright.. Every single point on the list is stated by one of these guys, but not in a neat precise orderly manner. I'd be happier if it was. But it is plain that those were the aims, and, on second or third thoughts, they ought to be included.
    • "as the range of colours same colours appear..." needs a fix.  Done
    • And finally, there seems to be spaces between the refs and the end of sentences. Refs should always follow without a space. Done

    Okay, sorry for the tedious list but great work! Jeff Dahl 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply Never mind the tedium! Thanks for the encouragement. Amandajm 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I don't know if this was intentional but "Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem." image illustrates the section on criticism, reflecting the emotional state of some of the critics, which seems particularly appropriate. Jeff Dahl 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the same thing - see "Resolved stuff from Raul" further up on this page. Raul654 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having such a ceiling must have made sitting through a boring church service much easier. One wonders if Julius II ever regretted the decision to have it painted after looking out at his congregation staring up at the frescoes during a sermon. :) Jeff Dahl 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The ceiling is a sermon. Amandajm 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

    Callisto (moon)

    [edit]

    This article is about one of the moons of planet Jupiter. It is comprehensive and well written. Callisto is a remarkable celestial body, and the article about it deserves Featured status.Ruslik 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for comments. Ruslik 06:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to support this article for FA. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've given this article a quick copyedit but there are a few issues from what I've seen (I haven't looked over the whole article yet).

    • The main problem is that the lead goes into a lot of detail about many things that aren't covered in any more detail later on. E.g, the lead gives as much information about Callisto's lack of orbital resonance and tidal heating as the orbit section does. The lack of diffrentiation is mentioned three times, twice in the lead, once in the internal structure section. All three go into roughly the same amount of detail.
     Done I limited the number of times the differentiation is mentioned in the lead to one instance. However differentiation is mentioned several times in 'Origin and evolution' subsection. As to orbital resonance, the only option is to remove it from the lead all together? Ruslik 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead states baldly that Callisto has a subsurface ocean, while the subesequent sections state that this is merely a hypothesis.
     Done Ruslik 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The exact composition of Callisto's rock is not known, but is probably close to the composition of L/LL type ordinary chondrites, which are characterized by less total iron, less metallic iron and more iron oxide." - I agree with the inserted text here. Less than what?
     Done. Less than H-chondrites. Ruslik 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (especially the dimensionless moment of inertia – 0.3549 ± 0.0042 determined during close fly-bys) - a little explanation of what is meant by this would be good.
     Done added a note. Ruslik 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll be back to look at the rest later. Serendipodous 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment/incipient Support. It's great to see such a factual and well referenced article. For this reason, and also because it is an important Solar system body, the article deserves to be made Featured. I'm in the process of making various superficial copyedits, meanwhile, a few relatively small comments / questions / suggestions for improvement or clarification:
    • Intro: The purported ocean is mentioned as possible in the 2nd paragraph, while it is touted as unambiguously present in the 5th. Which is it? What about the core? — uncertain in the 2nd paragraph, in the 4th the slowness of heating prevented its formation, then later it is said that slow convection led to partial differentiation. So - has it differentiated or is this only "possible"? Has it got a core? or is it uncertain?
    I think that I clarified these issues. The phrase "and thus the creation of a rocky core, and icy mantle" (which I removed) actually refered to events at the time of formation of Callisto, which did not in itself preclude the later core formation. So in this text I tried to say that Callisto failed to differentiate during formations, but probably differentiated partially after that due to the slow convection in interior, and therefore may have a small core. Ruslik 12:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's good. I've just noticed, however, that over in Internal structure there is an echo of this issue — it's not explained what is the alternative of the ocean. In that case does the crust go all the way down to ~500km, is there a mantle, or does the poorly differentiated stuff start right below the 80-150 km thick crust? Deuar 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only alternative discussed seriously in the literature is a thick outer shell (~300 km) made of water ice on the top of mantle and possible core. Ruslik 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     DoneDeuar 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Internal structure — "The radius of the core may be no more than 600 km" — what does this mean, exactly? e.g. that "it's about 600 km, if it's present at all", or is it that "the radius cannot be more than 600 km", etc.
    It is the maximal radius compatible with moment of inertia and average density. Ruslik 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     DoneDeuar 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Deuar 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Bar a few samantic issues, I think this page is good enough to feature. Serendipodous 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to everyboby, I hope that the article will become featured soon. Ruslik 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment First off, to the main editors of this article, congratulations on crafting an extremely comprehensive, well references article. The only concern that I had while reading was that several sections seem to use highly technical astronomical language that might cause a lay-reader to experience some confusion (e.g Atmosphere and ionosphere & Orbit and Rotation sections). I suppose it's unavoidable when dealing with a highly technical article - and one could always use the numerous blue links to clarify something they do not understand. Just an observation really. Kudos to the editors though! Wisdom89 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. I tried hard to make the article understandable for a lay-reader, but there are limits on what I can do. Ruslik 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll support with a few quibbles at this point. I was half done going over the prose before the FAC, but had been bloody slow and it was already great quality. The quibbles: this does need a go through for technical language. I don't think making an article understandable for a lay-reader is too difficult. Just ask how scarce the term is—endogenic is not a term that even an informed amateur is going to immediately understand, and is particularly over-technical in a lead. Duplicate blue links should also be audited for.

    However, that's all another way of saying that this is truly information rich (as I've mentioned to Ruslik). I think it could be promoted now and the last "extra eyes" points could be done easily if editors watchlist it. (I uppercased the adjectival form consistently, for example—hope that doesn't bother, Ruslik.) Marskell 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

    Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm

    [edit]

    This article covers the last hours of the life of the first President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, as he is captured at the end of a coup and then executed. It seems poised to pass a MILHIST A-class review, and I have just implemented a copyedit. Hopefully, I can get this featured before Nov 2 (the day of the assassination). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment Article contains the following sentence: "they had ordered the construction of a three tunnel leading from Gia Long to remote..." What is a 'three tunnel'? Hmains 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Article contains the following sentence: "The embassy informed Conein that Kennedy him to find Diem." Words are missing from this sentence, maybe 'ordered' or 'had ordered'. Hmains 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this article would benefit from a brief summary section to put it more into context. A few sentences on the lives of the Ngo brothers (How old were they when this happened? How long had Ngo Dinh Diem been president? How did he become president?) and causes of the coup might help (why were they so hated?). It might also be useful to give abbreviations after the first full use of the word (ARVN) and not to have abbreviations before the first use of the word (APC) (both in the lead). I would identify President Kennedy (not just as "Kennedy"). There are still some typos: "In anticipation of a coup, they had ordered the construction of three tunnel separate tunnels leading from Gia Long to remote areas outside the palace." "Nixon ordered an investigation under E. Howard Hunt into the murders, convinced that Kennedy must have a secretly ordered the killings." "The eight anniversary of Diem’s death in 1971 was the first time that memorial services had been held with government approval..." and finally semicolons should have a space after them (before the words that follow). I am not sure if this last point is because I do not speak Vietnamese, but I had some trouble keeping all the military officers straight - I'm not sure how to make all the names clearer, maybe keep their ranks with their names (so Colonel so and so might be easier to follow than jus his name)? Overall this is well done, but it needs a bit more polish. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed typos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update. I have filled in the first lot of background. Diem and Nhu were 62 and 53 respectively. I'm not sure where this is the most appropriate. Feel free to add in wherever it is appropriate. Teh backgrouwnd and abbrevaitions have now been fixed, and the background is mostly unreffed as it is reffed in the main article as per WP:SS. Finally with the names, I am not sure what is the problem. I mentioned their rank and full name and on repeat instances simply use their given name. In Vietnamese, their given name is their last name, family name goes first. Hence General Tran Van Don is called "Don". His last name is Tran, but in VN, people are known by their given names, else everybody would be Mr Nguyen, Mr Tran, Mr Le and so forth. thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Well done and deserving of Featured Article status. The new summary is very good and helped me understand the rest of the article much better - thank you for adding it and for addressing my comments above. I am not sure where to add the ages, but here are two possibilities: a) What if Diem and Nhu's year or date of birth were added right after each is introduced (after the lead)? Or b) What if in the section describing their killings, you added a sentence something like "At the time of their deaths, Diem was 62 and Nhu 53."?

    I have reread the article just now and took notes and have a few more comments that may be useful, especially some specifics that hopefully clarify my last comment about making names clearer, as well as some small puzzles I found. Puzzles first:

    1. Did Huynh Van Cao remain loyalist or not? The sentences "Minh and Don had invited senior officers to a meeting at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, the headquarters of the Joint General Staff (JGS), on the pretext of routine business. Instead, they announced that a coup was underway, with only Tung refusing to join." leaves it unclear.
    1. How did Diem and Nhu die in priests' robes? They are described as entering the church in business suits, then their bodies are seen in the photographs dressed in priests' robes. Did Diem and Nhu put them on as disguises? Did the army officers dress them that way? If so, was it as disguises or somehow to associate them more with the Catholic church before execution? Even if the reason is unknown, that should be stated (something like "It is unclear why they were dressed in clerical robes.")
      It is not discussed at all in the books. They might have known but not written it down, so I left it as is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The normal spelling is "Götterdämmerung", not "Gotterdammerung". Since it is a direct quote, the incorrect spelling may be wrong in the original (so perhaps it should be noted with [sic]?).
    1. It was in the book except I didn't have the marks on my keyboard. fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Duong Hieu Nghia is described as participating in the killings in the body of the article, but not the lead, so should he be identified in the lead as directly involved in the killings too (not just Nguyen Van Nhung)?

    Names where a bit of clarification may be helpful:

    1. It might be useful to mention that Nguyen Van Thieu later became President, otherwise he is mentioned once as a Colonel in the section "Surrender and debate" and not again until the section "Culpability debate" as President. Perhaps "After sunset, the Fifth Division of Colonel Nguyen Van Thieu (who would later become President) led an assault on Gia Long Palace and it fell by daybreak.[4]" and later "When Thieu (who had led the assault on Gia Long as a colonel) rose to become President,..."
    2. Since there are two men named Tho (vice president and aide de camp), perhaps it would make sense to clarify that it is the aide de camp with Diem and Nhu in Arrest in Cholon.
    3. Also in the Arrest in Cholon section, would adding General to Khiem "Thao was told by General Khiem...." make that any clearer? Khiem is referred to as a general later in the same section. As he is only mentioned three times in the article, he is harder to identify without his rank.

    Congratulations on a very nicely written and well researched article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support for featured article, historical, interesting, many images. Well done.--Sandahl 01:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong SupportAn extremely interesting article written about an important event in the Vietnamese history. Also, this is as best as you can ever get about this incident.Excellent use of images and deserve to be an FA.Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support As usual, a well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written article. I just have a few, tiny things I would like to see spruced up before I support.
    • One or two more sentences at the beginning of the lead to provide an even broader historical context.
    • Dissidents, communist and nationalist, were jailed and executed in the thousands, and elections were routinely rigged. - Are these "communists" or "Communists"?
    • Opposition candidates were threatened with conspiracy with the Vietcong, which carried the death penalty, and in many areas, large numbers of ARVN troops were sent to stuff ballot boxes. - I don't quite follow - how do you threaten someone with a conspiracy?
    • The captain had hated Nhung before. Now he was charged emotion. - Is there a preposition missing or should there be a "[sic]"?
    • In the "Assassination" section, there are double quotation marks (""). Aren't quotes inside quotes supposed to have single quotes ("')?
    • There are some quotations without inline citations immediately after them. For the sake of clarity, I think it is best to cite immediately after the quotation.
    • I know that it is optional for wikipedia, but I always like to provide the city of publication for any sources I use. If you order a book or request it from interlibrary loan, you often need that information.

    These are small details and I look forward to supporting the article shortly. Very nice work. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

    Thomas C. Hindman

    [edit]

    This article just recently passed GA. I did a thorough copyedit of the article, and I think it meets all the featured article criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Nothing wrong to be found with this article, apparently.Kmarinas86 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Some more pictures would be nice. I know it's difficult for a Civil War (or earlier) article, but they don't have to be of the man himself. Even things illustrating places/buildings/events in his life are useful. From my experience working on the Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C., I know it's tough to find even those pictures, however. JKBrooks85 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

    Banksia spinulosa

    [edit]

    This is the sixth Banksia article to be nominated after Banksia brownii, Banksia integrifolia, Banksia ericifolia, Banksia epica and Banksia telmatiaea. I feel it is as good as the others which are all current Featured Articles, with respect to Featured Article Criteria. It is comprehensive and fully referenced. All images were either taken by me, are over 75 years old or authored by a friend :) Please drop in and let me know how to make the article better. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Introduction: ...of the genus Banksia in the Proteaceae family native to eastern Australia - needs rewording to avoid ambiguity. (to Melb -are commas enough to reduce ambiguity or shall I switch clauses?)
    Yes, that works --Melburnian 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. spinulosa var. spinulosa: The nominate race is an autonym that encompasses the type material of the species - perhaps this could be reworded to sound less jargonistic.
    (I tried, "a name that was automatically created for the original material of the species as the other subspecies were described") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Dammit, I was going past lots of bushes this morning. None of my photos really do it justice. Got some ok ones - still searching..)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - I've cropped one which I think looks ok-ish. I can try get another in the next few days (lucky I don't need a flower as I'd have to wait 6 months...). Let me know if you think it's ok. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

    The Age of Reason

    [edit]

    This article is about Thomas Paine's deistic attack on institutionalized religion, The Age of Reason. I have been working on it off and on for a while now and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. It is currently GA and has had a peer review that was extended here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was bold and did a few. Actually it is tricky in the original places I mentioned unless combining paras 2,3 and 4 in Pub History but it could be argued either way - feel free to revert if you feel really strongly.cheers, Casliber (talk '· contribs) 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The list of modern reprints seems out of place; it breaks up the list of notes and the bibliography. Actually, I wonder if it's even necessary. I mean, there must be so many different republications, how do you know which are notable? --Midnightdreary 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the list really breaks up the notes and the bibliography as some of the books in it are quoted in the article - it is part of the bibliography, really. You are correct that there are many different republications, but these are the important edited ones (I'm sure I must have had a source for the list, but I no longer remember what it is). They were added at the request of another reviewer. If you decide to remove them, please retain the two that are quoted in the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Maybe just a quick move to just after Bibliography? I defer to your opinion on this. --Midnightdreary 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Awadewit | talk 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A nice article; I have done some tweaking. I don't see any problem with the paragraphs, although the one giving background for Jeffersonian America could be moved to the beginning of its section.

    • The assertion about Joseph Johnson needs a source; it is not clear which of the notes in that paragraph applies. (Using Johnson Circle unqualified is unwise; the primary meaning of that, however unlikely in this context, is Samuel Johnson.)

    Comments:

    1. The title is referred to inconsistently, variously The Age of Reason, Age of Reason and even "the The Age of Reason"!? (The instances in CAPS in quotes would look less obtrusive in SMALL CAPS.)
      I have followed the rules of grammar for using "the".
      Using two different styles. Either works equally well, but not both. RD
      I'm confused. I have used "the" when grammatically appropriate. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed the extra "the".
      The quote may look less obtrusive in small caps, but that would be altering the quotation. I checked my source again and those words are definitely capitalized. I have a feeling they were meant to be obtrusive. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it change it? It's the usual treatment (see CMOS) for absorbing CAPS to avoid undue weight. RD
      I don't think any undue weight is being given here. I am following standard scholarly practice in not altering quotations as well as WP:MOSQUOTE. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It isn't until the third par of the intro that we learn this is a book.
      You don't think the "written by" and "published in three parts" gives it away? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I don't :)) And it also needs to say early on what kind of book it is. RD
      "deistic treatise" now added to first sentence. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I'm unhappy about the way sophisticated notions like deist, revelation, and inerrancy are dropped into the text without explanation. Clarity about these is central to understanding the article.
      Do you mean in the lead or throughout? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd introduce them gently, with general explanation in the intro; with much more detailed explanation the body. RD
      Not everything can be explained in the introduction. The most important word of those three, deist, is partially defined through example. I think that the sections go on to explain them better. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. The close, even cosy, relationship between non-conformism and radicalism (a dominant and recurrent feature of British politics for three hundred years) is not explored.
      Do you think a few more sentences in the "Historical context" section would make the break between Dissent and radicalism in the 1790s clearer? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      They were on more or less parallel courses for a very long time: one assailing religious hetrodoxy; the other political conservation. As the Church and the State were (and still are) interlinked in the UK, they can be seen simply two prongs of the same groundswell for reform. RD
      Yes, but as this page is on The Age of Reason, it is important to tie this book to that history. This book helped break those ties briefly, as I explain in the "Political context" section. As I cannot present all of British religious history as a background, I had to limit myself, so that is why I asked whether a few more sentences would be what you think are necessary or are you envisioning an entirely new subsection entitled "Religious history"? Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The Intellectual context: eighteenth-century British deism section is seriously under-referenced.
      Since this is just a cursory overview, I don't really think it is. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Four hundred words with two refs. It's refs that demonstrate that something is not original research. RD
      There are references from three separate sources. What is it that you want exactly? This is a standard account of eighteenth-century deism. 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    6. I would like to see more detail about the book's content, and less detail about its context. The lengthy quote from part one could be replaced by paraphrase. :--ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This has been raised before, but I'm afraid nothing can be done about it. The published scholarly work on The Age of Reason is mostly about the book's rhetoric and its reception. I added the long quote in an effort to give readers a flavor of Paine's arguments and argumentation style. If we start adding long explanations of the content, we will be veering into WP:OR.
      Who said anything about long? :) RD
      The sections on Paine's "Creed", on "Reason and revelation", on "Paine's analysis of the Bible", on "Religion and the state", and on "Paine's intellectual debt" are all about the content of the book. What do you feel has been overlooked? Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
      • "The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights the corruption of the Christian church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power." Does Paine write "the Christian church"? That seems kind of odd, since there are so many Christian churches. Also, it's my understanding that "church" refers to the building, while "Church" refers to the institution.
        • The book is a confused mass. Sometimes Paine distinguishes between Churches and sometimes not. I would say that generally he does not. You are correct about the capitalization. That is fixed throughout. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In 1796 Daniel Isaac Eaton published Parts I and II, at a cost of one shilling and six pence" Shouldn't that be "...Eaton published Parts I and II, and sold them at a cost of..."?
      • I'm not much of a friend of Wiktionary links in general, but I think the two links to the Wiktionary entry on "vulgar" are completely unnecessary in this case. Why not link vulgarism?--Carabinieri 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The definition of "vulgar" being discussed is no longer common. I think the wiktionary link is necessary. The first definition for "vulgar" works well where as vulgarism is a whole article and the lead is misleading. In the eighteenth century, the word "vulgar" did not yet mean "coarse", etc. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless you're quoting "vulgar", what's wrong with "popularized"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Vulgar" was such an important word in this debate - it was used by both sides - I feel it is important to retain that vocabulary (scholars use it as well, by the way). At the end of the article, I even explain how these words changed meaning with The Age of Reason and the trials surrounding it; I quote Joss Marsh's book, Word Crimes: "The Age of Reason struggle almost tolled the hour when the words 'plain,' 'coarse,' 'common,' and 'vulgar' took on a pejorative meaning." Awadewit | talk 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    William Cooley

    [edit]

    I have been building this article slowly with great help from other editors. It has been promoted to A-Class and peer reviewed since that, and I would like to get the feedback from the community if it can be promoted to FA-Class. --Legionarius 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose The lead is very brief and doesn't feel like it really tries to establish Cooley's notability to a reader who has never heard of him before. The lead also includes what looks like namingcruft. Isn't this really better off in the main body of the article or a footnote, or even removed altogether? Peter Isotalo 06:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it is a little better now.--Legionarius 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. "Early life" feels a bit too brief to merit a separate section, though. Perhaps it could somehow be merged with the section below.
    Peter Isotalo 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I joined the paragraphs and reading improved, even if the article has a looser structure. A worthy trade-off. Thoughts?--Legionarius 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say much about the content, but the prose in this article is not quite ready. Some sentences do not have parallel constructions, for instance:
      • "Cooley sustained himself as a salvager and planting arrowroot"
      • "Arrowroot was used to make bread dough and as a base for wafers and biscuits"
    • I found the use of the word "accumulating" surprising. It would typically be used as "accumulating a fortune". Hopefully, the time since last edit will allow enough distance for you to catch any other sentences like the above. Finally, galleries are somewhat discouraged, and it's not clear to me what these historical documents add to the article. You might want to drop the gallery and incorporate one or two of the images into the text. Gimmetrow 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gallery remopved. Unfortunately I am at a loss regarding prose, and I am asking for some help from the League of Copyeditors.--Legionarius 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll try to do something about the prose issues I see in the next few days. Gimmetrow 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!--Legionarius 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the issues mentioned. Or at least I guess I did. :-)--Legionarius 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph of the lead repeats information that appears again in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Can this be reworked so it is not repetitive? Gimmetrow 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to include some information about the fact in the first paragraph to attest his notability and expand information on the third paragraph. Thanks for the copyediting!--Legionarius 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral I am striking my oppose for now because I won't have time to do a thorough re-read for a little while, and I am happy with the other MOS changes that have been made so far. Karanacs 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Oppose for now. Karanacs 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:DASH. In many instances you are not to use the hyphen key on your keyboard but should instead type & ndash; or & mdash; to get the appropriate dash. Karanacs 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I failed to find an issue with the dashes in the article other than "present-day"; but this probably is my incompetence in understanding the policy. I listed all the suspects; could you please tell me where you see a problem in the occurrences below?

    Hyphen

    as his son-in-law.
    ..was twenty-seven by fourteen feet.
    legislatively-appointed auctioneer.
    present-day

    Ndash

    1783–1863

    Mdash

    Cooley moved away in 1823[3]—possibly to escape the Spanish influence—to the north bank of New River
    Frankee Lewis—one of the first settlers, in the area since 1788[17]—sold her business...
    ...Indians in the area—arrowroot was a staple of their diet.
    ..good performance of his machinery—the output was close to 450 lb per day (204 kg per day)—brought Cooley..
    ...was a Captain of the "Silver Grays"—a militia for the home defense of Tampa in the 1850s.
    --Legionarius 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What you've got listed here looks correct, but when I go to edit the article it just looks like a hyphen (that may be my browser, and I am used to seeing the actual code & mdash;). The policy also applies to citations, unfortunately. Karanacs 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it to your preferred coding, including citations.--Legionarius 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few more; I saw references to lbs but not kg and ft with no corresponding meters. Karanacs 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    hopefully they are all done now.--Legionarius 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a little bit of copyediting, but there is a lot more. Ping me when the League of Copyeditors has looked at it (and when you've fixed the other issues) and I'll re-review. Doing... I am looking forward to have their assistance.--Legionarius 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Karanacs 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the League is overwhelmed now. Is there any particular area of the article you are specially dissatisfied? I saw that other users stopped by and made comprehensive and high-quality edits.--Legionarius 16:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Anabolic steroid

    [edit]

    previous FACs: 1 · 2 · 3

    I'm nominating this article for Featured Article (again) and I hope that this time it finally meets FA criteria. It has been through a lot of changes in the past and in my opinion meets all of the FA criteria. It's very extensive in coverage, very NPOV covering all sides of AAS and AAS use, Very clearly written and formatted for clear reading. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Since the last FAC, this article came to Good article review. At the time, it had some weaknesses in terms of the reliability of some of its sources, its neutrality, and some of its prose. However, it was so obviously close to being excellent that several reviewers contributed to the article to get it into shape. Since then, I have noticed a very productive working relationship between Wikidudeman and MastCell on the article. From what I have seen, these editors have slightly different points of view, but a great deal of mutual respect, and their work on the article has enhanced its neutrality immensely. To me this is a model for what the Wikipedia approach can achieve.
    The article is thorough in its coverage, informative, well sourced, and easy to read. I find many medicine/biology articles difficult to read because of the insistance to use the correct and precise medical/biological term. In several places, this article demonstrates a very positive compromise in which more informal lay terminology is used, but a more precise term is linked: this provides a way to make the article accurate without making it unreadable.
    Congratulations to Wikidudeman (especially) on making this such a good piece of work. Geometry guy 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I like this article. It reads very well and doesn't go into highly technical terminology while still covering the necessary science in language that should be easy to understand by most people. While I am not the most anal-retentive copy editor on wikipedia, and thereby didn't go through the prose with a fine-toothed comb as I am certain other FA reviewers are sure to do, I did not find any major glaring violations of the manual of style, and I believe the article meets the Featured Article criteria (I did check the images, though! ;-).
    There's a couple of minor issues, mainly pertaining to reference citations and verifiability, but these shouldn't be too hard to fix.
    • While the sentence, "This testicular hormone was first identified by Karoly Gyula David, E. Dingemanse, J. Freud and Ernst Laqueur in a May 1935 paper, 'On Crystalline Male Hormone from Testicles (Testosterone).'" actually verifies itself, in a sense, I think it would nonetheless help to actually include the citation after the sentence of where the paper is published, and possibly a link to it if it's available. Stating that it was merely a "may 1935 paper" isn't quite enough; was it published in a notable journal, or was it just thrown together and self-published by some nut with a lot of money?
    This information is in the secondary sources cited, but I have added citations to the primary sources as well. Geometry guy 10:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto for the other paper, "A Method for Preparing Testosterone from Cholesterol.", mentioned in the same paragraph.
    Ref added. Tim Vickers 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Testosterone propionate is mentioned in a letter to the editor of Strength and Health magazine in 1938" -- cite the letter to the editor (magazine citation needed).
    • In the image of testosterone bound to the androgen receptor, the drug is not easily visible in the binding site. Perhaps the image could be modified to better show where the drug is (instead of using sticks, maybe put the testosterone model using a space-filling representation). This is a really minor issue (if it can't be fixed, don't worry about it).
    Fixed. Tim Vickers 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two bullet points under 'medical uses', as well as the last one (gender dysmorphia), are uncited.
    Refs added. Tim Vickers 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the paragraph relating to Arnold Schwarzenegger's heart valve defect and its alleged connection to his earlier steroid use, I'm having trouble with the statement, "Some have assumed this was due to anabolic steroids." I think we're assuming that some people have assumed it was due to anabolic steroids, and without a citation backing this up, this would violate WP:OR.

    That's all. Other than that, the article is in great shape! Cheers! Dr. Cash 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So everyone thinks it's FA criteria? Wikidudeman (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There have only been two comments so far. Can you fix the magazine cite? Geometry guy 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Strength and Health magazine in 1938" one? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Geometry guy 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's actually been there since the article first began before I started to working on it. Right now I'm unable to find any sources to it due to the massive amount of wikipedia clone websites saying the same thing but also with no sources. I don't doubt it's true but being unable to find a source we might should delete it if one isn't found in the future. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no Google source for that, if you filter out the Wiki clones (link) then there isn't anything useful remaining. Tim Vickers 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like my suggested revisions have been addressed, so I am removing the "(pending)" comment and going with full support now. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:
      • Aren't anabolic steroids banned in track and field on an IAAF level? The UFC is hardly as important as important as for example the UCI, the ITF, the WTA, or the ICC. So why is it given as an example for an organization that has banned anabolic steroids? Haven't these other organizations banned them?
      • "some steroids cause an increase in bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol." This article is about anabolic steroids. Are they among the steroids that cause this?
      • "In countries where anabolic steroids are strictly regulated, some have called for less regulation.". WP:WEASEL
      • Last paragraph of "Mechanism of action" is unreferenced"
      • Most of the studies cited in the "Non-medical use and abuse" section only cover the United States or in one case Australia, in another the English-speaking world. Yet they are used as if they applied worldwide.
      • "When taking anabolic steroids, either for medical or other reasons, it is desirable to minimize any adverse effects." Obviously... That's what adverse means.
      • "One possible origin of the idea that steroids are extremely dangerous is from claims that Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer caused by anabolic steroids." The claim that many people think steroids are dangerous because of Alzado is not covered by the source. I also highly doubt this claim.--Carabinieri 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed in order presented:
    I've got rid of the UFC and added in the WTA and the ITF.
    YES, Some anabolic steroids do cause increase in bad cholesterol and decrease in good. It's referenced.
    In the countries where criticism of criminalization goes, The "Some" isn't a weasel word since it's clarified and referenced. It's only a weasel word if it's not clarified or referenced.
    I've added references to the paragraph in the Mechanism of action paragraph. I can't find a source for the last sentence of that paragraph, Perhaps Tim Vickers can find it.
    I've added key words to the "Non medical use and abuse" section to clarify.
    Haha, I agree with that. I've reworded it.
    I've reworded the Lyle Alzado section so that it doesn't say that the myth about him having Brain cancer due to AAS caused the idea that steroids are highly deadly.
    Wikidudeman (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Was this article promoted to FA status? A star was added to the article stating that it's FA status. Has it been promoted? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Tau Ceti

    [edit]

    A co-nom with User:RJHall. RJ provided all of the principal data on this star (including the minutiae of the infobox) and the general page structure almost a year ago, for GA. I decided to give it a good run over the last week because it was close to FA. The life and planet section has been expanded, the prose audited, more precise headlines introduced, and some new info added to physical characteristics. RJ has set the star referencing standard with IK Pegasi but I think this compares well—every recent paper on this body is in there, on my last digging around.

    (Pics? Sorry folks, no good pics.) Marskell 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A dim optical companion has been observed, which is possibly gravitationally bound, but it is more than ten arcseconds distant from the primary. - erm..what? Is it a double star?...don' leave us hangin'....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source: "This star has a faint optical neighbour, possibly a binary companion (Worley 1996), which has a V magnitude of 13.1 and is separated by more than 10 arcseconds from Cet, and therefore does not influence the interferometric measurement." So unfortunately we can't say with total certainty. This is Worley—a massive catalog, apparently. Marskell 10:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, frustating. I have combined a few stubby paras where the subject matter is not clearly differentiated between one para and the next. I regret my astronomy is not as good as others so will await Ruslik's approval before I can support on comprehensiveness but am happy with prose and flow now.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Article is intersting, but I have a few issues with it.
    1) The article claims: "In the case of Tau Ceti, the atmospheric metallicity is roughly: or about half the solar abundance.", which is wrong, because -0.50 means that τ Ceti metallicity is times less then the Solar value.
    2) The 'Luminosity and variability" subsection contains phrase: "This indicates a relatively stable star with only a low level of periodic magnetic variation.", which should be removed, because it duplicates the previous sentence. The low activity actually supports conclusion that the star is old.
    3) τ Ceti (HD 10700) was a target of radial velocity planetary searches, which also failed to discover any planets. See [31]. You should mention this fact in the article.
    Ruslik 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I took care of 2. Is it possible that your link in 3 is simply summarizing what we already have? (i.e., the Hubble '99 search.) I'm not sure if it refers to a unique search. I'll ping RJ regarding 1. Marskell 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By now more then 200 planets have been discovered by radial velocity (spectroscopic) searches. HST has never been used for them, because it lacks necessary equipment. HST was only used for the imaging of this system, but it found nothing as the article says. So I am talking about a different investigation. [32] is actually the best source radial velocity (and other) planetary searches. Ruslik 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "No astrometric or radial velocity perturbations have been deduced" covers the third, I think. — 24.16.105.84 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (I think that anon is RJ.) Yes, that sentence covers the point, I think. I added one of Ruslik's links as an extra reference. The apx 1/3 point was also addressed. Marskell 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose instead to add (to the planet searches section) the following paragraph:
    "Tau Ceti was a target of a few radial velocity planetary searches, which have failed to find any periodical variations attributable to planets. The velocity precision reached so far is about 11 m/s measured over 5 year time span. This result excludes the presence of hot Jupiters, and any planets with minimum mass (M·sini) of one Jupiter’s mass or more and with orbital period less then 15 years."
    The radial velocity searches seem to have excluded any giant planets (not only brown dwarfs and hot Jupiters) closer then 5 au. Ruslik 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, assuming that the inclination is not close to 90° from the line of sight. — RJH (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Great article, especially the explanation of radial velocity for someone who doesn't understand astronomy (not me, I have some astronomy knowledge from 2 astronomy classes at college). In the sentence "The velocity precision reached so far is about 11 m/s measured over 5 year time span" - the 11 m/s should also list the velocity converted to Imperial units for the Americans who don't understand metric. Royalbroil 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, looks good. One question, is it custom in Astronomy articles to use all that punctuation with the author list on journal articles? Have a look at Asperger syndrome to see the consistent punctuation on authors returned by Diberri's tool for PubMed journal references on medical articles—they're just cleaner looking without all those periods and semi-colons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The semi-colons are probably my fault (I think R.J. just uses commas); I find it good to separate authors with initials. But I can look. Marskell 20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Diberri's tool (and Pubmed) return like this, for example:
    • Arndt TL, Stodgell CJ, Rodier PM (2005). ...
    so medicine FAs tend to use that format consistently. Just a thought to make your refs purdy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'author= | coauthors=' generates a semicolon from the template, unfortunately; if not, I probably wouldn't have adopted it. Marskell 06:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I use semi-colons to separate a long list of authors per the seeming convention at NASA ADS. See for example: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&AS...95..273C I know there's different conventions for how to do that, depending on the field. — RJH (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Authentic Science Fiction

    [edit]

    A 1950s UK science fiction magazine. FA for comparison: Fantastic Universe. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • For articles such as these -- I don't think there is a convention, so if you don't mind I think I'd like to avoid doing this in this case. There are enough different titles that it would really clutter up the first sentence of the lead and make it hard to read.
    • "The Rose" -- Good catch; it should be in quotes as it's a short story. Fixed.
    • There is only one article-space wlink -- I'll go around and add a few; good suggestion.
    Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support This article was informative and a pleasure to read. It is well-written, well-researched (especially for such an obscure topic), and stable.
    • In the third paragraph of "Content and criticism", the article quotes some assessments of the novels printed in the magazine. Could those assessments be attached to someone? "SF scholar X..."
    • In the fifth paragraph of "Content and criticism", the article cites the names of the people with the quotes, but doesn't tell the reader why s/he should trust them. Could you briefly identify them? "Historian of SF...."
    • The only thing that was perhaps missing (and this could easily be because the sources don't provide it) was an analysis of the kinds of SF stories the magazine published. Did they focus on any particular subgenres, for example?

    I have a small list of prose nitpicks, but as they do not affect my support of the article, I have placed them on the article's talk page. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies:
    • In the third paragraph -- done.
    • In the fifth paragraph -- this is a little harder. Ashley's been identified in the third paragraph, so I think we can leave him out. The other opinions are from Kyle, Tuck, and the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia. Kyle is simply someone who wrote a pictorial history of sf; the only scholarly validation here is that he got his book published -- he's not an academic. Tuck is the author of a very useful sf encyclopedia; his expertise is widely acknowledged within the field, but more as a bibliographer. His critical opinions are just his opinions. The Nicholls/Clute article was written by Parnell and Nicholls; Nicholls is an academic, but I don't know about Parnell, and of course I don't know which of the two of them wrote that particular sentence. I used these sources because they're all I could find, I'm afraid. Ashley is very well-respected as the leading historian of sf, so his opinion must be counted for something. I'm having a harder time figuring out how to describe the others. Maybe "Donald Tuck's opinion, in his Encyclopedia of SF", and similarly with Kyle? And I don't quite see what to do about the Nicholls/Clute. Any suggestions gratefully received!
    Done -- take a look and see what you think. By the way, my note about "sf" vs. "SF" on the talk page was in error; I've corrected it on the talk page, if you are still concerned about that point. Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All looks good. Awadewit | talk 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing -- I don't think there was a specific subgenre that Authentic stuck to; I've not read all that many of the stories myself, though I've read some, and the sources I have don't remark on any focus. So I think we can leave this.
    Thanks for the comments. If you could let me know what you think I should do about those attributions that would be very helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    The Apprentice (UK)

    [edit]

    Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you point out some example of both issues? Seaserpent85Talk 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Partial dates de-linked. No need to change capitalisation - they are consistant and are the titles of each series. Seaserpent85Talk 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've yet to provide an official source that the BBC has titled them "Series One", so on. If you can provide such a source I'll reconsider. Matthew 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned before, whether the BBC write "series one" or "Series One" is fairly irrelevant. I doubt that they have a specific policy on it anyway. Basically it's a style issue, where Wikipedia can differ from other publishers -- as it does in other areas. For example, the BBC don't usually italicise the names of shows (whereas Wikipedia does), the BBC often capitalise Important Words in headings (Wikipedia doesn't), and so on. "Series One" is the title of a work, and "series one" is a description, and which to use depends on your point of view. In the absence of a specific direction for this case in Wikipedia's MoS, we are at liberty to choose the style that we prefer. (Personally I tend slightly towards lower case, but am not that much bothered either way.) Matt 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC).
     Done Removed the future series section. Don't see the problem with the related programmes section, especially when compared to the lenghts of sub-sections on some FAs. Dalejenkins | 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that those sections are also short. I would have also commented had I been involved in its FAC. The JPStalk to me 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What sections of related programmes do you want to be merged exactly? Dalejenkins | 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comic Relief Does The Apprentice', 'The Apprentice: You're Fired!' and 'Rumoured programmes' are all one paragraph sentence that don't need the headings. You could do without the mainarticle templates too. The JPStalk to me 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I approve of the way the headings have been reduced in size, and I haven't noticed anything else major that would make me oppose. Well done to Matt for his excellent work on the article.Legalbeaver 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How rude, at least 2 others have helped on this article, and a futher 2 helped get it to GA. Dalejenkins | 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my apologies, I didnt mean to offend anyone. Seaserpent85 seems to have contributed a lot too, well done to him/her and to all the others contributers who made minor edits - every little counts.Legalbeaver 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to dignify your arrogance with a response. I stopped School Playground tactics at age 5. Any, I best not waste any more energy, back to the FAC. Dalejenkins | 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, the goal is to improve articles. If you look for appreciation on Wikipedia you will regularly be disappointed and disheartened. The JPStalk to me 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not out there for appreciation, I just thought it was childish to the point of hilarity. Lets move on. Dalejenkins | 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. You seem to be throwing a tantrum, though I'm not sure what I have done to merit these responses from you Dalejenkins. Suddenly it's arrogant to congratulate contributers !?! Let's assume good faith here. Rest assured that my praise was meant for you also. I hope that makes you feel a little better, Dale. Had I of known that you wanted me to name you personally in my praise then I would have done so. Back to the FAC. Looking at the article again, i'm in agreement about the headings issue that JPS has brought up. It seems the overuse of headings has not been cleared up - something I failed to notice when I skimmed over the article earlier. It's not enough to make me Oppose, but I cannot support until this issue has been altered. Content in "Related programmes" should be combined as it was in the "Series" section. Legalbeaver 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Golden Sun

    [edit]

    ...Um, well, me and a couple other chaps would like to get this to FA-class. Let the nitpicking suggestions begin! :) David Fuchs (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I should be using WP:WIAFA(4) instead of WP:WIAGA(3b), but they're pretty much teh same thing - don't go into unnecessary detail. And of course the lower standard article still needs to do that, so if Golden Sun is going to be a Feature, it needs to stick to that criteria. Ong elvin 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - First off, I'd like to say that this is not a bad article. I rather enjoyed reading it and it does a thorough job of explaining the game mechanics. But, I feel that I have to agree with Ong, it should be condensed some, specifically the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I get the feeling that the editors were really trying to explain everything in the game to make it as informative as possible, which is not a bad idea. But I think too much is explained and some of it becomes unnecessary, which takes some of the spot light away from the "Development" and "Reception" sections. All in all, it's definitely shaping up to be FA, keep at it guys. Some other thoughts that I think could help are:
      • The "Psynergy" section could be condensed into 6-9 shorter sentences, and maybe integrated into the rest of the "Gameplay" section.
      • Likewise with the second paragraph of the "Battle" section and the last two paragraphs of the "Djinn system" section. Both can be condensed while still being just as informative.
      • The plot section could also be condensed down by at least two paragraphs.
      • There are a lot statements in parenthesis. Some of the statements go into unnecessary detail and should remove. Others provide good extra info and should be integrated into the prose.
      • There are a lot of citations from the game and instruction booklet, I think finding more citations from other sources would improve the quality as well. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    The plot and gameplay have been trimmed. David Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice job on the plot section, that's much better. I still feel that the gameplay section can be shorter though. Some phrases could probably be removed without the overall info being effected. Re-reading the article, some wording and phrases popped out at me that I think would fall under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. It's definitely getting closer to FA. Keep up the good work guys. Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I've removed the weasel words, thanks for noting them. As for the gameplay, it's down to eight paragraphs, from thirteen just a week ago. David Fuchs (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The length is much better now and the article is shaping up nicely. But I still think the article needs some more sources other than the game and its instruction manual. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    May I ask why? We want reliable sources, and the instruction manual is the best example of that. I've found, even on mainstream gaming sites, that they will consistently get details wrong, and for that reason I usually try not to rely on them. David Fuchs (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, the manual is a great source, I often use it myself. I just think that articles should a have variety of sources. And even though some gaming sites sometimes have incorrect info, they are still regarded as reliable sources. Even the New York Times makes mistakes, but it still has a good reputation. Now, IGN or GameSpot are certainly not the New York Times, but they've established themselves as a fairly reliable gaming site. Surely there are at least a few gaming sites or at least some writers on the sites that you feel comfortable citing. That aside, if an article is going for FA, I've always felt that it needs a sufficient amount of citation and sources to help establish credibility. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    The additional sources are a step in the right direction. And I hate sounding like a broken record, but I still feel it needs more citation. After doing a count of the sources, the break down is 20/51 in game citations, 15/51 game manual citations, and 16/51 3rd party sources. The article is well written, and I'm sure it's factually accurate, I doubt it'd be brought to FAC if it wasn't, but without enough citation from outside sources, the article lacks the creditability needed for FA. This has the potential for FA, and I'd hate to see it not make it over a technicality like this. But those are the guidelines of Wikipedia. Once it gets more 3rd party sources I'll definitely support it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Regardless of the source, I will argue against more than around two references per paragraph in general. I'm not objecting to citing more than two per paragraph, just that in the peer-reviewed essays I've read, that's around the level of citation used. For the story in particular, it's a given the game itself and the manual are references, although I understand as I've said the need to cite to avoid some person coming in and saying "no this is not how it happened." Ong elvin 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Translation added and fair-use images cut down. David Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation Policy. I think it's not necessary to include all the references in the plot, and some other sections. The citations, really, are only wanted when you make a point that might be argued. I don't think anyone who has played the game will argue that Mt. Aleph becomes a volcano, or that Jenna and Kraden are taken hostage. We know that Mia and Ivan join the party at some point, only a fool who has not played the game would argue that point. I estimate maybe 20-30 of those 50 links could be removed under this rationale; and this would apply to any other popular game as well of course. ;) Ong elvin 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While you're probably right, I'm just hoping that removing those doesn't end up making this article seem too "small" to qualify for Featured Article status when comparing to gigantic VG Features like Final Fantasy X. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well look at it like this then. The FFX wiki has 15 citations in about two pages. Golden Sun has 15 citations in one page. If you really want to compare this to FFX. Oh, and how on the article's talk page, y'know how I said the Golden Sun story section could be shortened to 500 words with the only necessary/important information intact? That's just been done. ;) (500 words is roughly 1 A4 page of 12pt text.) Ong elvin 12:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, regarding the "too small" to qualify, one of the criteria for FA status is that the article does not go into minutiae. So I'd say FFX should lose its FA status on that point, really. I consider the Halo wiki a better example of a feature article, although it does irk me still that they have over 70 references in that article. Ong elvin 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay. Thanks. (They're not Wikis, they're articles! A wiki is a collection of articles.) :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that if you have to choose between too many or too little citing of references, err towards too many. They can easily be removed later. (Just highlight and delete, as opposed to typing it out.) Ong elvin 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two issues in particular concern me. One, the prose of the Gameplay section. Two, the extensive use of the game itself and its manual in as a source in the first few paragraphs.
      1. The prose of the Gameplay section uses a lot of gaming jargon. For example (suggestions in parentheses): to "equip" (use); "RPGs" (first time it is used in a section, write "role playing games (RPGs)"); CPU (computer?); buffing (link intact, but write "enhancement" or so); etc. Furthermore, some necessary jargon could be explained more by extensive wikilinking: dungeon to dungeon crawl, spell, experience points, hit points, etc. Please check the whole section for this kind of language.
      2. Before the development section, only one source cited is independent of the subject. While citing the manual and the game itself is generally allowed, try to look up some of the information in third-party sources (even the existing ones), and add footnotes to them.
      User:Krator (t c) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've added in the wikilinks like you've asked. I'll take med another day before I can get down to adding other sources, I'll leave a note when I'm done. David Fuchs (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've added more 3rd-party sources to the initial gameplay. David Fuchs (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support previous concerns addressed. User:Krator (t c) 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as previous concerns have been addressed. Also with respect to WP:WIAFA, I think it meets all the criteria. I find the prose to be engaging, and of a professional standard; exactly the sort of language I'd expect from a printed Encyclopaedia. (Some minor faults of course, but nevertheless very good.) It's comprehensive, maintains WP:NPOV, and I think the current revision should be quite stable. The lead makes an excellent blurb; in two paragraphs I know what the genre of the game is, what the plot is about, and that it has a Djinn system which is notable in the RPG genre. The table of contents makes sense and has a number of entries, but it amazingly doesn't have so many points to be overwhelming to the non-player. Citation is consistent, and the important information is summarised in six pages, plus three more for references and links. Not too many images to overcrowd the page presentation. I like it. :) Ong elvin 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:ILIKEIT. (Sorry, I had to :P) David Fuchs (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do like it, but more so because it's concise and the prose is excellent and in the form. It's got nothing to do with the content itself other than it being concise, so WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply to me here. (In French accent) Now take back your comment, or I shall taunt you again! (Hmm... where'd my first taunt go?) :P Ong elvin 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The development section is far too small. We almost have no information on how it was developed. This is my biggest problem. It needs to be comprehensive, and the article is far from that without a good development section. The second problem is there is no music section - there were albums released, there is a composer, and the music can be described. --Teggles 05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were albums released? Cool! I never knew that. And assuming there's citable sources out there for music-related Golden Sun info other than "Motoi Sakuraba made it", a music section and expansion of the development section would alleviate my concern that the article's not quite big enough for an FA. ^_^ I think, though I could be wrong, that it's possible we might not be able to take care of the Development section issue because information that could have gone into there may not have ever been published or posted on the Internet or in a book. What's currently in the development section came from my investigating several sites a long while back, and they had only those items as scant few available details. But if there's an established site where you can find developmental history for any video game, I'd love to see it. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This game's development and music are key aspects. These key aspects are not covered. The article does not meet WP:WIAFA without this (criteria 1b). If there is no information available to fulfill this, it does not mean the article can become a Featured Article. That being said, I am confident that there is material out there. It'll just require some good research. --Teggles 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the composer's discography, there was no official soundtrack ever released. David Fuchs (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I researched it earlier but forgot to bring it up. I guess I was misled. --Teggles 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I hope the material's out there and can be found out through research. Though, looking at the Final Fantasy X FA, its development section doesn't seem much larger than what we currently have here, so we might not need a huge amount more to make the section satisfactory. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess forget the audio and just expand development. When I was searching, I came across a Golden Sun as a band- I guess that's what confused you. David Fuchs (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support witheld until this is done - "The story continues in Golden Sun: The Lost Age." - This is a stubby sentence which should be part of a paragraph, not sitting by itself at the end of the plot section. As said above, if there is any more information on devs out there, it should be aded. Also as noted by Teggles, it needs a music section, as this game was notable for its music. Finally, a box summarising review scores (a la. Age of Mythology#Reception) would be helpful in the reception section. When all this is done, I support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) - Support Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not... I've searched for that little statistic for a while and have a hard time finding it. I don't suppose there's an established statistics site that lists all video games and their sales? Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (headdesk) Oh wait, that information was added in the article's intro, coming from the site VG Chartz. I was looking for it in the Reception section, which is why I didn't catch it earlier... Should that statistic also be added to the Reception section, then? Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently VGChartz is not good for use in game articles. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To some people, at least. WP:CVG still hasn't said that VGChartz is bad, but many disagree with using it. Considering it's the easiest way to find sales figures... David Fuchs (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Slavery in ancient Greece

    [edit]

    Good article, translation from the French Wikipedia article. The French version has achieved FA status while this article has achieved GA status(I promoted it). Daimanta 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I don't like the way the reference format is inconsistent. Can you use one of either footnotes, or (Author, Year), or [website in these brackets] rather than all three? DrKiernan 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently ancient sources in both the footnotes and as Harvard-style references. I think you should stick to one system rather than mix the two. So, "According to Plutarch in his "Life of Solon", I,6, Solon around 594-593 BC forbade slaves from practising gymnastics" would become "According to Plutarch, around 594-593 BC Solon forbade slaves from practising gymnastics.[1]" if you chose to go with footnotes. And "There are also instances in which the Greeks saw a spectrum from slavery to citizenship, the highest legitimate right.[2]" would become "There are also instances in which the Greeks saw a spectrum from slavery to citizenship, the highest legitimate right (Mactoux, 1980)." if you chose to go Harvard. There are two references given as embedded links. I think these should be converted into whichever system you settle on. DrKiernan 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with the sources you have quoted.--Grahamec 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support.--Grahamec 12:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have to repeat DrKiernan's remark that there is a mixture on styles: Citations properly cited in "Notes" in most sections, but in some sections an abundance of in-the-text citations per Harvard style (see "War" and "Historical views" were both methods are mixed). In the "See also" section I see articles already linked within the text (slavery, ancient Greece). And I am afraid some choppy prose, at least in the lead ("In the arts, comedy represented slaves of comedy; Greek tragedy the slaves of tragedy. In iconography or on steles, it is difficult to differentiate a slave from an craftsman with certainty. Even the terminology is often vague") - I admit I did not read in detail the whole text. But I can see some inconsistent citing. For instance, in note 31, where is the name of the writer? And Bibliography what is it exactly? References or Further reading? If it is references, shouldn't you also add Carlier, but I see full book data are in "Notes", not in "Bibliography" (by the way, where is the ISBN?). If this is the trend (full data in "Notes"), why do I see full data for Garlan in "Bibliography" and not in "Notes"? Inconsistencies I am afraid! Don't get me wrong! I think it is a great article, but it needs some more effort to get FA ... At least IMO ...--Yannismarou 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes/references: I deliberately kept ancient references inline when first writing the text. Many books I read proceed like this. This is just an explanation, not an argument—I'll move the inline references to footnotes.
    Carlier is a general book about Greece in the 4th century, not a reference about slavery per se. That's why I chose to put the full references to footnotes.
    Note 31: the author is already mentioned in the text ("Moses Finley proposed a set of criteria for different degrees of enslavement"). I can repeat it in the footnote if it's clearer this way.
    Bibliography: it was designed as both References and (very short) Further reading. I understand there's a difference on en: Is it OK to have both in an article?
    Choppy style: my written English is not so good, I'm afraid to make things even worse :-)
    Also, as was explained at Talk:Slavery_in_ancient_Greece#GA_review, most footnotes refer to French (original or translated) editions. Should the References section refer to the French edition, the English edition when it exists or both? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to the edition you used. If it is the French one, OK. Your English in general seem good, and the instances of choppy prose like the one I mentioned above seem limited, but a copy-edit by a native English speaker could be helpful. It is OK to have both References and Further Reading. There is no clear trend in the en wiki, but I think this is clearer and, in general, preferred.--Yannismarou 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Grouped answer: I've separated References and Further Reading; I believe the reference format is now consistent. I've asked a native speaker to proofread the article for me; this hould be done very soon. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I support.--Yannismarou 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2nd paragraph used to run thus:
    "Conforming to modern history practice, this article will discuss only chattel slavery—not dependent groups of Ancient Greece such as the Penestai of Thessaly, the Spartan Helots or the Clarotes of Crete; complex statuses perhaps more similar to Mediaeval serfdom. The slave is an individual deprived of liberty and forced to submit to a proprietor who may buy, sell, or lease them as any chattel good."
    I edited out the "complex statuses..." part during GA review, when Daimanta mentioned it as very hard to read. To reconcile both opinions, I could add some explanation about dependent groups in footnotes. Jastrow (Λέγετε) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the prose is pretty good, but I still have concerns about the citations.
      • The lead does not summarize the article, and information in the lead should be included in the body of the article How long should this summary be? I'm not used to this practice.
    See WP:LEAD for guidance. Karanacs 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need citations for some facts
        • the paragraph about Homer. None of the information in that paragraph is cited except the quote from the Odyssey  Done
        • "It is also probable that, as with the Romans, certain nationalities were considered more productive as slaves than others." from the international trade paragraph
        • first paragraph of status of slaves section  Done
        • quote from Plutarch in Athenian slaves section  Done
        • It was apparently formalised in Athens by Draco. - in debt slavery section See infra.
        • Manumission section - "It was apparently formalised in Athens by Draco." I can't find the reference for that anymore; I suspect I was mistaken with the mention of slave-killing in Draco's Law. I deleted both mentions as unsure.
        • last bit of 2nd paragraph of Manumission section  Done
        • info about Metics in last paragraph of Manumission section  Done
        • 2nd paragraph of Slavery conditions is not cited well
        • end of 2nd paragraph of historical views section I suppose it's about Plato? I did not write this and I don't agree much with what is said. I'll look about it.
      • Don't include a (See...) in the body of the article. It can be a see also at the top of the section or the bottom of the article, or should be better incorporated into the article.  Done

    Karanacs 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Quneitra

    [edit]

    Self-nomination. I have a soft spot for abandoned/destroyed cities (Pompeii, Sukhothai etc...) and found this story particularly interesting, given its recent nature. This article had previously been the subject of some POV-pushing and edit warring. I rewrote it from scratch and greatly expanded it with a wide range of modern and contemporary sources to provide a neutral overview of a controversial issue. The article has been stable for some time, has been featured on the Main Page's "Did You Know?" section and achieved good article status last month. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would be a useful addition to the list of featured articles. -- ChrisO 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, a very nice little article that appears to be close to FA yes, good referencing. A few things though:
      • In general, I believe section headings are not supposed to repeat the article title (e.g. "Destruction" or "Destruction of the city" instead of "Destruction of Quneitra") (see WP:HEAD)
      • The website linked in the infobox does not work (at least not at the moment), is it still correct?
      • There are 2 redlinks in the article, would it be possible to generate small stub articles for those (not an FA requirement, but a personal preference of me)?
    --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've modified the section headings accordingly. The infobox website did work up until a couple of weeks ago. I've left the link intact for now, but I'll replace it by the end of the month if it stays dead. As for the redlinks, I'll see what I can do... -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now provided. -- ChrisO 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict does not mention Quneitra at all. So Quneitra is not comprehensive, because it has no info about the legal status of the area. --Kaypoh 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It describes the status of the Golan Heights area, within which Quneitra is located. I've clarified this in the article. -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments—I've copy-edited the opening; the rest needs work by someone new. Check overlinking (especially repeated links). Use an en dash usually for year ranges (see my change to a title). En dash for "Arab–Isreali war". Use "logical" punctuation at end of quotes (see MOS). "Sightseeing". Consider using the blockquote function below the edit box for the quote(s). Political status section needs fleshing out: it's a bizarre political situation, and our readers will be interested. Something makes me want this to be a little larger. I do hope the nomination succeeds. Tony 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Good now. Tony (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Article on a contentious topic which is not neutral at all. Following the Israeli withdrawal, allegations emerged that much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground - but there are no indications that it is not true, so it should rather be Following the Israeli withdrawal, much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground (or perhaps, Prior to Israeli withdrawal...). The city had reportedly been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces - no indications that it is not true, so it should be The city had been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces. In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement - unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that an agreement specifies that an area must be repopulated (even if f.e. its residents don't want it). Destructed by the Zionists and changed it to firing target - bad grammar, probably should be changed into. Additionally, there are no sections which all articles on cities should have, such as "Geography", "Demographics" (should discuss demographics before destruction) etc. Nikola 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input, Nikola. You're right about the "allegations" weasel wording - this wasn't in my original version, someone has seen fit to add it. There's no doubt at all that the city has been razed; the only dispute is over who did it and how (see e.g. [33], so I've removed the word from the article. In the next line that you highlight, the "reportedly" is there because that is a controversial point - as far as I know, the Israelis haven't officially admitted looting the city, so it's necessary to indicate that this is a contentious point. As for the agreement, you can read it for yourself here - it states that "All territory east of Line A [the disengagement line just west of Quneitra] will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory." The line "Destructed by the Zionists" is sic - if you look at the full resolution version of the photo of the destroyed hospital, you'll see that the English words on the sign say just that. Finally, fair point about the need for a Geography and Demographics section; I'll add that to the article. -- ChrisO 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added a Geography and Demographics section as requested. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me now, except for the: "In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Quneitra has not been repopulated". I'm no expert on the international law, but I don't think that that means that the city must be repopulated. Even if the agreement states that "civilians will return", it only means that they can return, but they don't absolutely have to. I seriously doubt that it is a violation of the agreement if, say, civilians don't want to return, or the area became unsuitable for living, or Syria simply has no money to rebuild the city etc. I'm not sure how to solve this, perhaps with a line like in the intro: "The government of Syria has been criticized for not returning civilians to Quneitra, per provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement.". If it's changed to something like that, I support. Nikola 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it, the governorate - the province itself - is still in existence, albeit with most of its territory in Israeli hands. I haven't found any reference to where the provincial government is based but it doesn't seem very likely that it would be in Quneitra itself. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Brabham BT19

    [edit]

    Article on the Formula One (F1) racing car used by Australian Jack Brabham to win his third world drivers championship in 1966. Currently a GA, after an unusually thorough review. Has since had a thorough peer review from WikiProject Formula One and Wikiproject Automobile members, as well as input from non-F1 fans. (See Peer Review here and further comments on the talk page). Copyedited by several F1 editors not directly involved in the article, as well as user:Awadewit (who assures me she has no interest in the topic!) and I think I have gotten my head round the MoS. Thanks to all those who have contributed their time to read and criticise the article. I await comments with interest. Cheers. 4u1e 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Did I really say I had no interest? That is not what I meant at all - what I meant was I had no knowledge. I have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever. So sorry - that must have sounded so rude! I'm willing to learn about anything, so disregard any such statement, please, and accept my apology. Anyway, I have read this article several times now and although I cannot speak to its comprehensiveness (due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge), I do believe that it is well-written (clear enough that a novice such as myself could understand it!), well-researched, neutral, stable, and it follows all of the MOS guidelines that I know of. Awadewit | talk 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaagh! Not what I meant! You weren't being rude - my deep apologies for implying so. You have been nothing but courteous when asked for help. What I was (clumsily) trying to say was that you had no bias towards or deep knowledge of the topic, and so would be more likely to criticise properly (and in the good sense!). Thanks again for all your help, and you have nothing to apologise for. <chastises self severely> 4u1e 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—This is very nicely written. Just a few things: to me, it's overlinked (repeated links, "one-off" doesn't need a dictionary link); 3-litre with hyphen as a double adjective, throughout; a few more commas would be good, especially when there are two "ands"; most people insert a space between "p." and the number. Can it be just B's surname after the first instance? Some readers won't know how to pronounce the word—you might consider showing them in parentheses at the top (Bravem? or IPA). Tony (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps we need to wikidict link all multisyllabic words. No, you're quite able to key it in yourself, aren't you? English speakers should either already know or be willing to look up fairly common items such as this one. And it sticks out particularly badly in the text—different color, is it? Tony (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment II -- I can understand why one-off looks bright - your monobook sets wikilinks to a much darker look, which causes other links to show up differently. (ref: User:Tony1/Colours for linking) -- Guroadrunner 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- keep link to one-off, do not change "Litres" to "L" because that reverses the usefulness of context -- or change to U.S. gallons ;-). Guroadrunner 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Blimey - thanks for the support, Tony. The reason I've used JB's full name sometimes is because when the driver, the team and the car are all called 'Brabham', there's scope for confusion! Having said that, I haven't checked this systematically. 4u1e 09:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some of the 'Jack's. The rest are needed, I believe, to be unambiguous. 4u1e 10:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Brabham' is pronounced 'Brabbum'. I'll try and get someone to render that in IPA. (edit - done 4u1e) 'One-off' I'm familiar with from an engineering context, so wasn't sure how widely understood the term was. Responses from other editors above may indicate that it's not that widely - as far as I know both Awadewit and GURoadrunner are reasonably well read! 4u1e 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (One other (native English-speaking) editor has indicated to me that they didn't understand one-off without the link either, so I suggest it should stay). 4u1e 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed some duplicate wikilinks. I have left duplicates between the lead and the main text, because the current view seems to be that the lead is almost an independent piece. There are 'false' duplicates where I have pipelined links to the same race in different years. 4u1e 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "One-off" is a common term in English and should not be linked. Anyone who doesn't know what it and other common terms mean will need to look them up. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MOS says that you must abbreviate all converted units; "litre" will not do. Tony (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony: 'One-off' - I'm wondering if this is a US thing: all those who have said they don't recognise it are American. I'm British and you're Australian, I believe; could a US citizen confirm that it is in common use there? I'm happy to remove it if that's the case - I'd just like to be sure that it is widely understood by our likely audience. Not a sticking point for me.
    Abbreviation of 'Litres': Yes, MoS says this and I will change it. I believe it's 'L' not 'l' though. Presumably because of the possibility of confusing 'I', '1' and 'l'. (Edit - done. 4u1e)
    I know I haven't responded on hyphens (and your edit of them was reversed, albeit not by me). I will look at this (I like to understand what I am doing and why!). The form I've used is common, but not exclusive, usage in the sport, although that doesn't necessarily say much for its correctness. 4u1e 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it. at WP:HYPHEN. In the MoS. Duh. Will fix. 4u1e 07:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 4u1e 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment without !vote. I am one of the Americans that 4u1e was talking about. This term is not used in America at all, and there is no simular term. I have a very strong and wide background in almost every type of motorsport. Remember that Wikipedia needs consider a world-view. One little link doesn't hurt anything if it will help a portion of the population. I do not comment on this FA because I am studying this FA to understand the process and what is expected from a Featured Article. I am close to attempting my first FA article in a driver in a different genre of motorsport (NASCAR) - the first of its kind. Royalbroil 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have rarely (if ever) heard the term "one-off". I assumed it was my lack of racing knowledge, not my Americanness. Perhaps that was a mistaken impression. Since the link can only help and does no harm, I see no reason to take it out. Awadewit | talk 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - As an American I've heard the term "one-off" only very occasionally, and I still don't understand the etymology, which generally makes me avoid the use of a term. I'd never be able to guess whether it had a more specific connotation for racing, etc. Even after looking at the Wiktionary definition I am unsure whether a car that "is a one-off design" is the only single car built with that design in the world, or if the design itself is simply somehow unusual or casually developed. I think it's very interesting that Americans have managed to scrape by without this phrase - many alternatives like "unique", "prototype", "concept car", "demonstration model", "experimental design" being used as substitutes, perhaps. Oh, and "custom built". Bottom line: I think the sentence should be reworded to make it clear what is meant. 70.15.116.59 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I believe one-off comes from an engineering context, in the sense of a component of which only one is manufactured. You will also see 2-off etc on invoicing or component sheets. Changing the word might be the best solution, given that this relatively minor point is generating a vast amount of discussion! I have trouble with alternative phrases though - the ones you suggest give the wrong impression:
    • Unique, true, but ambiguous as it could apply equally well to an unusual design (which is then manufactured many times) as an actual car.
    • Prototype. Only one was built, but it was built to use, not as a proof of concept. Prototype also has a potentially confusing alternative meaning in sports car racing.
    • Concept car. Definitely not! :-) That's an idea that mostly relates to styling, and to a rather lesser extent to engineering. Doesn't fit in racing context.
    • Demonstration model - as for prototype above. You're not demonstrating anything, just trying to get something on the track and hopefully pick up points.
    • Experimental design - again, not really. It was built to race, not as an experiment to see whether the concept would work.
    • Custom built. Hmm, technically true, I suppose, but again the wrong impression. For me custom built cars are either the fibreglass monstrosities that whizz around town centres at night in the UK, the ones with exhausts only slightly smaller than the channel tunnel, or 'coach built' Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars from pre WWII.
    I'll think on.... 4u1e 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I've tweaked the words a bit. I've replaced 'one-off' with 'Only one BT19 was built' and tweaked words elsewhere. Thanks to 70.15.116.59 for suggesting a third way. 4u1e 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written, well-sourced, and appears factual. Tony's harassment is trivial; insofar as any of it matters, it is harmful. This is not the first time he has done this; if the unfortunate nom wishes, I will be happy to endorse an RfC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Many thanks for your support, Septentrionalis. I don't regard it as harassment. I asked Tony to express his views on the article specifically because I have seen him tear into other articles - I have a general concern that articles on less highbrow topics sometimes get an easy ride at FAC, and wanted to be sure that this article didn't (That may, of course, seem perverse :-)). All but one of his suggestions I either broadly agree with, if perhaps not to quite the same degree (use of full name and overlinking), or am neutral on. I am confident enough in my own writing, I think, not to slavishly implement a reviewer's every comment, if I believe it damages the article, but Wikipedia is a joint endeavour, so I actively seek out suggestions from others. I eventually got rid of 'one-off' because of the number of people who had commented here that they had no idea what it meant; Tony's contention (the one I did disagree with) was only that it didn't need wikilinking. Cheers. 4u1e ('The unfortunate nom'!) 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have been watching this article for a while and I think it most certainly is of featured quality. Watching it not contributing to it; I take no credit for others' work. James086Talk | Email 10:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    A Vindication of the Rights of Men

    [edit]

    The last in my series of articles on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft, this article discusses her first major political work. This article was the most difficult of the entire series to write because of the historical topicality of the book. Questions were raised at the peer review as to whether or not the page provides enough background knowledge for the reader to properly understand VRM. I have expanded the "Historical context" section, but I fear much more expansion will begin to defeat the point of an article on VRM. However, if readers unfamiliar with the text are still unable to grasp the major points of the debate Wollstonecraft was entering, I do want to know about it! Awadewit | talk 08:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (see below) Lovingly crafted piece of work. Kudos! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support *Oppose Per the discussion at Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men#FAC_discussion_moved_to_this_talk_page, changed oppose to support per agreement on talk page). --Alabamaboy 20:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC) As always, Awadewit has done amazing work with a not-well-known subject. This article will definately serve as the most authoritative online source of info on this subject. One small question, though: why are there lines after the block quote in the "Sensibility" section? Also, is there no modern (i.e., last 50 to 100 years) information or analysis that can be added to the "Reception and legacy" section? Seems a bit limited to have all the info on this work's reception and legacy come from contemporary sources. I know there is info on this since the lead states, "This analysis of the Rights of Men reigned until the 1970s, when feminist scholars began to read Wollstonecraft's texts with more attention and discovered their sophistication" (with that sentence refering to info in the "Structure and major arguments" section). So this modern historical context should exist and should be more added to the "Reception and legacy" section. However, while I'd like to see these issues addressed, they won't stop me from supporting. Best,--Alabamaboy 11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't mind the lines, as long as they're in the original. I think it adds a nice touch and gives us a view of her biting editorial style. Again, though, only if it's in the original. Wrad 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lines after the blockquote in the "Sensibility" section are supposed to be there - I tried to indicate this in the prose by writing "typogragically" and explaining their meaning. I have removed that word and left in the "with dashes" along with the explanation. Hopefully that will be clearer now. Awadewit | talk 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reception of the book at the time, during the Revolution Controversy, is far more significant than the reception of the book now - that is why the weight towards the eighteenth century. Also, scholars do not spend much time analyzing the reception of VRM during the twentieth century, so I feel that the space I have accorded that sufficiently reflects what is in the published work. Since I can only include what is published and I cannot synthesize a history of the scholarship myself, I am very limited in that respect. Let me know if you think I have made the best decision here. Awadewit | talk 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lines aren't that big a deal, but if one is quoting a section you can simply not include the lines in the quoted part. Just FYI, you will have many editors over the years removing those lines because they don't get what they are. What truly troubles me, though, is not inserting modern statements on the book's influence and legacy. For example in Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts by Mary Briody, 1994, Hackett Publishing, page 113, it states (refering to the book), "Wollstonecraft's concept of human nature anticipates the utilitarian view of the essential freedom and intelligence of every individual." That one modern view of the book I found with a simply research search; there is more out there. While this is a good article, without a modern view of the book's importance, I must reluctantly oppose. --Alabamaboy 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to state that I still support keeping the lines in, for the reasons stated earlier by myself and Awadewit. As for the rest, I have no opinion yet. Wrad 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lines are essential to the quote, as I explain in the article. The article also has a hidden comment instructing editors not to remove the lines, since they are in the original. I'm really not sure what the objection to the lines really is - perhaps the objection really is that the article does not explain them well enough? Here is the sentence explaining the quote: In one of the most dramatic moments of the Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft claims to be moved beyond Burke's tears for Marie Antoinette and the monarchy of France to silence for the injustice suffered by slaves, a silence she represents with dashes meant to express feelings more authentic than Burke's - how can this be improved? Awadewit | talk 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A great article, indeed. There, however, some things I'd like to see fixed before I support:
      • "In her first unabashedly feminist critique, a critique which remains unsurpassed in its argumentative force,[2] Wollstonecraft indicts Burke's defense of an unequal society founded on the passivity of women." "unsurpassed in its argumentative force" is hardly NPOV, even if its referenced. I'm sure there are people who found Wollstonecraft uncovincing.
        • I'm familiar with this line. I believe what is meant is that Feminist scholars often consider this piece as one of the best-written feminist arguments ever written. Is that right? Wrad 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that Wrad's interpretation is what Johnson intended. I don't really see this as POV, since it comes from one of the most prominent Wollstonecraft scholars in the world. I checked WP:NPOV again to see if perhaps this was stepping over the line, but I believe that it is not. In fact, since Johnson is so important, I believe that the article is obligated to present her view:
            • All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). [emphasis in original]
            • Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate.
          • Your thoughts? Awadewit | talk 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't doubt that it's a POV that needs to be presented, but the article currently presents it as fact. I hope you're ok with the way I changed the sentence to clearly attribute this opinion to Johnson.--Carabinieri 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree. For some reason, I thought you were referring to the same statement which appears later in the article. It does have Johnson's name attached to it. I have added "Wollstonecraft scholar" before her name in the lead, otherwise the reader has no reason to listen to her opinion. Awadewit | talk 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As the first response in what would later become known as the "Revolution Controversy", the Rights of Men was successful: it was reviewed by every major periodical of the day and the first edition sold out in three weeks." I'm not sure why Revolution Controversy is in quotation marks. The article on the controversy doesn't suggest the term is the title of anything. If the reason is that its a word being used as a word, then it should get italics according to WP:MOS. The same thing goes for its use in the first section.
      • "Radicals saw this period, which included the 1794 Treason Trials, as "the institution of a system of TERROR, almost as hideous in its features, almost as gigantic in its stature, and infinitely more pernicious in its tendency, than France ever knew".[12]" Who said this? The footnote only tells the secondary source the quote is taken from.
        • The secondary source, if I remember correctly, does not give the author. I'm pretty sure that I would have put it in, if the source had had that information. It may have been anonymous. Awadewit | talk 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wollstonecraft wrote frantically while her publisher Joseph Johnson printed the pages." Perhaps this is just ignorance on my part, but what do you mean exactly with Johnson having printed them? Does that just mean that he started typesetting the pamphlet while she was still writing? Or did he actually start the publication already?
      • "Wollstonecraft successfully challenges Burke's rhetoric of the beautiful with the rhetoric of the rational." Succesfully?
      • "Wollstonecraft sent a copy of the book to the historian Catharine Macaulay, whom she greatly admired; Macaulay wrote back: I am “still more highly pleased that this publication which I have so greatly admired from its pathos & sentiment should have been written by a woman and thus to see my opinion of the powers and talents of the sex in your pen so early verified”" Wouldn't it be more proper to replace & with [and]? To me, it seems kind of odd to have an ampersand in encyclopedic writing.

    --Carabinieri 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --My apologies for not reading this more closely first time round. I should like to see the following addressed before I whole-heartedly support. I still think it's a lovingly-crafted piece. :)
    Various stylistic points:
    1. swordpoint > sword point
    1. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. theories presuppose." > theories presuppose".
    1. The period is part of the quotation, so it belongs inside the quotation marks per WP:PUNC. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't applied WP:PUNC correctly. You've incorporated a sentence fragment (albeit lengthy) into the logical thrust of the whole sentence. Therefore, the point sits outside the quotation marks.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. who she had met > whom she had met
    1. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. as much or more so than > as much as or more than
    1. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. one shilling, six pence > one shilling and six pence
    1. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. the Regency bill > the Regency Bill (it passed the Commons but not the Lords}
    1. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Is there a source for "expensive three shillings, sold an astonishing 30,000 copies ..." What is astonishing about 30,000 when Paine's sold 200,000 copies? And how much was the The Rights of Man (to balance the comparison)?
    As I mentioned on my talk page, the source is Butler - pages 35 and 108 (Butler describes 30,000 as "a prodigious number"). The publication of Paine's RM is considerably more complicated since it was published in two parts - why don't we just say "cheaper"? When comparing the numbers, you have to take into account that most books printed at this time came in print runs of hundreds and a few as many as 1,000-2,000. Also, there were only 7 million people in the country, and the number of those that were literate was not all that high. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. My point about the "astonishing" 30,000 was that Paine's 200,000 is seven times more astonishing but it passes 'unsuperlativized'. I'm wondering why 30,000 is more astonishing than 200,000. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is important to make the point that 30,000 copies was "astonishing", as it doesn't sound like a lot to modern readers. The "however" in the Paine sentence, along with the number of copies, makes it clear that Paine's book was more popular. The facts speak for themselves. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If that is the point you are making, perhaps it could be made more explicit: "However, Thomas Paine's rejoinder, The Rights of Man (1792), greatly outsold it, with over 200,000 sales", for example. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Similar version added. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The ref is for the reader's benefit not mine. I'm astonished, after two promptings, that you haven't added it.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As I explained on my talk page, the reference is in the note at the end of the Paine sentence - I asked you if you thought I should split the reference between the sentences, but you did not respond. Do you want me to split the reference? I was simply trying to condense references. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reference split into two inline citations. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done --Your use of Oxford spelling ("-ize/-ization") is fine but the following do jar in a BrEng political/literary topic:
    1. defense > defence
    2. labor > labour
    3. leveling > levelling)
    4. reevaluation > re-evaluation
    5. by practicing > by practising
    6. Burke fulfills > Burke fulfils
    On the point about BE, again, as I mentioned on my talk page, I write in AE since that is the dialect I am most familiar with. It is the dialect in which I can produce "brilliant prose". Changing the spelling of a few words without changing diction and syntax is a token gesture, in my opinion, and not particularly useful since it would make it more difficult for me to maintain the page (alas, there are currently no other editors working on the page). Awadewit | talk 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being unduly modest. None of these difficulties are insurmountable for a scholar of your ability, especially when - as you say - the differences between formal well-written BrEng and AmEng are slight, and you have a crib sheet to work from. A token gesture perhaps, but the AmEng spellings drop as noisely into an 18th century BrEng literary environment as BrEng would in an article about the (American) Civil war. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the differences between AE and BE are quite significant. I really see no reason to alter the spelling, diction, and syntax of this article. We would be doing Wollstonecraft no honor in writing her article in twenty-first century BE when she spoke eighteenth-century Yorkshire English. I fail to see the logic of this argument - it privileges subjects who can be written about in English dialects - what about Dante? Shouldn't we write about him in Italian, then? I think that quality prose is far more important than nationalistic prose. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The differences between AE and BE are quite significant They are? Yet you've inadvertently managed to write an article in BrEng, other than the occasional AmEng spelling.
    I really do not know modern BE and the differences are more extensive than mere spelling. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Wollstonecraft might well have spoken with a Yorkshire burr (cf. the Brontës) but people of quality simply didn't use dialect, that would be to enter the province of the great unwashed.
    Wollstonecraft was not a person of quality. She was hired help - a companion, a governess, and the head of a school. She finally descended to being a writer. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say she was but that was her milieu. (You may be mistaking social class for financial status.) She was "middle-class" and "genteel ... of small means" (ODNB); and spent her early years in the London and Essex. The chances of her speaking Yorkshire dialect in her everyday life are practically nil. Here's a website devoted to it. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wollstonecraft spent her formative years in Yorkshire (also, the place where she spent the most time out of any in her entire life). She actually wrote later in life that she spoke with a Yorkshire accent. This information used to be in the Mary Wollstonecraft article, but it was decided that it was unnecessary. If you go back in the history, you can see it. Check the talk page, too.
    I know. That's why I said Yorkshire burr (accent), above. You said she spoke in Yorkshire English (dialect). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know, then you should respect Wollstonecraft's linguistic roots enough not to demand that the article be written in an accent she never spoke in. It's a travesty. :) Awadewit | talk 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm strong enough to transliterate this lot into a Yorkshire burr :))) Happily, BrEng respects her written linguistic roots. She didn't write "fulfills", "defense", "labor", "honor" etc but "fulfils", "defence", "labour" and "honour". Modern BrEng still uses those spellings, AmEng doesn't. :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the end of the 1770s the Wollstonecraft family resources had sunk to a low ebb. As the Wollstonecraft children looked about them, prospects for the future must have seemed very gloomy, particularly for the girls. Poverty seriously undermined a middle-class woman's opportunities in the marriage market, while remaining unwed reduced her status and life chances even further. Throughout the eighteenth century employment opportunities for such women were very thin on the ground. Teaching, governessing, needlework, serving as a lady's companion: these were among the few jobs open to genteel women of small means, and by the late 1780s Mary Wollstonecraft had done—and hated—them all. Literary work, however, was also open to women with the confidence, or the desperation, to attempt it - This paragraph from the ODNB emphasizes Wollstonecraft's "poverty" and "desperation", not her "gentility". Awadewit | talk 06:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this too. Emphasizing her poverty doesn't make her working class. That's why I suggested above that social class and financial status weren't the same. Thanks for the thought though :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ever say she was "working class" - I said she was "hired help", which this quote amply demonstrates. I think that this quote demonstrates the problem with trying to apply modern labels to an eighteenth-century economic structure. Best to explain the situation rather than just use the labels, eh? Awadewit | talk 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume that your apparent repeated conflation of AmEng with "brilliant prose" and "quality prose" is merely unfortunate phrasing. The fact remains that this article needs to comply with WP:MOS#National varieties of English. It currently doesn't. I have already offered you a crib sheet, which you refuse to use. I now suggest that dialect-neutral [shudder] words may be the way forward. Here are some synonyms and near-synonyms, appropriate to the divers contexts, which may help:
    1. defense > defending, support, aid, portrayal, depiction etc. (The statement "... Burke for supporting the elite, most notably in his defense of Marie Antoinette" can be concisely recast as "for supporting the elite, most notably Marie Antoinette", with no significant loss of meaning.)
    2. labor > work
    3. leveling > equalizing
    4. reevaluation > reassessment
    5. by practicing > by pursuing
    6. Burke fulfills > Burke manifests? I'm not this works largely because the entire sentence is odd: "Burke fulfills the worst of his own ideas"!? I suggest a rewrite.
    I hope this enables us to move this forward. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never intended to conflate "brilliant prose" with AE. I think that editors should write in the dialect most familiar to them so that it is easier for them to produce brilliant prose. It is hard to write well when having to worry about national dialects. One of the reasons I am so resistant to the BE spelling, syntax, and diction changes is because I am the sole editor and maintainer of this page (as well as all the other pages on Wollstonecraft's works). I would be happy to have other editors working with me, but, as I have said, there currently aren't any. If there were, the situation would be different. Also, I am quite concerned that you are characterizing BE as mere spelling differences when it is clear that diction and syntax are involved as well. Leaving out these other significant differences fails to respect the linguistic diversity of the English language. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The maintenance issues are easily solved. You look after content; I'll take care of dialect.
    It is a mistake to rely on American and British English differences too heavily. Much of what it discusses is vernacular and doesn't find its way into formal writing. Plus, its agenda is to highlight difference. If you read it closely, you see how often the purported differences are qualified "some", "most often": you'll also notice how much of it is unreferenced.
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 03:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you two look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, which is the guideline covering American and British spelling differences. Since this article meets the criteria of "Strong national ties to a topic," it appears British spelling should be used. However, based on the way this type of thing works around here, the person raising these types of spelling issues is usually the person who makes the corrections. Otherwise the spelling isn't changed. I should also state that asking for syntax and diction changes does not fall under any guideline I'm aware of, so Awadewit should be free to keep the writing as she wrote it. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your good faith effort to break the deadlock. However:
    1. I've already read WP:ENGVAR and referred to it in this discussion yesterday.
    2. The guideline explicitly refers to "spelling and grammar" throughout. That covers syntactical changes.
    3. In this case though, I have not proposed any changes from AmEng to BrEng syntax. Formal English is practically identical in both dialects. (When did you last see "gotten" used, except in a direct quote, in a Wikipedia article?)
    4. re: Awadewit should be free to keep the writing as she wrote it What does this mean? Any editor may edit any article, that's fundamental policy. Are ownership issues emerging?
    5. I'll edit with a view to making it "dialect-neutral".
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I hope this means that you will continue to maintain the article's dialect neutrality anytime someone introduces something that could be considered AE or BE? Awadewit | talk 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That goes without saying .... (apart from anything else it will be an interesting challenge) 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs)

    *Oppose I take no pleasure in opposing promotion and do so only after much thought. This article has strong national ties to Britain and should be in British English, or at least dialect-neutral ("commonality"). To accommodate practical concerns raised by American editors, I made a few trivial good faith edits to make the article dialect-neutral. Ignoring commonality, these were reverted soon after explicitly so that US English would prevail. This reversion was neither in the spirit of Wikipedia nor in compliance with MoS. This article therefore cannot "exemplif[y] Wikipedia's very best work" nor "meet the featured article criteria". I will gladly support this article, which is in all other respects excellent, once it reflects the consensus of the community at large. Deferring this discussion until after the FAC is closed is putting the cart before the horse. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. As usual, Awadewit has hit this one out of the park. I've left a few comments on the article's talk page, but nothing at all significant which would stay my hand in voting for it as an FA. I believe the last paragraph does a fine job of bringing in a 20th-century perspective, and I think the inclusion of the much-disputed lines is valuable. I'd also like to say that I especially like seeing the use of tasteful and varied images in Awadewit's articles. – Scartol · Talk 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my Peer Review comments. I urge Awadewit to grit her teeth and accept the British English usage. It's not a big deal, and there is some logic behind it. If necessary, I'll make the suggested changes myself; I'm no expert on the Queen's English, but can follow the suggestions. Blimey, if guv'nor makes it a condition of supporting this final jewel in the Wollstonecraft crown, then Bob's your uncle! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather disagree about the spelling. An American shouldn't have to write in British English. The only exception is when editing an article already in the other style. If I started an article about an American subject, I'd write it in British English without even realising it. I haven't noticed that American scholars change to British English when writing about British subjects for an American publication, and so I think this is one of the great non-issues. I also don't believe one should change an article in order to win the support of reviewers; one should change an article when the reviewers point something out that one agrees could be improved, but for the sake of the article not for the sake of the star.qp10qp 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. We all have our strengths, which is why this encyclopedia is a group project. Mine seem to be in nitpicking, which is why Awadewit asks me to review stuff she writes. But if I started an article about Wollstonecraft, I'd likely lost the basic sense and style of it without even realizing it; that hardly means that that is the thing to do, is it? If you think the spelling is acceptable either way, then you shouldn't object to it being changed to the other way, should you? And of course it's for the sake of the article, that's what we're all here for, that's the point of the star. It's a well intentioned request that makes some sense, and follows our principles, so just do it. Or wait a while, and I'll do it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with qp10qp. FAC reviewers should certainly give the article writer and nominator the courtesy of indifference toward their natural style of English. How far can style over substance be pushed in the FAC room? I can't wait til someone nominates an article in Canadian English. Do you realize off-centre the debate will have gotten by then? (Yes, this does mean that in principle anyone is welcome to change the style of the article, but why? If the nominator is going to be the one primarily maintaining it, it simply makes no sense.) –Outriggr § 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the Manual of Style is to maintain consistency across 2,200,000 articles (and growing). Editors come and go; if an stops maintaining their articles, someone else (or a project) will come along sooner or later to take over. They may do a better job, or a worse job, or a different job, but the core articles will continue to grow and develop organically. The Manual of Style preserves continuity and makes it easier for someone else to pick up the reins. This is why personal preferences over punctuation, spelling, heading size, type face, article names, quotations etc are discouraged in favour of a standard form. According the "courtesy of indifference" about these things individually only engenders chaos in the greater scheme.
    Now to put this business into perspective, I did not ask for complete change. I had left untouched the large number of "-ize/-ization" spellings because, although they are less common in BrEng than "-ise/-isation" endings, they are nevertheless well-established British forms. This left six words - in an article of 5,500 words - with blatantly (obtrusively even, given the context) American spellings. Changing these involved modifying one letter in each of them and I provided a list. This suggestion was declined. I then suggested substituting these for words whose spelling was shared in both variants (dialect-neutral), again providing a list of possibilities. This suggestion was also declined. I have now edited it myself, going for dialect-neutral choices. This way, readers in both the US and the UK will find nothing to stumble over, or to question as a spelling mistake.
    All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that the MOS does not provide consistency. It has quite of bit of wiggle room - it does not dictate a house style for many issues (BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, for example) and it is constantly changing. It is far worse for an article to be a hybrid of AE and BE, which only changing the spelling would result in. I do not think so little of our readers that I think British readers can't handle an "-or" occasionally or American readers can't handle an "-our" occasionally. Finally, there are no choices that are completely dialect-neutral and several of the changes you introduced have altered the meaning of the sentences (e.g. replacing "leveling" with "equalizing"). I am currently working on finding other wordings myself, but it may not be possible - "leveling" is the most precise, period-specific term. Awadewit | talk 07:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's perfect. I disagree incidentally that equalizing in context is a poor substitute for "leveling" though "levelling" would be better. The levelling in question harks back to the Levellers, whose activities the OED defines as "reduc[ing] all men to an equality". This does illustrate perfectly why I first proposed a straight spelling swop. On the "hybrid AE/BE" issue you allege, if you can make a list of phrases that you have used that you believe are uniquely American in construction, we can work through them one by one. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, it's not about a few words; it's about consistency over a large number of articles on Wollstonecraft and related subjects, which together comprise a potential featured topic. The convention is that the original style of an article should be maintained. I feel that you should either oppose, if you feel strongly about this, or file a minority report. I would advise Awadewit to stick to her guns, because the article is written in accordance with both Wikipedia and scholarly principles.qp10qp 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not quite right about the prevailing convention. MoS says If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. It is difficult to imagine a topic with stronger national ties to British English. I have tried very hard indeed to find compromise on this and will continue to do so but this is increasingly becoming an ownership issue.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Qp, I agree with you, especially because I appear to be the sole maintainer of the seven articles on MW's works and one of two maintainers of the Mary Wollstonecraft article itself. However, I have let the changes stand for the moment because I am concerned about starting an edit war if I revert. I wish that Roger Davies could be happy that I have contributed so many articles to wikipedia on eighteenth-century British topics and leave it at that. Awadewit | talk 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being admirably polite about this, but to put it bluntly, Roger is simply wrong. A quick glance into one of the scholarly sources given in the references, Claudia Johnson's Equivocal Beings: Politics, Gender, and Sentimentality in the 1790s, published by Chicago University Press, would yield him a "vigor" and a "program" in the first three pages. qp10qp 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall be admirably polite to you in return. I went back to the earliest reliable source I could find for the examples I quoted; in this case, the scanned third edition of A Vindication of the rights of Woman published in 1796. "Program" was often spelt thus in 16th-18th century (OED). "Vigor", by contrast, does not appear at all in the OED's historic citations: it may have been a typo in the original manuscript, or a typo by Johnson's publishers. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how Americans spell "vigour". Today. Including when they are writing about Mary Wollstonecraft.qp10qp 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you've completely lost me. I'd expect American publishers to use AmEng, wouldn't you? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an "ownership" issue as Roger has characterized it. The issue has already been discussed at Mary Wollstonecraft and the decision was made to stick with American English throughout. I see no compelling reason to change all of these articles (most of which are already featured) from their established spelling conventions. Mary Wollstonecraft's life and work are subjects of international interest and importance. The fact that Wollstonecraft was British does not necessitate these articles to be written in British English, IMHO. And yes, I am familiar with the applicable style guidelines. Kaldari 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is talking about reviewing past FAC decisions. And there's no reason why, with a little cooperation all round, this shouldn't pass here. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) Can we have a little more "assume good faith" here? Awadewit is not owning the article. Someone else said she should be able to keep it the way she wrote it. She never said any such thing, nor would she ever. She's more open to changing her prose than anybody I've ever met on wikipedia. Please stop accusing her of article ownership. Also, keep the American spelling, it's fine. It's the way she wrote it, and that actually does carry a lot of weight in MoS guidelines. This is an undecided issue, so favor should go with what's already there. Wrad 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've assumed good faith all along and will continue to do so. Personal preferences have been expressed here by a number of editors that go way beyond the usual FAC discussion. TYou can draw your own conclusions from that. My arguments have been entirely linguistic ones: for example, "leveling" is one step less resonant with "Leveller" than "levelling". Yet change has been resisted on the grounds that it will tarnish "brilliant prose"!?
    What I do not understand is the amount of heat an utterly trivial proposal has generated. What I thought was an excellent compromise, the dialect-neutral option - well within our capabilities - has been dismissed out of hand and, by some, rather irritably.
    Your interpretation of the MoS guidelines is not quite accurate. They are explicitly designed to prevent this kind of situation and (I paraphrase) say that "strong national ties" trump "editorial preference".
    --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure: Kaldari is the other editor who maintains the Mary Wollstonecraft page with me. I asked her to comment on this issue, since it might conceivably affect her as well. Awadewit | talk 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, while I respect Awadewit's work on literary article at Wikipedia, raising the ownership issue is extremely valid. I have noticed before that Awadewit has WP:OWN issues with her articles and this is an issue I raised a few minutes ago on this discussion page. In fact, I believe that it is this ownership issue which caused two editors who originally supported this FAC (myself and ROGER DAVIES) to change to oppose when relatively minor suggestions we made were brushed aside for questionable reasons. With regards to the spelling issue, as I mentioned above the MOS indicates that in this case British spelling should be used. However, WP convention is that the person raising a spelling issue should be the one to fix it. When I said Awadewit should be able to keep the article the way she wrote it, I meant with regards to grammar and other styles of writing; however, that was merely my view of the situation. Obviously, as with any WP article, consensus is what matter most. --Alabamaboy 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at what point does protecting the article's accuracy become owning the article? All I see from Awadewit is a concern for accuracy, not ownership. The fact is, she knows the sources well, better than other people do, better than all of us do, so she would know better than us what is accurate. I don't see any problem with your idea that the writing should stay as she wrote it in many cases, I just take issue with how what you said has been construed into an ownership problem by others. Wrad 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In what conceivable sense is changing "defense" to "defence" an accuracy issue!? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing wrong with protecting the article's accuracy. But while Awadewit is a good editor, your comment "The fact is, she knows the sources well, better than other people do, better than all of us do, so she would know better than us what is accurate" flies in the face of everything that Wikipedia stands for. One editor does not get to decide what is or is not a valid source, a legitimate view of the scholarly record, or how any article should be structured. As it says below this editing box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it." And Awadewit's overall arguement is that she knows what the overall scholarship says and that others do not, which is a personal opinion. So yes, ownership of this article is at the heart of the problem.--Alabamaboy 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, I have presented a cogent argument for why I would like to remove your paragraph (see way above). Of course part of that argument is going to be "I have read extensively on Wollstonecraft - see the "Bibliographies" of all of the MW articles". Part of wikipedia is about trust. If you do not trust that I have adequately represented those works, you can obviously check my work. I have provided ample footnotes and references. But there is no need to rehash everything I have said above. As no one else has weighed in on this debate, there is no real consensus yet. Would others please take the time to analyze the dispute over the influence of the VRM and weigh in? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Whoo. Folks, calm, please. I see that Roger Davies has implemented his suggestions, which were half a dozen minor or trivial changes, and they haven't been warred over, so can we safely say that this is concluded,and we can move on to the next issue? That's what we call consensus around here, it doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means those who disagree aren't willing to spill blood over it any more, which I greatly advise. In fact, I'd like to be able to remove the last dozen or so paragraphs above this, as they are more about editors, not about the article, while this is supposed to be an article review. Can we get back to the article now, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I don't think any of this should be removed b/c I'm not sure anything is resolved. If all parties agree it is resolved, then yes, remove all this. Otherwise no.--Alabamaboy 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's start with the most important one. Awadewit, you wrote, "I have let the changes stand for the moment because I am concerned about starting an edit war if I revert." Are you happy willing with gritted teeth to let the changes stand a bit longer than for the moment? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of Awadewit's opinion on the matter, I have reverted some of the spelling changes. We should address this issue after the FA bid (as this is not the proper venue for the debate) and implement a consistent approach for all of the Wollstonecraft articles. Kaldari 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. Wrad 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Postponing the BE/AE debate sounds like a good idea. Alabamaboy's point regarding the influence of VRM is actually much more substantive and this debate has deflected attention away from it, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Lead is a bit lengthy. Perhaps the second paragraph could be tightened up a bit? Otherwise I find nothing in need of improvement. It is an excellent article which meets all of the featured article criteria, IMO. Kaldari 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead has been shortened. Qp10qp removed the quotation - alas to must go, I fear. See if it is an improvement [reposting paraphrased version of comment - somehow it was deleted]. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it from the lead to the body, because I didn't feel it was followed up. In the body, it follows up the point in the lead about Burke's theatrical pity. Please revert whatever you wish, of course. (The article is excellent, just trying a few tweaks.)qp10qp
    • Support. An excellent article, although a careless reader might miss some of the best parts. First off, I commend Awadewit for denoting Wollstonecraft as a feminist in the very first sentence (rather than a more cautious term such as "writer") as it presages the arguments to follow. The scholarly tone and references are superb, although I miss somewhat of Wollstonecraft's stark eloquence; some elements that might be included in a later version might include
    I'll put my re-replies in magenta, so that we can keep track; I'm apt to get confused! In general, I feel that I need more time to think through how to best carry out some of the improvements, which in any event don't alter my support for the article as is.
    • Perhaps expand on the "merit" that Wollstonecraft admires: the exercise of the mind; invention sharpened by necessity; “honest fame and the friendship of the virtuous"; "talent, knowledge, virtue"
    • I'm not really sure what to add to the paragraph on the middle-class ethos. I have a list of middle-class values, including what "merit" is, a quote from a scholar, an explanation of some of the symbolism (middle-class values are often associated with Richard Price in VRM), as well as a connection to a later MW work. What would you like to see added? Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrast with the weakening effect of luxury on the aristocracy, and all people whose wants are readily supplied by sinecures; "pleasanter to enjoy rather than think"; the deleterious effects of primogeniture on families
    • Should we put this in the "Attack against rank and hierarchy" section? This is one major point of the work and all of the scholars I have read focus on it quite a bit. Do you think we should begin the section with the "weakening" effect and then move into the description of the middle-class? That is how I originally had it structured. I think what you are basically saying is that more needs to be said regarding the attack on the aristocracy? Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think more emphasis might be given to Wollstonecraft's polemic; her critique of Burke's powers of reasoning; his inconsistencies and insincerities; her suggestion that his contrarian Reflections are merely a fame-grab by a politician whose popularity has faded; her point that Burke is not reasoning from "fixed principles" but from feelings; her "heavy charge" of religious hypocrisy against Burke and her "stripping [him] of [his] cloak of sanctity"
    • These are actually several different points.
    • Her critique of Burke's reasoning is mixed up with her critique of his aesthetic and his use of sensibility - his "inconsistencies" are, in a way, his "insincerities". Do you think I should expand the "Sensibility" section, then?
    My reading of her work is that they are not so irrevocably intertwined. At several points, she criticizes him for logical inconsistency, without reference to his aesthetics or sensibilities. Her recurrence to this point and her insistence that reasoning should be carried out from consistent fixed principles a la Euclid or Spinoza I find compelling and illustrative of her argument.
    See below on the problems of including "your reading", however fascinating or sound it may be. :) Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede that it's probably better for Wikipedia as a rule to rely on secondary sources rather than quoting from the primary text, for the reasons you've outlined below. I won't argue the point further, and my Support for FA is unwavering. But I mourn, I grieve the loss here. I respect the scholars' devotion and acknowledge their decades of research; and I am nobody to presume to challenge their conclusions. But in my opinion, the casual reader would benefit from more direct contact with Wollstonecraft, from being given a spark of Wollstonecraft's fire to inflame the dry tinder. Willow 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her ad hominem attacks are not really addressed by scholars much. They are scathing and brilliant, but just not mentioned. I feel like I have addressed those in proportion to their representation in the scholarship.
    • Religious hypocrisy is another idea that is only briefly mentioned in the scholarship - even by Barbara Taylor, who has made a name for herself discussing MW's religion. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the wish to stay close to secondary sources, for fear perhaps of misunderstanding Wollstonecraft's meaning. But she writes so plainly and so well, that it's hard to imagine how we or any other reader might mistake her meaning. I say give the genius more air-time, let us thrill as she wanted her readers to. In my opinion, the description of the primary work should not be exclusively circumscribed by what secondary scholars have chosen to turn their attention to; for some great works, that might be a paltry feast indeed.
    The desire to stick close to secondary sources is not for fear of misunderstanding, it is for the sake of "verifiability" and for literary theoretical reasons. Literary theorists (and myself) believe that not everyone reads a text in the same way. So, for example, what is plain and clear to you, is not plain and clear to everyone else. A perfect example of this is that many reviews of Burke's work in the eighteenth century praised its logic. Few scholars would do so now. You write "it's hard to imagine how we or any other reader might mistake her meaning". Again, literary theorists (and myself) would argue that there is not just one meaning in any particular passage and that knowing which meaning was "Wollstonecraft's" is well-nigh impossible (see intentional fallacy). I agree that if we limit ourselves to secondary works, we are often missing important points (in the case of Original Stories from Real Life, I definitely felt that this was the case), but including a description of the work based on my impression of it is most definitely WP:OR.
    I am deeply disturbed by the trend toward "plot summaries", for example, on wikipedia (but I have been unsuccessful in dislodging them). Plot summaries are not neutral. If you want a demonstration of this, ask five or ten people to give you the summary of a book or a movie - they will be different. The same is true - only more so - for the description of an argument. (I just gave a quiz in my class on argumentative writing and 20 people came up with 20 different descriptions of an article's argument.) That is why it is so very important in wikipedia to rely on sources for claims about what a book is saying. Without those sources, it could just be me saying it - and who am I? (Hopefully I am somebody authoritative someday soon, but not yet!). I hope that explains a bit about my fanatical desire for sources. In the humanities, much more is subjective and in dispute than in the sciences and nothing is absolute. :)
    Also, as a side now, the whole "genius" and "great writer" thing has kind of been left by the way side. Only Harold Bloom really does that anymore. Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, the charge of an insincere "fame-grab" is worth noting, and is likely more biting for cynical 21st-century readers than the "religious hypocrisy" charge, although I guess the reverse was true 200 years ago.
    • ...and also to her own characterization of herself as "manly", warrior-like and noble. I personally love the quote where she does not stoop to attack his more ridiculous assertions, saying that "a lion does not eat carcasses".
    • This would be the "Gender and aesthetics" section - obviously choices had to be made. This article, like any, could be enormous. The passage I quoted in that section is the most-oft quoted passage from VRM, so I thought it was important to discuss that one. Do you think I should discuss MW's gender-persona more in that section? That is not an unimportant point - it is just one that I gave less precedence to as I was deciding what to highlight. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please, that's a good idea; a little more about her gender persona and her imagery of herself in the text.
    • Her concession that Price may have overstepped his reason in "Utopian reveries" and that the pulpit is not necessarily a good place for political discussions
    • This is a minor point, I feel, particularly if you look at some of the others that you would like to see expanded; it is also not one that I remember seeing emphasized in the research. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this point could be made briefly, and would improve the article significantly, since Burke's attack on Price's "unreasonable transports" are so important to the former's Reflections. It also balances the claim that Wollstonecraft was being unreasonable.
    I think it is more important to the Reflections article - I sense another project, after Joseph Johnson. Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her concession that the world is a grossly imperfect place, with many evils visited by humans on one another; yet she holds out hope that championing Reason over old instincts, habits and traditions will lead to a better world
    • This is actually an odd hybrid of a Protestant and an Enlightenment view. I tried to discuss this in the "Republicanism" section - this would be the best place to add more, I think. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find her optimism on the generally positive influence of Reason remarkably foresighted, although I'm not widely read in that era; perhaps it was commonplace? I think it also significant that she concedes to Burke that, yes, the world is nasty, and that she wasn't imagining that France would become a Heaven on Earth.
    Yes, it was common, among a particular group of radicals (see Joseph Priestley, for example, and our friend, JJ). Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some mention of her religious views; from my reading, she was rather anti-Catholicism and anti-Islam, but not completely so; her belief that God's justice is based on reason
    • There is just not that much written on religion and VRM. Scholarship on MW and religion is quite new (Taylor's book - Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination discusses MW as a deeply religious thinker and it made waves - feminists often like to resist the religious roots of their movement). Anyway, I think focusing on the religious elements of the book misrepresents the published material on VRM (I happen to agree with you and am currently submitting an article for publication on MW the religious writer for children - one reason I happen to know for sure that this is not a widely held view). Awadewit | talk 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily for us, we're discussing a person and her work, not a movement. ;) Here again, I would favor citing or even quoting the primary text, although that might be more fraught than above. It's a relatively minor point for this article, although my sense is that religion was a major point for Wollstonecraft as she wrote VRM.
    I agree that religion is a major point for MW in VRM - I just don't think I can support that with citations from scholars. And, as I explained above, allowing my reading of the text to dominate the article would be a serious breach of WP:OR. It would be akin to me publishing an article on MW on wikipedia, really. Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The present discussion of her critique of Burke's "conservatism for its own sake" and "property as a value in its own right" seems very good, although the references to the crucifixion and to slavery could perhaps be handled with more finesse. (Living in the country, I also liked the example of lords who let their deer feed off the gardens of their tenants, who live from those gardens but who would be killed for defending them from the deer.) The present discussion of the great landowner's "wisdom that finds [the poor] employments calculated to give them habits of virtue" seems also pretty good, although the current presentation of "dividing the estates into privately owned plots for each family to meet their own needs" seems a little more socialist than Wollstonecraft may have intended.

    Did you have the sense that the great landowners would give away those plots to their tenants? My reading was that the great undeveloped forests and game preserves would be divided up to take land away from wild animals and help support more families, without the transfer of ownership. But I didn't read that part too carefully. Willow 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that MW actually thought they would - I think that she wished they would. But that's my interpretation. :) Awadewit | talk 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have transferred the suggestions we agree on here, since this page is ridiculously long. Check and see if I got them all. (How about we use green next time? Magenta hurts my eyes for some reason.) Awadewit | talk 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started to address Willow's points - some quotations have been added to illustrate MW's attack on Burke's reasoning as well as her polemic style. If we can't talk about it exactly, we can show it. Awadewit | talk 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to support the notion that the British/American spelling is a small tweak than can be best decided among cooler heads after the FAC, and not on this page. Willow 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. From the length of this FAC page, I feared this might be a thorny article in some way. Not at all. It is a cogent, concise account of the work, in my opinion, written in clear, encyclopedic (if one can gauge such a thing) language. Congratulations to Awadewit for an excellent article. (I've added a few minor observations and queries to the article's talk page.) qp10qp 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on addition to article

    [edit]

    I've inserted a break above so aid discussion and moved the relevant discussion points to Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men#FAC_discussion_moved_to_this_talk_page (I moved this info because it was cluttering up the page and seemed more relevant to the article's talk page than here). Awadewit and I have presented different sides on an the addition of this paragraph to the article (note that I've had to reform the references to people can see them):

    Overall, Rights of Men was far more recognized in its own time than today. Still, some scholars have stated that without first creating Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential feminist treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.(ref "Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Wild Wish': Confounding Sex in the Discourse on Political Rights" by Wendy Gunther-Canada, from Feminist Interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft edited by Maria J. Falco, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996, page 61.)(ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) Both essays cover similar issues of writing style and sincerity, so much so that it has been said A Vindication of the Rights of Men provides "the key to understanding the second Vindication," (ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) especially regarding the "general social and political principles which underlay A Vindication of the Rights of Woman." (refWomen's Political and Social Thought: An Anthology by Hilda L. Smith, Indiana University Press, 2000, page 155.)

    Arguments for and against are on the article's talk page. We are asking for people to come to a consensus on whether this information is acceptable and neither of us will back down on this. Please comment on the talk page at Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men#Responses_from_other_editors. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have created a compromise version of Alabamaboy's addition that addresses Awadewit's concerns. I think Alabamaboy was correct that the article needed to more prominently mention the relationship between the two Vindications. However, Awadewit was also correct that there were serious problems with Alabamaboy's presentation of the issue. Kaldari 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing this. As I said on the other page, I support the compromise language.--Alabamaboy 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comprehensive, accessible, very well illustrated, and (to my ears) beautifully and sparingly wrtitten. I've been following the discussion above, but as a general reader -ie as one for whom the article was written- whoosh; over my head. Ceoil 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

    Prince Louis of Battenberg

    [edit]

    Admiral of the Fleet, husband of Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine (FA) and father of Princess Alice of Battenberg (FA).

    Thank you, both. I've readjusted the quotation marks, as although they are inconsistent within the article, the placing is in accordance with WP:MoS#Punctuation: punctuation is within the quote when forming part of the quote, but outside when the original quotation does not include the punctuation. DrKiernan 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you might:) I usually stick them outside for consistency unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise (e.g. emphasis on a very short sentence). Very good piece nevertheless, for which I congratulate you. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again to you both. DrKiernan 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! DrKiernan 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Plutarch, "Life of Solon", I,6
    2. ^ For these see especially Marie-Madeleine Mactoux: Douleia: Esclavage et Practiques discursives dans l'Athènes classique. (Paris, 1980)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2007&oldid=981676675"